3D analysis reveals Shroud of Turin image likely came from sculpture, not Jesus body

[Athetotheist]

Here's the latest:
https://archaeologymag.com/2025/08/shro ... sculpture/

[otseng]

Turin Shroud formed by a bas-relief: same old hoax

Emanuela Marinelli

The recurring claim that the image on the Shroud is fake has, this time, been based on a study lacking scientific merit. This proves only one thing: the Holy Shroud is a thorn in the side of those who are allergic to Christ.

With truly suspicious timing, just as the important Holy Shroud conference in St Louis, Missouri, USA, is taking place, ANSA has released a sensational news item claiming that the image on the Shroud is an artistic work created using bas-relief. The claim comes from the Brazilian Cicero Moraes, who is known for his three-dimensional computer reconstructions of the faces of historical figures.

For his claims on the Shroud, Moraes limited himself to creating a computer reconstruction of the image 'using open-source (and free) software available for download'. He published this article in Archaeometry, which incredibly was accepted as a scientific work even though it does not meet the requirements of a scientific publication. In fact, it fails to consider all aspects of the Shroud: a linen cloth bearing microtraces of various kinds, including Middle Eastern pollen, aloe, myrrh and aragonite identical to that found in the caves of Jerusalem; human blood left by the corpse wrapped in the cloth; and a very superficial oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose that makes up the fabric, formed after the blood had stained the fabric. Despite the characteristics of the image on the shroud, which are consistent with those of a photographic negative and encoded three-dimensional information, Moraes states that it was created in the Middle Ages.

Moreover, he himself admits the glaring bias of his work: 'The study does not address physical or chemical aspects related to the formation of the image, such as the presence of pigments, microscopic analysis, or the properties of the fabric materials. Nor does it investigate the dynamics of bodily fluids, such as blood flow'. The focus is strictly methodological, centred on digital modelling and comparative evaluation of the contact patterns observed.

Moraes does not even attempt to reconstruct the correct position of the hands and feet, which are mirrored on the shroud. 'The mirrored position of the model has been maintained, since the hand originally positioned above is the left hand, not the right, as in the current study model. This approach simplifies the creation of visual material. With this minimalist approach, he is certainly not concerned about the bowed head and bent knees of the Man of the Shroud. His model is completely stretched out, with the right hand on the left and the right foot on the left, contrary to what can be deduced from the Shroud. He does not make a model of the dorsal image either, because why waste time on it? For him, it is already fine as it is.

The presence of blood does not bother him either as he believes it is fake. He is clearly referring to the summer hoax of 2018 by Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli, who deemed the bloodstains on the Shroud implausible. I also spoke about this at the time, as the news was picked up by newspapers around the world. However, at least Borrini and Garlaschelli conducted experiments in an attempt to achieve something concrete. Garlaschelli himself invited people to read the article, writing on his blog: 'The article also includes colour photos of me in my underwear'. A sight we would gladly have spared ourselves! However, it is worth noting that, according to Garlaschelli, he did not charge for this article, unlike the one he wrote in the past.

Moraes, on the other hand, is lazy. He merely simulates the fabric on a computer. He simply aims to deny the presence of a corpse, claiming that a contact image is distorted. However, this has been known for some time because what we see is an orthogonal projection of the body. The yellowing of the cloth is only 1/5 of a thousandth of a millimetre deep and can be explained by orthogonal ultraviolet radiation. But, Moraes does not like this explanation and ignores it. Unsurprisingly, Moraes makes no mention of the numerous scientific publications by the Shroud of Turin Research Project that refute his claims.

In his stubborn attempt to prove that the Shroud is fake, Moraes also draws attention to the anatomical inconsistencies allegedly demonstrated in an article published in Archaeometry last summer and signed by Elio Quiroga Rodrguez. However, he remains silent on the criticism of that work published by Tristan Casabianca, Louis Cador and myself in Archaeometry. It is incredible that the referees of Archaeometry would accept this approach. It is also surprising that a scientific journal would accept a computer game as serious work without much effort.

Equally surprising is the fact that the news goes viral and bounces from one newspaper to another without any criticism of the content. Even serious newspapers are spreading it; for example, La Stampa and La Repubblica in Italy where the Holy Shroud is preserved. Everything is taken at face value and fed to the public. Journalists have reduced themselves to mere word of mouth. Sometimes, even worse, they inflate the news or give voice to another supposed expert to enlighten us further. According to La Stampa, the work was conducted by 'a team led by international expert Cicero Moraes'. La Repubblica gives space to the inevitable comment by denialist historian Andrea Nicolotti: Cicero Moraes is right, but his research is not particularly revolutionary. We have known for at least four centuries that the image on the Shroud could not have been created through contact with a three-dimensional body.

