The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?


I believe. I have faith. Ta


“The date sampling was taken from ‘repaired’ area of the shroud. FACT.”

Not it isn’t. That was originally advanced as a possibility. And one chemist by the name of Raymond Rogers argued that there some differences between the corner of the Shroud where the sample was taken from, and the rest. However the problem is, if it was an ‘invisible repair’, then they would have seen it in 2002 during the restoration.

In fact at least one expert explicitly looked for just that and found nothing, which you would have learned if you followed the link I gave you. No backing stitches.

Like it or not, the sample was taken from a piece of cloth, similar to the rest of the Shroud.


The Shroid cannot be replicated by man. People have tried but they are far inferior.


I’m sure there will always be differences. If someone is asked to replicate the Mona Lisa, then even if a huge similarity is achieved, there will always be minute differences.

The question is are there qualitative differences?

Shroud enthusiasts often argue that specific features “proves” that it is a genuine relic. The two features I have in mind are the fact that details are more apparent in negative than otherwise, and that the image intensity forms a rough height map.

Both of these have been replicated in some of the attempted replications using means only available in the 14th Century. In fact I showed you just such one.

Hunting for anomalies aren’t that interesting to me, the question is if any reasonably skilled artist, armed with a such tools can make something with those features, then why are those features again and again advanced as a serious argument for the Shroud being genuine?


Nothing else like the negative Image on the Shroud is found in art history from the 14th century onward. STURP found no evidence of pigment or of silver nitrate on the Shroud’s Image. What pigment there is on the Shroud is evenly distributed and bears no relation to the Image itself. The blood marks have been proven to consist of human blood. McCrone’s studies were all self-published and have been discredited. McCrone refused to attend any STURP conferences to defend his erroneous conclusions. STURP also determined that the Image is not composed of a burn or heat degradation of the linen fibers.

If the so-called “replications” of the Image were to be examined with the same techniques and equipment that STURP used, they would be immediately found out for what they are: the product of a human hand.


“STURP found no evidence of pigment or of silver nitrate on the Shroud’s Image.”

Trace amounts of vermillion and iron oxides were found by Walter McCrone. Silver nitrate is used for photography, and the image on the shroud is not a photograph. I expect that it was formed by an artist painting the image onto the linen.

The paint was later washed off for some reason, leaving behind a trace. The image itself is not formed of paint, which has been stated here multiple times.

I do not claim the image is formed of paint.

The image is formed of a darkening of the fibres at the surface, with damage that is consistent with dehydration and an acidic medium. Which paint would be.

The fumes coming from a corpse couldn’t do it. And I severely doubt that proton radiation could do it either.

“The blood marks have been proven to consist of human blood.”

This is definitely not the case. As far as I know those stains definitely consist of blood - even though some chance of ambiguity still exists, it does not appear unlikely to be the case - however to demonstrate that its human blood, there’s a number of techniques to be used and they’re all highly ambiguous when dealing with low quantities. For instance assaying for human immune proteins is very difficult.

I think you’re overstating the confidence in that result a lot, which is again something I see shroud enthusiasts do a lot.

We don’t even know if the blood is of type A or B.

Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review

“If the so-called “replications” of the Image were to be examined with the same techniques and equipment that STURP used, they would be immediately found out for what they are: the product of a human hand.”

Actually the techniques and equipment used by the STURP are irrelevant. Of course its an artifact. It would be made on fresh linen, and wouldn’t bear the hallmarks of ancient linen. Because that’s largely what’s on the Shroud, the marks of history. The image itself is the interesting aspect, the history of the linen less so.

And if the result of an image that appears more detailed to the human eye in negative, and has “3d information” (which I’ve always found to be a problematic statement), can be produced by human hand. Then those two aspects can’t be advanced as “proofs” of the Shroud being a genuine relic.

Proof, of course, has no place in science. The evidence needs to be critically evaluated.


Rob - There is also a more fulsome YouTube presentation by another STURP member, called - ‘The Shroud of Turin - a scientific view’


Thanks .

I’ve watched that one and found it very informative . I was amused by the monotone delivery .:smiley:


A very intriguing post.


