Legitimacy of the Shroud of Turin

Certainly not a sane artist (:slight_smile:), but it still does not exclude it from being a product of funerary practice and happenstance.

A few questions in my mind that are mostly off-topic or speculation:

  1. In a normal decomposition of a body laid out on it’s back we should expect products of decay to fall downward onto a wrapping, which could account for the non-distorted representation.
  2. Death is painful, but I don’t think we can infer agony from that alone. There could be any number of reasons for the presence of blood, I will decline to speculate further.
  3. How does hemoglobin exposed to oxygen remain red? Maybe decomposition in the absence of oxygen? Something doesn’t seem right with the chemistry here. I’m certain the Google must have something about this.

Please don’t reply to my rantings, go enjoy your day instead. :slight_smile:

1 Like

As far as I can tell, this claim about there being blood on the “shroud” is just a story that the Shroudies like to tell amongst themselves. There is no conclusive agreement that there is so much as a drop of blood on this piece of cloth.


The presence of blood, in and of itself, is not incompatible with an object being a work of art. You can easily find examples with a Google search. (WARNING: Results may not be suitable for the squeamish, or those with full bellies from Thanksgiving feasting.)

I have vague memories of there being samples which showed the presence of haemoglobin (but not necessarily human haemoglobin). But if there are blood traces on the shroud, that would mean that (i) it was in contact with a body, and so the image should be distorted and since it isn’t distorted[1] it’s a fake, and (ii) the Shroudies ought to be clamouring for the blood to be analysed to get details of Jesus’s blood type, DNA and haploidity.

  1. Distorted in this particular way. It’s distorted in other ways that it wouldn’t be if it was real. ↩︎


I am unable to find a single example of a sample taken directly from one of the alleged bloodstains on the cloth that has been tested and confirmed to consist of human blood. If this is just my oversight, then I am sure someone here will correct me.

The video produced an image which would easily be detected as a forgery unlike the Shroud or the Sudarium. My claim is about an actual forgery.

This image produced in the video has nothing close to the evidence that the shroud contains.

1 Like

A forgery of what?

Please show how you quantified this “evidence.” Thanks.

1 Like

Hi Faizal
There are hundreds of papers and books on this subject going over evidence of the chain of custody, pollen samples, comparing the shroud linen pattern against other findings in the first century, different dating methods, comparisons with the Sudarium, and blood analysis.

What is most stunning is the evidence that supports the book of John and other gospels. The two pieces of separate cloth mentioned. The image with both legs unbroken. The blood stains on the head and and on the side confirming the piercing and the crown of thorns.

The actual image of the shroud in not what you see as it is hard to make out a clear image of a man. What you see in most pictures that looks like a man is due to high resolution photography that is only available recently.

Here is a book that will give you an overview of the evidence.

Authentic or fake, this would be expected. It would be a pretty inept forger who would miss these details.


Hi Bill,
I don’t know much about the Sudarium, but it seems that a large number of coincidences have been observed between it and the Shroud, suggesting that these 2 objects are intimately related. If true, it would not only invalidate the carbon dating of the Shroud but indeed also add credence to the Gospel of John. As for the aforementioned coincidences, did you see the one discussed in the paper below?

Incidentally this is how the Shroud image was most probably created:

The image on the Shroud is dark on a light background. Previous theories had all attempted to explain how linen could be darkened without the use of chemicals, stains, or paints. Wilson wondered if it would be possible to lighten the already dark linen, leaving only a dark image behind.The simplest means of lightening linen, available to all men throughout time, is to bleach it with sunlight. Wilson believed that if an image of a man were painted on glass with a light shade of paint, placed over darker linen, and left beneath the sun, a dark image would be left on a light background. More importantly, he believed a dark and light inversion would take place, creating a photonegative. Wherever light paint had been used, the linen would be shaded from the sun and left dark and unbleached. Wherever the darker shade of linen had been left exposed, the sun would bleach the cloth light. In addition, it was also believed that because the sun would be exposing the linen from approximately one hundred and eighty degrees, a crude three dimensional image would be created.

Several years later he decided to test his theory, so he met with Dr. Scott Minnich, a scientist friend, for advice on structuring the experiment.

