What factors point to the Turin Shroud being a fake?

...That level of detail by a forger is literally impossible to contemplate...

Actual coins and bills and even works of are are forged all of the time. The shroud doesn't have the clarity of any such object. To say it can't be faked is not scholarly.

I never expect precision from journalists. So, I can accept that there might be occasional spots on the reverse (outside) of the cloth -- perhaps from contact in ancient times -- even by the followers who first applied the shroud.

As to your,

"Another strange property, if we are looking at a radiation modality, is that the resolution of the image implies that whatever caused the image, radiated as if it came from a vertically 90º collimated radiation from every point on a plane sliced horizontally through the body, exhibiting almost zero deflection to (+/-1º) accuracy from vertical in Z axis in both the positive and negative directions."

It appears to me that interpretation requires that the shroud be held taut -- in a flat plane.

In my interpretation,the cloth is draped roughly to the contours ("high points") of the body, and that the body (intensely and uniformly radiant) emitted energy normal to every point on its 3-D contoured surface. The 3-D image is basically due to the inverse square radiation intensity law. That would explain a purely "scorched" negative image in the sizing.

IF there was an ablation/deposition component, its 3-d effect might be enhanced similarly. We found that the mean-free-path energy through air) of ablated particles/molecules fell off with a factor approaching the cube of the distance. (Absolute fidelity of pattern transfer required intimate contact between donor and [thermoplastic] acceptor surfaces.) With significant separation, the particles had lost sufficient energy to bond to/with the receptor surface...

Also, of course, we weren't depositing on soapwort sizing, either ... '-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As an (advanced avocational) archæologist, I tend to "'gedanken'-analyze" the shroud as I would any incredibly ancient and fragile artifact.

As a physical chemist, I can't help but see parallels between my photo-ablation imaging work and the shroud image formation.

As a Christian, I can't help but be gratified by what might be physical evidence of THE one most significant, energetic transformation / resurrection event in the history of humankind!

As an "unlimited-time creationist", I rejoice in the majesty of all of our Creator's handiwork. I "revere" no created object.

As a seventeenth-letter-level skeptic, the "shroud image" subject is near the top of "Questions to ask when I get there"... :-)

TXnMA

"...Walter C. McCrone's long debunked claims it was painted and the blood is nothing more than red ocher and vermillion in egg albumin tempera paint, based on looking only through an optical microscope,..."

LOL!!! What a crock! I once discovered a "fleam"...

between the fireplace and wall remnant of the ruins of a pioneer log cabin my archæology crew was documenting,

As prevalent as bloodletting was as an ancient therapy, even medieval fakers would have had no problem getting genuine human blood. Walter C. McCrone must have been a rabid "debunk at all cost" "shroud denier"... '-)

TXnMA

Thank you, I’m studying it now.

I think, Jenny’s conclusion is not supported by her own text. As she writes:

I agree. She gives the 1988 C-14 test the benefit of every doubt due to an over abundance of caution. I disagree. Falsification is falsification. It’s like being only a little bit pregnant. You are or you aren’t. When that failure of the Chi-squared tests cannot show conclusively that the sub-samples which were cut from the same master sample were not homogenous to each other, then there is no conclusive evidence that the master sample can be assumed to be homogenous with the Shroud itself. That alone throws the dating of the Shroud into doubt.

Ergo, Jenny’s conclusion that the C-14 dating must be considered as “still valid” is wrong.

Actual coins and bills and even works of are are forged all of the time. The shroud doesn't have the clarity of any such object. To say it can't be faked is not scholarly.

But so far, GingisK, no attempt to re-create the Shroud of Turin has been successful in duplicating all the features that must be met to qualify as a true recreation. None. . . and there have been literally hundreds of attempts in the past 120 years by artists, forgers, scientists, photographers, and others in many disciplines. Not a single one has been successful. To say it can’t be faked, can be scholarly, if no one can do so successfully. You’ve constructed a false equivalence.

