Turin Shroud Back Side Shows Face

Discovery Channel News ^ | April 11, 2004 | Rossella Lorenzi

[shroudie]

A new study will be published on Tuesday by one of the peer reviewed scientific journals of the Institute of Physics, "The Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics." This may be one of the most revealing discoveries in the last few years in addition to the debunking of the carbon 14 testing and the discovery of the images chemical nature.

Giulio Fanti, professor of Mechanical and Thermic Measurements at Padua University and main author of the study, told Discovery News in an interview:

"On both sides, the face image is superficial, involving only the outermost linen fibers. When a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle. It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features."

[Preachin']

There will always be unknowns about the "shroud".

What I'll never doubt is that I am filled with the Holy Spirit.

While it is true that true excavation discoveries always scientifically support the bible, this shroud is a waste of time. In the end, what does it help if it is true?

If it is the real deal, we'll never know it in this life, and its existence doesn't help make one single person a better example for Christian living.

[Preachin']

I'm amazed at the pious scorn of some who act like Jesus did not in fact come to earth and work miracles.

But there is a difference in the request for the miracle. Some had real needss and went out of there way to seek His compassion. Others were merely religous people who were continually attempting to set Him up for a fall.

Seeking a sign and praying for a needed miracle are not the same thing.

[knuthom]

When a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle. It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features."

I think it would show the opposite. The genuine article should have something on the fibers between the top and bottom. Otherwise how would the image get to the underside, except if seeping through the cloth? It would have had to come from the complete opposite direction.

I think a fake would be more likely to look like this. It would not have been hard to line up the images if one held the cloth up to the light when working from the back.

[cyncooper]

Like the water into wine? It was done to show a sign, not help people in need. Pressing need of compassion, that is, per your guidelines.

[AdmSmith]

PBS "Secrets of the Dead" Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud

Friday, April 9, 2004

Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

Although science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of Turin
is a medieval fake, die-hard shroud enthusiasts continue to claim otherwise.
Just in time for Easter 2004 viewing, a PBS television documentary that
aired Wednesday, April 7, gave them a forum to state their conviction that
the image on the cloth is a first-century picture--miraculous or
otherwise--of Jesus' crucified body.

As part of the Secrets of the Dead series, the "Shroud of Christ?"
presentation was a study in pseudoscience, faulty logic, and the suppression
of historical facts. Omitted were mention of the contrary gospel evidence,
the reported forger's confession, and the microanalytical analyses that
showed the "blood" and "body" images were rendered in tempera paint.
Unsubstantiated claims were presented as fact, and the radiocarbon
results--which dated the cloth to the time of the forger's confession--were
treated in straw-man fashion: presented as virtually the sole impediment to
authenticity.

Knowledgeable skeptics were avoided. Instead, viewers were subjected to the
astonishingly absurd notion of an art historian named Nicholas Allen that
the image was "the world's first photograph." (The technique was supposedly
invented to make a fake shroud and then conveniently lost for subsequent
centuries!)

The intellectual incompetence or outright dishonesty of the show's producers
is matched only by that of the PBS executives who foisted it on a credulous
Easter-season audience.

The following facts are an antidote to that scientific and historical
revisionism:

- The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths
(including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound
weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.

- No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date
from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in
any case.

- The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when
it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had
obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.

- The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope
Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a
faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud
credulous pilgrims.

- The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the
fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being
attested by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).

- Although, as St.Augustine lamented in the fourth century, Jesus'
appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional
artistic likeness.

- The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and
there is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the
cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The
hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint
of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it
belongs.

- The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting
the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks.
Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the
cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with
age.

- In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood"
to a battery of tests-for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc.
The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious,
reddish granules.

- Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the
"blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the
entire image had been painted.

- In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different
laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results
were in close agreement and yield a date range of A.D.1260-1390, about the
time of the reported forger's confession.

Defenders of the shroud's authenticity have rationalizations for each
damning piece of evidence. For example, they assert that microbial
contamination might have altered the radiocarbon date, although for an error
of thirteen centuries, there would have to be twice as much contamination by
weight as the cloth itself! Beginning with the desired answer, they work
backward to the evidence, picking and choosing and-all too often-engaging in
pseudoscience.

In contrast, the scientific approach allows the preponderance of evidence to
lead to a conclusion: the shroud is the work of a medieval artisan. The
various pieces of the puzzle effectively interlock and corroborate each
other. In the words of Catholic historian, Ulysse Chevalier, who brought to
light the documentary evidence of the Shroud's medieval origin, "The history
of the shroud constitutes a protracted violation so often condemned by our
holy books: justice and truth." []

For more information on the Shroud of Turin and other allegedly miraculous
images of Jesus of Nazareth, visit the new "Miraculous Self-Portraits of
Jesus?" Feature Exhibit on the Skeptiseum (www.skeptiseum.org).