There are genuine relics of the original Shroud that exist to this day and would account for some of the missing pieces that were cut off and account for any reweaving prior to 1532. I have some additional information regarding the Shroud and how pieces of the Shroud that had been cut prior to the fire of 1532. On 20 February,1508,Margaret of Austria, Duchess of Savoy, then owner of the Shroud, drew up her will, giving to the church of Brou, among other relics, a snippet of the Shroud. She died in 1530.There were probably further snippets or cuts from that original cutting ( as relics, such as the True Cross) have often been divided and subdivided over the centuries) as there are relics of the Shroud encased in reliquaries. The House of Savoy, whom she belonged also had a close association with the House of Grimaldi, and the lines were sometimes intermarried. The House of Grimaldi produced several Archbishops and Cardinals, one of whom inherited a snippet of the Shroud which had been passed through the centuries from Margaret. One such relic is housed in a reliquary of the Archbishop. The snippet has the herringbone weave as well. The provenance is evident and excellent at least to me. I know that this is not proof of the authenticity of the Shroud, just an interesting snippet of of it’s history, so to speak…


Nor from the 14th century backward if it comes to that. Makes you wonder how anyone could say “many, many replications have been made”, doesn’t it?

So they did find pigment. What do you make of Morris and London’s X-ray fluorescence paper, showing a clear relationship between image intensity and iron oxide concentration?

I think that may be true; yes.

It is a misfortune that to publish papers in a journal one has founded or is the editor of leads inevitably to accusations of lack of rigor. One thinks immediately of Ray Rogers’s curiously poorly referenced paper in the journal he founded, Thermochimica Acta. Fortunately such is the authority of these two giants of their fields that neither of their papers on the Shroud have been at all discredited.

McCrone’s findings were publicly decried before anybody except he had even seen the sticky tape slides. It was clear that he was unlikely to get a fair hearing from his fellow investigators.

Not quite. Like them, I have found that an infra-red ‘scorch’ invariably leaves a fluorescent border around the scorch as soon as it is hot enough to leave a mark, but other forms of electromagnetic radiation may be able to produce scorches without a fluorescent border. I don’t know whether this has been experimented with.

So far, I quite agree.


Science cannot replicate the image on the shroud. The only people who know how the image was produced are those that believe it is indeed Jesus Christ. I am one.

I have seen a few programs on the shroud. Nobody can replicate it. Science is dumbfounded.


This video is a lecture by Paul Bromley, who was not a member of STuRP.


I am science. I am far from dumbfounded, as anyone who has glanced at this thread will know!


I’m a scientist, and a Catholic, too, and I am far from dumbfounded. The burden of proof rests on those who wish to prove the shroud is genuinely what they say it is. So far, I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that it is in any way “miraculous”.


Science is dumbfounded when it comes to the Shroud. It has no answers. It cannot replicate the Shroud. Yes, people have tried but they fall short by a long margin.


Are you trolling?


It’s a good word, ‘dumbfounded’. It means Lost4words. It can be identified either by silence (I wish), or by people using the same words over and over again because they can’t think of any others. A bit like this:

You clearly have a well-chosen pseudonym.

Now, more seriously, I agree that in common with most artworks, the Shroud has never been replicated. I do not feel that this proves, or even demonstrates, that it is an authentic 1st century burial cloth. You feel exactly the opposite. I get that. I’m happy for you to feel it. I rejoice in your faith.


If the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus with the image formed at the moment of resurrection , no scientific proof is possible . We would be in the realms of the supernatural .

If the Shroud was made by human hands surely , with the advances made in the various fields of science over the centuries since the Shroud “was made by human hands” , scientists could now manufacture a replica similar in all aspects to the Shroud .


“If the Shroud was made by human hands surely , with the advances made in the various fields of science over the centuries since the Shroud “was made by human hands” , scientists could now manufacture a replica similar in all aspects to the Shroud .”

I think rather the scientists looking into how the Shroud was created are looking into what means a person working in the 14th Century would have access to. Replications have been done, I have linked to one of them having many features in common, especially features I hear shroud enthusiasts claim to “prove” that the shroud is genuine relic.

I’m not sure we know yet entirely how it was made, but I think any attempt to investigate those directions are drowned by the furer and hyperbole of those who want the shroud to be genuine.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit