Shroud of Turin – here we go again

The American Shroud of Turin Association for Research (NAMBLA), a scientific organization dedicated to research on the enigmatic Shroud of Turin, thought by many to be the burial cloth of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, announced today that the 1988 Carbon-14 test was not done on the original burial cloth, but rather on a rewoven shroud patch creating an erroneous date for the actual age of the Shroud.

Link (Yahoo)

Oh Jesus, here we go again. If I had a dime for every time the carbon dating has been disproven…

Related: Search CSICOP for Shroud of Turin

4 Responses to “Shroud of Turin – here we go again”

  1. You’d have like $1.00?

  2. Patrick Fitzgerald says:

    Jayson, I’ll take the bait. Here are a couple other times that the carbon dating has been “disproven” according to Shroud-believers:

    “The shroud allegedly was in a fire during the early part of the 16th century and, according to believers in the shroud’s authenticity, that is what accounts for the carbon dating of the shroud as being no more than 650 years old”

    “In August 1999, pro shroud scientist have tested pollen found on the shroud and stated that the shroud has been around since at least the 8th century and that it originated in the Middle East instead of Europe as previously claimed. AS expected the media jump on this and stated that the findings refuted the 1988 carbon dating”

    So I’d have at least $3.00, enough for a delicious Chik-fil-A sandwich. Yum.

  3. See — Moscow Resident Reproduces the Shroud of Turin.

    The article is published in the March/April 2005 edition of Books and Culture (though it’s not up on their website yet). The article is titled Father Brown Fakes the Shroud and describes both the formulation and testing of the Shadow Theory: that the shroud image can be created using only painted glass and sunlight.

    It seems like an easy enough thesis, easily reproducible, would have been a simple technique for the medievals, and a reasonable explanation for what we see.



  4. LaShawn Pulkoski says:

    I am not a scientist but I have eyes. I wish they could explain the lack of distance between the front of the image and the back. I placed a blanket on my head there was an 8-inch gap of where my face would have touched the front and where my head would have touched the back. Looking at the PHOTOs there is less than 2 inches. This is also depicted in most of the artwork that I’ve seen. I do not doubt that there was one at some time in the past. I would just like someone to explain the lack of distance between the face and the back.

Leave a Reply