Joe Nickell, Ph.D. is CSICOP's Senior Research Fellow and an expert on the
Shroud of Turin. He is author of Inquest on the Shroud of Turin (Prometheus
1983, 1998) and numerous articles, including "Blooming 'Shroud' Claims"
(Skeptical Inquirer, Nov./Dec. 1999) and "Pollens on the 'Shroud': A Study
in Deception" (Skeptical Inquirer Summer 1994).

[AdmSmith]

Here is the link http://www.skeptiseum.org/

[cyncooper]

And walking on water...that was not done at the request of some needy person...

Fishes and loaves? Didn't have to be done, as the crowd could have dispersed to find food.

The fact is that Jesus performed miracles as signs as well as miracles of healing.

[Preachin']

Turning water into wine was certainly MUCH more than a sign. It was in truth a prophetic picture of Christ's ministry, or a teaching.

There were six waterpots of stone which represent man's heart. The stone represents its hardness, while the number represents man, being short of God's number (seven).

It would take forever to lay it all out, but is says alot the transition from law (and tradition) to grace, as the waterpots themselves were used for purification before eating.

The story was a picture of the fact that the Lord fills us to the brim when we ask Him.

We see that there is a latter church that will be greater than the former, as the best wine was saved for last.

This miracle was done in such a way, as it it was His first miracle. Christ Jesus had a lot to say that day.

I am sorry that I didn't spell out the whole miracle(and that's what it was), but my time is limited to short increments today.

[anniegetyourgun]

I don't disagree with either one of you. But it's important to note that this generation has all it needs to believe. Those who don't believe have simply made their decision to reject Him. Woe unto those.

[nuconvert]

Thanks for link...I'll check it out in a bit. But this Shroud stuff has been debunked already. Wishing it doesn't make it so.

[Preachin']

And walking on water...that was not done at the request of some needy person...

Fishes and loaves? Didn't have to be done, as the crowd could have dispersed to find food.

The fact is that Jesus performed miracles as signs as well as miracles of healing.

I never said otherwise. I said that there is a difference between those who want a sign in order to believe, and those who He blessed because they already did. I also said that the shroud can never be proved as Christ's, and will also never make us better Christians. It's study is a waste of time.

In each case you listed above, the people were already accustomed to His miracles. The difference between them and the religious leaders is that they received His teaching. This is why He did the miracles.

The miracles were done to help illustrate a point, like Peter's faith (in the area of walking on the water). He fed the masses out of compassion, and the scripture tells us that in specific terms.

You can't demonstrate one miracle that He id that did not have a teaching hidden in the Spirit, or that told a hidden story. These were all done with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and it is His role to glorify Christ and teach us about Him.

[rwfromkansas]

Alright, we know several things.

1. It comes from the period of Jesus.
2. It comes from the area Jesus came from.
3. If it is a fake, it is an incredibly good one.

There is a dead man on this shroud. It may not be Jesus, but somebody is on there with an incredible skill if it is simply painted on (IIRC there was blood on it even...maybe wrong here....but if so, how could somebody just have painted a guy on there...come on.)

I am constantly amazed at how much shroud disbelievers will go to try to disprove it despite the evidence.

I am not saying it is the burial shroud of Jesus. What I am saying is that it would be the forgery of the millennium, so skilled that it would be hard to imagine a person of the first century doing it.

[cyncooper]

I think you're making assumptions about what I (and others)know, what I think, what I believe, and how that faith came to be.

You also assume you know how people approach viewing the shroud. Surely you don't advocate its destruction to bar anyone from studying it or just plain viewing it, I would guess, so spare me your "lessons" which you present in a superior and condescending tone.

Have a great day.

[rwfromkansas]

Old studies led to a belief that it was fake.

That is simply not the case anymore. Evidence is mounting that it is real.

[shroudie]

How do we possibly respond to Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and professional magician. Is it possible that PBS and everyone else ignores him for a reason, except his organization which is committed to also debunking the resurrection and anything else not 100% secular. BTW Carl Sagan was a founder of this organization. The man is out of touch with the science and the history. And he has a tendency to be highly selective with evidence.

The following facts are an antidote to that scientific and historical revisionism:

Actually we are not talking about revisionism. He sides generally with the revisionists such as John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who even deny that Jesus was buried. Then he uses scripture to support his positions. Good grief.

- The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.