One other interesting fact: The image is a negative image. People in the Middle Ages knew nothing about photography or imaging.

And you missed my point. The coin is a very small part of the overall evaluation, but let’s focus on it: a medieval forger decides that having a coin over the eye would be a nice touch. There in 14th century France, he happens to Know what a “wizard’s augur” coin which we now definitively know was minted during Pilate’s term as Procurator would look like, so he fakes one and uses it. We know from numerous examples that Pilate’s coins on the whole were poorly minted. Somehow the coin he faked is a replica of a subset (of which we have other extant examples today) that has a misspelling in the abbreviated name of the emperor. Even setting aside the issue of how advanced numismatics was in the Middle Ages (how would he know what he had?) all of this would need to be true in order for the coin image to be faked. FRiend, just slapping the “stuff can be faked” label on it doesn’t even come close to address this one little part of the overall constellation of issues with the shroud.

It appears to me that interpretation requires that the shroud be held taut -- in a flat plane.

The problem with the taut shroud in a flat plane, is that it wasn’t because there is some distortion in the image due to draping. It was semi-flat over the body in the frontal image so must have been somewhat supported by something. But also had to have had direct contact with the corpus including chest, arms, face, hair, legs, hands, etc., to allow for blood stain transfer. The 90º collimation is known because of the in-depth imaging where cloth contact was not possible, yet resolution is still distinct enough to obviate any deflection from the vertical.

We found that the mean-free-path energy through air) of ablated particles/molecules fell off with a factor approaching the cube of the distance. (Absolute fidelity of pattern transfer required intimate contact between donor and [thermoplastic] acceptor surfaces.) With significant separation, the particles had lost sufficient energy to bond to/with the receptor surface...

The cube diminution with distance works when you have a radiation from a central point in a spherical expansion, i.e. the amount of point energy is expanding to fill the volume of the sphere. It doesn’t work in a laser like light where there is no expansion of the coherent beam’s focus, i.e., all the available energy fills only the area of the column, not a spherical volume. Being parallel almost to infinity, the energy the of photons in a laser beam should remain the same in cross section along the entire length of the beam, so long as that laser’s beam diameter does not expand and it doesn’t encounter any absorption matter. So, TXnMA, is there a half-life/time period or distance, of whatever energy/radiation that is moving from this source in a collimated beam that, for all extents and purposes could be the equivalent of a laser/maser-like beam, attenuating as the cube of distance as if it were acting like a spherical radiation from a point source?

Some have postulated that the shroud image was created by a point source of energy within the body. This cannot work due to the angles from a point source just don’t work with the image we have before us. The spherical geometry doesn’t work out from any conceivable point source as projected outward to the points on the cloth. Anyone who has done any drawing with perspective would instantly see the problems of extending perspective with a vanishing point within the body. The distortion of the image on the cloth would be radical and that is just not there. However, it does work for a flat plane source in the body with the 90º collimated energy source equally released from every point on that plane.

I think of the plane I suggest in this way. Visualize a large flat LED video screen. Only this one has laser LEDs that have no ability to be seen except when viewed exactly 90º perpendicular to the plane of the screen. When looked at with one eye, only one pixel can be seen at a time with this screen. None of its neighbor pixels will spill over onto the area covered by it. Thus, if it were imprinting a wall in front of the screen, an exact copy in reverse of the display would be projected there of the exact size of the screen with no distortion from overlapping pixels from other laser LED spillage blurring the image. Now, point the lasers both directions, forward and backwards.

As a seventeenth-letter-level skeptic, the "shroud image" subject is near the top of "Questions to ask when I get there"... :-)

My viewpoint exactly. I’ll find out then. . .