Thus, the general public is left disoriented and in total confusion by orchestrated hoaxes and false certainties. This is the situation, but we must react " and we are doing so " in everyone's interest. One thing is certain: the Shroud is a considerable nuisance in certain circles that are allergic to Jesus Christ. This is the greatest proof that the Shroud is authentic.

https://newdailycompass.com/en/turin-sh ... e-old-hoax

[otseng]

The Blaze - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check https://share.google/PpyqBeHDwIf1T9BkL

Sure, the Blaze can be biased, but it doesn't address the contents of the article.

[otseng]

Author: Otangelo Grasso, written with AI assistance
Date: 4 August 2025
Journal: Response to Archaeometry Publication (First published: 28 July 2025)

Executive Summary

This peer review provides a comprehensive analysis of Cicero Moraes' digital simulation study that attempts to demonstrate the Shroud of Turin's image resulted from contact with a medieval bas-relief sculpture rather than a human body. While Moraes' application of open-source digital tools represents a technological innovation, his study suffers from fundamental scientific flaws that render his conclusions invalid. Most critically, Moraes ignores the established requirement that any viable formation theory must simultaneously satisfy over 80 documented physical, chemical, and forensic properties"a mathematical impossibility for any medieval artistic technique.

Understanding Moraes' Stated Objectives

Primary Research Goals

Moraes explicitly states his study aims to:

Create digital comparison models: Generate 3D simulations of cloth contact with both a human body and a low-relief sculpture
Analyze contact patterns: Map fabric-surface interactions using open-source software (MakeHuman, Blender, CloudCompare)
Demonstrate artistic feasibility: Prove that medieval artists could have created the Shroud image using bas-relief techniques
Refute body-contact theory: Show that cloth wrapping a human body would create distortions not seen on the Shroud
Support medieval dating: Reinforce the 1988 carbon-14 dating placing the Shroud's creation between 1260-1390 AD

Methodological Scope Limitations

Moraes acknowledges significant limitations in his approach:

"The study does not address physical or chemical aspects related to the image's formation, such as the presence of pigments, microscopic analyses, or material properties of the fabric, nor does it investigate the dynamics of bodily fluids, such as blood flow. The focus is strictly methodological, centered on digital modeling and the comparative evaluation of the observed contact patterns."
This admission reveals the fundamental flaw in Moraes' methodology: he deliberately excludes the most important scientific evidence that distinguishes the Shroud from any known artwork. By limiting his analysis to geometric modeling while ignoring physical and chemical evidence, Moraes commits the equivalent of studying the Mona Lisa solely through digital reproduction while ignoring paint analysis, canvas composition, and brushstroke patterns.

The 42 Scientific Requirements: Moraes' Critical Oversight

The Unified Scientific Framework

Recent comprehensive analysis has identified 42 specific physical, chemical, and forensic requirements that any valid Shroud formation mechanism must simultaneously satisfy. These requirements represent fundamental properties documented through decades of scientific investigation:

The 42 Critical Requirements Include:
Image Formation Properties: Superficial depth (0.2 micrometers), blood precedence, single-sided imaging, 3D encoding, photographic negative characteristics
Chemical Composition: Complete absence of pigments, binary fibril oxidation states, molecular-level precision, selective cellulose targeting
Blood Evidence: Human blood composition, proper clotting patterns, blood-first chronological sequence, forensic accuracy
Physical Characteristics: Orthogonal projection, distance correlation, uniform technique, no thermal damage, environmental stability
Forensic Documentation: Anatomically accurate trauma patterns, scourge wound characteristics, crucifixion-specific injuries

Moraes' Selective Evidence Approach

Moraes' study addresses fewer than 10% of these documented requirements, focusing solely on geometric contact patterns while ignoring the 90% of evidence that eliminates medieval artistic creation:

Requirements Moraes Addresses:
Geometric cloth-body interaction (partially)
Absence of lateral imaging (misinterpreted)
Distance correlation with brightness (ignored)
Orthogonal projection properties (misunderstood)

