Imagine

WAG from Oklahoma City writes:

Imagine a life size statue, part of a crucifix in a cathedral, falling to the floor as stress bearing shoulders break apart. Imagine workmen carefully wrapping the statue in a linen altar cloth. They place the arms over the torso so they fit under the cloth. Imagine workers cleaning the statue with a cleaning fluid. Imagine a chemical reaction taking place that forms an image on the cloth. Imagine a priest thinking this was a miracle. Imagine a cash strapped bishop changing the story a bit and adding some blood from the cathedral hospital.

I think a partial hat tip to Colin is in order.

No that is not the shroud image. That is John Lennon, the first thing that came to mind with all those imagines.

26 thoughts on “Imagine”

  1. What Colin and his fellow travelers overlook is the simple fact that there isn’t a crucifix anywhere that presents the accurate anatomical details of the Shroud of Turin. None, nada zip. A pre-fourteenth century artisan who created such a crucifix would not only have been one of the greatest artists of all time but a medical genius four or so centuries ahead of his or her time. And imaging a scenario that might have happened ignores the evidence of what did happen. Against hard facts, even circumstantial facts, speculation falls unless supported by hard, not imagined facts (and then it wouldn’t be speculation).

    One of the things Heller and Adler did is conduct a gedanken (thought) experiment trying to image how the Shroud could have been faked. These very brilliant and accomplished men, one of whom was Jewish couldn’t find any reasonable scenario that could account for the hard facts that are demonstrated by the Shroud.

    Why do so many people search frantically for explanations which are fanciful and without any historical precedent?

    Is the the fact of Christ’s crucifixion so frightening that you must flee from its truth? That is really a shame, you are missing something that really gives flavor and meaning to life – of everyone. It’s what happened on the third day.

    1. What John and his fellow travellers overlook is the complicated situation that even among ardent authenticists there is continuous disagreement over how accurate the anatomical details actually are. It is often stated that the dorsal image represents a taller man than the ventral image (which should be the other way round if the back of the cloth was flat on a ledge and the front was draped over a figure. Isabel Piczek thinks that the front legs are too short, and attributes this to the fact that they were bent, with the knees well off the group, in which case there should be no image of the back of the legs on the cloth. Some people think that the shoulders look dislocated, to account for the fact that the hands can hide the genitals, whir others think that the shoulders were slightly raised to account for this. Rigor mortis, lying on a stone pillow, even floating above the surface of the tomb, all these have been suggested by authenticists to account for what they see as patently inaccurate anatomical details. John’s simple faith in anatomical perfection, in short, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

      Heller and Adler were very brilliant and accomplished scientists in their fields, and their lack of imagination about how the details of the shroud could be reproduced should not be held against them, but to treat their artistic speculations as the last word on the matter is absurd.

      I don’t know anyone who is searching frantically for an explanation of how the shroud appeared on the shroud. I know of several who have calmly investigated a variety of hypotheses, presented their findings for discussion, and either refined their line of thought or embarked on new ones. The image on the shroud appears to be unique among images; any explanation for it, regardless of provenance, is fanciful until it is considered established.

      What on earth is all that stuff about Christ’s crucifixion got to do with it? Does exploring a stained cloth mean I am fleeing from its truth? Or frightened of it? Dear me, it is because I am neither fleeing not frightened that I am able to investigate the shroud with the dispassion of the scientist. My faith does not depend on a picture; does yours?

      1. Hugh,

        Far be it from me to attack your faith but I find that faith not based on fact is not faith but superstition. St Paul, I believe, stated that if Christ did not rise from the dead than our faith is in vain.

        I am not a Greek scholar and I do not know what the Greek word was, but I had to look up vain when I started to write that sentence because I suddenly realized I didn’t remember which way to spell vain. There is of course vein and vane all quite proper words in their own right. But having checked to be sure I spelled it correctly, I was interested in the the definitions of vain I found.

        1. having or showing an excessively high opinion of one’s appearance, abilities, or worth.
        “their flattery made him vain”
        synonyms: conceited, narcissistic, self-loving, in love with oneself, self-admiring, self-regarding, self-obsessed, egocentric, egotistic, egotistical; More
        antonyms: modest

        2. producing no result; useless. “a vain attempt to tidy up the room”
        synonyms: futile, useless, pointless, to no purpose, hopeless, in vain;

        I don’t know if you took time to read it, but I was particularly struck by Kim Dreisbach’s valedictory read in Perugia posthumously: “The Ecumenical Implications of he Shroud of Turin” see https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/dreisbach4.pdf

        The reason I was so touched by it is that in sum he stated what has become my conclusion: the Shroud of Turin is a Revelation for our time brought to us by science. To me as a fan of Teilhard de Chardin, that’s huge. That’s epochal.

