Yannick Clément writes:
The Shroud is a forgery… Really ???
Recently, I print out a positive photo of Enrie and did a little folding test, just to see how the Shroud must have been originally folded inside the tomb. Of course, to do that I based my judgement on the 2 body images we see on the Shroud. And guess what ? I had a very nice surprise !!! So much that I want to share my little discovery with all of you. [Larger Image Below]
If you look at the photo of Enrie, you’ll see that the red line I draw is the approximate place where we found the middle line of the cloth. In other words, if we would like to fold the Shroud in 2 exact pieces of equal dimension, that’s where you should do the folding. And in the case the Shroud would be an artistic forgery, that’s also where we would expect to see the exact middle line between the 2 body images. In other words, it’s natural to expect that a genius forger like that would have put the 2 images completely symmetrically versus the middle line of the cloth, so that the edges of the 2 heads would be found at the same distance from the middle of the cloth. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE 2 BODY IMAGES ON THE SHROUD, YOU NOTICED EASILY THAT IT’S NOT THE CASE AT ALL !!!
For me, that’s just another little interesting clue that point toward the fact that the Shroud is a real burial shroud of a real man who was beaten, scourged, crucified and who died of these tortures. To use the language of a Justice court, I would say that this represent another very good circumstantial evidence in favor of the authenticity of the cloth.
If you look again at the photo of Enrie, you’ll note that the green line I draw near the middle of the cloth is the approximate place where the cloth was originally folded to envelop the corpse inside the tomb. In other words, that’s where we see the middle line that separate the 2 images of the head and this line is not located exactly right in the middle of the cloth. For me, this non-symmetrical line of folding (versus the length of the cloth) has a REAL ODOUR OF AUTHENTICITY. And, starting from this original line of folding, we can easily estimate what really happen inside the tomb when they put the corpse in the Shroud.
Firstly, they put the back of the corpse on one part of the cloth and, in a very natural manner, they make sure that the feet would not be too close to the edge of the cloth. On the photo of Enrie, I traced a green line on the part of the cloth where we found the image of the back (part A) to show the approximate edge of the feet. In other words, that’s the spot where the edges of the toes were resting after the body was put in the Shroud. You can see that they made sure that the feet were not too close to the edge of the cloth. That’s why we see a nice portion of the cloth where there’s no image of the body (between the green line of part A and the edge of the cloth). After that, they took the other part of the cloth (part B) and they bring it back over the corpse to envelop it. But, unfortunately for them, they were probably surprised to note that the Shroud was almost too short !!! Effectively, on part A, I’ve draw a green line to show the probable edge of the feet and you can see that it is almost the same as the edge of the cloth !!! Here, I say “probable edge” because the body image there is almost non-existent. In fact, it’s not even clear if part A of the Shroud was really able to cover the top of the feet completely ! That seems to indicate that they left too much space between the edge of the feet and the edge of the cloth when they first put the back part of the corpse on the Shroud… And, like I said, this had the effect of making the Shroud almost too short (or really too short) to cover up completely the top of the feet, after they brought back the cloth over the corpse. Here, I want to add a little questioning for you : Who knows if this somewhat “erroneous” configuration of the Shroud over the feet is not responsible (partially or totally) for the fact that the image of the feet on the frontal part of the Shroud seem to be absent ?
Like I said, this “erroneous” (we can also say “non symmetrical”) configuration of the corpse versus the Shroud has a real odour of AUTHENTICITY ! And more than that, it really makes you think that the burial was done in haste, while the participants in the burial rite never took the time to make some measurement and adjustments, in order to be sure that the folding of the cloth would be located exactly in the middle of Shroud. This is surely not what we would expect if the images on the Shroud were the result of a brilliant artist ! Imagine an artist so brilliant to make 2 body images that respect all the correct proportions of a real corpse, but who would not have been able to put the 2 body images symmetrically versus the middle line of the cloth !!! It really seem ridiculous… And I should add that this argument is also true in the hypothetical case of a forger who would have used the real corpse of a crucified man to do his forgery (especially if we think that this forger would have wanted to consciously create the body images we see on the Shroud with some chemical “recipe” of his own). In this case too, we would expect that this brilliant forger would have taken a great care to place the dead body adequately in the right place, so that the cloth could be folded back over it, in order to make 2 pieces of equal length and, that way, to obtain 2 symmetrical images with a folding line located right in the middle of the Shroud. I’m sorry but I just don’t see a forger so brilliant not being able to located the 2 body images he created symmetrically versus the correct middle line of the Shroud !
So, you see ? The non-symmetrical aspect of the 2 body images, with a folding line not exactly located in the middle of the cloth, really point toward the fact that the Shroud is an authentic burial cloth of a real crucified person that was bearing all the stigmata of Jesus of Nazareth. That’s why, for me, a little clue like that is nevertheless IMPORTANT because it is one more circumstantial evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Shroud.
