Second Face on the Shroud of Turin

Institute of Physics ^ | April 13, 2004 | Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo

[shroudie]

The most definitive evidence yet that the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval fake-relic. This is big stuff, published on a highly respected scientific organizations website, the Institute of Physics, a 37,000 member organization of physicists. Their journal is an ethical journal of peer-reviewed scientific studies.

The Washington Times, BBC, the Observer, the Telegraph of London, ABC Australia, the Chicago Sun-Times and several outlets have picked up the story in the last few hours. In my opinion it reinforces the already clear proof that the carbon 14 testing in 1988 was completely erroneous. It clearly eliminates the polemics of medieval paintings, da Vinci conspiracies, proto-photography and other silly concocted theories being bantered about by those skeptical of Christianity.

If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, it can almost certainly be inferred that it is Jesus. If that is so, it buries the extra-liberal revisionism of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who argue that Jesus was not buried.

If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, how is it that this piece of cloth survived the grave and was not ravaged by decomposition products?

The story at the link is quite technical. I suggest alternatively reading the stories in any of the various newspapers or for a clear concise explanation read first Chemistry of the Image and then Explanation of the Backside Image.

From the extract: "Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a man. The body image is very faint and the background not uniform; i.e., the signal-to-noise ratio is lower than one. Therefore, image processing . . . was necessary to highlight body features. This was based on convolution with Gaussian filters, summation of images, and filtering in spatial frequency by direct and inverse bidimensional Fourier transformations.

[shroudie]

OBB, you wrote: "You assume no fading over the centuries, or that only this one means of production is possible."

I make no such assumption. Amine/saccharide products will darken with age. As you are aware amine/saccharide reactions are irreversible. Over time they will darken. They cannot be bleached (and they will not fade) but can be reduced with diimide. It is, however, fair to say that the background is darkening as well and the relative contrast is thus reduced. What I was really asking you about is your fraud explanation that meets minimum criteria so we can move forward to the point of considering your fraud/miracle dichotomy. You said I am only considering one possibility. No, actually I am not. I am asking how the amine/saccharides product was produced by fraud.

As for the Sudarium carbon dating: I have heard about it anecdotally and heard that there is no validity to it. I am always suspect of a single web based source that lacks any citations. I need to do some research to get back to you on this and the web is not the place to do it. I have sent several emails and faxes to researchers to get an answer.

The question again is this. You imply fraud. If you are to be considered seriously, you must present your fraud explanation.

[shroudie]

OBB, you wrote: "You assume no fading over the centuries, or that only this one means of production is possible."

I make no such assumption. Amine/saccharide products will darken with age. As you are aware amine/saccharide reactions are irreversible. Over time they will darken. They cannot be bleached (and they will not fade) but can be reduced with diimide. It is, however, fair to say that the background is darkening as well and the relative contrast is thus reduced. What I was really asking you about is your fraud explanation that meets minimum criteria so we can move forward to the point of considering your fraud/miracle dichotomy. You said I am only considering one possibility. No, actually I am not. I am asking how the amine/saccharides product was produced by fraud.

As for the Sudarium carbon dating: I have heard about it anecdotally and heard that there is no validity to it. I am always suspect of a single web based source that lacks any citations. I need to do some research to get back to you on this and the web is not the place to do it. I have sent several emails and faxes to researchers to get an answer.

The question again is this. You imply fraud. If you are to be considered seriously, you must present your fraud explanation.

[orionblamblam]

> Amine/saccharide products will darken with age.

Well, then, that's a problem, isn't it, considering that 650 years ago, it was apparently pretty plainly visible. I've seen contemporary paintings of it (don't ask me where, it's been a few years), when it was folded up and only the face visible... and the face was *quite* visible.

> I am asking how the amine/saccharides product was produced by fraud.

Starting to look like amine/saccharides product does not explain it.

> I am always suspect of a single web based source that lacks any citations.

Indeed. But a bit more searching found several further references, including one PDF paper: http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf
"It should be said that in our investigation we have found nothing to contradict this tradition, except the carbon 14 dating ordered by Prof. Baima Bollone. According to this experiment, the cloth dates from the 7th century. Baima Bollone himself says the result should not be given undue importance, but it is the first contrary information obtained."

It *appears* that they dated it and got answers they didn't like.

> You imply fraud. If you are to be considered seriously, you must present your fraud explanation.