        When I started my project and was examining closely the pictures of the Shroud for the first time and reading Barbet and Bucklin, among others, I had what some call a “Shroud Moment.” For the first time in the seven decades my life, I sensed on a personal level what he must have suffered. It’s not that I was in pain, it’s that the reality of that suffering finally sunk in.

        Christian theology has had trouble grappling with some simple facts of history. There was no garden of Eden and no original sin has we now understand it. My favorite definition of original sin is that it is the innate selfishness of all life that was the driving force of evolution. Scripture tells the story of humanity striving to overcome that selfishness. The antithesis of selfishness is love.

        I believe hat the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ teaches us that love, in the end, conquers. As Saint Paul wrote: there exist these three Faith, Hope and Love. The greatest of these is Love for in eternity Faith and Hope will pass away while Love shall endure forever.

        It has been more than a hundred years since Secondo Pia first discovered the meaning and vitality of the image of the Shroud. No one has explained the process of how that image was created. Many have tried. What Colin Berry and the WAG that Dan posted demonstrate is that it is a childish exercise.

        To paraphrase St. Paul: it’s time to put the childish things aside. Ecce Homo!

        You may think am avoiding your arguments but I rely on the arguments of scientists like Heller, Adler and the others of the STURP team. These were people of scientific accomplishment before they went to Turin. I’ll take their word. Have you ever examined an actual fiber of he Shroud or do you rely on interpreting pictures taken by others?

        Do you consider yourself a superior scientist to Ray Rogers?

      2. “Some people think that the shoulders look dislocated, to account for the fact that the hands can hide the genitals, while others think that the shoulders were slightly raised to account for this.”
        I don’t get this Hugh. My hands can cover my genitals (mind you, only just) even lying dead flat. I certainly don’t have abnormally long arms.
        There is just no issue there. I struggle to see anatomical abnormalities.
        I’ve proven a number of things to myself by measuring on Shroudscope and corroborating against my own body. A classic example is the myth that the hand wound is on the wrist. It’s not. Its close to the middle of the hand. Another myth, this time from the anti authenticists, is that the fingers are too long. They are not, they measure similar to my own.

      3. Hugh:

        It is often stated that the dorsal image represents a taller man than the ventral image (which should be the other way round if the back of the cloth was flat on a ledge and the front was draped over a figure.

        Short ball:

        Isabel Piczek thinks that the front legs are too short, and attributes this to the fact that they were bent, with the knees well off the group, in which case there should be no image of the back of the legs on the cloth.

        Unless the cloth was raised and tied with a stripe or another cloth.

        Rigor mortis, lying on a stone pillow, even floating above the surface of the tomb, all these have been suggested by authenticists to account for what they see as patently inaccurate anatomical details. John’s simple faith in anatomical perfection, in short, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

        No Hugh, you simply do not understand the issue. Floating above the surface of the tomb has nothing to do with anatomical perfection, it is just a simple model of flat projection, assumed by Piczek. Which is one of many suggested models -see this

        and this

        The different model you assume, the different results you obtain. And in fact the anatomical perfection hides in those ‘patently inaccurate anatomical details’, (slight distortions) suggested by those models.

  2. This is an interesting (lyrical?) twist on the misapprehension of Occam’s Razor common among atheists and some skeptics, who seem to believe that the most simplistic explanation which fits within their personal knowledge and experience is the same as the ‘simplest explanation that fits the facts.’ Yes, the imagination is capable of conjuring all kinds of scenarios. If it weren’t for those darned facts.

    1. At the risk of sounding like someone with faith, which a “true” scientist wouldn’t have, I believe that at the end of the day, the simplest explanation for the image of the Shroud is a process connected to the Resurrection. I also believe that someday “science” will recognize that fact.