As prevalent as bloodletting was as an ancient therapy, even medieval fakers would have had no problem getting genuine human blood. Walter C. McCrone must have been a rabid "debunk at all cost" "shroud denier"... '-)

A faker would have used pig’s, cow’s, or chicken’s blood, because as far as they were concerned blood was blood. They did not know there was any difference when it was spilled. They had no science to tell them it was different. Why would a faker bother to go to such a bother to bleed himself or someone else to put real human blood on his “fake” when an animal substitute would do just as well to fleece the rubes of their alms. In fact, why go to such artistic lengths as what we see on the Shroud either? The rubes artistic tastes were not nuanced, to say the least. A bloody sheet would have done just as well.

It was amazing how often McCrone changed his story about what he saw on his microscope slides. He was determined that his favorite tool was the solution for everything. . . and his vaunted expertise the answer as well. At one point he claimed the Red Ocher was a rouge manufactured in a process that had been invented by a French company in 1830! He knew this because of the consistency of the size of the particles. . . Unfortunately, no one but McCrone has ever been able to find such consistently sized Red Ocher particles on the Shroud, and certainly not in areas associated with the image.

McCrone even claimed he could accurately detect the dilution of the egg albumin tempera paint that was used to paint the Shroud, an impossibility according to all other microscopists and chemists. McCrone countered it might be impossible for all others, but his superior expertise on the microscope allowed him to be able to do it, but he refused to explain how.

Somehow the coin he faked is a replica of a subset (of which we have other extant examples today) that has a misspelling in the abbreviated name of the emperor. Even setting aside the issue of how advanced numismatics was in the Middle Ages (how would he know what he had?) all of this would need to be true in order for the coin image to be faked. FRiend, just slapping the “stuff can be faked” label on it doesn’t even come close to address this one little part of the overall constellation of issues with the shroud.

The question arises of why would a hypothetical forger feel the need to place a 29AD Pontius Pilate Caicaroc coin on the eye of the Man on the Shroud, somehow thinking that someday computerized enhancement of the image would bring out that image, validating it’s authenticity, 600 years later, is patently absurd.

In 1981, long after the coin on the Shroud was imaged, a genuine Pilate coin with the misspelling of Caesar name was found in a collection. Many shroud skeptics claimed the one in the collection was likely a fraud, a modern forgery intended to validate the image on the Shroud, ignoring that the collector’s coin had a provenance predating the imaging of the coin on the Shroud by decades. Some time after that another misspelled coin was excavated by a Jewish archaeologist in Jerusalem, proving the one in the collection was not a fraud made to validate the Shroud. More misspelled Pilate coins have been found extant in other collections since then.

Some skeptics also think this forger went to the additional prescient difficulty of acquiring some travertine aragonite limestone dust from outside the east gate of Jerusalem to place in the appropriate locations on the Shroud image, just to give it more verisimilitude, somehow knowing that some day a molecular geologist would find it and identify it. Apparently skeptics think this 14th century French polymath forger also found and collected the microscopic pollen from plants that only grew in the areas of Israel, including the pollen of one which went extinct circa 800AD, and placed those on the Shroud, knowing that Dr. Avanoim Danin, of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, one of the world’s foremost experts on the palynology of Levantine plants, who along with criminalist Dr. Max Frei who did his doctoral thesis on palynology, would find and identify them on the Shroud 600 years later?

At what point does all of this become beyond belief in the existence of a mythical 14th century, unknown, unsung artistic forger genius who knew everything there could possibly be known to be able to create this wonderous masterpiece work of art? At some point the Shroud becomes more of a miracle as a hoax than if it were really what it purports to be.

I'm a newbie. This was one of my first posts. Frankly, I thought that it would take several weeks before I would provoke someone into kicking my ass. … I had found a forum discussing about whether or not the Shroud of Turin was fake. Before I retired I was a Medical Photographer for the College of Medicine at two prominent Universities in the US. I have NO doubt that the Shroud of Turin is real. … Interestingly enough there seems to be a prevailing sentiment that the image represented on the Shroud is none other than JESUS CHRIST, Creator of the Universe and everything in it. … I read from your reply that a coin was visible in the right eye of the person on the Shroud. In fact it was clear enough to identify the coin coming from a subset of coins minted during Pontius Pilate's reign. I had NEVER heard that! … In the spirit of advancing the discussion and contributing to the body of knowledge on the subject ( is the Shroud a fake? - who CARES if it is NOT JESUS! ) … How can we know? Let us read the writing on the wall .. . Your rely to me was thought out and I appreciate the time you spent writing it. … Class … CLASS! Everyone in your own seat. Mr. Swordfish, would you explain to everyone what, “Disambiguation” means. “Certainly, your Honor. For those fellow classmates from Rio Linda that is another way of saying, ‘Attacking a straw man.’ It is a fallacious attempt at giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument while actually refuting an argument that was NOT presented by that opponent." … You admonished me in a very condescending manner I should not assume to know what Jewish burial customs were in the first century. Yet a few paragraphs later YOU said, "Before I argue against full-sheet burials in Biblical times .. ." Sir, are YOU NOT presuming to know WHAT I'm going to say? WHY would I make THAT argument???? ( cough cough "strawman" ) Just WHAT in my reply would POSSIBLY lead you to THAT conclusion???? … MY point was I do NOT believe the Shroud depicts JESUS CHRIST! I supported my opinion by quoting the Bible. You argued that it was a Jewish tradition to place coins over the eyes of the deceased because, "who wants to look at dead staring eyes?" Have you considered Isaiah 52:14? "His visage was so marred more than any man." He had been beaten, scourged and crucified! … Ruben! RUBEN! Get over here. I don't think I can handle these dead staring eyes. Sure thing Ruth. I just happen to have some coins that have Pontius Pilate's inscription on them. You know, the guy who could have stopped all THIS! … FINALLY ( raucous cheering ) We know from Biblical accounts that the TRADITIONS were not always followed. See Matt.12:1 … Sir, I think you are an excellent writer and I'm glad you are here with us on freerepublic. I think you just had a bad day and demonstrated how it is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. … May God bless you all.

there is no conclusive evidence that the master sample can be assumed to be homogenous with the Shroud itself.

Yes.

Linda Rio Drive? She is closing the sale of that house as we speak, having rented it for years? LOL!

You admonished me in a very condescending manner I should not assume to know what Jewish burial customs were in the first century. Yet a few paragraphs later YOU said, "Before I argue against full-sheet burials in Biblical times .. ." Sir, are YOU NOT presuming to know WHAT I'm going to say? WHY would I make THAT argument????

Sorry if you think it was condescending, but it has been my experience when someone starts with a post such as yours, when I provide a factual reply, the very next reply will be a response using a traditional English translation argument based on the Biblical “burial clothes” not meeting with the Shroud as being included, arguing “strips” and “bandages.” If I was wrong, I apologize. It was just many years of experience in replies that resulted in my response. I’ve found that being pro-active is better than spending a lot of time reacting. Perhaps, I should not have directed the response toward you but to skeptics in general, instead. I usually do that.

Thanks for your response. I, too, agree that science cannot determine whether the image on the Shroud is Jesus of Nazareth or not. It can only determine what about the Shroud’s image is factual or not factual. Scholarship on the Shroud can falsify other information. Biblical exegesis can shed light on it as well. So far, the evidence is falling on the side of authenticity.

As to your ascribing “Christian values” to Jews of the 1st Century, you please try to remember that “Christian values” had yet to appear and evolve. Those evolved over a two to four centuries or more period of letter writing and preaching based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, not to mention experience which developed into traditions, all while being persecuted by the Romans. As far as we know, Jesus did not speak a word of how His followers were to be buried, what was to be included, eschewed, etc., in such rituals. Ergo, Jesus was buried, as we were told, under the customs of the Jews, not the non-existent customs of Christians. Obviously, I am begging the question here, but as it would apply to the Shroud, it applies hypothetically.

By the way, welcome to FreeRepublic. Let me know if you’d like to be added to the Shroud of Turin Ping list to be notified of any future threads on the Shroud.

Let me guess...
You haven’t done much honest research on the Shroud....