The Turin Shroud's enduring mystery

[Belial]

And who in there right minds is going to believe the church at the moment anyway

[voiceofreason]

To all those who think that the shroud is authentic, try this little experiment. Take a white cloth, and wrap it round your face. Get a family member to take a pen and draw around you eyes,mouth,nose and ears. Then open it out. You will find that the drawning of your face is elongated, with the ears sitting way out to the sides. When we look at the shroud we don't see this effect we see a 2 dimensional representation of a face, similar to a painting. This proves that the shroud wasn't wrapped around a body.What we are actually seeing an excellent example of medieval Camera Obscura. It is essentially a photograph using an ancient cloth soaked in silver sulphates. Leonardo Da Vinci was well versed in these techniques. All you need is a sunny day and a body of a criminal that you can hang outside. The process is repeated for the back of the body, and there you have it. Add some blood in strategic places and you have your very own shroud of Turin.

[Stygean Hugh]

All my life I have read about and seen TV shows on this subject. It seems to me like interest in the Shroud comes and goes. So, I'm wonder why now? There's been a couple articles here on UM about it in the last week as well as on yahoo!news today. Whats with the sudden reignited interest in the Shroud?

[Stygean Hugh]

To all those who think that the shroud is authentic, try this little experiment. Take a white cloth, and wrap it round your face. Get a family member to take a pen and draw around you eyes,mouth,nose and ears. Then open it out. You will find that the drawning of your face is elongated, with the ears sitting way out to the sides. When we look at the shroud we don't see this effect we see a 2 dimensional representation of a face, similar to a painting. This proves that the shroud wasn't wrapped around a body.What we are actually seeing an excellent example of medieval Camera Obscura. It is essentially a photograph using an ancient cloth soaked in silver sulphates. Leonardo Da Vinci was well versed in these techniques. All you need is a sunny day and a body of a criminal that you can hang outside. The process is repeated for the back of the body, and there you have it. Add some blood in strategic places and you have your very own shroud of Turin.

Sounds like a fun and morbid science experiment1 Right up my alley!

[Paracelse]

AB- blood is common among Jewish people

I'm AB and not jewish... well just a little bit like everyone..

[jbondo]

To all those who think that the shroud is authentic, try this little experiment. Take a white cloth, and wrap it round your face. Get a family member to take a pen and draw around you eyes,mouth,nose and ears. Then open it out. You will find that the drawning of your face is elongated, with the ears sitting way out to the sides. When we look at the shroud we don't see this effect we see a 2 dimensional representation of a face, similar to a painting. This proves that the shroud wasn't wrapped around a body.What we are actually seeing an excellent example of medieval Camera Obscura. It is essentially a photograph using an ancient cloth soaked in silver sulphates. Leonardo Da Vinci was well versed in these techniques. All you need is a sunny day and a body of a criminal that you can hang outside. The process is repeated for the back of the body, and there you have it. Add some blood in strategic places and you have your very own shroud of Turin.

Did you even watch "The Real Face of Jesus"?

OK expert, instead of telling us what to do, why don't you produce a shroud for us. Since it's so easy it shouldn't take you but a day or two. Since an entire team of scientist studied it for a month and couldn't figure it out I'll be the first to pat you on the back for your achievement.

[+HerNibs]

Italian Scientist Reproduces Shroud of Turin

It's been duplicated.

I also saw some one do it on tv with a bronze (I think) bust but I couldn't find a link.

Nibs

[hypotenuse]

I see ignorance and stupidity about the actual physical properties of the Turin Shroud still abound.