      I think that much of the confusion about the distortions of the image arises from the fact hat the body was not flat at the instant when the image was formed. Forensic pathologists such as Bucklin and Zugibe have found that the body was in a state of rigor mortis. In Chapter 14 of Zugibe’s book “The Crucifixion of Christ: A Forensic Inquiry” he spends a lot of ink discussing “rigor mortis” which he found in the exemplified by the man in the shroud. Between Bucklin and Zugibe there are some disagreement about how crucifixion cause death s but the fact that rigor mortis was present is not in dispute.

      Zugibe points out that it was necessary for Joseph of Arimithea and whoever else helped him in entombing Christ to “break the rigor mortis” because since the man in the shroud was a crucifixion victim his arms would have stiffened at the moment of death in an extended position. That also meant as frequently pictured that his knees were bent and his head and neck when he was laid flat slightly elevated. Because of that measurement of his actually height has must be adjusted.

      Now whatever the precise image creation process, it reflects the body still in a position of rigor mortis and that means by the Gospel accounts before 3:00PM on the Sunday following the crucifixion. All four Gospel accounts describe Mary Magdalene discovering the body missing at daybreak on that Sunday.

      The rigor mortis is one fact established by science that supports a “theory” of Resurrection and adds weight to the conclusion that the Shroud is not a forgery. It’s just one fact but that fact of rigor mortis is a relevant one.

      It is interesting but maybe not terribly relevant that the digital pictures I take are sometimes distorted. For example, a picture of my dog Bogart (a/k/a “Bogie”) that I once published on my blog shows his head abnormally large in comparison to his body when he was in a sitting position. Also my wife last night was conversing with her niece in Chicago on Skype using her I-Phone. The appearance of her niece’s face close-up was also distorted. Her nose for example appeared much larger vis-a-vis her face.

      The very distortions that some see in the shroud man are not the result of an “incompetent” artist but likely caused by the time of the image creation when the man in the shroud was in a state of rigor mortis. Now maybe someone can dispute rigor mortis. Okay, go ahead but only forensic pathologists may apply.

      1. Some people find he debates on this blog a waste of time. I do not because it helps me sharpen my ideas for the manuscript I am writing and God willing will complete.

        Alas, just as with my manuscript I am bugged by typos – only more so, Please excuse them. Orphaned single letters and missing first letters of words may distract. So I apologize but will not burden the site with lengthy amended versions. This is my last word on typos.

      2. I realize many of these points are probably addressed in other comments, but I’m doing this stream-of-consciousness, so please bear with me.

        I agree with you completely on rigor mortis; skeptics have yet to produce any response on this issue as credible and authoritative as Zugibe. Yet they will blithely assert that the body would have been limp at image formation and proceed to erroneously interpret the anatomy as if the body were lying perfectly supine on a flat surface. They resolutely guard and nurture this misbelief because so many of their criticisms of the Shroud are dependent upon it.

        In addition to the evident rigor, the absence of distortions consistent with gravity and contact with a planar surface need to be considered. The hair, back and buttocks do not appear as they should. I think Gilbert Lavoie’s study and photographs are especially helpful here. Ideally, they should be reproduced using cadavers exhibiting various degrees of rigor; such observations, though, would be difficult to arrange without the professional access of an authority like Zugibe.

        Given the dearth of expected distortion, skeptics are effectively limited to arguing for one of the various flavors of ‘heated statue’ or bas relief theories. The body must have been a hard, even solid, material. Of course, these are easily confounded by blood, serum, and other obvuously biological evidence, which forces the argument back to consideration of a corpse. And round and round we go.

        The image is, and yet it cannot be.

        While I agree with the Augustine forumlation on miracles, I nevertheless think that the Creator’s understanding of nature’s physical laws permits manipulation on a level we cannot hope to understand any time soon. For this reason, I think it’s fair to say that the image is essentially “impossible.” It cannot be reconciled with what we understand of physics.

  3. Good morning, John. I am still waiting for your comments on the link sent to you in the thread we-walk-in-the footsteps-of-giants. It relates more to your approach than C.G. Jung and the Shroud.

    1. Louis,

      I am sorry that I overlooked your link. I attempted to print it to PDF which is my preferred choice for preserving information to may research material. However, only the first few pages printed and the rest were blank. I really don’t have time to fuss with it now and won’t have until next week. It’s a challenging piece and its on matters relevant to where I am heading. . Two comments: You are a gifted scholar and your work parallels some of the things I wll write about in the Second Part of my manuscript. The working title of the whole manuscript is: “The Coming of the Quantum Christ: The Shroud of Turin and the Future of Science and Humanity.” You referenced quite early in your piece “militant atheism.”

