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.

[orionblamblam]

> You are an engineer...

Trained in the scientific method, and using it daily. Ad hominems that I am ignorant of the scientific method are amusingly ignorant.

> A good question then is which is the greater miracle? That the Shroud is an artifact left behind by a man who is reported to have performed many miracles... or that an unknown artist c. 1325 created a masterpiece that defies replication 800 years later?

The miraculous explanation is the more miraculous one. There are a great many ancient artifacts that defy easy explanation of how they were done... the exact construction method of the Pyramids, for example. But the lack of understanding of how they were done does not mean they were built by aliens using spaceships and tractor beams, anymore than a lack of understanding of exactly how the faint (and rapidly fading... why was it clear 700 years ago, but faint not long thereafter? If it was 2000 years old... if it was clear 700 years ago, it should still be fairly clear today)shroud image was created 700 years ago means that it must be magic. There are reasonable explanations of how it was done, explanations that have not been disproven; reasonable explanations, when available, trump magical ones.

> As to the state of Joe Nickell's degrees, it proves that you ARE parroting his discredited and ignorant of the latest scholarship argments and articles.

Whatever. I don't know who this man is, but you seem to be fixated on him. That's your deal, not mine.

[Swordmaker]

Trained in the scientific method, and using it daily.

So am I and so are the scientists who have been investigation the Shroud. You did not seem to show it because you kept harping on the already tested and discarded C14 challenges and IGNORING the tests that proved the tested sample was not similar at all to the main body of the Shroud. Garbage in, garbage out.

I notice you have not responded to my bridge analogy...

There are reasonable explanations of how it was done, explanations that have not been disproven; reasonable explanations, when available, trump magical ones.

Please provide these "reasonable explanations of how it was done" that meet all of the criteria established by the Shroud studies. Quite frankly, Orion, no one has been able to do it yet unless you count your hypothetical 14th Century artist.

[orionblamblam]

> IGNORING the tests that proved the tested sample was not similar at all to the main body of the Shroud

You have yet to provide evidence that the "patches" are so much as a day newer than the rest of the shroud.

> Quite frankly, Orion, no one has been able to do it yet unless you count your hypothetical 14th Century artist.

Might have something to do with the fact that aging something 700 years is a time-consuming process.

And I'll note that you have yet to provide a good explanation of why, 700 years ago when the shroud first amgically appeared, it was clear, but today, it is not. Why was it clear for 1300 years, then suddenly faded? The most reasonable explanation for this is... 700 years ago, it was *new*.

[happygrl]

Pax Christi

And to you also, bro~

[Swordmaker]

You have yet to provide evidence that the "patches" are so much as a day newer than the rest of the shroud.

We don't have to "provided evidence that the patches are... newer" to invalidate the test, we merely have to show that they are NOT THE SAME as the rest of the thing being tested. That has been done.

The Carbon 14 tests were performed under the assumption that every part of the Shroud was the same age and of similar composition. If this were true, then it it reasonable to infer that the sample dates would be representative of the rest of the Shroud. Since it has been PROVEN, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the samples are NOT of similar composition, the C14 dates are invalid as a generalized statement about the age of the body of the shroud.

The C14 tests have only told us that the sample that was tested has varying reported dates from 1260 (confidence 50 years) to 1390 (confidence 50 years) with the two extremes not overlapping in their degrees of confidence. That should have told the testers that there was a problem with the homogeneity of the sample.

Although the labs that did the Carbon 14 tests did impeccable work, their efforts were sabotaged before they even received the samples because of BAD SCIENCE at the sampling stage.

And I'll note that you have yet to provide a good explanation of why, 700 years ago when the shroud first amgically appeared, it was clear, but today, it is not. Why was it clear for 1300 years, then suddenly faded? The most reasonable explanation for this is... 700 years ago, it was *new*.

And when have you asked for this "good explanation"? And what do you mean by "clear"? Are you saying it was "transparent" or that it was "bright" and then "faded" by exposure?

The primary reason this needs no "good explanation" is that it is not true.

