Home > Flagrum, Other Blogs > Razor Swift: The Shroud Of Turin Is Real!

Razor Swift: The Shroud Of Turin Is Real!

August 22, 2011

imageInteresting article yesterday from the blog of the Razor Swift Research Group:

Below is the link to a very interesting radio interview about the Shroud of Turin, said to be Jesus. The guest (Barrie M. Schwortz) who is an Orthodox Jew, believes that the image on the shroud really is Jesus! His team’s analysis of it have been written about in various journals.



The list is excellent and so I’m repeating it below. I do have some minor issues on matters of fact. I won’t go into those now except for one, which I offer up as an example.

If we are to challenge skeptical claims on minor points then we need to be careful on minor points, too. I have put my disagreement in bold and italics in the list below:

BTW: What is the Razor Swift Research Group? According to its ‘About’ page, it

Razor Swift Research Group is a nondenominational think tank founded by former atheist and skeptic A. M. Hempe. The objective of R. S. R. G. is to open hearts and minds through the platform of apologetics. It’s our desire to approach Biblical, faith, and other issues from a different perspective rather than rehashing some of the same “Christianese” preaching to the choir arguments. We maintain that faith and logic mustn’t necessarily be at odds with each other, but can be complementary. May no stone lay unturned.

Now for the list from Razor Swift:

  • The Shroud of Turin is first century linen manufactured in the ancient method, not woven in the medieval or modern method.
  • It bears the image of a man front and back that was scourged. It has about 120 blood stained markings, wounds that are dumbbell shaped which are consistent with the flagrum of a Roman whip with 3 throngs and dumbbell shape weights at the end of it.
  • The individual had been speared in the side. With ultra violet florescent photography it can be seen that there’s a large serum stain surrounding the blood which is invisible to the naked eye (this can’t be faked with medieval technology).
  • The man was clearly crucified, the exit wound (from the nail) was at the palm, and at an angle, which happens to be forensically (as attested by 3 forensics experts, how long have forensics existed?) accurate to that of a crucified victim.
  • There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown of thorns. There’s only one place in recorded history where Romans placed a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
  • The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information, in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can render this (this can’t be faked with medieval technology).
  • The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a photographic negative does (this can’t be faked with medieval technology). Schwortz said that you can’t make a photographic image without silver -in a certain form- but when the shroud was fully examined and tested, no trace of silver was found.

    But, oh yet you can make a photographic image without silver. Most, but not all photographic processes use silver “in a certain form.” There are several other non-silver processes. Certain iron compounds are light sensitive and are still used for blueprints. In the last century, platinum chloride was used for Platinotype photographs. Gum bichromate was popular up until the eve of World War II. It is still used, but rarely, by some specialty photographers.  Don’t forget that Picknett and Prince proposed that Leonardo da Vinci might have used a chromium salt. (See: Thoughts for a Sunday Morning: Tinfoil Hats)

  • Schwortz explained how the Luigi Garlaschelli made shroud (which was said to “debunk” the shroud of Turin) is not even a close replica. “LG” claims that the image was made by red iron oxide pigment, but it was found in minute insignificant quantities on the various parts on the cloth (on the image, and other areas). The scientific tests (via Pyrolysis Mass Spectrometry) concluded that there was no manganese, cobalt properties and other data to confirm LG’s claim. No image to date, has been close to having the same physical and chemical properties as the shroud, no one has came even close. Note: Here’s the peer reviewed paper on the study http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proce…mburgerWeb.pdf
  • Schwortz mentioned a face cloth (The Sudarium of Oviedo Spain) -which dates back to the 6th century without a break in its historical record- and it has blood stains that are congruent (matching up exactly) to the head of the shroud. This is the matching burial face cloth to the shroud. This can be witnessed on the History Channel Documentary I cited earlier.
  • He brought up the old Hungarian manuscript called the “Hungarian Pray Codex” that depicts the picture of the shroud including the “L shape” burn marks on it, herring bone weave of the cloth, and certain blood stains that parallel those on the shroud. The date of this codex is from 1191, when the carbon date test (more on this later) said that it can’t be from any earlier than 1260-1390.
  • In the year 2000, some researchers brought some information to the table, questioning where the sample was taken from on the shroud; the sample that was used for the carbon dating test. It was found that that area of the cloth was chemically different, it had been repaired, cotton was rewoven into it, and dye was added to the surface after it was rewoven to match the rest of the color of the cloth. This information was published in 2005 in a peer reviewed scientific journal called the Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194., by the man (and corroborated by associate Raymond N. Rogers) who was the head chemist (of Schwortz’s team, Robert Villarreal of Los Alamos National Laboratory) showing that the sample dated, was not an original piece. The paper concludes: “Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometryresults from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.”http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF There have been multiple peer reviewed papers since this one, that have confirmed this analysis.
  • Another reason why the carbon test wouldn’t likely work anyways, is because the accuracy is compromised by 100′s of years of people handling the shroud (leaving their DNA), the fires it went through (adding carbon) etc. In effect, it’s “tainted”.
  • Schwortz explained that through analysis, the blood stains were already on the shroud before the image was formed. That would mean that the “forger” would have to put the blood stains on forensically correct before he/she put the image on the cloth. We still couldn’t do that today.
  • Schwortz explained that when putting the shroud under 10x magnification it was shown that there were no brush strokes, particulates, no paint, no medium etc. Another proof showing the image was not made by ink.
  • From the 3D rendered holographic of the shroud image, it was shown that the individual was in rigamortis. This was confirmed by forensic experts as well.