Fact - the image on the Shroud is not a painting

Fact - the carbon-14 dating is inaccurate and was compromised from the beginning

Fact - there are blood stains on the Shroud, but the blood type is undetermined

Fact - the image is a negative and only appears as a positive on a photographic negative

Fact - the image on the Shroud does not penetrate the fibers of the linen cloth

Fact - the image is fully contained in the saccharide layer which coats the outside surfaces of the cloth

Fact - the back of the Shroud also contains the same image, only fainter

Fact - pollen grains from several species of plants found only in the area of Jeruselem have been found and identified on the Shroud

Fact - Leonardo DaVinci could not have possibly created the Shroud. The provenance of the Shroud can be proven beyond any doubt to be at least one hundred years earlier than DaVinci's birth

Fact - the Shroud of Turin is a unique archeological and anthropological artifact. There is no other extant example of the same type anywhere in the world

Fact - the forensic evidence is compatible with what is known of Roman crucifixion victims of the first century C.E.

Fact - medical evidence from the Shroud confirms the man was crucified through the wrists. This is contrary to all iconographic imagery of Jesus from the medieval and pre-medieval period

Fact - the bloodstains on the Shroud left by the wounds on the back of the crucified man are consistent with a first century Roman flagrum, an instrument used for flagellating

Fact - the man in the Shroud was forced to wear a crown of thorns. This is confirmed by puncture wounds evidenced by blood stains surrounding the scalp

Fact - thumbs are not visible on the hands of the man in the Shroud, consistent with a traumatic wound through the wrist which would cause the median nerve to flex the thumbs toward the palms

Any questions?

Edited April 13, 2010 by hypotenuse

[Eldorado]

Where'd you get your "facts" from?

Common Sense : A person wrapped in a shroud would not leave the type of impression found on the "Turin" shroud. (Try it for yourself.)

[hypotenuse]

Where'd you get your "facts" from?

Common Sense : A person wrapped in a shroud would not leave the type of impression found on the "Turin" shroud.  (Try it for yourself.)

You're welcome to present peer reviewed, collaborated evidence which disproves any one of the facts I presented. If you want to do that, I will directly address anything you present with the same kind of evidence for my facts.

Hundreds of scientists disagree with your hypothesis about the formation of the image. There is no doubt in their minds it was formed by a body wrapped in the Shroud. The only question which remains is by what process was the image formed.

So, who should I believe? you, or hundreds of scientists from multiple fields of study?

[Eldorado]

You're welcome to present peer reviewed, collaborated evidence which disproves any one of the facts I presented. If you want to do that, I will directly address anything you present with the same kind of evidence for my facts.

Hundreds of scientists disagree with your hypothesis about the formation of the image. There is no doubt in their minds it was formed by a body wrapped in the Shroud. The only question which remains is by what process was the image formed.

So, who should I believe? you, or hundreds of scientists from multiple fields of study?

It was you who made the claim of these "facts". It is therefore you who should provide evidence as to the validity of your claims.

So I ask once again; where do you get your facts from?

[hypotenuse]

It was you who made the claim of these "facts".  It is therefore you who should provide evidence as to the validity of your claims.

So I ask once again; where do you get your facts from?

No, see it doesn't quite work that way. There is a mountain of evidence available, most of it on the internet, from peer reviewed, scientific papers and journals which support every statement I made. Your contention is that my statements are in error or false, and I am asking you to present evidence to refute my claims. If you can't do that, you have no argument. Can you show peer reviewed evidence to discredit even one of the facts I presented? I presented my argument. It is up to you to disprove it.

[Eldorado]

No, see it doesn't quite work that way. There is a mountain of evidence available, most of it on the internet, from peer reviewed, scientific papers and journals which support every statement I made. Your contention is that my statements are in error or false, and I am asking you to present evidence to refute my claims. If you can't do that, you have no argument. Can you show peer reviewed evidence to discredit even one of the facts I presented? I presented my argument. It is up to you to disprove it.

Where do i say you argument is wrong? (Even though I do believe you to be wrong)

You made claims but showed no evidence to back those claims. I asked for proof. You won't give it.

The Gospel of John, Chapter 20:

⁴So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

⁵And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

⁶Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, ⁷And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Linen cloths and a napkin covered Jesus, not a shroud.