Even the earliest written documents on the shroud comment on the fact that the image cannot be seen when close to the shroud and it only becomes "clear" when one stands at a distance. Early artistic renderings of the shroud also show attempts to capture the "faintness" of the image using paint... all unsuccessfully. None depicted a "brilliantly" colored shroud.

Has the Shroud faded in the 652 years since its public display in 1352? Yes. There has been some darkening of the non-image linen as it ages. Part of the reason for this is exposure to sunlight, fire, water stains, dirt, etc., even though most of that time it was shut up in a lightless box. However, in the first centuries after its first Lirey exposition, it was displayed frequently, often weekly, and often in bright sunlight.

The prior to Lirey theoretical history of the shroud proposes that after a couple of centuries of public display in a wooden lattice-work frame with only the face visible, again in bright sunlight, it sealed in a wall as the "Image of Edessa" for around three hundred years, then is again displayed for more centuries. In 944, the "Image of Edessa" was sent to Constantinople where the inventory list (an extant document) suddenly shows the disappearance of the "image" and the appearance of "the Shroud of Our Lord." The Sermon of Gregory Referendarius, delivered on the event of the arrival of the Image of Edessa to Constantinople, in several places refers to "the figure of our Lord" while in other he mentions the "face of our Lord" which provides a tantalizing hint that the Image had been removed from its frame, and its actual nature discovered.

In the Eleventh Century, the Fourth Crusade got bogged down in Constantinople for years. After many years of waiting for the assault on the Holy Land to begin, in 1204 the frustrated soldiers went crazy and burned and sacked the Christian city, looting the Hagia Sophia where the collection of Jesus relics were kept. The shroud disappeared from all inventories.

One participant of that Crusade was a French knight by the name of Geoffrey de Charney. One hundred and fifty years later, the Shroud appears in the possession of one Geoffrey de Charny (note the spelling difference). There may be a familial relationship. If so, and if the earlier Geoffrey stole the Shroud from Hagia Sophia, it is reasonable that the family would have kept it stashed out of sight (and out of sunlight) for 150 years,

All of this is recounted to show that the Shroud has probably been kept hidden, away from damaging sunlight, for a theoretical 800-900 years. We know that in the last two centuries, expositions have been kept to a minimum with only six expositions in the 20th Century and about eight or so in the 19th.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"The biological "sheath" was quite thick, resulting in enough biomass to skew the results substantially."

Does this have to do with the pollen? I remember hearing or reading about how a test was done on pollen found on the Shroud. I guess it was a carbon dating. Anyway it showed the pollen was from the Middle Ages. Then a scientist discovered that there was a crust of pollution on the pollen. Once that was scraped off another carbon dating test showed the pollen was from around 100 AD and had been of plants that grew in Jerusalem at that time.

[shroudie]

Orionblamblam, you wrote: You have yet to provide evidence that the "patches" are so much as a day newer than the rest of the shroud.

Oops! You actually wrote that in a public forum and claimed you are trained in science??? Imagine that you took your car in for repair and you asked the service technician to test drive it. When you returned to pick up your car he told you that he took a different car out for a road test. When you complained that that made no sense he told you that you had yet to provide him with evidence that someone else’s car did not have the same problem as yours.

Shroudie

[shroudie]

You have made reference to Occam’s Razor as an argument implying that you understood how it is used in science. But the argument you were making was not Occam but seemingly the classic David Hume argument against the likelihood of miracles. Hume was not a scientist. And contemporary philosophy of science (the foundation of the scientific method) rejects Hume. For to accept his argument would present us with no way, also, to explain quantum theory and chaos theory.

Occam argues that given two different testable hypotheses (not theories or proofs) that provide the same result, then the one which is simplest is likely to be the preferred one. Occam cannot be used to argue against miracles as a miracle cannot, by definition, be tested.

