SHROUD OF TURIN FAKE FREE

The STURP report contains so much evidence in favour of the authenticity of the Shroud (as we shall see below) that it is amazing that the above conclusion did not begin with the words: Thousands of man-hours went into these tests and the analysis of results, all to end with this diplomatic statement which appears only to condone the general view of the Church – saying, ‘we shall agree with you that science and faith should be kept apart as isolated entities, the one should not interfere with the other.’ At the same time this concluding attitude left open the gates to all kinds of nonsensical claims about the formation of the image. The most important question about the Shroud is left unattended, as if that truth is of no consequence to scientists. What a travesty for scientific investigation.

SHROUD OF TURIN FAKE FREE

However, without proof of authenticity, those who choose to believe the Shroud is not authentic are also free to do so without scientific objection, provided they do not assert a production mechanism that is excluded by the information now available.’ 1 We should all keep in mind that science is really not in a position to ever prove categorically that the Shroud is authentic…The question is left so that those who wish to believe it authentic are not hindered with scientific objection to doing so. ‘In the end, the question of the authenticity of the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth remains open ended.

The report of The Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) ended by stating: This becomes apparent in the way results of the 1978 tests were published and then contended – or rather, first contended and then published. Unfortunately, in many cases, scientists who have presented results opposing the fake theorists have avoided making the most obvious conclusions from their observations in order to give the appearance of impartiality, which has led to confusion rather than clarity about the whole subject. The media has continuously presented the Shroud as a fake without giving any serious consideration to the evidence opposing such a view. The evaluation of the results is startling, yet somehow, conclusions always seem to become very one-sided when presented to the general public. Numerous scientific experts have studied the Shroud in minute detail.

Then, and even now its image has not been fully explained, after the many thousands of hours of scientific research expended on it. The Shroud indeed turned out to be a miracle. He was amazed to find that the frontal image was an almost perfect negative. The Turin Shroud, revered by many as a relic of the life of Jesus Christ (as), was first photographed by Secondo Pia in 1898. It is an attempt to consider the evidence – the strong pointers to the genuineness of the Shroud – an attempt to make those who claim it to be a fake, address the shortcomings of their hypotheses and to put aside theories that are not at all tenable. This article is an attempt to redress the balance. This view has been broadcast widely on television at the expense of the opposite view, so that the general public are not aware that many who are closely associated with Shroud research find it difficult to believe the carbon dating results. The vast majority of the general public have been led to believe that the Turin Shroud is a fake. Close-up of shroud face as it appears on the negative (c) 1978 Barrie M.

Shroud of turin fake