NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AND THE SHROUD: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/fake_turin_shroud_deceives_national_geographic_author/
MEDIEVAL SHROUD WEBSITE
https://medievalshroud.com/how-was-it-done/
WARNING
The truth is that the Shroud has not been sufficiently well examined for a definitive description of the image making method to be derived. Far from being the most studied artefact of all time, all we actually have is a handful of photographs, a few spectroscopic analyses and some sticky tape slides, achieved by pressing tape so weakly onto the cloth that scarcely more than adventitious debris was removed. The fibres adhering were then so thoroughly cleaned in the process of extracting them from the adhesive that it comes as no surprise that almost nothing was discovered on them....
The next of the classic canards is that the image “does not penetrate the threads,” by which it is usually supposed that only the surface fibres – to a depth of two or three – of each thread carry the discolouration of the image, the rest remaining prisitine. The evidence for this is miserably lacking; some say it was discovered by the picking away of surface fibres in 1978, or by simple direct observation.
from https://medievalshroud.com/how-was-it-done/
THE ARGUMENT
The Turin Shroud is the most famous relic in the world. Millions believe that it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, bearing his crucified and bloodied image. The cloth is kept in Turin, Italy. It is an enigma, and many say it is a miracle.
Believers in the shroud boast that nobody can make anything exactly like it. But you don’t have to! It is enough to make something that has all its scientific characteristics. Perhaps the blood—applied with sponges or by some similar method—was what caused the Shroud to be regarded as a painting when it first appeared in the mid-1300s. This would explain why contemporary skeptical bishops described it as a painted work and even claimed to know the artist responsible. The blood is the most prominent feature of the image, and if it was daubed or dripped onto the cloth, that alone could have led observers to classify the Shroud as a painting.
There is no image below the blood now. That proves nothing. The forgers may have expected the blood to flake off over time, so they had to be careful and perhaps take preventative measures. It could be that the blood contained chemicals that dissolved the image underneath. Another possibility is that the blood was put on after the image had started to form. A chemical reaction could have removed the image under the treated blood. The image under the blood would have been very weak to start with anyway.
Shroud supporters object that the image is too vague to be just for display. But what right have they to say that when they don’t know the circumstances in which it was produced? Perhaps the Church acquired it from the makers before it was finished. Anything could have happened. The image can be seen adequately from a distance, so it sufficed as a display of Jesus. It might have been the best the forgers could do. If it had been too plain, it would have seemed too much like an artwork or drawing, making it harder to pass off as a real relic. The vagueness of the image close-up adds to its attractiveness and mystery.
Chemical by-products cause some features, but these could have been washed out of the Shroud. Washing the image would have ensured that the strongest image remained on the surface fibers of the cloth, while the weakest would have been washed away. Over time, it would fade. Time is what makes the Shroud a puzzle—nothing else. We cannot replicate the Shroud exactly because we cannot know what it went through since its origin.
Some suggest that using a hot metal relief to scorch the image is a possibility. The image does not penetrate beyond the top threads of the cloth, which suggests to some that it was burnt on by heat and is a type of scorch.
It is claimed that burns fluoresce, unlike the image of the Shroud, indicating that it is not a scorch mark. But when the image is so faint, it would be hard to tell if it could or could not fluoresce. It has been centuries since the scorch was made, and that must be considered.
Others note that scorches from the 1532 fire fluoresce while the Shroud image does not, arguing against it being a scorch. It is worth noting that the idea of the image being formed by miraculously caused radiation is nonsense. “No known radiation [is] capable of achieving the shallow penetration of the images” (Loftus, John W., ed. Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World’s Largest Religion. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, July 26, 2016. ISBN 978‑1‑63388‑173‑0.). Again, there is no fluorescence, which would exist if radiation caused the scorching. And the radiation would have to be strong, which would have ruined the cloth. I prefer the view that it might be a scorch, but a scorch unlike the usual kind. The mechanism involved more than heat; chemical changes may also explain the non-fluorescing.
It has been proven that images as good as, if not better than, the Shroud can be made by primitive photography, to mention one method among many.
We must remember that the image of “Jesus” is not the only image on the cloth. There are a few images of creases. If a crease can appear naturally—and nobody suggests God would miraculously make such an image—then the rest of the image is likely non-supernatural as well. The creases are evidence of man-made intervention to produce the image.
It is agreed that since the back image of the Shroud is not denser than the front, there was no body inside the cloth; a body lying in it would have made the back image the clearest due to pressure.