Simple: "An artist made it. An artist was exposed and confessed." Now, it would certainly be interesting to know exactly how it was done, but it seems pretty plain to me that it was manmade, given all the quirks and flaws and mistakes (such as the hair hanging the wrong direction; such as the head appearing to be disconnected; such as the legs being straight on the front, and the knee being bent on the back... can't be both at the same time!). Hell, we don't know just how the Great Pyramid was built, but we know it was built by Men.

[Swordmaker]

Ah, there's a problem... you'll need a human of extraordinary proportions... and extra physical dimensions, as the image on the shroud does not actually reflect realistic human geometry.

To what source do you attribute this claim, Orion? Please provide the citation. I doubt you will find any specificity provided by anyone expert enough to have an opinion.

In other words, this is just another one of your "factoids" that is untrue.

I have seen some claims of "extraordinary proportions" and "not reflecting realistic human geometry," usually unsourced, or attributed to non-expert sources as a means of "debunking" the shroud. Might I suggest some experts instead of the non-experts? Try this link to a peer-reviewed paper on the proportions of the man on the Shroud: Computerized Anthropometric Analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud by Prof. ssa Emanuela Marinelli- Co-authored with Alessandro Cagnazzo and Prof. Giulio Fanti.

I would also suggest that the many medical doctors, anthropologists, and Forensic Pathologists who have examined the Shroud image have not found the image exhibited any unusual proportions or unrealistic human geometry. Pathologists such as Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D., a world renowned forensic pathologist and medical examiner, formerly Deputy Coronor of Los Angeles and Las Vegas, or Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D., professor of anatomy and the Senior Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York., or Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Emily A. Craig of the Kentucky State Medical Examiner's Office, who is an expert professional medical illustrator with national and international awards, would have noticed such "extraordinary proportions" and "non-human geometry." They have not.

I would also point out that experimental placement of cloths on supine bodies, both living and dead, with position markers placed on body parts, have resulted in exactly the placement of the body parts we find on the Shroud.

> We need to insert pollen from the middle east. We need to apply travertine aragonite.

Easily done if this was done in the middle east, or if the shroud was from there.

Assuming this is a fraud, Orion, what are the odds that even a cloth from the middle east (a very large area) would have pollen from the Jerusalem area and traces of a specific type of travertine aragonite limestone that is found only in a few square miles around Jerusalem... and is the type of limestone found in both the traditional site Tomb and the Garden Tomb?

. . . either the shroud and the smaller cloth have staisn that are identical, or they don't.

The claim is not that they are "identical" but that the Sudarium stains display a "congruency" with stains in the same mapped areas of the head, and many have similar shapes or other uniques patterns. In fact, comparative studies of the two cloths have mapped over 125 points of congruence.

If they *do*, then carbon dating the Sudarium will tell you the age of the shroud, yes?

No, they will only have a putative date for the Sudarium. It may suggest an age for a related object, but it would not be definitive.

[orionblamblam]

> To what source do you attribute this claim, Orion?

Mark 1 Eyeball. Jasut *look* at the thing, in it's totality. The front and rear views of the legs don't match up, for starters.

>The claim is not that they are "identical" but that the Sudarium stains display a "congruency" with stains in the same mapped areas of the head, and many have similar shapes or other uniques patterns. In fact, comparative studies of the two cloths have mapped over 125 points of congruence.
...
> No, they will only have a putative date for the Sudarium. It may suggest an age for a related object, but it would not be definitive.

Well... which is it? If you think that the shroud is too big of a task for a medieval fraudster, how about making a seventh-century Sudarium fraud that so closely matches to "125 points of congruence" with the shroud?

Either they are related, or they are not. if they are not, do you not find those "125 points of congruence" rather remarkable? And if they are related, and the Sudarium is 7tgh century, what does that say about the shroud?

[Swordmaker]

Mark 1 Eyeball. Jasut *look* at the thing, in it's totality. The front and rear views of the legs don't match up, for starters.

Have you read the paper I linked in Reply #164. I think you will find that your Mark 1 eyeball does not quite agree with the studies of actual bodies and cloths of equal dimensions..

Let's Eyeball it:

Photographs copyright 1978 by Barrie M. Schworz, Images linked from Shroud.com

Studies that have been done using cadavers and live volunteers covered with chalk, laid on a shroud, assuming the positon of a man in rigor mortis pattern from a crucifixion, have always resulted in the exact same pattern as seen on the Shroud. There is no discrepency when one considers the flow of the cloth over the body.

Well... which is it? If you think that the shroud is too big of a task for a medieval fraudster, how about making a seventh-century Sudarium fraud that so closely matches to "125 points of congruence" with the shroud?