Critical Requirements Moraes Ignores:
Superficial depth requirement: Image confined to 0.2 micrometers of fibril surface"impossible with any bas-relief contact method
Binary fibril oxidation: Each fibril either completely oxidized or untouched, creating halftone effect through density variation
Complete absence of artistic materials: Zero traces of paint, dye, pigment, or binding medium despite extensive STURP analysis
Blood-image chronology: Blood deposited before image formation, with no image beneath bloodstains
Molecular precision: Selective targeting of specific cellulose components while leaving other materials unaffected
3D information encoding: VP-8 Image Analyzer reveals three-dimensional topographical data encoded in image intensity
Photographic negative properties: Appears as photographic negative"concept unknown in medieval period
Non-thermal formation: No fluorescence under UV light, unlike genuine fire damage from 1532
Distance correlation: Image intensity correlates with cloth-to-body distance, not contact pressure

Mathematical Improbability of Moraes' Bas-Relief Theory

The Binary Fibril Challenge

Shroud image formation operates through binary fibril states"each individual fibril is either completely oxidized (yellowed) or completely unmodified, with no intermediate states. This creates a halftone effect at the microscopic level where image darkness is determined by the number of oxidized fibrils per unit area.

Statistical Analysis:
Image-bearing fibrils: Approximately 5.93 million individual fibrils in the body image areas
Binary control requirement: Each fibril requires precise binary decision (oxidize or leave untouched)
Information complexity: 30 bits per fibril accounting for spatial positioning, anatomical coherence, 3D topographic encoding, and front/back image congruence
Total information content: 5.93 million 30 bits = 177.9 million bits (22.2 megabytes)
Raw probability calculation: 2177,900,000 1053,500,000 possible configurations
Refined impossibility threshold: Under generous assumptions accounting for anatomical coherence requirements, the probability of random formation remains 1 in 102,895,395

Any bas-relief contact method would require:
Individual fibril-level precision at 0.2 micrometer depth across 5.93 million discrete points
Selective molecular targeting without affecting adjacent materials
Binary oxidation control mechanisms unknown to medieval chemistry
Encoding of 22.2 MB of 3D anatomical information through contact pressure variations

Convergent Improbability Analysis

Moraes' bas-relief theory must simultaneously achieve:
Binary fibril control: 1 in 102,895,395 probability for anatomically coherent pattern across 5.93 million fibrils
Chemical precision: Selective cellulose oxidation without pigments at 0.2 micrometer depth
Blood integration: Coordination with pre-existing blood patterns maintaining forensic accuracy
3D encoding: Distance-to-intensity correlation encoding 22.2 MB of topographic data through contact
Anatomical accuracy: Forensic precision in trauma documentation across multiple wound types

Fundamental Flaws in Moraes' Methodology

1. The "Agamemnon Mask Effect" Misinterpretation

Moraes correctly identifies that wrapping cloth around a 3D body creates distortion (the "Agamemnon Mask effect"), but fundamentally misinterprets its significance. Rather than supporting his bas-relief theory, this observation has been recognized by Shroud researchers for decades as evidence that the image formation was not a simple contact process.

The absence of such distortion on the Shroud supports sophisticated formation theories such as physicist John Jackson's "collapse theory""where instantaneous dematerialization would explain:
Why only frontal features are captured (body disappeared before wrap-around)
The vertical collimation characteristics observed in the image
The orthogonal projection without perspective distortion
The encoded 3D information without contact-induced deformation

2. Digital Simulation vs. Physical Reality

Moraes' digital cloth simulation cannot replicate the actual physical and chemical processes that created the Shroud image:

Oversimplified physics: Digital cloth behavior cannot account for 0.2-micrometer fibril-level interactions across millions of decision points
Missing chemistry: No simulation of the binary oxidation mechanism that created the actual coloration
False correlation: Visual similarity in digital simulation does not prove formation mechanism
Scale mismatch: Macro-level contact modeling cannot explain micro-level precision requirements for 22.2 MB data encoding

3. Selective Evidence Presentation

Moraes commits fundamental scientific errors through selective evidence presentation:

Cherry-picking supportive studies: Cites researchers who support medieval dating while dismissing STURP's comprehensive findings
Ignoring contradictory evidence: Focuses on geometric problems while ignoring chemical and forensic evidence
Accepting questionable dating: Uncritically accepts 1988 C14 results despite documented contamination evidence
Mischaracterizing opposition: Dismisses authenticity researchers without addressing their scientific arguments

Specific Scientific Refutations

1. STURP's Definitive Chemical Analysis

Moraes' bas-relief theory is categorically eliminated by STURP's findings from 120 hours of direct analysis:

Zero artistic materials: No paint, ink, dye, pigment, or binding medium detected using multiple analytical techniques
Molecular-level precision: Image formation limited to top 0.2 micrometers of individual fibrils across 5.93 million discrete points
Binary oxidation states: Each fibril either completely modified or completely untouched
No transfer evidence: No crushing, directional marking, or tool signatures from bas-relief contact

Any bas-relief technique requires detectable transfer mechanisms"rubbing with pigments or thermal contact"neither of which are present on the Shroud.