VOLCKRINGER
The image on the Shroud is not unique; similar images exist in every village. Jean Volckringer’s 1942 research is invaluable here. Like the Shroud, these images of dead flowers and plants are eerie, sepia-toned, and negative.
Linda Moulton Howe explains on WWW.SHROUD.COM
that the Volckringer Effect—when leaves pressed between pages of a book for many years leave images—produces similar 3-D effects and oxidation characteristics as the Shroud. Why she does not suggest that the image could have been made by arranging leaves to form Jesus’ image is a mystery. It is an odd scenario, but if it explains the image, so what?
The Effect has shocked people through history. If an artist thought it was a miracle, perhaps he was trying to recreate one. Howe argues this cannot happen naturally except miraculously with a body and that the Shroud image formed quickly. Nobody knows how long it took. Assuming it was fast requires assuming there was a real body, and there is no evidence for that.
A case where a man named Les died, leaving an imprint of part of his body on a bed that would not wash off, resembles the Shroud. The pressure of his body ruined the image, whereas there is no such distortion on the Shroud. There was no body in the cloth, and that is what matters.
Volckringer found that images appear and can even pass through to a second sheet below. The Shroud has two facial images: one very clear, one less so. He found that such images may not be apparent for several years.
The Effect raises a question: Did whoever made the image need years, perhaps decades, to do it? Nobody knows. Gelatin can make images, but more research is needed. It is affected by light, which aligns with how the Shroud looks as if produced by light.
It is possible the Shroud was two sheets, one overlaying the other. The top sheet with a good painting may have chemically affected the underlying cloth, producing the body image. When separated, the blood on top did not seep through, so the bottom image had to be touched up with blood.
SWEAT
Some experts claim the image was produced by sweat oxidizing. If so, why is the image so uniform? Did someone smear it with sweat? Why do parts of the body that don’t sweat clearly appear?
Perhaps someone discovered the effect accidentally, then painted the Shroud lightly with sweat to see what happened. Years later, the paint may have come off (assuming the cloth wasn’t washed), leaving only the print. This would create the impression of the sweat and blood of Christ. The result could have been worth a fortune. The blood was applied according to a diagram and placed after the image had formed.
Sweat mixed with streptococci bacteria could have created the image. Pro-shroud expert Professor Stephen Mattingly has replicated the Shroud using this method, which duplicates its features. He denies any miracle. This bacteria is responsible for yellowing similar to the Turin Shroud. However, the images in his experiments are distorted. Could Leonardo or someone else have figured out a way to use sweat and bacteria with linen, applying body heat on the other side to avoid distortion? This could explain how the image formed realistically. Twelve hours may have been needed for the image to bond to the cloth. Paint could then have been applied to enhance realism and later washed off, leaving only oxidation. The cloth was meant to appear as a relic of Jesus’ sweat and blood, inspired by the Veronica legend, where a woman wiped Jesus’ face, leaving a print.
MADE BY RUBBING PIGMENTS
Joe Nickell created Shroud-like images by rubbing pigment over a bas-relief. The result sat on top of the fibers, had 3-D qualities, and was quasi-negative, vague, and subtle in daylight. This could be described as “painting” in common terms. Perhaps this is what Bishop D’Arcis meant when he said the Shroud was painted by “cunning methods,” with the artist confessing. Other methods, like heating a bas-relief and pressing linen onto it, have produced results identical to the Shroud, possibly including scorch effects.
In The Skeptic’s Guide to the Paranormal, pages 29–31, several points refute the Shroud:
The Shroud is a negative image; such images can be created by bas-relief rubbing.
The blood has a chemical composition matching paint.
Iron oxide used for the red color has turned yellow in many places.
Irons and proteins found in the “blood” were available in medieval pigments.
Mercuric sulfide, used in pigments, is present on the Shroud.
Sodium and potassium, present in real blood, are absent in Shroud stains.
The weave of the linen was not used in first-century Palestine.
Pathologists and anatomists disagree that the Shroud is consistent with crucifixion or human anatomy.
The body appears too elongated.
There is disagreement about the 3-D data; some experts say it is artificial. Bas-relief rubbing can produce strange 3-D effects.
FINALLY
On www.shroud.com it is claimed scientists cannot explain the image—as if no scientist has. Of course, some can. The errors on the Shroud show it is man-made. That is what matters. We may never know the exact method, and at this point, it may not matter. It was created a long time ago, so it stands to reason we won’t figure it all out.