Why, and HOW? If, as you maintain, the Shroud was a 14th Century fraud, how and WHY would a forger create his masterpiece to conform to a little known, wrinkled, blood stained cloth in a church a thousand miles away? Or, if the Sudarium is a fraud (with a known provenance well before the provenance of the Shroud) how could it have been created with those 125 points of congruence 700 years before the shroud?.

We really do not know that the sudarium is 7th century. The only evidence we have of any C14 test on the sudarium is third hand hearsay.

If they are linked, and the date IS correct, then perhaps the shroud and the sudarium were created at the same time... which may cause more problems with the C14 date of the Shroud patches.

[Swordmaker]

Well, then, that's a problem, isn't it, considering that 650 years ago, it was apparently pretty plainly visible. I've seen contemporary paintings of it (don't ask me where, it's been a few years), when it was folded up and only the face visible... and the face was *quite* visible.

The only problem is that your assertion is not true. There are copies of the Shroud that were made in the past... before photography... some within a few years of the first exposition. The Czechia Shroud Copy is an example that was found in a church in Broumov, Czzechia.

The 1651 Czechia Shroud Copy
Photograph copyright 1999 by Dr. Leo Bazant-Hegemark, image linked from Shroud.com


Close up of the 1651 Czechia Shroud.Note inscription:
"EXTRACTVM AB ORIGINALI" (Derived from the Original)
Photograph copyright 1999 by Dr. Leo Bazant-Hegemark, image linked from Shroud.com

Dr. Leo Bazant-Hegemark comments on the copy in his Report on the Czechia Shroud Copy:

The copy was found Jan. 18, 1999 by theol. scholar Premysl Sochor in the first balcony to the right in the monasterial church of Broumov, Czechia, hidden in a framed wooden box with a glass door, under the floor of the balcony (in a height of appr. 15m). With the linen was the authenticity, i.e., a letter of the archbishop of Turin, Bergiria, giving names, year and date (4 May 1651).

The artist who created this copy worked directly from the Shroud in Turin. It is obvious he was attempting to capture the evanescent, vaporish nature of the image on the Shroud. Dr. Bazant-Hegemark reports that the copy shows clear brush strokes and microscopic examination shows clear pigment particles. Negatives of the copy produce flat, unimpressive images that do not show a "positive" aspect. Of course, this copy is from 300 years after the first exposition in 1352.

A Shroud copy even closer in date, one that precedes the 1532 fire, is the Lier Shroud Copy... with a known provenance of 1516.

The 1516 Lier Shroud Copy
Photo linked from Imago Christi

The Imago Christi website gives a brief description of the Lier Copy:

A copy of the Shroud known as the "Lier Shroud" dated 1516 has at times been attributed to Albrecht Durer (1471-1528) and perhaps to the Flemish painter Bernard van Orley. This copy documents the fact that the Shroud has been through a fire at a time and in circumstances unknown, but certainly before the Chambery fire of 1532 -- it reproduces only the double mirror image series of little burn holes, visible in the Shroud today (shown in the photograph above). This copy (Lier Shroud) is located in Saint Gommaire Church of Lierre, Belgium."

Almost 150 years before the Czechia copy and 150 years after the original exposition of the Shroud, an artist attempts to capture the image on the Shroud in a dim, wispy painting that fails to duplicate the nature of the Shroud.

Here is another from 1624 by an artist not as skilled as the others, and possible a copy of a copy. Note the addition of a 'modesty cloth" around the loins:

[orionblamblam]

Thanks for posting the shroud images. They prove my points that it just looks... off. The hair is a real problem.

> If, as you maintain, the Shroud was a 14th Century fraud, how and WHY would a forger
create his masterpiece to conform to a little known, wrinkled, blood stained cloth in a church a thousand miles
away? Or, if the Sudarium is a fraud (with a known provenance well before the provenance of the Shroud)
how could it have been created with those 125 points of congruence 700 years before the shroud?.

Well, if y'all are right about the patches, then the shroud is looking like a 7th century fraud.

> Studies that have been done using cadavers and live volunteers covered with chalk, laid on a shroud, assuming the positon of a man in rigor mortis pattern from a crucifixion, have always resulted in the exact same pattern as seen on the Shroud.

I've seen experiments that show just the opposite. The bend in the legs being particularly difficult problem (and the fact that the man on the cloth is over six feet tall, IIRC... rather unlikely for the region and the time). But in any event... if you c an duplicate the shroud by wrappign it around a maniken or a body... you now are on the road to discovering how a fraud could be perpetrated.

[orionblamblam]

None of the paintings you showed were "within a few years" of 1357, closest was 150 or so years later. Also note that the paintings you've shown are less "dim" than the shroud image itself (see: http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm).