I suspect, but do not know, that you have a Bultmannian hang up regarding miracles. As you know, Rudolf Karl Bultmann's wrote that "No modern educated person can accept the possibilities of miracles." Perhaps he should have said that he did not believe in miracles or opined that modern man should not believe. To wit how wrong he was:

A recent Harris Poll (The Harris Poll, Feb 26, 2003) of Americans found that 84% of all adults believe in miracles (93% of Christians) and 80% believe in the resurrection (96% of Christians). The percentage of those who believe in miracles is supported by a 1988 Gallup Organization poll that found that 79% of American adults believe that God works and still works miracles. In the more recent Harris poll it is interesting to note that for people with post-graduate degrees, 72% believe in miracles and 64% believe in the resurrection.

Some, such as 'political' scientist George Bishop, have argued that there is a direct correlation between scientific knowledge and disbelief in miracles (Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 3. "Religious Beliefs of Scientists"). He implies that the non-believers are the scientists and the rest of us just don't have the scientific knowledge to understand.

But John Polkinghorne, quantum physicist, cites studies that show more than 40% percent of scientists worldwide believe in "hand-of-God" divine action (see "Belief in God in an Age of Science," Yale University Press, 1998) including miraculous formed images. A Nature magazine article "Scientists are still keeping the faith" by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham (Apr 3, 1997, vol 386) reports that 39.3% of scientists (limited to the hard sciences) believe in "a God to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer." This polling statement implies at least a degree of divine action—i.e. miracle.

An international survey by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) in 1991, with a more restrictive affirmation statement that read, "I definitely believe in `religious miracles'" showed belief at 45.6% among American scientists with slightly less belief in middle European and post-Soviet block nations.

Belief in miracles (or magic as you like to call it) is not founded on special knowledge such as science or philosophy.

If you wish to argue by science, then be scientific.

Shroudie

[EternalHope]

Does this have to do with the pollen?

No. Shroudie is the expert on this thread, but I'll take a crack at the answer (to the extent I remember).

The individual fibers were/are coated with a shellac like substance (the details of which I do not remember). It was shown to be the residue of some biological process (the details of which I also do not remember). (Hmmm... Not so good. Now where did I put my car keys?)

The coating is clear, and thick enough to skew the carbon-14 results. If it was deposited at a linear rate from the 1st century until the date of the carbon-14 testing, it would have added enough mass to move the date from the 1st century to the middle ages. Hence my interest. (If I had known someone would ask me about it a few years later, I would have made a better effort to memorize the details!)

Not only is this substance present on the shroud, but it has been found on other ancient artifacts as well. As you probably know, there have been some highly surprising carbon-14 results on tested artifacts, and some experts have questioned the reliability of the process itself as a result. This could be part of the explanation. Simply knowing how fast carbon-14 decays may not be enough.

[shroudie]

Orionblamblam wrote: "There are reasonable explanations of how it was done, explanations that have not been disproven; reasonable explanations, when available, trump magical ones."

I defy him to name one reasonable explanation that can possibly explain the images as they are. Here is his problem:

For there to be an image on the Shroud there must be an image producing agent, something that will absorb or reflect certain wavelengths of visible light that is different than the background. That agent might be something that coats the fibers of the cloth, it could be a chemical state of change to the cellulose fibers themselves or it could be a material within the hollow medullas of the translucent fiber. However the core is clear and the cellulose fiber remains unaltered except for a certain amount of dehydration and oxidation resulting from aging and producing some discoloration. There is no appreciable difference in the discoloration or image bearing fibers and non-image bearing fibers.

Thus we are left with the possibility that image agent is contained within a coating of the fibers. Spectrographic examination, chemical tests and microscopy have ruled out the possibility that this coating contains pigments as found in paint, inks, dyes and stains. While trace amounts of some pigments, as contaminants, have been found, nowhere have sufficient concentrations of these been found to form an image that can be seen by the naked eye.

To the contrary, a carbohydrate coating of starch fractions and various saccharides has been found coating fibers on the outer topmost crown fibers of the cloth. In other words the coating is superficial. This coating has been observed to be between 180 nanometers and 600 nanometers in thickness. In terms of thickness this is comparable to the scratchproof coating used on eye glasses. This coating can be removed from the fibers with adhesive or with a reducing agent such as diimide.

