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/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #20]

The face is oddly enlongated as well.

You mean the forehead is longer than normal?

The entire head 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.

Then why isn't it seen on the nose? The arms? The ribs?


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

It'd go back to who influenced who.

The figure on the cloth is supposed to be Jesus, not Hap Shaughnessy.

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.

The argument that the image is genuine doesn't make sense in light of all the evidence that it is medieval.

Should Jesus's hair be parted differently? Should it not be parted? Does parting in the middle make it not authentic?

Parting in the middle makes it look medieval.

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?

Run an online search for "enlongated human features in Medieval art".

[otseng]

Then why isn't it seen on the nose? The arms? The ribs?

The nose has no bones. The bones are too deep in the arms for the cloth to capture it. As for the ribs, the x-ray effect seems to be correlated with the darkness of the image. More darkness means there was more time of interaction between the cloth and the dematerializing body. The chest area seems to have less interaction since it's not as dark as the face and the hands.

The argument that the image is genuine doesn't make sense in light of all the evidence that it is medieval.

Really the only thing that could be considered evidence is the 1988 C-14 dating. Don't know of any other viable argument that it could be medieval. The fact that the image has features that precede the invention of photography, hyperrealism, halftone, UV imaging, microscopy, 3D imaging, airbrush technique, x-ray, etc by hundreds of years makes absolutely no sense. And add to that if this medieval artist was such a genius that was hundreds of years ahead of his time (even ahead of scientists now), we have no idea who he was and none of this is mentioned in art books or art museums is amazing.

Parting in the middle makes it look medieval.

Parting the hair in the middle is not only found during medieval times.

Run an online search for "enlongated human features in Medieval art".

One of the earliest images of Christ that resembles the Shroud is Christ Pantocrator of Saint Catherine's Monastery. This dates to the 6th century.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #22]

Then why isn't it seen on the nose? The arms? The ribs?

The nose has no bones.

The nose has cartilage, and any frontal x-ray image of a skull will show where it ends.

The bones are too deep in the arms for the cloth to capture it.

The radius and the ulna are quite close to the skin near the wrists.

As for the ribs, the x-ray effect seems to be correlated with the darkness of the image. More darkness means there was more time of interaction between the cloth and the dematerializing body.

You're having to come up with more and more inexplicably complicated variations in the alleged dematerialization process in order to dismiss its shortcomings.

Really the only thing that could be considered evidence is the 1988 C-14 dating. Don't know of any other viable argument that it could be medieval. The fact that the image has features that precede the invention of photography, hyperrealism, halftone, UV imaging, microscopy, 3D imaging, airbrush technique, x-ray, etc by hundreds of years makes absolutely no sense. And add to that if this medieval artist was such a genius that was hundreds of years ahead of his time (even ahead of scientists now), we have no idea who he was and none of this is mentioned in art books or art museums is amazing.

I've already provided examples of scientific puzzles illustrating that the image on the Turin cloth is far from unique as such.

And the absence of lateral imaging [the "Agamemnon Mask Effect"] still raises the question of why a transcendent power would go to the trouble of leaving an image of a dematerialized body but make it look like it came from a carved relief image and not from a 3-dimensional body. It's like whoever created the image cared more about making it esthetically pleasing than about making it realistic.

[Athetotheist]

Unraveling the Myths Surrounding the Shroud of Turin https://share.google/ih26rNXCYOo9rCoZQ

[otseng]

I've already provided examples of scientific puzzles illustrating that the image on the Turin cloth is far from unique as such.

The more reasonable solution is artwork is inspired by the Shroud, not the other way around. As I've stated...
"The fact that the image has features that precede the invention of photography, hyperrealism, halftone, UV imaging, microscopy, 3D imaging, airbrush technique, x-ray, etc by hundreds of years makes absolutely no sense. And add to that if this medieval artist was such a genius that was hundreds of years ahead of his time (even ahead of scientists now), we have no idea who he was and none of this is mentioned in art books or art museums is amazing."

How would you explain all of this if the Shroud was a medieval fake?

And the absence of lateral imaging [the "Agamemnon Mask Effect"] still raises the question of why a transcendent power would go to the trouble of leaving an image of a dematerialized body but make it look like it came from a carved relief image and not from a 3-dimensional body. It's like whoever created the image cared more about making it esthetically pleasing than about making it realistic.

Of course it's realistic. As a matter of fact, it's hyperrealistic.