[hypotenuse]

Where do i say you argument is wrong? (Even though I do believe you to be wrong)

You made claims but showed no evidence to back those claims. I asked for proof. You won't give it.

The Gospel of John, Chapter 20:

⁴So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

⁵And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

⁶Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, ⁷And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Linen cloths and a napkin covered Jesus, not a shroud.

This is your argument? So you are unaware the Shroud is a linen cloth?

You do realize there exists another cloth, often described as a napkin, whose provenance dates back to at least the eighth century? It is called The Sudarium of Oviedo.

Using a polarized image overlay technique, the Shroud and the Sudarium have been compared. There are enough points of correlation to say it is probable the two cloths were both used on the same corpse.

And so far you have presented nothing to refute even one of the statements I have made.

Edited April 14, 2010 by hypotenuse

[Eldorado]

This is your argument? So you are unaware the Shroud is a linen cloth?

You do realize there exists another cloth, often described as a napkin, whose provenance dates back to at least the eighth century? It is called The Sudarium of Oviedo.

Using a polarized image overlay technique, the Shroud and the Sudarium have been compared. There are enough points of correlation to say it is probable the two cloths were both used on the same corpse.

And so far you have presented nothing to refute even one of the statements I have made.

Cloths....plural.....napkin...singular. Shroud?....no mention until about the 14th Century. Maybe He was wrapped twice.

Sources for your "facts"....none given.

But never mind...i give up....you've converted me.

[hypotenuse]

Cloths....plural.....napkin...singular.  Shroud?....no mention until about the 14th Century.  Maybe He was wrapped twice.

Sources for your "facts"....none given.

But never mind...i give up....you've converted me.

Well, I must say, that was too easy. I was hoping to cultivate a true interest in discovering the truth. I told you I would reveal the sources for my facts when you presented even a single point to refute even a single one of the statements I made. I assure you, if you'll start, I'll continue. If you want, I'll take my facts, one by one, and show you where you can find the supporting information.

Are you going to give up this easily? Are you not inquisitive? Don't you want to even glimpse at what I already believe is the truth?

Mind you, I never said I think the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. However, I do believe, after studying the evidence now for more than thirty years, that the Shroud is a genuine first century burial cloth used to cover the naked, dead body of a bearded man crucified by the Romans.

It is quite easy to be the skeptic. It is far more difficult to finally arrive at the truth.

[hypotenuse]

One more thing. There is evidence the Shroud's historical time line can be traced much further back than its first appearance in 1353 Lirey, France.

[Copasetic]

Well, I must say, that was too easy. I was hoping to cultivate a true interest in discovering the truth. I told you I would reveal the sources for my facts when you presented even a single point to refute even a single one of the statements I made. I assure you, if you'll start, I'll continue. If you want, I'll take my facts, one by one, and show you where you can find the supporting information.

Are you going to give up this easily? Are you not inquisitive? Don't you want to even glimpse at what I already believe is the truth?

Mind you, I never said I think the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. However, I do believe, after studying the evidence now for more than thirty years, that the Shroud is a genuine first century burial cloth used to cover the naked, dead body of a bearded man crucified by the Romans.

It is quite easy to be the skeptic. It is far more difficult to finally arrive at the truth.

Not to interrupt the debate you two were having but it is, in general upon the claimant to provide evidence for his claims. Which is what I think Eldorado was asking for.

Also Hypotenuse, you should check out the different rules sections of the forums as there are rules and stipulations to posting here regarding citing academic sources. In some subforms these rules are more stringently enforced than in others. Anyway, some friendly advice.

And welcome to the forum!

[hypotenuse]

Not to interrupt the debate you two were having but it is, in general upon the claimant to provide evidence for his claims. Which is what I think Eldorado was asking for.

Also Hypotenuse, you should check out the different rules sections of the forums as there are rules and stipulations to posting here regarding citing academic sources. In some subforms these rules are more stringently enforced than in others. Anyway, some friendly advice.

And welcome to the forum!