But one interesting image not linked was the scukltpure of Jesus shown onf the Imago Christi site. While it looks ok astanding up, it doesn't look right laying down. Hair obeys gravity, and is generally uneffected by rigor mortis. HAving hair much like that, I can attest to that fact.

[Swordmaker]

Also note that the paintings you've shown are less "dim" than the shroud image itself

That is because they are PAINTED. Even modern attempts to duplicate the image using whatever means are MORE distinct than the image on the Shroud. Hair obeys gravity, and is generally uneffected by rigor mortis. HAving hair much like that, I can attest to that fact.

Now soak your hair (no I am not telling you to go "soak your head") in a mixture of heavy sweat and blood and allow it to dry while hanging your head forward so the hair falls forward and down. That puts a mighty strong stiffener in the hair. Then put a chin strap on, under your chin and beard, up and around your face in front of your face with the hair pulled forward and THEN lie down and see what you get. This has been demonstrated and the image on the Shroud matches the demonstrations.

[Swordmaker]

I've seen experiments that show just the opposite. The bend in the legs being particularly difficult problem (and the fact that the man on the cloth is over six feet tall, IIRC... rather unlikely for the region and the time).

Those experiments you saw were probably Joe Nickell's doing everything possible to show why it wouldn't work. The proper approach is to see how it COULD have worked... and numerous experiments with topological mapping of a cloth draped over a body have shown that it will and would produce such an image.

The Forensic Pathologists have determined that the image on the Shroud is of a man of normal proportions 70 inches tall: 5 foot 10. I can dig out the results of a grave census done of 20 complete individual males excavated from a 1st Century Jewish cematary and show you that the average height was 5 foot 9 inches. The average height of a modern American is 5 foot 9.5 inches. The average height of a Roman soldier of the 1st Century was 5 foot 8 inches. 5 foot 10 is not even a single sigma out of the norm from the evidence we have to date.

As to being on the road to "how a fraud cold be perpetrated", we are not. We have always worked from the principle that fraud was likely and ALL research has been to find ways to prove that fraud... and failed.

[orionblamblam]

> That is because they are PAINTED.

Remember, the claim was that the image should DARKEN with time. If the modern image is the darkened version... then hundreds of years ago it should have been friggen' invisible.

>That puts a mighty strong stiffener in the hair.

Not THAT strong. And if the blood has dried, what caused the stain?

[orionblamblam]

> Those experiments you saw were probably Joe Nickell's doing everything possible to show why it wouldn't work.

Man, you people sure don't like that guy. Saw him for the first time last night (on the Penn & Teller show); seemed like a reasonable enough fellow.

> numerous experiments with topological mapping of a cloth draped over a body have shown that it will and would produce such an image.

How do you get a leg thats straight in front and bent in back, all at the same time?

> The average height of a Roman soldier of the 1st Century was 5 foot 8 inches.

And the average height of a someone from a *relevant* ethnic group was... what? Remember, if you don't like using a hypothetical "patch" as a data point, then why use a clearly irrelevant ethnic group to guage normal height? Why not a Masai or a Viking?

If a Roman, given decent food and medical care, was 5'8", then a poor Judean sheperd-descendant should have been a little dinky guy. Height like 5'10" should have been tall enough to merit mention.

[orionblamblam]

> Then put a chin strap on, under your chin and beard, up and around your face in front of your face with the hair pulled forward and THEN lie down and see what you get.

I'd probably get the feeling that I'd slipped into a Quentin Tarantino movie. What relevance does that have here? Did Jesus wear a chinstrap?

[shroudie]

So all those w0 people in the 1st century Jewish graves were attention getting too tall people? Hmm!

[orionblamblam]

> So all those w0 people in the 1st century Jewish graves ...

"w0 people"?

[shroudie]

20.

[shroudie]

Amended: 20. And you could have figured that out if you actually read what Swordmaker wrote. You see, you just don't read and just don't type.

[orionblamblam]

> you just don't read and just don't type

Yes, that's it exactly. I'm using a telepathic connection to my computer, rather than reading the screen and typing these responses.

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick... some people...

[orionblamblam]

> I can dig out the results of a grave census done of 20 complete individual males excavated from a 1st Century Jewish cematary and show you that the average height was 5 foot 9 inches.

As Shroudie pointed out in his own inimitably rock-headed, Al-Franken-esque way, I missed this bit. A good question would be what the social status of these dead folks was. If they were rich, they should be taller'n average, as they would have eaten better and been generally healthier