2. Blood Evidence Contradicting Artistic Creation

Moraes completely ignores the blood evidence that fundamentally contradicts medieval artistic creation:

Genuine human blood: Type AB with human male DNA confirmed through multiple independent analyses
Forensic accuracy: Blood flow patterns consistent with crucifixion wounds and gravitational effects
Chronological sequence: Blood deposited before image formation, with no image beneath bloodstains
Natural clotting: Proper blood coagulation and serum separation patterns

No medieval artist would apply real human blood before creating an image, nor would they achieve the forensic precision documented in the blood patterns.

3. Carbon Dating Contamination Evidence

Moraes uncritically accepts the 1988 C14 dating while ignoring substantial evidence of sample contamination:

Rogers' definitive proof (2005): Mass spectrometry demonstrated the C14 sample contained medieval repair materials, not original fabric
Statistical manipulation exposed: FOIA requests revealed withheld data that would have invalidated the 95% confidence claim
Alternative dating methods: WAXS analysis indicates first-century dating, though Moraes dismisses this without methodological critique
Vanillin absence: Original fabric lacks vanillin in lignin, indicating age greater than 1300-3000 years

Contemporary Replication Failures

Modern Artistic Attempts

Moraes fails to address that despite centuries of attempts using modern technology, no scientist or artist has successfully replicated even a subset of the Shroud's 42 documented properties:

Garlaschelli (2010): Required multiple techniques, failed to achieve blood-image chronology, and produced detectably different chemical composition
Laser experiments: Cannot achieve binary fibril control or selective molecular targeting across millions of fibrils
Thermal methods: Leave fluorescent signatures absent from the Shroud
Chemical treatments: Cannot replicate the precise oxidation pattern or avoid detection

Technological Impossibilities

Even with modern technology, creating an image meeting all 42 requirements remains impossible:

Fibril-level precision: No method exists for individual fibril targeting at 0.2-micrometer depth across 5.93 million discrete points
Binary control mechanisms: No technology can achieve selective binary oxidation states with 22.2 MB information encoding
3D information encoding: No contact method can encode distance-to-intensity correlations with anatomical coherence
Chemical selectivity: No process can target specific cellulose components while avoiding detection across millions of fibrils

Historical Context Errors

Medieval Capabilities Overstated

Moraes significantly overstates medieval artistic and technical capabilities:

No microscopy: Microscopes invented in 1590s"no knowledge of fibril structure or 0.2 micrometer precision
No chemistry knowledge: No understanding of molecular oxidation, binary states, or selective cellulose targeting
No photographic concepts: Photographic negative properties unknown until 19th century
No 3D mapping: No technology for encoding 22.2 megabytes of three-dimensional anatomical information

Epitaphios Comparison Invalid

Moraes' comparison to Byzantine epitaphios cloths demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding:

Visible artistic materials: Epitaphios are clearly embroidered or painted with detectable pigments
Symbolic representation: Artistic interpretation, not forensic documentation
Single-sided imagery: Show only frontal images, lack the dorsal image of the Shroud
No 3D properties: Lack photographic negative and three-dimensional characteristics

The chronological evidence suggests the Shroud influenced epitaphios development, not vice versa.

Scientific Method Violations

Burden of Proof Reversal

Moraes commits a fundamental scientific error by shifting the burden of proof. Rather than explaining how medieval artists could create an image with no detectable artistic materials while achieving fibril-level precision across 5.93 million decision points, he argues that digital simulations prove artistic creation is theoretically possible.

Proper scientific methodology requires physical evidence to drive conclusions, not theoretical models that ignore 90% of the documented evidence.