I have plenty of sources I can site. I am trying to encourage questions regarding the Shroud. It's certainly no fun to just come dump all my credible sources all at once without those who question the origins or authenticity of the Shroud being able to produce one credible source to back up their claims. I read this entire topic before I posted. I gave a list of facts that are practically indisputable for anyone who really knows anything at all about the Shroud other than all the media hyperbole and misinformation regarding it.

Now, do you have a question, or do you dispute any of my facts? if so, name one and we'll proceed from there. If you like, we can go through the list one at a time. You tell me why you think I'm wrong and I'll do my best, using scholarly sources, to show you I'm right.

And by the way, thanks for the welcome.

Edited April 14, 2010 by hypotenuse

[hypotenuse]

Fact #1 - the image on the Shroud is not a painting

In 1978 a team of scientists, photographers and researchers known as the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) spent one hundred and twenty hours examining the Shroud. This team's primary conclusion was:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.

Investigators for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) included:

Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*

Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*

John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*

Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography*

Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*

Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography*

Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office

Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*

Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado*

Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories

Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories

Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM*

Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University

Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation*

Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum

Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center

Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation*

Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph*

John Heller, New England Institute

John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy*

Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy*

Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*

Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*

Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories*

Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center*

Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios*

Note: The researchers marked with an * participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.

Source: The Shroud of Turin Story - A Guide to the Facts 2005

[Shaftsbury]

Fact #1 - the image on the Shroud is not a painting

In 1978 a team of scientists, photographers and researchers known as the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) spent one hundred and twenty hours examining the Shroud. This team's primary conclusion was:

Quote

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.

hypotenuse I really hate to rain on your parade but all you have shown thus far is that 30+ investigators say it's not a painting.

You still have not addressed the fundamental problem of a 3D image on a 2D medium, as has been pointed out several times.

If the image on the cloth is not consistent with wrapping a cloth around a 3D object, then it seems pointless to me to argue whether or not it was painted on.

I would be most interested to hear what those investigators concluded about that.

[hypotenuse]

hypotenuse I really hate to rain on your parade but all you have shown thus far is that 30+ investigators say it's not a painting.

You still have not addressed the fundamental problem of a 3D image on a 2D medium, as has been pointed out several times.

If the image on the cloth is not consistent with wrapping a cloth around a 3D object, then it seems pointless to me to argue whether or not it was painted on.

I would be most interested to hear what those investigators concluded about that.

You haven't rained on my parade. I asked that if someone has a question that it be brought forth and I'll do my best to provide the answer.

You might be interested in reading the paper presented by Aldo Guerreschi at the May 2000 Shroud Imaging Conference in San Felice Circeo, Italy.  PDF Document

I refer to the findings of the experiments which I presented at the 3rd International Congress of

Sindonological Studies in June 1998, and which have subsequently improved.

This treatment of the image, which refers to an old technique known as "photo-relief," has enabled

us to highlight and show off the particular characteristics which this absolutely unique impression

possesses.

Analysing the faint traces left by the corpse of the Man of the Shroud on the sheet, it has been

discovered that these are composed of a series of "variable monochromatic intensities" having the

characteristic of greater or lesser tones determined by the distance between the body and the sheet

in which it was wrapped.

As is well-known, this fact constitutes the most extraordinary aspect of this figure.

[ ... ]

(conclusion)

Finally I would like to underline the fact that these results have been achieved using perfectly

normal photographic techniques, starting from the celebrated Enrie negatives (which are, as is wellknown,

extremely detailed and are considered to be technically the best available), and excluding

any modification operation to the images, which have, however, enabled us to highlight this figure

with a more natural softness, in striking contrast to the harshness of the computerised image.

I think the vision of this incredibly real body of the emblematic Man of the Shroud can make its

observation even more emotional and dramatic, practically an eye-witness account.