      So “in the clear” are the first three paragraphs of my introduction:

      “We do not order our lives by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Every day we make decisions after weighing the available facts. But almost always we have doubts. Fear the person who has no doubt. Think George Armstrong Custer. If we only acted in the absence of doubt, we would probably seldom act at all. Even Mother Theresa, who devoted her life to caring for the most desperate of the residents of the Calcutta slums, confessed to moments of black doubt.

      “Unfortunately, one of the hallmarks of the current era are people who profess freedom from doubt under circumstances where doubt would seem to be a reasonable proposition. For example, newly militant atheists are crusading against any form of religion and express no doubt about the absence of any God of any kind. They claim to arrive at their conclusions by the dispassionate application of the scientific method. Foremost among the militant atheists is Oxford Don Richard Dawkins whose literary rant against religion, The God Delusion, has sold more than two million copies since it was published in 2005. The cover jacket for Delusion, modestly describes Dawkins has “the world’s most prominent atheist” (the “atheist pope” so to speak),

      “Opposed to the atheistic militants are, among others, young earth fundamentalists be they Christian, Islamic or Jewish. To those fundamentalists, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, the world is a scant 6,000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs. Indeed, to some, the Grand Canyon is but an artifact of Noah’s flood. They are but cat’s paw for the atheistic militants who delight in demonstrating their absurdities. Nonetheless, the most potent weapon of the militant atheists, aside from acerbic wit, is their scientific credentials.”

      Again, if you want to correspond try klotzlaw@gmail.com

  4. Thanks for the kind remarks, John. A lot of hard work was needed for that piece, sandwiched between fundamentalist, moderate and liberal interpretations of the Bible. Take your time, there is no need to hurry. As for the e-mail, I sent you message around ten days ago and it must have landed in the spam box.

  5. Thank you all, whose replies illustrate rather than invalidate my post.

    John: “Faith not based on fact is not faith but superstition. St Paul, I believe, stated that if Christ did not rise from the dead than our faith is in vain.” Dead right. I am endlessly quoting St Augustine of Hippo, St Thomas Aquinas, Pope John-Paul II’s ‘Fides et Ratio’ and Benedict XVI’s address at Regensburg. However, the genuineness of the shroud has no bearing on my faith in the resurrection, and I don’t believe it has on yours. If it were proved a fake tomorrow, would you convert? What to?

    Matthias: “There is just no issue there. I struggle to see anatomical abnormalities.” Apparently, so does John, but you are in a minority. Shroud/body configuration theories abound in order to correct percieved abnormalities. Just one point though – when you lie flat on the ground with your wrists crossed, what angle do they make? You’ll notice that the shroud man’s arms are very bent at the elbow, and meet at quite a wide angle at the wrists. Can you copy that?

    OK. Your measurements are impeccable. Why so many people disagree with them is beyond me. But they do. Piczek thinks that both the top and bottom of the shroud were horizontal, and the shortness of the legs is due to the foreshortening that comes from projecting the bent legs vertically upwards and downwards. If the cloth were tied under the knees, then there should be a non-image band on both ventral and dorsal images, and there should be considerable lengthening of the upper legs as the cloth passes over the knees. And all that projection business – of course I understand. All the suggested radiation directions and cloth configurations are attempts to show how “anatomical perfection” would look when it appeared on a cloth. The trouble is, as I said before, that each of these possibilites has its adherents, all of whom think that the others’ versions are completely untenable, and would result in a distorted appearance. W says the legs are too short, and therefore must be the result of foreshortening; X says the arms are too long, and therefore must be the result of dislocation; Y says the neck is too short, and therefore must be the result of the head being on a pillow; Z says the buttocks are too rounded, and therefore must be the result of the body hovering in the air. All of them begin with the assumption that the shroud image is not, in itself, anatomical perfection, but a projection thereof. Trouble is, none of them agree how to achieve it.

    John: I think you’re correct in thinking that a body set rigidly in the position of a crucified person, whose arms were pulled out of position with some force to their site over the abdomen, is now fairly well accepted by authenticists. What they do not realise is that this is exactly the same scenario as a metal or wooden crucifix, whse arms were snapped off and placed in the same position – except for the actual site of the breakage, which is fortuitously hidden by some convenient burn marks…

    1. To Hugh:

      OK. Your measurements are impeccable. Why so many people disagree with them is beyond me. But they do.

