The Shroud of Turin:

Facts that Compel Belief

Be sure to read The Shroud of Turin: A Brief Introduction; Shroud of Turin: Historical Documentation; Shroud of Turin: Evidence against the Shroud’s Authenticity; and Shroud of Turin: Proving the Supernatural.

The medieval genius and reasons to believe

Let’s assume that the Shroud of Turin is a faked relic which was created around 1350, just shortly before its first universally accepted appearance. The contention then would be that an unknown artist or craftsman created an image of Christ that no one has ever been able to duplicate. In particular, and taking into consideration what we now know about the Shroud of Turin:

Creation of the image

1.  The forger was an artist or craftsman who surpassed the talents of all human beings to the present day, being able to produce an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography.

2.  Despite intense efforts from scientists, artists, skeptics and everyone else, no one has ever been able to duplicate the image on the shroud with all its unique and inexplicable features. Although his talents exceeded that of all artisans, past or present, including Leonardo DaVinci and Michelangelo, we know of no other work he produced, either before or after.

3.  No one has been able to advance any natural theoretical explanation as to how the image was created with all its features.

4.  All experts except one have concluded that the image and blood are not paintings. See the 1998 article from The journal of The Archaeological Institute of America and “The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses,” (the “Critical Summary;” Page 82). The only scientist who concluded the image and blood are paintings never examined the Shroud itself, but only the residue sticky tapes taken from the Shroud. He concluded that because there were pigment flakes and iron oxide present, they must be painted. The presence of pigment flakes and iron oxide makes perfect sense. Over the centuries duplicate images were painted and they would be draped over the Shroud to be sanctified. The presence of iron oxide is uniform throughout the Shroud and reflects the manner in which linen would be prepared in 1st century Palestine.

5..Since much of what he created was invisible to the naked eye, the forger created his masterpiece without being able to see what he was creating.

a.  The image is only visible as you pull away from the shroud to a distance of three feet.

b.  For centuries only a tiny fraction of what he had created could be seen. The master forger created the image so that no one (including the forger) could see the precise details of how the man of the shroud suffered and the savagery inflicted upon him until the invention of photography. All that was ever seen until 1898 was a ghostly image and the blood.

c.  Much of what he included in his rendition could not be seen or appreciated until 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, and computer analysis became available.

6.  The forger would have to have produced an image which under modern equipment (VP-8 image analyzer) reveals a 3-dimensional image – something that a photograph or painting or bas relief or any other artistic process cannot do.

7.  There is no image under the blood. This means the forger had to first paint or transfer the bloodstains to the Shroud before he created the image, strategically placing them so he could then paint or produce an image around the bloodstains.

8.  The forger created the image using lines approximately 1/100th the width of a human hair and produced the image on only the very topmost fiber threads of the shroud. The image is so superficial that if you were to shave it with a razorblade it would disappear. Blood, water and stains soak all the way through the cloth, but not the image itself. Additionally, he would have to have figured a way of imparting the image without brushstrokes.

9.  Then he did the same thing, but in subtler way, on the reverse side of the portion of the cloth bearing the face of Christ because the forger created two faces – one on the front that we all see, and the other a hidden face on the reverse side of the linen. This image was first reported in 2004 and corresponds to the front image but is much fainter. And this image, like the front image, is completely superficial to the topmost crown fibers of the cloth. “Because both images are superficial (meaning there is no image or colorant of any kind between the two image layers on the extreme outer faces of the cloth) and because the images are in registry with each other, all so-far-proposed fakery proposals are moot. The images are not paintings and not some form of medieval proto-photography.” See Second Face on the Shroud of Turin.

The image of the crucified man

1.  In 1350 or thereabouts, the forger knew exactly what the Roman whip tipped with dumbbell shaped bone or metal looked like and how it would impart wounds upon the flesh, being delivered alternately by two Romans. Then, he incorporated these details into the image, but in a way that no one could see until the image was photographed and the negative developed in 1898. Moreover, “there are scratches in the flesh that appear in the area of the dumbbell-shaped wounds. These scratches are only visible when illuminated by ultraviolet light!” Critical Summary, page 49.