No, it's not even from a carved relief image either. How exactly did the image form from a bas-relief? As the conclusion of the STURP research pointed out:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils.
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist.

https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

Unraveling the Myths Surrounding the Shroud of Turin https://share.google/ih26rNXCYOo9rCoZQ

Andrea Nicolotti comments on Cicero Moraes' report and states he didn't produce anything novel:

Cicero Moraes has certainly created some beautiful images with the help of software, and for that his efforts are to be appreciated, but he certainly did not uncover anything that we did not already know.

https://www.skeptic.com/article/shroud- ... -examined/

Nicolotti points out there was no mention of a shroud as a relic until the 6th century.

The earliest travel accounts of pilgrims visiting the sites of Jesus in the 4th century show that people venerated various relics, but they do not mention a shroud.

It was not until the second half of the 6th century that pilgrims began to mention relics of Jesus’ burial cloths being in Jerusalem, albeit with various doubts as to where they had been preserved and what form they took.

When the Shroud was displayed in Lirey in 1355, it was the first shroud with an image on it.

The Turin Shroud first appeared in the historical record in France (a place that already hosted many competing shrouds) around 1355 CE. It is different from all the previous shrouds in that the others did not display the image of the dead Christ, and until then no source had ever mentioned a shroud bearing such an image (although Rome hosted the well-known Veil of Veronica, a piece of cloth said to feature an image of the Holy Face of Jesus).

The Shroud was relatively unknown prior to 1898. Interestingly, it came at the time when higher criticism, Darwinism, Marxism, Uniformitarianism, etc challenged the authority of the Bible.

Having survived changes of fortune and emerging unscathed from both the rational criticism of the Enlightenment and the turmoil of the Napoleonic period, the Shroud seemed destined to suffer the fate of other similar relics, namely a slow decline. Following a solemn exhibition in 1898, however, the Shroud returned to the spotlight and its reputation began to grow outside Italy as well.

Fundamentally, the issue is naturalism vs supernaturalism.

Miraculous explanations can be cloaked in scientific jargon, but they simply cannot be tested scientifically, given that there are no available bodies that have risen from the dead emitting protons and neutrons. They are, however, extremely convenient because they are able to solve any problem without having to submit the explanation to the laws of nature.

Though skeptics like to claim naturalism is a fact. In actuality, it is only an unsupportable assumption. Even worse, as I've argued in other threads, scientists are already invoking non-naturalistic causation.

Do you accept modern claims in cosmology and physics? Did the universe start with a big bang? Do you believe singularities exist? What about the multiverse? What about the 26 spacetime dimensions in bosonic string theory?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #25]

The more reasonable solution is artwork is inspired by the Shroud, not the other way around.

So human beings typically walk around like Flat Stanley, having no lateral dimension to make an imprint on a covering?

"The fact that the image has features that precede the invention of photography, hyperrealism, halftone, UV imaging, microscopy, 3D imaging, airbrush technique, x-ray, etc by hundreds of years makes absolutely no sense. And add to that if this medieval artist was such a genius that was hundreds of years ahead of his time (even ahead of scientists now), we have no idea who he was and none of this is mentioned in art books or art museums is amazing."

From the article in my post #16:
"At Baalbek in Lebanon, the Roman Temple of Jupiter sits atop three 800-ton foundation stones. Nearby, the “Stone of the Pregnant Woman” weighs 1,000 tons. How were these moved 60 feet uphill around 1 CE? Archaeologists cite Roman cranes and rollers, but contemporary cranes max out at 100 tons. Alternative theories suggest sound frequency or anti-gravity tech. Deep grooves in the quarry floor suggest levering systems we can’t reconstruct. In 2014, a team using wooden sledges failed to budge a 10-ton replica on similar terrain. Baalbek’s scale was meant to intimidate — a statement that gods walked among humans."

Are you as well-prepared to accept that possibility as you are to embrace the conclusion that there's something special about the Turin cloth image?

Andrea Nicolotti comments on Cicero Moraes' report and states he didn't produce anything novel:

Cicero Moraes has certainly created some beautiful images with the help of software, and for that his efforts are to be appreciated, but he certainly did not uncover anything that we did not already know.

Right. They already knew that the cloth dated to the Middle Ages.

"Photographs of the Shroud, accompanied by imprecise technical assessments claiming that the photograph proved that the image could not possibly have been generated artificially, were circulated widely. This prompted scholars to seek through chemistry, physics, and, above all, forensic medicine an explanation for the origins of the image impressed on the cloth."

....