And evidently, this clue leads us to one important question : IF THIS ANONYMOUS PERSON IS NOT JESUS, THEN WHO IS HE ??? Here, I think the stigmata (especially the bloodstains from the crown of thorns) speaks for themselves !!!
That’s it my friends !!! I hope you found this little description interesting… Have you ever thought about that aspect of the Shroud ? Personally, I never realised that before I made a little folding test with a printed image of the Shroud.
In conclusion, I really think that, for the Shroud, many important answers lie under small details like that. And concerning the specific question of whether or not the Shroud is an authentic burial Shroud of someone, I firmly believe that this non-symmetrical aspect of the body images versus the Shroud offer one more clue to answer YES !!! Who said that everything is in the little things ???
Yannick Clément, Louiseville, Québec, Canada
Complementary note 1: Of course, all this argumentation is true in the case the present length of the Shroud is the same as it was originally. But even in this case, my argumentation would still be true, to some extent, because we can easily see that the feet are not even symmetrical versus the width of the cloth !!! Effectively, if we pay attention to the back image on the Shroud, we can see that the back is roughly symmetrical, but not the feet… That mean the body was not totally parallel with the cloth after he was put in the Shroud !
Complementary note 2 : In the hypothetical case that the side strip would not have been in place at the moment of the burial (John Jackson hypothesis), then my reflection would be even truer for the lateral aspect of the body images. Effectively, if that was really the case (I seriously doubt it, but let’s assume it’s true for a moment), then that mean that laterally, the corpse would not have been put in the Shroud exactly in the middle of the cloth. This is another little clue that point toward the fact that it is a real burial shroud of someone and this make you think that the burial was done rapidly, without paying too much attention to the symmetrical aspect of the corpse versus the shroud. At the same time, this is one more clue that goes against any idea of a forgery, especially in the case of an artistic forgery.
Complementary note 3 : If someone doubt of my conclusion that this non-symmetrical aspect of the body images versus the Shroud offer a real sign of a burial done in haste, it’s ok. Effectively, it is possible to read the body images a bit differently and to think that the participants in the burial rite made sure that the feet would not be too close to the edge of the cloth, not simply because it was natural to do so, but because it was necessary for the kind of folding they wanted to make. Effectively, we can think that the space they left at the edge of the feet was done on purpose in order to be able to fold back the free cloth over the top of the feet at the end of the enveloping of the corpse. This is another possibility. But personally, I think it’s much more probable that it was simply due to a natural move they did in order to make sure the feet wouldn’t be too close to the edge of the Shroud. But in the end, whether one possibility or the other should be true, it doesn’t change anything to the fact that the non-symmetrical aspect of the body images versus the Shroud has a real odour of authenticity…
Larger Image:
Yeah, this makes total sense. Were the positioning too perfect it would be a signal against authenticity.
But I think you drew that one green line of the dorsal image too far down. I’m thinking it should be a tad closer to the edge of the cloth (still an asymmetrical orientation). Aren’t the toes visible above that line? Being a smaller image than I’m normally used to looking at you may have included them but I know they are definitely there on the shroud.
The toes being present on the dorsal image does make me wonder if the shroud was tied in some way because if Jesus was laying on his back in the tomb, as we suppose, I imagine the cloth would have to have been held up against the soles of his feet somehow in order to get the image. Was there a foot rest in the tomb or was the shroud tied like in the Jackson hypothesis?
Chris, you’re maybe right about the precision of my green lines… Like I said in my text, those lines were done approximately because 1- The real edge of the feet are not easy to see on a positive photo of the Shroud and 2- I did it pretty fast. But, nevertheless, as you also said, even if the real edge are located a bit more up or down, that wouldn’t change the fact that the 2 images are non-symmetrical. That’s the real important thing to note, because it is a very good clue that point toward the fact that the Shroud was a real burial shroud of a crucified man and not some kind of forgery done by a genius…
This subject should probably be a new post. I, too am interested in the demarcation (fold?) between front and back images on the shroud. What looks to be a burst of light is just here. Has anyone theorized on this?
I can’t believe it took anyone this long to notice this! It is quite obvious the body was not placed central (lengthwise) on the Shroud. The green line at the feet of the dorsal image is way off anyways. As it is and has been proposed the dorsal, lower part of the Shroud was brought over the feet, hense we get the full foot marking including the toes, with space below. I mentioned something to this months ago in a debate with Colin over image size discrepencies. Guess it’s another one of those points that go unnoticed!. Anyways to truly understand the folding of the Shroud one should watch the BBC documentary; Material Evidence, reported by Rageh Omaar and Produced by David Rolfe. In the documentary they have a clip with Dr Jackson et.al showing how THROUGH YEARS OF STUDY they have come to the most likely method in which the Shroud was wrapped. After one views this demonstration the question of a ‘forgery’ will definately be dismissed, especially in accounting for the blood markings being on the Shroud previous to the image.
I believe the clip with the Jackson demonstration can be viewed on Youtube, whilst I’m not sure it has been licensed.
R
This comment sound like someone jealous ! He he ! Unbelievable…
I could care less really. Its the fact you make it sound like it’s something NEW and no one else could have noticed…It’s pretty obvious to some but not too others I guess.
Exactly Ron and that’s why I bring this information here on the blog ! I’m sure there’s a lot of folks (especially skeptics) who were not aware of this FACT that makes the idea of a forgery even more difficult to defend…
In fact Ron, I was aware that the images were not perfectly aligned, but before making a folding test, I wasn’t aware that it was that much. And that’s important to evaluate the possibility that they could have been created by a forger… That’s why I thought it would be a good thing to share this information with others.
And for you comment about a line being off, read what I said to Chris above. The precision of those lines is not important here. That’s not the point. The point is that the body images are not symmetrical at all. That’s the point ! And I should also say that the most important green line is the one near the center of the cloth because it is this line that show where the original line of folding was and proved, at the same time, that the 2 images are non-symmetrical versus the length of the cloth. For this important line, I’m pretty sure that I’m not too much off-track ! ;-)
Then why put the line in at all, at the end if it’s not correct? The precision is important when making a point, especially if the line in question gives an erroneous depiction of where or how the Shroud was folded…Get my point? The essence of your post was understood, but the ”showing” was flawed, thats all I’m trying to say…So in those terms you were off track. Which can bring on scepticism to the conclusion. I hope everyone picked up on my suggestion that they should watch the BBC video…as it will enlighten many to this discussion…and that was the essence of my comment.
Thanks.
R
The green line near the middle of the Shroud is well put and it is that line that makes a symmetric separation between the 2 heads that is the proof of the non-symmetrical aspect of the 2 body images versus the length of the cloth (because his location is not the same than the middle line of the cloth that I traced in red). That’s why it’s the most important line. The other 2 green lines were just put there rapidly by me to show approximately the edges of both feet for a better understanding of my argument. The fact that those 2 lines can be off-track a bit is not important at all regarding my reflection, because it’s not those 2 lines that prove that the body images are non-symmetrical versus the length of the cloth. On the contrary, it is the green line near the middle of the cloth that is THE proof of this non-symmetrical aspect of the body images (because it’s not located at the same exact spot as the red line in the center of the cloth). That’s why we could remove the 2 green line near the edges of the cloth and my argument would still be as valid as it is now !
I’ll repeat it : The heart of my argument is not found in these 2 green lines near the edges of the cloth but in the green line near the middle of the cloth !!! I hope this explanation will avoid any further confusion !!!
I am trying to find a place to post this question. I am extremely interested in the shroud and have been following the research for a number of yours. I most definitely believe that it is the burial cloth of Christ (though a nonbeliever) and that the image was formed by some inexplicable event. I accept that it might have been a side effect of the Resurrection—why not?–but I WOULD very much like to know how the image was formed in physics terms, however it was implemented. I appreciate these articles and these comments as shedding more light on the developing evidence.
I just finished reading Wilson’s last book, where he updated the history. I see a reference at this site to Dreisbach. Was it he or someone else who found references to the shroud in the Acts of Thomas? This would appear to be extremely valuable historical evidence, even if it does not date to the first century, yet I seem to find little written about it. Wilson did not mention it.
Maggie, for your first question; “image formation”. That is the million dollar question… and no one knows! But if you’d like to read about the several hypothesis on how it was formed you can visit http://www.shroud.com or Dan’s site Shroudstory.com as thye both have an extensive amount of information and papers on the subject.
As for Dreisbach, maybe Dan can answer that one, I believe Dan is well aware of his work.
R
Remember my recent open letter published on this blog concerning the evidence of the bloodstains ? You can read it here : http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/please-dont-forget-the-evidence-of-the-bloodstains/
In it, I was mentioning that because it is a proven fact now (especially because of the particularities of the blood) that the Shroud was not created with some kind of artistic method, there’s only 3 different possibilities that are left open regarding the image formation on the Shroud. Then, after reading some comments, I realised that, in fact, I should have separate one particular possibility in 2 in order to be clearer. So, I thought it would be a good idea to post them here (you’ll understand why at the end of this comment). Here’s the only 4 possibilities that can explain the Shroud of Turin, considering that the option of an artistic forgery is completely excluded :
1- It is a real burial shroud of someone who suffered the same tortures than Jesus, but who is not Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, it is a forgery produced by a forger (or many forgers) “naturally” (without using any art technique) while using a real human being. And because of the great resemblance of the bloody and body images with what happen to Jesus in the Gospels, we must assume that this forger (or forgers) did it in order to produce a false relic of the Passion of the Christ. We also have to assume that this forger (or forgers) took the dead body out of the shroud before it start to corrupt there, in such a way that this extraction of the body from the shroud never disturbed the bloodstains, never broke the linen fibrils under them and never disturbed the body image.
2- It is a real burial shroud of someone else than Jesus of Nazareth who suffered the same tortures than him and was produced accidentally by some undetermined natural phenomenon(s). In other words, this is not a forgery but instead, an accident of nature. In this scenario, we must assume that a person or a group of persons, for some obscure reason, took the dead body out of the shroud before it start to corrupt there, in such a way that this extraction of the body from the shroud never disturbed the bloodstains, never broke the linen fibrils under them and never disturbed the body image .
3 – It is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth and was produced by some undetermined natural phenomenon(s). The fact that the body left the Shroud before starting to corrupt there can be related or not with the resurrection. In other words, in this scenario, it is not completely clear if the resurrection had something to do with the bloody and body images. Nevertheless, even if this scenario involve a natural creation of the body image of Jesus, the fact that the extraction of his body from the shroud never disturbed the bloodstains, never broke the linen fibrils under them and never disturbed the body image, can be seen as a possible sign of a “dematerialisation” of his body at the moment of the resurrection. To conclude this point, there’s one thing very important to note : If it’s true, a scenario like that, involving some kind of natural phenomenon(s) related to the body image formation, cannot be taken by the sceptics as a proof that Jesus did not resurrect, because in the light of the all the facts we known, a manual extraction of the body out of the shroud seem to be highly improbable.
4- It is the real burial shroud of Jesus-Christ and was produced by some undetermined supernatural action directly linked to his resurrection. In this scenario, a “dematerialisation” of his body at the moment of the resurrection could explain the fact that no bloodstains was disturbed, no linen fibrils under them was broken and no body image was disturbed.
Now, if we go back to the little clue given by the non-symmetrical aspect of the 2 body images on the Shroud (versus, at least, the length of the cloth), I think it is fair to say that this observation (along many others that would be too long to mention here) is a very good clue to say that the option #1 describe above is UNLIKELY. At the very least, let’s say that there’s not much room left open for this option (the only one involving a forger) to be true !!!
Again, this deserve some thoughts. SINCE IT’S SURE THAT THE SHROUD IS NOT AN ARTISTIC FORGERY AND IT’S ALMOST SURE THAT THE SHROUD WASN’T MADE BY A FORGER USING A DEAD BODY, that lead us to an important question that is, in fact, THE question concerning the Shroud : IF THE MAN OF THE SHROUD IS NOT JESUS, THEN WHO IS HE ???
“Material Evidence, reported by Rageh Omaar and Produced by David Rolfe. In the documentary they have a clip with Dr Jackson et.al showing how THROUGH YEARS OF STUDY they have come to the most likely method in which the Shroud was wrapped.”
Doesn’t explain the difference of lenght between frontal and dorsal image.
Partially it does! As when they allowed extra length for the dorsal side to fold over the feet, they took away from the frontal foot area, which is not complete (Part of the feet are missing including the toes on the frontal view)…and draping of course, plus one must understand the effect of ‘foreshortening’ as the body was not flat but bent at the knees, upper torsal and head in rigor-mortis. You should read papers written by Dame Isabel Piczek to understand the foreshortening and how it effects the dimensions of the image.
R
Actually, extra lenght mainly comes from a hips-to-knee difference. You can see a band with no image under the bottom on the dorsal image.
Fanti, Piczek et al. took for granted the image was continuous, it may be wrong.
Sorry don’t understand what you are saying. Band? Took for granted image was continuous? Can you please explain.
And yes the bent knees ids part of the reason but not the main issue.
R
Mesure the distance from the antero-superior iliac spine to the knee, frontal and dorsal. There’s a gap.
Looking under the buttocks you can see an area with no image. Maybe the image is not continuous.
I can’t see how you could possibly make a precise measurement of what you say. I would assume there is alot of ‘quess-work’ in finding the exact points. There are some blank spots probably due to the angle of the cloth and the fact the knees were raised slightly meaning the thighs would be elevated also, but I see no actual gap. Atleast not one that would bring me to conclude the image is not continuous….sorry.
R
Ok then, can you see an angle between the upper and down side of the image on the dorsal image you can’t see on the frontal one ?
Anoxie, you are right. I did noticed it myself years ago.
Typo error: “did notice”.
ok, because concerning the difference of lenght this is a first order explanation whereas foreshortening is second order.