2.  The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders so that 20th century forensic examiners could determine that the man in the shroud had carried a heavy weight following the scourging. There could be no doubt. The artist was trying to trick scientists 600 years in the future into believing this was Jesus.

3.  The forger accurately portrayed the nails going through (or at least exiting) the wrists rather than the palms as in all other medieval representations. He also understood that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward because of the spikes passing through the heel of the hand. Consequently, he did not show Jesus’ thumbs.

4.  The forger had the unheard-of ability in the mid-1300’s to create images of the metacarpal bones under the skin all the way to the wrist, detectable only by ultraviolet photographs, backlit photographs, and contrast enhanced images. Edge enhanced images show the metacarpal bones quite clearly. Critical Summary, pages 78-79.

5.  The forger duplicated crucifixion blood flow patterns from the wrists, arms, and feet in perfect forensic agreement to the exact crucifixion position.

6.  Against all convention of medieval artistry, the master craftsman or artist created a nude Jesus to conform to Roman crucifixion practice.

The blood

1.  The forger used AB Blood so that it would match the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain (see The Sudarium Confirms the Shroud).

2.  The forger knew that blood with elevated amounts of bilirubin is indicative of a violent death. He then elevated the amounts of bilirubin in the blood on the Shroud to conform the image so that they could retain their reddish color and conform the image to 20th century science.

Creative genius and attention to detail

1.  The forger was clever enough to salt the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of our 20th century palynological analysis.

2.  The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt on the feet, one knee, and the nose consistent with the calcium carbonate soil around Jerusalem. The dirt on the nose and knee was a particularly nice touch because it demonstrated that Jesus fell while carrying the cross.

The linen shroud

1.  “The weave and particular stitching are very distinctive and rare. Nothing comparable to the Shroud has been found that originated in medieval Europe. The late John Tyrer, a textile researcher in Manchester England studied the X-radiographs of the Shroud and stated: ‘the Shroud is a very poor product by comparison (to medieval European fabrics). It is full of warp and weft weaving defects. The impression I am left with is that the cloth is a much cruder and probably earlier fabric than the backing and patches. This I think lifts the Shroud out of the Middle Ages more than anything I have seen about the textile.’” Critical Summary, pages 58-59.

2.  “The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was done in 1988 under the project management of the British Museum. Michael Tite, the lead manager on the project for the British Museum, conducted a thorough search for a control sample from the middle ages that would reasonably match the Shroud. ‘He could find nothing.’ On the other hand, archaeologists have discovered ancient wool artifacts with a herringbone weave similar to the Shroud. The artifacts were found in the ruins of a Roman fort in Egypt that dated from the 1st century. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, the textile expert who was in charge of the 2002 Shroud preservation project in Turin, has said that even though the Shroud has many weaving defects, the herringbone weaving pattern itself would have been considered very special in antiquity in Palestine.” Critical Summary, page 59.

3.  “The cloth is consistent with fabrics from first-century Israel, but not with medieval Europe. A forger would have had to not only forge the image, but would have had to have detailed knowledge of linen weaves of the first century and then not only reproduce it, but age it convincingly.” “Turin Shroud: the latest evidence will challenge the sceptics” In view of the nature of the linen and the unique herringbone weave described in the above paragraphs 1-2, the forger’s unsurpassed talent and genius extended to textiles. There was no room for do-overs; the image in all its staggering detail would have to have been created right the first time, with no opportunity for corrections.

4.  There is a full-length strip of linen sewn on the side of the Shroud. The stitching pattern of the seam is similar to that discovered in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. “The Masada cloth has been convincingly dated to between 40 B.C. and 73 A.D.”  Critical Summary, page 61.

This is only a partial list of the characteristics and issues the forger who lived some 150 years prior to Columbus’ discovery of America would have to have created or anticipated and solved.

Some websites and references

Last modified July 25, 2019