What is bigger: The Shroud showing in Turin or the History Channel in the US?

The Daily Mirror in the UK is telling us that attendance at the Shroud of Turin exposition in Turin, April 10-May 23, 2010, may reach four million – that is the latest estimate. Wow!

But, the article goes on to stay that this is not the big story. The big story is the History Channel presentation in the U.S. of “The Real Face of Jesus” in which Ray Downing attempted to produce a 3D rendering of Jesus from data on the Shroud.

The Mirror goes on to say:

Attempts to date the relic have been inconclusive. A 1978 study found no evidence that the shroud was a fake and concluded it was "a mystery". But it was condemned as a forgery in 1988 after carbon-dating tests by researchers in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona, estimated it was made between 1260 and 1390.

In 1999, another group put a 7th century date on it. And in the same year a Jerusalem botanist reported that pollen grains on the shroud were from plants found only in the Holy Land.

In 2005, American chemist Dr Raymond Rogers, considered a shroud authority, claimed it was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old and argued earlier tests were inaccurate because they were carried out on patches of material added to the sheet by nuns in the Middle Ages.

Actually there is a mistake in the last sentence above. The writer is confusing the theoretical repair proposed by Rogers and others with the crude patches sewn on by nuns following fire damage.

Other than that one mistake, this a good story in the Mirror.

6 thoughts on “What is bigger: The Shroud showing in Turin or the History Channel in the US?”

  1. I certainly don’t want Pope Benedict visiting the Shroud in Turin. I want my children to believe in the Shroud. I am ashamed of my church right now.

  2. First of all Episcopalian, this is a great blog wow, very impressed with your gathering of facts and your posts. I stumbled upon it because I was a little miffed at this article by Reuters:


    Where the include the now debunked C14 dating as evidence for the sceptics, yet do not go further to explain that it is indeed debunked at this point. I had heard about that earlier but was searching for the details. Keep up the great work, bookmarked for sure now.

    Just a quick reply to Ellen, you are ashamed of our church because of what the media is reporting? Perhaps you should be more discerning about how the media views our church and dig a little deeper into their stories and motivations to find the truth, there are many articles from decent reporters also in the media that have highlighted the pattent falsehood and picking and choosing of facts used in many of the leading attack stories such as those from the NYT.

    Here is one to get you started, to see what the NYT is up to exactly:

    “Fairness for the Pope: Pontiff not at fault in Wisconsin pedophile priest case”


  3. BTW Episcopalian, do you have any info on this claim from the same Reuters article?

    “Then last year an Italian scientist reproduced the full-sized Shroud using materials and techniques he said were available in the Middle Ages — a feat that in his view proved definitively that the linen is a fake.”


    1. I have an ancient vase that dates to about 500 B.C. If I were to reproduce it using materials and techniques that were available in the Middle Ages, would that prove definitively that it was a fake?

      The work of the scientist, Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia in Italy, created an image that looked very much like the Shroud. It was a body rubbing and bas-relief rubbing of a face mask with a pigment laced with acid. The acid etched an image onto the cloth’s fibers that was noticeable after the pigment was washed away.

      It was ingenious. And while it created an image that looked something like the images on the Shroud, it failed to recreate essential characteristics of the images. The images have not yet been really reproduced.

  4. I am a dedicated catholic, I feel impelled to give my testimony because one needs to witness to the truth where and when necessary. In 1981 I was very privileged to have had a vision of our lord Jesus Christ in a historic church that was dedicated to St.Peter and St.Paul, I saw our Lords face, so sad.And the crown of thorns on his head so clear was this vision i could see the string of thorns encircled many times and the thorns so clear as if one would be pricked by them, I was totally awestruck and as you can imagine this vision took me from being a christian with many question marks to a fervent believer, after the vision i went to my mothers home when i went in to her living room i told my mother of my wonderful vision and was overwhelmed to discover that my mother had a copy of the shroud of Turin on her wall.I immediately said to my mother, this is Jesus Christ, this is who i saw actually as he is. It is him. The holy shroud image is that of Jesus Christ, I can’t prove it but i would lay my life on this because it is true. I have since 1981 had many other experiences which have also confirmed to me the authenticity of the holy shroud and that it is of our Lord Jesus Christ. One day it will be recognised as true and venerated as the wonderful relic that it is, and i look forward to that day. Yours in Christ … Fred

  5. Fred Ablitt, in my oppinion ,there is no doubt that the shroud of turin is the same shroud that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus as in the gospel of Mark chapter 15 verses 42…46. Pope Benedict xv1 recently in Turin stated himself that the holy shroud of turin is like a photograph,positive and negative, he also said it is a burial cloth which enshrouded the corpse of a crusified man, and corresponds to what the gospels tell us about Jesus. I personaly believe that there is a whole stack of evidence to back up the holy shroud of turins true authentisity , but the real problem is that one still needs to look at the whole situation with the eyes of faith ,through an open mind,which is where most non believers stumble because they then have to accept that the God they dont believe in might actualy exist, which totaly contradicts there views, and puts there non beliefe to the test. In my view the real problem is that when true authentisity is being debated with those who dont believe in the existance of God, they inevitably wont take into consideration anything that might oppose there views, so in reality there is a stalemate, they then base there whole analysis on desisions they have made according to there own human ability to judge which is prone to error, using no more than tests to detemine age, carbon dating which has been proven unreliable, in the tests that have been carried out on the holy shroud of turin, so i ask those scientists lets look at this with an open mind, with a full compleate and unbiased analysis of all the evidence without exeption, then a true and fare conclusion can start to take place, if only for the sake of common sence…YOURS IN CHRIST…FRED…

Comments are closed.