No, BroJoeK, they are not bogus.
Several researchers have stated that, under enhancement, the outline of a small phylactery appears to have been attached to the forehead between the eyes. This is the "open square" or "U" above the bridge of the nose in the image. That U or Square has been commented as appearing in many Iconic images that are thought to be created in the image of the Man on the Shroud such as the Christ Pantocrater. In addition, there appears to be the shadows of bindings of the arm phylactery on the image's right arm (left arm of the man), eclipsing some image features and blood stains under it.
"More recent investigations of the Shroud by Dr. Alan Whanger, Professor Emeritus of Duke University in North Carolina, utilizing modern scientific instrumentation such as the polarized image overlay technique, appear to reveal the presence of a tephillin- a Jewish phylactery or prayer box that contains a portion of Scripture - attached to the forehead and the right arm." Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, p.67
And more:
"When [Robert] Haralick [professor and director of the spatial data analysis laboratory] at Virginia Tech examined the Shroud image, he found that the object had "a non-physiological three-dimensional structure." He also detected a band extending around the head (on both front and dorsal images) at the level of this box. The Whangers believed that this box was a "phylactery" . . . The Whangers also found evidence of the phylactery the man wore on his left arm, after noting that the blood flow pattern on the left forearm was quite different from that on the right. It separated into seven streams, and they were convinced that this might have been the result of the presence of a leather strap. Ruffin, Bernard, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-to-date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic", Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, Huntington, Indiana, 1999, P. 108.
I have heard a couple of papers presented on the possibility. I would not state as a fact that they are present, but there are tantalizing hints that they are. I am keeping an open mind about the existence of phylacteries on the Shroud image.
The Wikipedia article says estimates of the figure's height range from 5 ft 9 inches to 6 ft 2 inches.
The Wikipedia estimates are inclusive of all of the various claims, including those of the skeptical crowd that tend toward the extreme 6 foot 2. This extreme is an estimate made by people who have never even touched the Shroud who then use it to "debunk" the shroud by comparing it to a false claim that average Jewish males were about 5'3" tall. I prefer to refer to the published and peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject rather than Wikipedia.
In 1999, Professor Giulio Fanti, Emanuela Marinelli, and Dr. Alessandro Cagnazzo, of the G. Colombo CISAS (Interdepartmental Center for Space Studies and Activities) of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Padua, published their findings in a peer-reviewed symposium. In an article and presentation entitled "Computerized anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud ", Fanti, et al., reported the results of multiple measurements of the positions and lengths of many body parts on the Shroud, including shin lengths (mid-buttocks to mid knee, mid-knee to ankle joint), arm lengths (shoulder to elbow, elbow to wrist), facial proportion to standard body sizes, and foot size, etc., all related to forensic proportional body size tables, were presented in peer-reviewed science published actual measurements of the image on the Shroud put the height of the man at about 174cm ±2cm (5'8.5" +/-1").
CONCLUSIONSAn anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Shroud was carried out making comparisons with bibliographic data and experimental research.
The images were acquired and elaborated to point out the outlines of the two imprints and to carry out the measurements corrected following the systematic effects found, like for instance those due to the cloth-body wrapping effect.
The height of the Man of the Shroud was obtained both directly measuring with digital techniques and comparing the most significant anthropometric indices with bibliographic data, and imposing the same kinematic conditions (angles of the knees and feet) in the frontal and dorsal imprint.
From the comparison among the anthropometric indices characteristic of different human races with those of the Man of the Shroud it was possible to point out that the Semitic race is the closest one to the characteristics obtained.
The tibio-femoral index, one of the most significant, calculated for the Man of the Shroud (equal to 83% ±3%) is completely compatible with the mean one quoted in bibliography (equal to 82.3%), the tibio-femoral index measured on three different copies of the Shroud (respectively equal to 115%, 105%, 103% ±4%) showed the incompatibility of the images painted by artists who at that time did not have enough anatomic knowledge.
The height of the Man of the Shroud turned out to be 174±2 cm (Emphasis mine—Swordmaker), the rotation angle of the knee (β+γ) equal to 24±2° and the rotation angle of the foot δ equal to 25±2°.
The frontal and dorsal imprints of the Man of the Shroud are anatomically superimposable.
For those who still claim that the Jews of the First Century were small of stature, the literature proves them wrong. Archaeologist William Meacham addressed the issue in his 1983 paper:
"The estimated height of the Shroud man at around 175-180 cm corresponds with the average height (178 cm) of adult male skeletons excavated in the 1st-century cemetery near Jerusalem (Haas 1970) and with the ideal male height of 4 ells (176 cm) according to an interpretation of the Talmud (Kraus 1910-11)."Meacham, W., The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology,, CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - Nº. 3, University of Chicago Press, June 1983.Dr. N. Haas of the Department of Anatomy, Hebrew University--Hadassah Medical School, is noted for finding the only known victim of crucifixion when he was examining and measuring the skeletons found in a 1st Century Jewish Cemetary in Jerusalem. His findings on the heights of the males skeletons of the 1st Century period is considered definitive for 1st Century Semitic Jews. His peer-reviewed article is: "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Gi’vat ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20:38-59, 1970. Unfortunately, it is not available on line. I read extracts from Haas article in Biblical Archaeology Review many years ago.
We also note that the image looks decidedly not Semitic, but rather northern European.
Anthropologists will disagree with you. "Carleton Coon (quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic." ibid Meacham.