Correlation vs. Causation Fallacy

Moraes assumes that because his bas-relief simulation produces visual results somewhat similar to the Shroud image, this proves the Shroud was created using bas-relief techniques. This fundamental logical error ignores:

The absence of physical evidence for bas-relief creation
The presence of characteristics incompatible with any contact method
Alternative explanations that better account for all documented properties
The mathematical improbability (1 in 102,895,395) of achieving the required precision

Conclusion: Fundamental Inadequacy of Moraes' Approach

Moraes' study, while demonstrating innovative use of digital simulation tools, fails catastrophically as a scientific analysis of Shroud image formation. By deliberately excluding the physical and chemical evidence that distinguishes the Shroud from any known artwork, Moraes reduces a complex forensic and archaeological question to a simple geometric modeling exercise.

Critical Deficiencies:

Addresses fewer than 10% of documented requirements: Ignores 90% of scientific evidence
Eliminates contradictory evidence a priori: Methodology designed to exclude inconvenient findings
Misunderstands fundamental image properties: Treats complex molecular processes as simple contact mechanics
Violates scientific methodology: Uses theoretical modeling to override physical evidence
Ignores mathematical improbability: Fails to address the statistical impossibility (1 in 102,895,395) of medieval creation

The Unavoidable Scientific Reality:

Any valid formation theory must simultaneously satisfy all 42 documented properties of the Shroud image. Moraes' bas-relief hypothesis fails to explain:

The complete absence of artistic materials after extensive analysis
The binary fibril oxidation mechanism requiring molecular-level precision across 5.93 million decision points
The blood-image chronological sequence incompatible with artistic creation
The encoded 22.2 megabytes of three-dimensional anatomical information without contact distortion
The photographic negative properties unknown in the medieval period
The mathematical improbability (1 in 102,895,395) of achieving fibril-level accuracy through contact

While digital simulation techniques have value in archaeological research, they cannot substitute for comprehensive scientific analysis of physical evidence. Moraes' study represents a methodological regression that ignores decades of advanced scientific investigation in favor of simplified geometric modeling.

The Shroud of Turin continues to challenge our understanding precisely because it exhibits properties that transcend both medieval capabilities and current technological limits. Any serious scientific analysis must address this fundamental reality rather than selectively ignoring the evidence that makes the Shroud unique among historical artifacts.

Final Assessment: Moraes' study fails to meet basic scientific standards for archaeological and forensic analysis, providing no valid evidence against Shroud authenticity while ignoring the overwhelming physical and chemical evidence that eliminates medieval artistic creation as a viable explanation. The statistical impossibility of achieving the required precision (1 in 102,895,395) across 5.93 million fibril decision points, combined with the encoding of 22.2 megabytes of anatomical data, renders any medieval formation theory mathematically untenable.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1251518 ... 5994156542

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #10]

If anyone is going to claim how the Shroud was created by an artist, one cannot just point to single argument and then make such a conclusion. Even the author admits, "The study does not address physical or chemical aspects related to the formation of the image, such as the presence of pigments, microscopic analysis, or the properties of the fabric materials. Nor does it investigate the dynamics of bodily fluids, such as blood flow."

If anyone is going to claim that the image was created in some extraordinary fashion, one has to explain why an extraordinary source would create it to look like an image from an artistic relief of a type which was common during the time to which the cloth has been dated.


The image has bodily proportions consistent with medieval renderings of the human figure.


The fabric has collected pollen from around the world----
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 93101.html


The dynamics of blood flow have been investigated----

New forensic tests suggest Shroud of Turin is fake | Reuters https://share.google/XHuNpt3tUZB3zeWvt


Another question I've raised elsewhere is why the blood rivulets on the cloth would be so clear and well-defined instead of showing signs of smearing and soaking into the fabric wrapped around the body and head----unless the image is an artistic rendering.


I've also mentioned that "cloth collapse" doesn't explain the width of the gap between the top of the head in the front image and the top of the head in the back image.

Since we do not see a featureless blur, it's evidence the body disappeared while the cloth was collapsing.

That's a straight-up circular argument.


The figure in the image is male with long hair, which is a dishonor according to Christian scripture (1 Corinthians 11:14).

Moraes' bas-relief theory is categorically eliminated by STURP's findings from 120 hours of direct analysis:

Zero artistic materials: No paint, ink, dye, pigment, or binding medium detected using multiple analytical techniques

Your sources don't seem to be keeping up with your own commentary in another thread:

According to Fanti, the paint particles are a result of "over 50 documented painted copies of the Relic made in past centuries may have deposited some pigment when they were pressed onto the TS, to be sanctified into higher order relics."

We shouldn't discount the simple stuff. We can't just say, "We don't know exactly how it was done, so it must be inexplicable!"