      Who, and why? As you can see, the dorsal image without feet is shorter than ventral, which is fine, but dorsal image with feet included (which add about 20 cm) is longer -and that’s also fine. The problem is that those details are often ommitted, and confusion begins then.

      If the cloth were tied under the knees, then there should be a non-image band on both ventral and dorsal images

      Why? The cloth could be tied from the outer, non-image (at least visible to the naked eye) side.

      The rest of the issues in next post.

    2. “Matthias: “There is just no issue there. I struggle to see anatomical abnormalities.” Apparently, so does John, but you are in a minority. Shroud/body configuration theories abound in order to correct percieved abnormalities. ”

      There’s a difference between true anatomical abnormalities, and what appear to be abnormailties. In my view the latter may be the case with the shroud, but not the former

    3. Hugh – yes I can replicate that position, comfortably. No issue.
      I am quite long limbed, but not abnormally so. Perhaps when I get some time I can get myself photographed in this position and submit to this website.

  6. Hugh,

    You have four accounts of the body being laid in the tomb and that it was missing within three days. As numerous observers have noted, the Shroud exhibits medical characteristics that were unknown until recent times. The blood stains are real and show characteristics that no artist could conceive of until at least the eighteenth century and qualities that were invisible until examination by modern technology. Frankly, the concept that the Shroud is a forgery is absurd. By the way, has anyone ever seen a crucifix where when the body is removed from the cross it shows evidence of scourging “on the back” which would not be visible when the crucifix is displayed?

  7. Imagine that the Shroud is a real burial cloth because we know for a fact that it was already stained by blood and serum stains at the time of the image formation and Imagine that none of those biological stains were damaged or disturbed in any way by the image formation mechanism. Imagine that this is true (which it is by the way) and you’ll easily forget every possible man made forgery scenario that you can imagine.

  8. Hugh Farey :
    Thank you all, whose replies illustrate rather than invalidate my post.
    John: I think you’re correct in thinking that a body set rigidly in the position of a crucified person, whose arms were pulled out of position with some force to their site over the abdomen, is now fairly well accepted by authenticists. What they do not realise is that this is exactly the same scenario as a metal or wooden crucifix, whse arms were snapped off and placed in the same position – except for the actual site of the breakage, which is fortuitously hidden by some convenient burn marks…

    What about the ankles/feet, they’re often crossed over (though not always). And the inclusion of a loin cloth, which is certainly more ubiquitous for most metal or wooden crucifixes, this was sanded down and smoothed over? “Convenient burn holes”, “fortuitously placed”, really? No need to answer, these questions are simply rhetorical. I’m not interested in defending why I think it’s not a soldered crucifix. Or a repaired wooden one.

    So, now we are at the point of not even having a dedicated artist to create a forgery from scratch that was clever enough to fool a panel of scientists-it’s the work of a recycler? Again, rhetorical. Words of another John Lennon song come to mind, “Some kinda druid dudes lifting the veil-Doing the mind guerrilla-Some call it magic, the search for the grail”.

    Maybe you’re on to something (or not), but I’ll pass on this one.
    Keep doing the mind guerrilla, no disrespect intended, consider this a digital handshake.
    I’ve got to be moving on.

    In closing, “Love is the answer and you know that for sure”

  9. Well, I’ve really no quarrel with any of these more recent remarks, because they do not address the point. We do seem to drift, don’t we? To recall John’s original remark and “accurate anatomical details.” This, I claimed, is disputed, sufficiently that it cannot be said to be an established fact (or FACT!!!) about the shroud of Turin. Now we’ve got John and Anonymous shifting the subject to the bloodstains. I’ve no doubt whatever that if I moved on to the bloodstains (It’s all right, I’m not going to…) they would leave that subject and start talking about the Pray Codex, and if I started on that they would flit off to the pollens.
    Well, good for them, and why not, but, at least from a scientific point of view, you can run, but you can’t hide. Facts? I eat ’em for breakfast…

    To be honest, Kelly, I too hold no brief whatever for a broken crucifix. I only brought it up because one of the postural variations of the dead body hypothesis turns out to be anatomically indistinguishable from a broken crucifix, which I find ironic.