"Sindonologists tried to discredit the result of the C14 testing by claiming the samples were contaminated. This hypothesis asserts that through the centuries the Shroud picked up deposits of more recent elements that would contain a greater quantity of carbon; the radiocarbon dating, having been performed on a linen so contaminated, would thus have produced an erroneous result. Candidates for the role of pollutants are many: the smoke of the candles, the sweat of the hands that touched and held the fabric, the water used to extinguish the fire of 1532, the smoggy Turin skies, pollens, oil, and many more.

On the surface, these may seem convincing, especially to those who do not know how C14 dating works; in reality, however, they are untenable. Indeed, if a bit of smoke and sweat were enough to produce a false result, the Carbon-14 method would have been almost completely useless and certainly not used still to this day to date thousands of objects every year. The truth is rather that the system is not significantly sensitive to any such pollutants."

....

"A more curious variant of the pollution theory suggests that the radiocarbon dating was performed on a sample that was repaired with more recent threads. This would mean that the two (widely recognized) textile experts who were present on the day of the sampling were unable to notice that they had cut a piece so repaired, despite the fact that they had examined the fabric carefully for hours. To distort the result by 13 centuries, the threads employed in the mending would have had to have been more numerous than the threads of the part to be mended. To eliminate any doubt, in 2010 the University of Arizona reexamined a trace of fabric left over from the radiocarbon dating in 1988, and concluded:

We find no evidence for any coatings or dyeing of the linen…. Our sample was taken from the main part of the shroud. There is no evidence to the contrary. We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements."

Though skeptics like to claim naturalism is a fact. In actuality, it is only an unsupportable assumption. Even worse, as I've argued in other threads, scientists are already invoking non-naturalistic causation.

Do you accept modern claims in cosmology and physics? Did the universe start with a big bang? Do you believe singularities exist? What about the multiverse? What about the 26 spacetime dimensions in bosonic string theory?

Those are all naturalistic propositions. That's the only kind that science allows scientists to offer.

[otseng]

Are you as well-prepared to accept that possibility as you are to embrace the conclusion that there's something special about the Turin cloth image?

The difference is I'm agnostic about the Stone of the Pregnant Woman. I'm not claiming anything about how it was formed. However, you're claiming the Shroud was created by a medieval artist. So, the burden is on you to provide justification on how an artist was able to use technology that wasn't invented for hundreds of years and also not widely recognized in history and art.

Sindonologists tried to discredit the result of the C14 testing by claiming the samples were contaminated.

Yes, but I don't see that widely claimed by Sindonologists now. Rather, now that we have the raw data, we know they manipulated the raw data for their final report. Why would scientists have to do that?

This would mean that the two (widely recognized) textile experts who were present on the day of the sampling were unable to notice that they had cut a piece so repaired, despite the fact that they had examined the fabric carefully for hours.

As far as I've gathered, the time was basically spent arguing where to take the sample from, not actually examining the sample that they had cut.

Our sample was taken from the main part of the shroud.

Not sure what "the main part of the shroud" is supposed to mean. It was actually cut from the corner of the shroud.

We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements."

It could be possible. Or it could be possible Ray Rogers was correct in finding dyed cotton.

Do you accept modern claims in cosmology and physics? Did the universe start with a big bang? Do you believe singularities exist? What about the multiverse? What about the 26 spacetime dimensions in bosonic string theory?

Those are all naturalistic propositions. That's the only kind that science allows scientists to offer.

The Big Bang of something coming from nothing is not naturalistic.
Physics do not apply at singularities. If physics do not apply, how can it be natural?
A multiverse and other dimensions are beyond being observable, detectable, or measurable. How can they still be considered natural?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #27]

The difference is I'm agnostic about the Stone of the Pregnant Woman. I'm not claiming anything about how it was formed. However, you're claiming the Shroud was created by a medieval artist. So, the burden is on you to provide justification on how an artist was able to use technology that wasn't invented for hundreds of years and also not widely recognized in history and art.

If you're agnostic on the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, you should be willing to be agnostic on the Turin cloth as well.

It isn't about using technology which wasn't available; it's about what could have been used instead of technology which wasn't available.

As far as I've gathered, the time was basically spent arguing where to take the sample from, not actually examining the sample that they had cut.

As far as you've "gathered"? No concrete source on that?

Not sure what "the main part of the shroud" is supposed to mean. It was actually cut from the corner of the shroud.

The main part would be the original material.

The Big Bang of something coming from nothing is not naturalistic.
Physics do not apply at singularities. If physics do not apply, how can it be natural?
A multiverse and other dimensions are beyond being observable, detectable, or measurable. How can they still be considered natural?