You might also be interested in reading the paper by Mario Latendresse, Ph.D. which discusses the positioning of the body during image formation.  PDF Document

It was shown that, once the blood stains formed by

contact, the top half of the Shroud could not have

been lifted up to be flattened to avoid major im-

age distortions. After the blood stains formed, the

Shroud essentially stayed in the same position prior

to the image formations. It is not impossible that

some local movement of the Shroud occurred, for ex-

ample near its edges or the face. Although, there are

no strong evidences in that direction.

It was also shown that a flattening of the top half

of the Shroud is not required to avoid major image

distortions. That is, there exists some natural way

for the Shroud to lay on the body while the images

are formed without causing major image distortions

{ albeit the Shroud had to be laid carefully over the

body. Moreover, it appears that there are some small

image distortions, coherent with the Shroud laying on

a human body form. This covering is also consistent

with the known blood stain locations on the Shroud.

We have also conjectured that the mechanism of

projection is probably neither normal to the skin, nor

to the sheet, and not really perpendicular to gravity,

but is probably following the shortest path to the

sheet. Further research is necessary to conclude on

this aspect.

Of particular interest are the conclusions of a forensic scientist, Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D., Las Vegas, Nevada who performed an "autopsy" of the body which was enshrouded by the Turin cloth.  

An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud

It is the ultimate responsibility of the medical examiner to confirm by whatever means are available to him the identity of the deceased, as well as to determine the manner of this death. In the case of Man on the Shroud, the forensic pathologist will have information relative to the circumstances of death by crucifixion which he can support by his anatomic findings. He will be aware that the individual whose image is depicted on the cloth has undergone puncture injuries to his wrists and feet, puncture injuries to his head, multiple traumatic whip-like injuries to his back and postmortem puncture injury to his chest area which has released both blood and a water type of fluid. From this data, it is not an unreasonable conclusion for the forensic pathologist to determine that only one person historically has undergone this sequence of events. That person in Jesus Christ.

As far as the mechanism of death is concerned, a detailed study of the Shroud imprint and the blood stains, coupled with a basic understanding of the physical and physiological changes in the body that take place during crucifixion, suggests strongly that the decedent had undergone postural asphyxia as the result of his position during the crucifixion episode. There is also evidence of severe blood loss from the skin wounds as well as fluid accumulation in the chest cavities related to terminal cardio-respiratory failure.

For the manner of death to be determined, a full investigation of the circumstances of death is necessary. In this case, it would be determined historically that the individual was sentenced to death, and that the execution was carried out by crucifixion. The manner of death would be classed as judicial homicide.

In summary, I have presented a scenario, based on reasonable medical probability, as to how a forensic pathologist medical examiner would conduct an examination of the Shroud of Turin image and the conclusions that he would reach as the result of such studies.

Does the Shroud Contain Three Dimensional Information?  PDF Document

[Wickian]

snip. The figure imprinted onto it is too well proportioned to have been made with a real body, it was painted/dusted on. If it was really used to wrap someone the sides of the face would be elongated.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Superman
unconstructive comment

[hypotenuse]

snip. The figure imprinted onto it is too well proportioned to have been made with a real body, it was painted/dusted on. If it was really used to wrap someone the sides of the face would be elongated.

I see you didn't read any of the information provided in my previous post. Nor did you bother to download and read any of the links to PDF documents I provided. Where are the peer reviewed papers to back up your incredibly dull, unsubstantiated barking?

Edited April 16, 2010 by Superman

[Wickian]

I see you didn't read any of the information provided in my previous post. Nor did you bother to download and read any of the links to PDF documents I provided. Where are the peer reviewed papers to back up your incredibly dull, unsubstantiated barking?

All the peer reviewed literature in the world won't change the fact that a 3 dimensional object(a human face) imposed onto a 2 dimensional object(shroud) will be skewed and distorted.

If you don't want to take my word for it, then drape a sheet over your face and have someone paint the outside of it. You'll see that it's physically impossible to get a normal looking face using that method. I won't say it's impossible to jimmy-rig something to look like that, but I will say it's impossible to get that look just by leaving a cloth drapped over someones body with no other intervention.