In diverse and discontinuous places, on the superficial surface of the Shroud, the coating on the fiber has undergone a chemical change that has changed its visible light absorption properties. It has become straw-yellow. Where there is color, the color is the same color from one fiber to the next. There is very little variance in luminescence from one fiber to the next, as well. The resulting composite image of many different visible shades is the result visual blending of the quantitative density of colored fibers. Often referred to as a pixilated or halftone image; it is more accurately visual shading like the hatched shading of a pen and ink drawing, but implemented at a microscopic level. Individual fibers are approximately 13 micrometers in diameter (roughly 15 percent that of a typical human hair). In other words, a selective chemical change has occurred that has produced an image.

The carbohydrate coating is easily explained by the way that linen was produced in the first century. We need only turn to Pliny the Elder for a detailed explanation. During weaving a crude starch was applied to the yard to lubricate it and prevent fraying. After weaving, the cloth was washed in suds of Saponaria officinalis (a natural soap) and dried lying flat across bushes. Residual chemicals from the washing concentrate at the evaporation surface, forming the colorless carbohydrate layer on the outermost edges of the top fibers in the thread. Concentration at the evaporation edge is a very natural phenomenon when cloth is air dried. This coating is chemically reactive.

But what caused the chemical reaction that formed the images. Any number of speculative possibilities warrants consideration. These include chemicals in liquid or gaseous form, corona discharge and various forms of radiation including heat. The most promising of these, so far, chemically, is that heavy amines produced by a dead body reacted with the coating, a amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction). That such a reaction will take place within a few hours is indisputable. Coloration will take place. But will that explain the quality of the image? So far, alone, the answer is no. Scientists recognize that the image forming process must be a complex system of many factors including body chemistry, residual body heat, ambient temperatures and humidity, the lay of the cloth over the body.

But that is the problem, as well. Is it a lucky fluke that the images are so visually correct? A truly natural explanation requires that a chemical reaction starts and ends. The reaction must end sufficiently late for there to be discernible images. And, it must end early enough that the images are not oversaturated. Analysis of the images shows no saturation plateaus. Timing is everything. In photographic terms this is correct exposure.

It is not just correct exposure that is at play here. Good focus, suitable contrast and smooth and realistic gradations between light and dark areas are also important. (Resolution is better than 0.4 mm at a distance of 1.1 cm indicating the image production mechanism must be highly anisotropic). This is further supported by the fact that when the densities of the “pixels” are plotted, a three-dimensional orthographic image develops. There is nothing like this in art or photography.

Is it serendipitous that the highlights and shadows of this chemograph appear as though created by reflected light? This visual quality is essential for our minds to be able to see the images as realistic pictures with perceived three-dimensionality?

The images are at once like rare and exceptional art, yet so unlike art. They are like subtle photographs and yet so unlike photographs. However the images were formed, the process was quick. The cloth and the body were separated soon. For after about three days, fluidic decomposition products from the body would have stained and damaged the cloth. Soon the cloth would have rotted away. Furthermore, forensic experts tell us, the images show no visible signs of decomposition. This apparent early separation of the body and the cloth opens up a floodgate of possibilities that must be reconciled to any naturalistic explanation.

No matter how much we might marvel that everything for a process might come together in all the right places -- chemicals, ambient temperature, humidity, the drape of the cloth -- and start and stop at the right time, we cannot help but notice something. For until and unless other examples of such images on cloths that survived decomposition in a grave are found, we must say it is unique. The surprise is that this unique and improbable happenstance is not, as mere chance would mandate, of some random person in history.

[orionblamblam]

> We don't have to "provided evidence that the patches are... newer" to invalidate the test, we
merely have to show that they are NOT THE SAME as the rest of the thing being tested.

Uh... yes, you do. If the "patches" were made at the same time as the shroud, then they're the same age.

>The Carbon 14 tests were performed under the assumption that every part of the Shroud
was the same age and of similar composition.

Not quite right. Same age, yes, but composition is irrelvant. If the shroud was cotten but the [patches wool... if they were made from flora and fauna growig at the same time, then their radiocarbon dates would be essentially the same. Composition, so long as they come from immediately formerly living things, is irrelevant. Now, if the patches were polyesther...