Science is agnostic about those phenomena.


Ercoline, et al. found significant deviations between the man on the Shroud and normal human anatomy, specifically regarding the length of the fingers, length of one arm, size of the hips, and the placement of the elbows. The researchers concluded that these deviations could not be due to normal anatomical variations. According to some scholars, the anatomy of the left hand and arm appears unusually elongated and the fingers disproportional to allow for this modest covering. By applying principles of medical human proportion, researcher Elio Quiroga Rodriguez conducted an analysis revealing that the figure on the Shroud exhibits an exaggerated arm length, notably showing the left arm as approximately 7 to 10 centimeters longer than a typical arm. This discrepancy does not align well with known anatomical norms. Unfortunately, either the torso of the image on the Shroud is too short or the arms are too long for the hands to cover the genitals.

One might argue that trauma from crucifixion could cause such a deformation. However, studies like that of Bordes, et al., which utilized direct forensic techniques, refute this claim. Even with shoulder, elbow, and wrist dislocations resulting from crucifixion, such an event would not cause an arm to extend to the exaggerated proportions observed. Furthermore, the hypothesis suggesting that the head is leaning forward is difficult to substantiate and does not align well with the anatomical expectations of a relaxed supine posture. These discrepancies raise questions about the anatomical accuracy and potential anachronisms present in the Shroud’s depiction.

Fanti, et al. also observed that the buttocks and legs do not appear flattened against the cloth, even where direct pressure on it is expected. The fatty tissue of the buttocks is not affected by rigor mortis, so if a real man, dead or alive, in rigor or not, was placed on the cloth, some evidence from 3D image software should show this contact flattening. However, there is none.

The hair depicted in the Shroud seems to be flowing towards the man’s shoulders, instead of falling towards the ground. Interestingly, the hair is not matted with blood, as one would expect from the trauma of a crown of thorns. Rather, the hair itself appears clean. In addition, there are some blood spots that seem to fall around the hair, as opposed to dripping from it. Coroners Bucklin and Zugibe accurately note that scalps bleed precipitously, but there still lacks an adequate explanation for the lack of blood on the hair and the blood that appears to lie outside the hair.

Caja and Boi recently analyzed the Shroud’s body image and bloodstains to assess the anatomical characteristics of the depicted figure. Upon detailed examination of high-quality images of the Shroud, the researchers observed significant discrepancies between the frontal (anterior) and posterior (back) views. According to Caja and Boi, in the frontal view of the image, both ankles are visible and aligned parallel, with no overlap or superposition of the feet. However, in the posterior view, the right foot is notably plantarflexed (pointed downward), a position not reflected in the frontal image. Additionally, the degree of plantarflexion differs substantially between the two views—14.5 degrees in the frontal view and 32 degrees in the posterior view—nearly double. In the posterior view, the right foot appears to be beneath the left, while in the frontal view, the right foot appears on top. These discrepancies between the two images, which should theoretically depict the same moment in time, raise concerns about the accuracy of the representation. The researchers concluded that there is no anatomical or scientific explanation for these anomalies.
Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 2) - Apologetics Press https://share.google/KiY1SGvtzTUy3y4tx

[otseng]

If you're agnostic on the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, you should be willing to be agnostic on the Turin cloth as well.

Non sequitur. If the Shroud of Turin is authentic, it would make it the most important artifact in the Christian religion. Who cares about the Stone of the Pregnant Woman in regards to Christianity?

It isn't about using technology which wasn't available; it's about what could have been used instead of technology which wasn't available.

Sure, go ahead and explain what technology was available during the 14th century instead of "photography, hyperrealism, halftone, UV imaging, microscopy, 3D imaging, airbrush technique, x-ray, etc".

As far as I've gathered, the time was basically spent arguing where to take the sample from, not actually examining the sample that they had cut.

As far as you've "gathered"? No concrete source on that?