    1. When Colin suggested this I gave it a serious consideration. Is it a plausible theory? Yes. There is no singular piece of evidence that can refute the theory and there are some cursory pieces of evidence that could support it. Is it probable? No.

      My main problem with the theory is that if someone was able to make this work once, why did they never make it work twice? Human ingenuity is boundless. Humans built the pyramids, crossed the Pacific in canoes, built the Rapa Nui statues – -and some moderns were so astonished that we went looking for aliens to explain how they did it. Is the Shroud an object beyond the realm of a medieval artisan. No. But the Egyptians built several pyramids, the Polynesian star navigators criss-crossed in the Pacific in hundreds of canoes, and there are dozens of statues on Rapa Nui. It is a human trait that once we acquire a new technique or technology that we seek to use it, or some variant of it, again and again.

      The medieval artisan and his team, because this was not a one-man job, appear to have gone against the grain and after making this novel image formation decided to never use it again. Perhaps they were all murdered to protect the secret? Or all took a vow of secrecy upon pain of perdition? Again, this is plausible, but probable?

  10. Hugh, I would like to explain some certain issues:

    And all that projection business – of course I understand. All the suggested radiation directions and cloth configurations are attempts to show how “anatomical perfection” would look when it appeared on a cloth. The trouble is, as I said before, that each of these possibilites has its adherents, all of whom think that the others’ versions are completely untenable, and would result in a distorted appearance. […] All of them begin with the assumption that the shroud image is not, in itself, anatomical perfection, but a projection thereof. Trouble is, none of them agree how to achieve it.

    And actually, that’s completetly normal situation in science! There are rarely single accepted theories -usually there are many competing models competing models that try to explain more or less a given phenomenon, say the solid state physics, nuclear physics (there is no single good model of the atomic nucleus!), in astrophysics, and in many other branches of “exact”science, not to say about less exact (economy, sociology, history, archeology, psychology and so on). So such disagreements in case of the Shroud are something that should be expected. There is no final, widely accepted model yet, and the space of possible parameters is very large. But there are several good models, which explain various issues -the problem is how to reconcile these models with each other. So some another manipulations with the parameters have to be undertaken, which is
    very tedious and difficult work (there is no simple indicator that would say we are going in a right direction). Remember, there are more than a dozen parameters!

    However, even exising models give slightly different, but still relatively satisfactory results. Actually there are probably no serious abnormalities in the image of TSM, at least no beyond some acceptable limits. Only some sceptics, like Nickell, Schafersman and their followers probably smoke some herb, so they see some terrible distortions.

    If the cloth were tied under the knees, […] there should be considerable lengthening of the upper legs as the cloth passes over the knees.

    Dependent on the model, there could be either lenghtening or shortening.

    The next post will be about Piczek and her approach.

  11. Isabel’s Piczek approach and reasons behind it:

    Hugh, you wrote:

    Piczek thinks that both the top and bottom of the shroud were horizontal, and the shortness of the legs is due to the foreshortening that comes from projecting the bent legs vertically upwards and downwards.

    See once again this:

    and this:

    Piczek assumes that the body (hovering in the air, but that’s unimportant detail here) was popjected vertcally on the Shroud floating flatly in horizontal position above and below (see model 1. and yellow line on the pictures above).

    Why she assumes so.?The key is her methodology. Piczek is an artist, a painter. See a picture of her, while she climbs up on the ladder to see live model posing:

    What does she see staying on the ladder, above the model? This:

    She sees her model not from the perspective of the Shroud wrapping the body (because it is hard to imagine such perspective, even for the alleged Shroud forger -that’s another reason why his existence is doubtful), but from the perspective of someone who sees the body staying above it -from the perspective of flat horizontal plate. And while she claims:

    “The professional arts cannot find any such discrepancies and distortions in the anatomy of the Shroud Man, which cannot be explained experimentally and which would prove it to be a painting.”

    she assumes that the image was projected on the Shroud exactly in this way, vertically on flat surface. Is it fully precise approach -no. This is only the first approximation, but actually this first approximation is good! Some minor corrections may be applied, using more sophisticated tools (models how the Shroud wrapped the body presented by Jackson and others, some computer simulations like performed by Fanti and the one which is being made by Mario Latendresse), but general conclusion seems to be valid, there are no great abnormalities visible in the TS Man.

Comments are closed.