Phase I
A line-up of faces would be painted on glass with white paint, placed over linen and exposed beneath the sun for differing periods of time. Different artists and non-artists would paint the faces and various paint thicknesses would be used. The goal for this phase was to select a single painting to be used to produce several images for comparison. A window painted in less than an hour by David Beauchamp, a non-artist, was selected. It initially produced an image while aligned parallel to the sun’s path and exposed for ten days.

Phase II
The Beauchamp painting would expose two additional images. The first image would be exposed perpendicular to the sun’s path. As temperatures had dropped, and the summer was fading, it would be left exposed for fifteen days. The second image would be exposed beneath a stationary sun lamp for approximately 140 hours.

Phase III
All of the images created would be photographed in the studio of Mark Lamoreaux for comparisons of the negatives. The three-dimensionality of a faux-shroud would be compared to that of the Turin Shroud.

It was found that even a crudely painted piece of glass could produce a photonegative image three-dimensionally encoded onto linen. The images produced by the Beauchamp painting did not match the finesse of the original, but aptly demonstrated the viability of the technique.

Just go look at the images. All the “amazing” aspects of the Shroud recreated. It’s miraculous negative, it’s incomprehensible “3D” aspect, etc.

1 Like

It wouldn’t even mean that of course. One can collect and use blood to put on something. Animal blood is frequently used in cooking and has been for millennia.

1 Like

You did not understand my question, and you don’t seem to understand what a forgery is. And I know better than to waste my time trying to explain these things to you.

That you think this counts as evidence for the legitimacy of the “shroud” is very amusing, though also typical. If someone wanted to create a fake shroud, why wouldn’t they base it on the stories told about it in the Bible?


Thanks Gil
I had not seen the paper but reviewed a YouTube with some of the same info. The YouTube video claimed the Sudarium was not studied as extensively as the Shroud. Along with new dating, pollen analysis, DNA analysis, aging of the herringbone pattern, the matching of the sudarium with the shroud and the is very interesting. The potential historical verification of the gospel of John is also very interesting.

It seems Ray Rogers claim that the carbon test was based on a repaired portion of the shroud is possible in addition to biological contamination due to handling.

Here is the video on the Sudarium

Hi Faizal
The problem here is when you put all the evidence together including the Sudarian the chance this is a forgery is very small. This is why the documented evidence is powerful. It points to Jesus being the image the shroud is showing due to the evidence of the wounds on both the shroud and sudarium being separate and discovered in the empty tomb.

Please show your math or retract your fictional claim.


I’ve not read through this entire thread so I’m playing catchup—but has anyone discussed the problem of the head proportions (eg., head-to-body-length, forehead-length to head-length) not making sense? Some researchers have even described the ratios as microcephalic or at least indicative of some serious disorder/disease.

For years I simply assumed the shroud was a product of some kind of camera obscura experiment. Nevertheless, I’ve not kept up on the current theories for many years now and so I wouldn’t be surprised if this idea has been long ago debunked.

The shroud is a fascinating mystery and it would certainly become all the more interesting if it could be established that the shroud was associated with some victim of crucifixion. (I’m not holding my breath.) Yet, that would still be a looooong way from verifying that it was the burial shroud of Jesus. So I certainly don’t see any reason to get THAT excited about it.


To start with the Sudarium and the Shroud have the same rare blood type 2% of general population. The chance of this is less then 1% given these were independent events one or two forged. In addiition marks on the Sudarium matching the Shroud which also makes the chance of forgery unlikely. The Shroud did not have a strong image until it was photographed so assuming it was forged over 700 years ago the forger had no idea that the evidence would come to light given high resolution photography of today.

Hi Alan
I was where you are now based on the carbon dating. There is a lot more evidence today then existed couple of years ago. I would be interested in you looking at the papers and presentation posted here to see if your skepticism changes. Here is a well researched book.

You may not see the reason, but it happens that countless people, including many scholars, do see the reason, which is that the Shroud represents an absolute singularity that may be intimately linked to another absolute singularity, ie, the resurrection.

You’re correct here, this idea has been debunked.

1 Like

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic