imageNo, really, how ridiculously inaccurate can you get. An anonymous blogger background in archaeology and a Master of Arts in Landscape Archaeology from Exeter writes:

The most vocal criticisms of the medieval age of the artefact [=Shroud of Turin] have been made by a single man who goes by the name of Ray Rogers. One time member of the defunct STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) that failed to achieve what it set out to do – prove the magical powers of Jesus through demonstrating the artefact as his burial robe – goold old Ray has not given up just yet. Most of his claims are fanciful, some are ludicrous and most outright dishonest. His claims include the idea that the carbon in the artefact was contaminated by a 17th century fire, that the blood stains are actually blood (a few years ago he took great pains to admit that there is paint in there too) and most bizarrely claims that sceptics deliberately chose cloth from a medieval repair job (he has no way of knowing this as the sample in RC14 dating is always destroyed).

And there are these facts:

Aside from the highly accurate and much reproduced carbon dates there are a number of telltale signs that this artefact is medieval:

* The “blood stains” contains red ochre, iron and vermillion tempera paint. . . .

* The “blood flows” are neat and have not clotted

* One test revealed blood tiny samples of blood on the cloth (believed to have been added later) as being type AB. If true, then it must be a contaminant. Geneticists have traced this blood group back to Mongol expansion into Europe.

[. . .]

* The style of weave is commonly seen in medieval burials with no known examples of this method from the Iron Age Levant

* The image is typical medieval depiction of Jesus (all bolding emphasis is mine)

No really. Click here.