Here's my source:

Damon described the sample removal in Turin. It had all begun at about 4:30 in the morning on 21 April 1988. The lab representatives had been called to come to the Royal Chapel at about 6 am. Four officials from the Turin city government were at the chapel entrance claiming that permission had not been received from the city to take samples from the shroud. The chapel itself where the shroud was stored, although attached to the cathedral, was the property of the City of Turin and not of the archdiocese. They finally relented when they were invited to witness the procedures. Others present were the cardinal, Gonella, a Turin microanalyst Giovanni Riggi, an Italian textile expert from Turin Polytechnic's Department of Material Science, Professor F Testore (who had asked what this brown patch was when he saw one of the 'blood' stains!), a French textile expert, G Vial from Lyon, Tite and the five laboratory people (Damon, Donahue, Hall, Hedges and Woelfli). The shroud had been taken from its storage place and was unrolled on a table in a small room next to the chapel. There were seating bleachers for the observers on three sides-the fourth side contained the entry door. Riggi was to remove the sample, but it took two hours to decide where it should be taken. Everyone knew it would be near the spot on the hem where Raes' sample had been removed and that is where it was finally cut.

No one handling the shroud, including Riggi, wore gloves. There was absolutely no ceremony-everything was carried out in a businesslike manner. As soon as the sample (a strip approximately 7 cm long by 1 cm wide) had been removed it was weighed. The total weight was about 150 mg. This gives an areal density of 21.4 mg/cm/ which agrees with the estimate of 22+2 mg/ cm? mentioned in chapter 6. Riggi then divided the strip into three approximately equal pieces and these were weighed. They were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where Tite put each sample on a separate aluminum foil which was folded to contain the cloth. He then inserted the shroud samples in their aluminum wrapping in specially machined stainless steel cylinders. One was given to each lab representative along with three other cylinders containing the controls.

Gove, H. (1996). Relic, Icon or Hoax? Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud. Institute of Physics Publishing. pg 260-261.

There is nothing mentioned by Gove about immediately examining the sample after it was cut.

The main part would be the original material.

As opposed to material not from the Shroud?

The Big Bang of something coming from nothing is not naturalistic.
Physics do not apply at singularities. If physics do not apply, how can it be natural?
A multiverse and other dimensions are beyond being observable, detectable, or measurable. How can they still be considered natural?

Science is agnostic about those phenomena.

No, it's not agnostic. It makes claims singularities exist, a multiverse exists, and other dimensions exist. Scientists might be agnostic about how the universe came into being, but it doesn't discount the fact it arose out of nothing.

Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 2) - Apologetics Press https://share.google/KiY1SGvtzTUy3y4tx

Interestingly you cited an article from a Christian. Anyways, many of those arguments I've already covered, so there's no need for me to rehash them again.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #29]

If you're agnostic on the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, you should be willing to be agnostic on the Turin cloth as well.

Non sequitur. If the Shroud of Turin is authentic, it would make it the most important artifact in the Christian religion. Who cares about the Stone of the Pregnant Woman in regards to Christianity?

The Stone of the Pregnant Woman doesn't have to be considered "in regards to Christianity"; it has its own context to be considered in. And if the mystery of the Turin cloth validates the Christian Bible, then the mystery of the Stone of the Pregnant Woman validates the Temple of Jupiter.

Sure, go ahead and explain what technology was available during the 14th century instead of "photography, hyperrealism, halftone, UV imaging, microscopy, 3D imaging, airbrush technique, x-ray, etc".

And you explain what technology was available during the 1st century instead of a crane which could move 1,000 tons sixty feet uphill when modern cranes max out at 100 tons, a levering system we can't reconstruct, etc.

As far as I've gathered, the time was basically spent arguing where to take the sample from, not actually examining the sample that they had cut.

Riggi was to remove the sample, but it took two hours to decide where it should be taken.

That's more an indication of being meticulous than of "arguing".

And it seems that there are some problems with your sources. For example, the statement:

No one handling the shroud, including Riggi, wore gloves.

In the thumbnails here,
https://www.shroud.com/78exam.htm

numerous team members can be seen wearing gloves.


And unless I'm missing something, the biggest problem with your sources seems to be here:

Damon described the sample removal in Turin. It had all begun at about 4:30 in the morning on 21 April 1988.

The STURP team didn't arrive in Turin until October, conducting their tests and collecting their samples from Oct. 8th to Oct. 13th.


The main part would be the original material.

As opposed to material not from the Shroud?

As opposed to material later added to it.


Science is agnostic about those phenomena.

No, it's not agnostic. It makes claims singularities exist, a multiverse exists, and other dimensions exist. Scientists might be agnostic about how the universe came into being, but it doesn't discount the fact it arose out of nothing.

Whatever hypothesis scientists put forth, whatever theory they formulate, science demands that they keep it noncommittal either way with regard to a Creator because science deals only with what is testable.


Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 2) - Apologetics Press https://share.google/KiY1SGvtzTUy3y4tx

Interestingly you cited an article from a Christian.

Yeah---a Christian who's critical of the shroud claim.