> And what do you mean by "clear"?

It means that reports from 700 years ago, when the shroud was new, said that the image was clearly visible to the naked eye. Now it's faint.

[orionblamblam]

> If you wish to argue by science, then be scientific.

I have been. Your arguement regarding miracles is that lots of educated people believe in them; but then, lots of educated people also believe in Creationism, Clintonism, Communism and Socialism. A lot of educated people wanted Howard Dean for President.

"Lots of educated people believe that" is a meaningless arguement. Education or intelligence do not prevent one from having irrational beliefs based on emotion rather than reason.

> Belief in miracles (or magic as you like to call it) is not founded on special knowledge such as science or philosophy.

Indeed. It's based on wishful thinking.

[orionblamblam]

> I defy him to name one reasonable explanation that can possibly explain the images as they are.

Well, how about this: "heavy amines produced by a dead body reacted with the coating, a amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction)." If this can happen naturally, it can happen artificially.

Artists have come up with a VAST number of ways to create images on canvases. Hell, some have even used their own blood as paint.

[shroudie]

Orionblamblam, you don't read except between the line. Good trick. I said that your anti-miracle bias is showing and is unscientific. The point is not to look from a miracle point of view or an anti-miracle point of view but from a scientific point of view.

To accuse the other person of irrational thinking without explanation or accuse the other person of wishful thinking without justification is just blowing smoke. That is all you are doing.

I have no idea how the images were formed. I have no idea if they are perfectly natural or the by-product of a miracle. I am quite certain that they are not fake. The scientific evidence on this is quite clear. I do know that the carbon 14 tests are discredited (and yes there is evidence that the cloth is much older).

Get over it.

[shroudie]

orionblamblam, I'll accept that. Chemically that would work. There are several problems in how an artist would do that. We can look at those as we go along.

In an undemanding age when any sliver of wood might pass as a piece of the true cross, and any bramble as part of the crown of thorns, it is a bit hard to imagine why an artist would go to such extraordinary lengths with a clear (and very stinky) solution. But now, we are out of science, are we not?

But good. Chemically we are in agreement. We have found a way to induce a double-double bond change of molecular state in the carbohydrate layer(which is what the image is). This is well documented in a peer reviewed paper by Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation," in the scientific journal, Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp.106-113.

I wonder why he did it as a negative image.

Shroudie

[orionblamblam]

> you don't read except between the line

Well, when debating with Creationists, shroudists, witch doctors and their ilk, one must be mindful that what they say is not what they mean, and one *MUST* read between the lines.

> said that your anti-miracle bias is showing and is unscientific.

It is hardly unscientific to be skeptical of claims of mitracles, given that there ahve been NO miracles in recorded history that can not be more rationally explained via materialistic means... often, hoaxes and frauds.

> from a scientific point of view.

Then, prove that a mitracle was involved here. Demonstrate conclusively that the shroud is 1970 years old, not 650. Demonstrate that there is no conceivable material process that can cause an image like this to be imprinted upon a cloth. Demonstrate conclusively that this was the image of *one* *specific* *idnividual,* not just some random guy. Then, MAYBE, you will be heading down the road to providing evidence of a miracle.

> I have no idea if they are perfectly natural or the
by-product of a miracle.

That being the case... if material processes are still within the realm of possibility... miracles must, scientifically, be set aside.

I've seen some astonishingly weird crap in my days. Things within rocket motors that survived intact when they should have been vaporized and shot into the test stand hillside. Incredible strong materials visibly undamaged, but messed up on a microscopic scale such that I could crush them in my hands. Materials that withstand pressures that are orders of magnitude greater than require to burst them to flinders. People I respected voting for Bill CLinton *twice*. These defy easy explanation... but I do not fall back on the intellectual laziness of "miracle." Sometimes, physical processes produce things that are just plain difficult to explain. And given the astonishly little scientific analysis that has actually be done upon the Shroud (snippets here, some fibers there... wholly inadequate; any forensic investigator woudl throw up his hands), it's hardly surprising that this has not yet been firmly nailed down.