[otseng]

If anyone is going to claim that the image was created in some extraordinary fashion,

Just because we don't know any modern techniques to achieve how it was created doesn't rule out what the evidence shows. If some clever person looked at the Shroud in 1700, they might've been able to figure out photography. Or in 1800, been able to figure out halftone imaging. Or in 1900 been able to figure out the VP-8 analyzer.

one has to explain why an extraordinary source would create it to look like an image from an artistic relief of a type which was common during the time to which the cloth has been dated.

Are you talking about what Cicero Moraes produced? He didn't even try to replicate the image on a cloth, he only did a computer simulation. And as I also mentioned, it's just not a single feature that has to be replicated, but all the features at the same time.

The image has bodily proportions consistent with medieval renderings of the human figure.

What are you specifically referring to?

The fabric has collected pollen from around the world----
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 93101.html

As the article says:
"Researchers said that the findings could indicate that that the shroud made its "historic [...] presumed journey" from the Near East and was taken around the world before being kept in Italy; or that it has its origins in medieval Europe where and was contaminated by those who travelled to it."

I covered this already and summarized it with:

Though DNA analysis has been done on the shroud of the particles vacuumed from the shroud, it is not conclusive evidence to discount either a Medieval French origin or a 1st century Jerusalem origin; however, it does favor the preponderance of people touching the shroud were from the Middle East.

The dynamics of blood flow have been investigated----

New forensic tests suggest Shroud of Turin is fake | Reuters https://share.google/XHuNpt3tUZB3zeWvt

I've addressed this at:

There are several issues with the articles and their experiment:

First off, the articles overstate the case by saying it "proves" the shroud to be a fake. Credit though goes to the paper authors which do not state they have "proven" the TS to be a fake and it's only the news outlets that is sensationalizing the report.

Second, the experiments highly simplified what happened and at most only showed how they think it happened could not have happened that way.

Third, the methods of replication are not really representative of how the crucifixion, side piercing, and burial actually happened. They used a live person and a dummy for the tests. Also, they used blood with anticoagulant and they piped the blood.

Fourth, we don't really know how the blood stains were formed on the shroud. Even if one demonstrates how it was not formed, it does not argue against how it was formed.

Another question I've raised elsewhere is why the blood rivulets on the cloth would be so clear and well-defined instead of showing signs of smearing and soaking into the fabric wrapped around the body and head----unless the image is an artistic rendering.

I touched on the blood here, but why the blood stains look the way they do is a mystery. But, it certainly does not look like it was "painted" on by an artist.

I've also mentioned that "cloth collapse" doesn't explain the width of the gap between the top of the head in the front image and the top of the head in the back image.

John Jackson, who proposed the cloth collapse theory, believes there was a cloth wrapped around the top of the head and the bottom of the chin. This would produce a gap in the imaging.

Since we do not see a featureless blur, it's evidence the body disappeared while the cloth was collapsing.

That's a straight-up circular argument.

I'm not arguing one is proof of the other. But I'm arguing it's a consistent hypothesis that explains the evidence.

The figure in the image is male with long hair, which is a dishonor according to Christian scripture (1 Corinthians 11:14).

I've spent a considerable time addressing this:

viewtopic.php?p=1113875#p1113875
viewtopic.php?p=1113985#p1113985
viewtopic.php?p=1114067#p1114067
viewtopic.php?p=1114160#p1114160
viewtopic.php?p=1114281#p1114281
viewtopic.php?p=1114376#p1114376
viewtopic.php?p=1114727#p1114727
viewtopic.php?p=1114869#p1114869
viewtopic.php?p=1114983#p1114983

Your sources don't seem to be keeping up with your own commentary in another thread:

There is a difference between paint particles found from other paintings pressed onto the cloth and not finding any evidence of paint sufficient to account for the image.

We shouldn't discount the simple stuff. We can't just say, "We don't know exactly how it was done, so it must be inexplicable!"

It's quite remarkable then a 14th century artist would be able to elude all of us in the 21st century.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #15]

The image has bodily proportions consistent with medieval renderings of the human figure.

What are you specifically referring to?

Enlongated arms and fingers
Forked beard
Hair parted in the middle


Another question I've raised elsewhere is why the blood rivulets on the cloth would be so clear and well-defined instead of showing signs of smearing and soaking into the fabric wrapped around the body and head----unless the image is an artistic rendering.

I touched on the blood here, but why the blood stains look the way they do is a mystery. But, it certainly does not look like it was "painted" on by an artist.