Yes. The Gospel of John describes multiple cloths and indeed there is very likely a napkin involved. It may be the Sudarium of Oviedo. Not one Shroud researcher feels that there were not other cloths involved including binding strips of linen “as was the custom of the Jews.” This is how ultra-liberal skeptics will argue by misrepresenting facts. As for the burial spices there is some debate in the science community as to whether they are detected on the Shroud. They are probably not found on the Shroud and there is nothing in scripture that says that they were used. They were purchased and we know that the women intended to use them when they found the tomb empty.

- No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.

Actually, just the opposite is so. Metchild Flurry-Lemberg has found sample of similar cloth and unique stitching in the Masada fortress that fell in 73 AD. No samples of 3 over 1 Herringbone have been found among European cloths.

- The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.

See Mozarabic Rite and History

- The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.

- The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).

We are talking about the d’Arcis Memorandum claiming that an artist painted it. Knowing that this was a time notorious for its unscrupulous market in fake relics, the bishop’s memorandum seems to have a whiff of truthfulness to it. But the relic marketplace may also be the basis for doubting the veracity of the memorandum. Pilgrims were a source of revenue and people were flocking to Lirey to see the Shroud rather than nearby Troyes and its collection of relics. Pierre, interestingly, states that his intent was not competitive. Why? Did he realize that others were voicing suspicions about his motives? Pierre claimed that his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in which a painter had confessed to painting the Shroud. Pierre did not have first hand knowledge of this artist; the artist is unnamed. There is no evidence of such an inquest in contemporaneous documents. Pierre stated that Henri had the Shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. According to other documents, it was removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area. The memorandum must be understood and assessed in the light of several documents of the same period and in the context of the political situation in the region. At least eight documents challenge the veracity of the d’Arcis Memorandum. There are other problems as well. All existing copies of the memorandum are unsigned and undated drafts. The copy at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris includes a heading stating that it is a letter that Pierre intends to write. It is definitely a draft with Latin annotations in the margins. It is unlikely that it was ever sent to Clement as no properly signed or sealed copies of the document can be found in the Vatican or Avignon archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was never received. Numerous classicist and historians find the document questionable.

See Bishop Henri letter to Geoffroy I de Charny, dated 28 May 1356; Letter from King of France Charles VI to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 4 August 1389; Report of the Bailly of Troyes, dated 15 August 1389; Letter from the First Sergeant of the King to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 5 September 1389; Clement's letter to Bishop d'Arcis, dated 6 January 1390; Papal Bull of Clement VII, dated 6 January 1390; Papal Bull also dated 1 June 1390. See Scavone, Dietz, Markwardt, Latendresse, Dreisbach, Guscin, Marino, Marinelli, Zaninotto, “Deconstructing the ‘Debunking’ of the Shroud,” 1999. Also Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief to Geoffroy II, dated 28 July 1389

- Although, as St.Augustine lamented in the fourth century, Jesus' appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness.

True. See history at History at

- The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and there is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.

See forensics at Forensics at

- The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.

Not true. See above.

- In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood" to a battery of tests-for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules.

That was 1973. See above.

- Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.

Ridiculous. See above

- In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of A.D.1260-1390, about the time of the reported forger's confession.

See Carbon 14 Tests

Enough said. Nickell will never rests until he debunks everything there is to debunk in Christianity. The Shroud has nothing to do with his attitudes.

Shroudie

[cyncooper]

But it's important to note that this generation has all it needs to believe.

I agree. But if the shroud belonged to Jesus, then it was created well before this generation, and it would be God's will that the image survive to be seen.

That is if it's authentic.

[an amused spectator]

The following facts are an antidote to that scientific and historical revisionism:

- The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.

Oops! Note to debunking guy: Do a little reading so you don't fall on your face with your first debunking "factoid". ;-)

[an amused spectator]

- No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.

I guess Joe's nickel PhD trumps the knowledge of Swedish textile expert Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She must have been so busy being awed by the stitching "forgery" that she forgot to look at the actual cloth. ;-)

[an amused spectator]

Enough said. Nickell will never rests until he debunks everything there is to debunk in Christianity. The Shroud has nothing to do with his attitudes.

To paraphrase Ann Coulter: This guy Nickell simply doesn't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to his incessant misrepresentations.

I didn't even spend really serious time blowing holes in his "argument".

[Preachin']

I believe that you need to be specific on how you deem this condescending.

I think that you just have a tough time being challenged.

I can't see how you've proved or challenged the points I made from the scripture. Please feel free to do so and I'll discuss them with you.

Saying that I am condescending is nothing less than name calling. I was challenged to make my point, and I went through some effort to do it.