> I am quite certain that they are not fake. The scientific evidence on this is quite clear.

You have no evidence of this whatsoever. What you have is a mystery, and I can assure you that people can do some damned mysteriosu things.

[orionblamblam]

> In an undemanding age when any sliver of wood might pass as a piece of the true cross, and any bramble as part of the crown of thorns, it is a bit hard to imagine why an artist would go to such extraordinary lengths with a clear (and very stinky) solution.

Not when the fake is to be delivered to the Pope. And not in an age when people such as Da Vinci were running around creating an artistic Rennaissance, and tryign to mess with the system...

> I wonder why he did it as a negative image.

Why not? And probably... because it's easier to stain a white sheet darker than it is to stain it lighter.

[shroudie]

Actually, I have no need to prove a miracle. Did you really read what I said. Nor do I have a need to prove that the Shroud is authentic. The evidence favors authenticity. There is no realistic evidence to the contrary. The carbon 14 testing has been discredited Carbon 14. The evidence for a chemical image (by whatever means) is clear Chemistry of the image. You can invent scenarios or conspiracy theories or whatever it is to defend you fundamentalism-of-another kind. I welcome, instead, open minds.

I am quite sure that it is, as I have said repeatedly, archelogically the Shroud of a 1st century crucifixion victim. I think the inference that it is Jesus is reasonable, in fact close to certain. Is there a miracle involved in the Shroud. In a sense, I think so. But I'm not sure what it is.

Do I believe in miracles? Yes. I once did not. Do I believe that Jesus is the Christ? Yes, I do. That he was resurrected? Yes, I do. Does the Shroud affect my faith? No, but I find it wonderfully mysterious and inspiring.

Am I willing to investigate and think about things? Sure, and the science of the Shroud is compelling as is the history; least to people who are open minded.

The point of this thread has been to understand and discuss the second image on the Shroud. It lends credence to the idea that the Shroud is authentic.

Now your understanding of negatives is a bit faulty. It really doesn't make sense that a positive image must be whiter, as you suggest. How do you explain that to every artist who has ever started with a white canvas. Come on blam blam, do some thinking before you type. Shroudie

[orionblamblam]

> Nor do I have a need to prove that the Shroud is authentic.

Riiiiiight. Sure thing, "Shroudie."

> The evidence favors authenticity. There is no realistic evidence to the contrary.

Oh, sure. Just as the evidence favors Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and that tortilla with the Baby Elvis on it...

> I think the inference that it is Jesus is reasonable, in fact close to certain.

Wow. Let's assume that it *really* *is* 1st century and formed due to havign an actual dead guy wrapped in it. Do you have any idea how many guys were crucified in the 1st century?

> Sure, and the science of the Shroud is compelling as is the history

Indeed. The provenance of the shroud is indisputable, and goes back all the way to when Christ was crucified in 1357.

> The point of this thread has been to understand and discuss the second image on the Shroud.

So capilary action drew the image dye to the other side. Whoop-de-crap, big hairy deal.

> Does the Shroud affect my faith? No...

But it does seem to consume you. Why do I have this image of Gollum?

[shroudie]

It is time to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. I am truly wasting my time replying.

You are ignoring the science. Capillary action of a dye, ink or paint through the cloth would leave imaging throughout the cloth. You are ignoring the fact that the image is superficial to the outer crowns on the outmost fibers of the cloth faces. In other word capillary action will not work. You are also continuing to ignore the fact that numerous spectrographic tests, wet chemical analysis and microscopic examination have ruled out paint, dye, and ink.

As for how many people were crucified in the first century. Sometimes several thousand per month. But you fail to understand that almost all were not buried but left on crosses as carion or tossed into charnal pits, without benefit of Shroud. The Gospel accounts tell us that Jesus was an exception. Any shrouds that were used for a few would have decomposed in the tomb unless the tomb was empty. You might want to study up on 2nd-Temple burial practices in the environs of Jerusalem. Tombs were generally not opened for about a year for reburial of remains in ossuaries.

I realize that I am wasting my time replying to you. But it is fun. Shroudie