The Shroud Of Turin Is Real! « Razor Swift Research Group

Categories: Flagrum, Other Blogs
  1. August 22, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Hey there thanks for the write up. Cool blog by the way. Take care now.

  2. August 22, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Do you mind if I quote your correction on the silver issue? I would like to make the update to be more accurate. It makes me wonder why Schwortz said what he did (I am no photography expert) that you need silver -a certain form- to make a photographic image. Any thoughts? BTW, did you listen to the interview? I should post the latest documentary that his team was in also. Fascinating.

    • August 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm

      Quote away. Barrie is a good friend and it is fun to catch him. He catches me enough.

  3. Yannick Clément
    August 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    It is written : “The guest (Barrie M. Schwortz) who is an Orthodox Jew, believes that the image on the shroud really is Jesus!”

    Barrie is a personal friend of mine and I just want to correct something here : Barrie is not an Orthodox Jew at all. He is a Jew who believe in God but who doesn’t participate in the cult of the Sabbath at the synagogue. We can say that he’s a believer but doesn’t practise his religion like many Christians ! The rest of the sentence is completely true; Barrie believe that the Shroud is the genuine Shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, for the question of Jesus being the Messiah, Barrie is not there yet !!! :-)

  4. August 22, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    My busy schedule makes it difficult for me to keep up with all the Shroud blogs out there, but this particular posting called for a response.

    There is no way to coat a porous linen surface like the Shroud with any light sensitive elements in liquid form without some traces of those elements soaking in and remaining in the cloth, even hundreds of years later. The pyrolysis mass spectrometry used on the Shroud would have detected as little as one part per billion of those elements if they were there.

    Blueprints, platinum chloride platinotype prints and gum bichromate or chromium prints are all products of the late 19th or early 20th century so they could not have been used in medieval times to create the Shroud. J.H. Schulze is credited as the first man to discover the fact that silver salts exposed to light turned black. He made this discovery in 1727. In the same year he discovered that silver chloride turned black under light. In 1737 he used silver nitrate in the same manner. He used cut stencils to expose his silver salts.

    Thomas Wedgewood and Humphrey Davy repeated Schulze’s experiments some years later by printing leaves instead of stencils. They tried to make a permanent emulsion but did not succeed.

    It was not until 1818 that Joseph Niepce produced the first photographic negative, which I believe still exists.

    Since silver, platinum and chromium were NOT found on the Shroud, those processes must be eliminated as possibilities.

    Of course, the Shroud’s image properties themselves are the best evidence that it was NOT created photographically (even though its lights and darks are reversed, like a photo negative). You might wish to read the article I wrote in 2000 titled “Is the Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph” (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf) that addressed Nicholas Allen’s camera obscura experiments in which Allen produced an excellent photographic image using silver salts and other medieval raw materials. However, that process resulted in an image dramatically different than the image on the Shroud.