The clarity of the stains is more suggestive of a rendering than it is of fresh blood wrapped into fabric.


I've also mentioned that "cloth collapse" doesn't explain the width of the gap between the top of the head in the front image and the top of the head in the back image.

John Jackson, who proposed the cloth collapse theory, believes there was a cloth wrapped around the top of the head and the bottom of the chin. This would produce a gap in the imaging.

It might if it were feasible, but it isn't. A cloth wrapped around the head top-to-chin would have pressed the hair in against the sides of the head. The image shows the hair hanging loose.


The figure in the image is male with long hair, which is a dishonor according to Christian scripture (1 Corinthians 11:14).

I've spent a considerable time addressing this:
otseng wrote:
viewtopic.php?p=1113875#p1113875
viewtopic.php?p=1113985#p1113985
viewtopic.php?p=1114067#p1114067
viewtopic.php?p=1114160#p1114160
viewtopic.php?p=1114281#p1114281
viewtopic.php?p=1114376#p1114376
viewtopic.php?p=1114727#p1114727
viewtopic.php?p=1114869#p1114869
viewtopic.php?p=1114983#p1114983

And I spent considerable time answering your arguments.


Your sources don't seem to be keeping up with your own commentary in another thread:

There is a difference between paint particles found from other paintings pressed onto the cloth and not finding any evidence of paint sufficient to account for the image.

But you quoted your source as saying that there was zero paint or pigment on the cloth, which turned out not to be the case, and that doesn't say much for the accuracy of your source.


We shouldn't discount the simple stuff. We can't just say, "We don't know exactly how it was done, so it must be inexplicable!"

It's quite remarkable then a 14th century artist would be able to elude all of us in the 21st century.

It isn't that remarkable.
https://share.google/ZVovc9WY3DSWXh5px

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #15]

The image has bodily proportions consistent with medieval renderings of the human figure.

What are you specifically referring to?

Enlongated arms and fingers
Forked beard
Hair parted in the middle

Elongated right arm is from dislocated shoulder.

Long fingers is from x-ray effect.

Forked beard is from beard being plucked.

There is no doubt there are similarities of artistic depictions of Jesus. But the question is why? There must've been a common source to account for it. The obvious candidate would be the Shroud.

Your sources don't seem to be keeping up with your own commentary in another thread:

There is a difference between paint particles found from other paintings pressed onto the cloth and not finding any evidence of paint sufficient to account for the image.

But you quoted your source as saying that there was zero paint or pigment on the cloth, which turned out not to be the case, and that doesn't say much for the accuracy of your source.

The context would be the amount of paint to account for the image. In that case, it would be zero. The image is formed by the oxidation of the flax fibers.

[otseng]

A New Attack on the Shroud of Turin
Has the Shroud finally been debunked by science?
Bill Lauto
8/11/2025

SEEC (the Shroud Educational Endeavors Corporation)s first International Scientific Shroud Conference since COVID had just started when the New York Post published a story on a new study debunking the Shroud of Turin. Coincidence? I dont think so.

The conference was held at the new Augustine Institute Center in St. Louis, with scientists from around the world gathered to present new research, evidence, and studies on the Shroud of Turin. I was greatly honored to be invited to speak on my environmental and climate research providing supporting evidence to the Gospels with connections to Jesus shroud and sudarium. At the conference, I joined key Shroud scientists from the STURP team that studied the Shroud in 1978. We quickly realized that this story was another erroneous attention-grabbing, money-making claim.

Sadly, certain media groups continue to run headlines to incite attention, because reporting the truth or the complete picture to debunk this study doesnt make money, get more subscribers, or earn promotions.

This recent study was done by a Brazilian designer, Cicero Morares, who produces 3D digital models on computers. He uses free software to see how cloth would drape over shapes and detects all contact points between the cloth and the created shape. His computer-made shape was flat"a low-relief sculpture. Morares digitally created the top part of a human shape and saw the cloth making full contact.

The study was published in the journal Archaeometry, showing how cloth and other fabrics form impressions on a human body compared to a sculpture. Morares claims that his results demonstrate that the contact pattern generated by the low-relief model is more compatible with the Shrouds image, compared to a three-dimensional model of a human figure. Therefore, Morares suspects that a medieval artist made a sculpture of a human body from wood, stone, or metal and pigmented only the areas of contact.

This far-from-complete evaluation created headlines such as Brazilian 3-D expert, Cicero Morares, says that he can prove the Shroud never wrapped a real human body let alone the body Jesus Christ using state-of-the-art digital and Turin Shroud imprint might not be from human body, says groundbreaking new study.

So what do the final results of this study prove?

The fact is that this study is erroneous and doesnt come close to addressing all the known facts about the Shroud of Turin. Thus, the study doesnt really prove anything. But what it implies is rewarding for a few, and detrimental to the education and enlightenment of the world.

One main factor ignored is that the Shrouds image has a correlation as regards image density. In other words, lights and darks of the image on the Shroud are in direct correlation to the bodys distance from the cloth. The closer the body was to the cloth, such as at the nose, the darker and more enhanced its image is on the Shroud. It is my understanding that the computer model Morares studied has an image like the Shrouds, but created only at the contact points. The Shroud of Turin has an image, although fainter, even when the body is not touching the cloth, such as several millimeters away.

Morares also stated that a medieval artist would have used a pigment at the contact points. This raises the question"what pigment? The Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in the world, and no pigment made by humankind has been found on it. Yes, some remnants totaling to an amount of pigment that could paint one strand of hair were found, but this is attributed to artists hired by the Savoy family to paint copies of the Shroud. These painted copies were then venerated by having them touch the actual Shroud. The royal House of Savoy in Italy had ownership of the Shroud from 1578 to 1983, when the Shroud was transferred to the Holy See.

The Shroud of Turin is approximately 14 feet by 3.5 feet and shows the full frontal and dorsal images of a crucified man. Forensic scientists who studied the real Shroud estimated that the body image was about 5 feet, 11 inches tall and weight about 170 pounds. The image on the Shroud is that of an anatomically correct human body.

But a historical fact about medieval times states that there was no knowledge of correct anatomical proportions for the human body. Thus, no medieval artist had the knowledge to carve wood, stone, or metal into a perfectly anatomically correct figure. This knowledge came about hundreds of years later, during the Renaissance period.

The study does not address the bodily fluid around the blood of the spear wound"bodily fluid that is invisible to the naked eye but visible under ultraviolet (UV) light. What medieval artist would have modern medical knowledge to paint invisible bodily fluid, anticipating the future discovery and scientific use of UV light?

Now here is the most erroneous deletion: When the image from the Shroud of Turin is placed in a VP-8 analyzer, we receive a full-detailed three-dimensional image. No artwork of any kind made by humankind does that; only two-dimensional information is provided. Moraress image, printed out from his 3-D computer model, fails to present the three-dimensional data from a VP-8 analyzer.

The Shroud of Turin has not been debunked. It is Moraress study that has been debunked, by a plethora of international scientists. Sadly, that fact will never make the headlines.

As the Northeast regional leader for SAGE (Shroud Apostolate Group English) under Othonia, started by Fr. Pascual from the Pontifical Institute of Science and Faith in Rome, I have been assigned (see here) to share the truth about Jesus burial Shroud. Taking on the Morares study is just one way to do so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... d-of-turin

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #17]

Elongated right arm is from dislocated shoulder.

It isn't just the arms. The face is oddly enlongated as well.

Long fingers is from x-ray effect.

....which again raises the question of why there would be an x-ray effect on the hands and not on the rest of the body.

Forked beard is from beard being plucked.

The beard just happened to be plucked into a medieval style?


And the hair parted in the middle was from what? Crown-of-Thorns Head?

There is no doubt there are similarities of artistic depictions of Jesus. But the question is why? There must've been a common source to account for it. The obvious candidate would be the Shroud.

Then why are other medieval figures depicted in the same way?

[otseng]

The face is oddly enlongated as well.

You mean the forehead is longer than normal?

Long fingers is from x-ray effect.

....which again raises the question of why there would be an x-ray effect on the hands and not on the rest of the body.

I believe it's also seen on the teeth.

The beard just happened to be plucked into a medieval style?

It'd go back to who influenced who. And the argument that the Shroud was influenced by medieval fashion doesn't even make sense in light of all the other evidence that the Shroud was not medieval.

And the hair parted in the middle was from what? Crown-of-Thorns Head?

Not sure what you're asking. Should Jesus's hair be parted differently? Should it not be parted? Does parting in the middle make it not authentic?

There is no doubt there are similarities of artistic depictions of Jesus. But the question is why? There must've been a common source to account for it. The obvious candidate would be the Shroud.

Then why are other medieval figures depicted in the same way?

For example?