    One of my college professors used to say that “common sense is the least common of all the senses!” If we are going to make outrageous claims that modern processes were used hundreds of years prior to their actual invention, then we should start searching ancient ruins for medieval digital cameras (Ye Olde I-pod)!

    • August 22, 2011 at 6:01 pm

      Now, I agree completely with Barrie. And I yield to his professional knowledge. I am a novice. My only point was that silver was not the only metal that could be used to make photographs. And by all means, read Barrie’s paper.

      Dan Porter

  5. August 22, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    “He is a Jew who believe in God but who doesn’t participate in the cult of the Sabbath at the synagogue.”

    Thank you for the heads up. I’ll make the correction.

  6. Ron
    August 24, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    I totally agree with Barrie’s statements, I am no expert myself but have conversed with pro photographer friends and they have stated in their judgement, there is no possible way the Shroud is a photograph and a simple look at the image tells you that…Just look at the lighting! …There is alot of talk about emulsions, and it is plausible that a medieval guru could have made an emulsion that could have dissipated over time, but highly unlikely.One important ‘technical’ ‘ingredient for the ‘photograph theory’ has been left out of the conversation here and it is the ‘LENS’, lens technology in the time mentioned for the possible creation of the Shroud was in it’s infancy.It is very unlikely to nearly impossible, to believe an artist of that era had access to a highly focused type lens, that would be needed to create the very fine detail we see on the image of the Shroud.

  7. Yannick Clément
    August 24, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    And the persons who analysed forgery hypothesis tend to always forget one particular and very important argument that goes against every forgery hypothesis : The question of the blood on the Shroud ! I’m sorry for the Joe Nickell of this world, but there is no way a forger could artificially create those blood marks that came mainly from clotted blood. NO WAY ! PERIOD ! I even doubt that a team of medical specialist could even create those stains today as perfectly as we see them on the Shroud ! And when you add the FACT that those blood stains were on the cloth first and then, the image formation process begin, it’s even more illogical to believe a forger (from any period of time) could have create this. The only thing left as a weak possible explanation (beside the idea that the Shroud is an authentic burial cloth of someone who suffer the same torture than Christ) would be to think that someone else was really crucified and that his body was put into a shroud. But, here again, there’s a problem : How can you explain the fact that the body disappeared from the cloth before the first signs of putrefaction (40 hours roughly) and without disturbing the blood stains ? Good question, don’t you think ???

  8. Jesus
    December 20, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    And so, that’s it? that’s all the Son of God left us? A shroud? Not a recipe for end end to hunger or war? A shroud?
    One morning, I rather suspect, you will wake up and see what a waste of time your short life on this planet has been.

    • March 15, 2012 at 7:10 pm

      Don’t forget eternal life that he left us with…

  9. Scotty
    February 8, 2012 at 12:58 am

    I am no scientist, but I live life with healthy objectivity. My humble conclusion? The Son of The Almighty God was here, thus validating the New Testament….and Old. I feel priveledged. I know much, (through researching REAL scientist’s findings…and non-findings), about the most important THING on the planet. The longer I live, the more I understand I am sharing this wonderful planet with the 99% who are galactically ignorant, gullible, and mis-informed.
    I believe it was a vanishing event which “crossed” the physical matter into other dimensions. New Testament has the risen Christ transfiguring his physical appearance as well as moving into locked rooms, and disappearing again. Citizens of Earth, please examine the evidence and conclude that the long haired, bearded guy, from WAY before the 14th century, is the prophesied Messiah. True scientists of the world, thank-you. Please continue deeper into the cosmos, and into the realms of the tiniest particulate matter…and anti-matter(?) Archeologists, keep digging and getting those fingernails dirty! You are all hero’s to me. He encourages us to “seek me as you would a treasure”. Einstein admitted that the universe is not only more incredible than we can imagine, but more incredible than we could EVER imagine.
    Christianity, to myself, is no longer a “religion”. I find that word belittles the Faith. Christianity is the following of a real and living entity….the following of my Brother whom I look up to and want proud of me…similarly, as the Father is proud of Him. Make no mistake, citizens. Our lives are scrutinized every day. (It’s in the text which goes with the “picture”).

  10. September 29, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    What’s your thoughts on the info that “debunks the shroud” on this site?


  1. August 24, 2011 at 11:54 am
  2. August 11, 2012 at 3:35 am
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: