Guest Posting by O.K. – A very short proof that Manoppello Cloth =Veil of Veronica.

The identification of Manoppello Cloth with the Veil of Veronica, allegedly stolen from St. Peters Basilica in 16th-17th century, is a very controversial matter, and there are both proponents1 and opponents2 of this idea. Here I want to show an evidence, that should settle the debate once and for all. If this is not proof, than what is it? 

One of the most characteristic features of the Manoppello cloth is its transparency. See the following pictures. On the left the Manoppello cloth3, on the right the Portrait of St. Veronica, attributed to Robert Campin (1375-1444)4




1 For example: Paul Badde, Boskie Oblicze, Całun z Manoppello (the polish edition of The
Face of God: The Rediscovery of the True Face of Jesus), Polwen, Radom 2006, Saverio Gaeta, Drugi Całun: Prawdziwa historia Oblicza Jezusa, Polwen, Radom 2007, Andreas Resch Oblicze Chrystusa: od Całunu Turyńskiego do Chusty z Manoppello, Polwen, Radom 2006 

2 Ian Wilson, Święte Oblicza (the polish edition of Holy Faces, Secret Places), Wydawnictwo da Capo 1994, Michael Hesemann, Milczący Świadkowie Golgoty (the polish edition of Die stummen zeugen von Golgatha), Wydawnictwo Salwator, Kraków 2006, 

3 Taken from  

4 Taken from

A Guest Posting by Yannick Clément: Solid as a Brick Wall

STURP Integrity


Over the years up until today, we have seen many skeptics about the authenticity of the Shroud (most of them are fans of the man made forgery scenario) accusing the STURP team of being religious fanatics (or religious biased).

So, here’s an argument that I think is as solid as a brick wall to show once and for all that this team effort to analyze the Shroud in 1978 and the years following was performed with great honesty and professionalism: The main conclusion of the team concerning the nature of the image formation on the cloth was “we don’t know yet” and not “it comes from a process that is scientifically unexplainable (in the sense that it is most probably related to some supernatural process)”.

In sum, if the STURP team would have been religiously biased, their conclusion would never have been the kind of “admission of failure” that it was concerning the image formation! NEVER! The team would have done all it can to strongly suggest a supernatural or miraculous process instead, which is not at all what have come out of their great work, proving it was a real honest and professionally performed scientific effort.

Because of their “we don’t know how it got formed” statement in their final conclusion versus the body image, I think anyone can forget the idea that this scientific team was biased in any way. Unfortunately, over the years, and principally since the publishing of the C14 dating results, many supernatural and/or religious fanatics out there have taken the “we don’t know” statement of STURP and turned it into a “we can’t fully explain it, so it most be related to the Resurrection of Christ”, which is a very bad extrapolation that is not worthy of any serious scientific thinking and which is absolutely not what STURP’s conclusion meant. 

Maybe STURP should have emphasize a bit the more their conclusion by underlining the fact that the image formation process was unexplainable IN THE PRESENT STATE OF OUR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SHROUD and, of course, this could change in the future if a new series of direct researches on the relic can be allowed by the Vatican…

I hope this short reflection of mine will be good to make people from the 2 principal fringe of Shroud science (i.e. the hardcore skeptics and the supernatural-religious fanatics) reflect and maybe realize how some of their thinking and statements about the Shroud image is far from what STURP really was and from what really was their primary scientific conclusion about the Shroud image.  

A Guest Posting by O.K. : Blood on the face of TSM?

imageThe question of the blood-covered face of the TSM is, in my opinion, a matter of great interest and importance. In the recent comment1, Hugh Farey raised a very important matter of the possible existence (or non-existence) of image under bloodstains. Based on Adler’s observation of cleansed blood fibers, it is generally assumed that there is no image under blood stains.2 But Hugh argues that:

All the Mark Evans photos showing bloodstains clearly show that most of the red particles have been rubbed off the upper surfaces of the threads, and are mostly confined to the cracks and crevices where one thread crosses another. The surfaces from which the blood has been rubbed off are as yellow as the rest of the image fibres, and do not carry the distinctive silky white appearance of the non-image threads.

So, in Hugh’s opinion, there is apparent conflict between Adler’s conclusions (it is however necessary to note that Pierluigi Baima-Bollone, who performed independent analysis of blood-covered threads agrees that there is no image under bloodstains3, earlier in 1973 other bloodied threads were analyzed by G. Frache and G. Filogamo) and Mark Evans photos. But another option comes to my mind, is it possible that some of the so called body image was actually created by blood?

What prompted me to this solution, is an analyzis of the various photographs of the Shroud, as well as Tamburelli & Ballosino’s eidomatic 3D reconstructions of the TSM face. Processing Enrie’s photos (STURP did not give them their images), they cleared the face from apparent blood flows and obtained these results:4


Another image shows eliminated blood traces:


That’s what interests us. Are those traces a real blood?

Evidences For Testing Hypotheses About The Body Image Formation Of The Turin Shroud by Fanti et al have following remark:

A44) The luminance level of the head image in the positive photograph of Durante (2000) is 10% and more lower (darker) than that of the whole body image (Moran 2002).

This was used by one sceptic to “prove” that the image of the face and rest of the body are separate images created by the forger. I refuted this statement by saying that this actually makes no sense, without clarification, what do we mean by luminance level (average, maximum) and what photography do we use. Because their sensitivity in different wavelengths can be different. That’s crucial here. Let’s analyze two photographs, one by Enrie, and one by Schwortz:


The differences are obvious. On the Schwortz photo, the blood marks are much more intense in comparison with the body image, than on Enrie one. It is due to the fact that Enrie’s plates were much more sensitive in the yellow part of the visual spectrum, while Schwortz’ were more sensitive in red. The most important observation is, however, that the face on the Schwortz’ is much more intense than on Enrie, almost as intense as the blood marks –thus suggesting that it is actually created by the blood marks! The most intense are beard, mustache, hair and eyebrows (which easily absorb blood) as well as nostrils, from which the blood spilled.

What’s connection of this to Hugh’s reservations? Hugh claims that the surfaces from which the blood has been rubbed off are as yellow as the rest of the image fibres, and do not carry the distinctive silky white appearance of the non-image threads. I want to ask, whether those darker fibers from the regions were blood has been rubbed off by erosion are actually not the image fibers (which would suggest that there is an image below blood stains, contrary to Adler and others) but blood residuals creating image. Thus there would be no conflict between Adler’s and Hugh’s observation. The slight differences in color, are, in my opinion, not enough to distinguish whether dark layer on the fiber is actually the image, or blood residuals.

Just my suggestion for further considerations. I would like to add also that one must remember that we don’t know precisely where blood flecks originally ended –the image areas on even individual fibers can be right next to the blood areas. Thus only direct examination of fibers can give us answer whether there is, or isn’t the image below blood.

1 See

2 See for example Evidences for testing hypotheses about the body image formation of the Turin Shroud , The Third Dallas International Conference On the Shroud of Turin: Dallas, Texas, September 8-11, 2005, Raymond N. Rogers, Frequently Asked Questions

3 Pierluigi Baima Bollone, Całun Turyński 101 pytań i odpowiedzi, Wydawnictwo Wam, Kraków 2002, pg. 143)

4 The images are taken from

A Guest Posting by O.K. on the Allegedly Too-Long Fingers

To examine a sizeable PDF version of this posting CLICK HERE





An Intriguing 9th Century Image Suggestive of the Shroud – A Guest Posting by Max Patrick Hamon

( A PDF Version of the following guest posting )

By Max Patrick HAMON


The flogging of Christ, Carolingian iconography, early 9th c. CE, Stuttgart Psalter, fol. 43v, Wurttenmbergische Landesbibliothek, Germany Click Here

A Shroud-like dorsal image of Christ?

In 1998-2000, Pr. Heinrich Pfeiffer was the first to draw attention to the ca 800-814 CE
Stuggart Psalter miniature-Turin Shroud dorsal image connection. In a passing comment he
just wrote: “Le numerose piccole piaghe che furono causate dalla flagellazione si trovano già
[…] su una raffigurazione della flagellazione di Gesù nel salterio di Stoccarda che data agli
inizi del secolo IX.. Questa […] miniatura mostra chiaramente tutta l’immagine dorsale della
Sindone. ” (The numerous small wounds resulting from the flogging are already to be found
[…] in a representation of the flogging of Jesus in the Stuggart Psalter of the early 9th century.
The […] miniature clearly shows the whole dorsal image of the Shroud.). See Il Gran Libro
della Sindone, p. 193, ed. Paolo, 2000 (Translation mine).

Could the ca. 800-814 CE Stuggart Psalter stark naked flogged Christ back view really predate the carbon 14 dating result of 1325 ± 65 calendar years by no less than 510-515 years; more than half a millennium?

Reminder: The fact is, for both the Emperor of the East (Byzantium) and the Emperor of the
West (The Holy Germanic Empire), the Sindon Munda and/or Sudarium Domini in connection with Yeshua’s Resurrection were the attributes par excellence of the Vicar of Christ. How could Charlemagne have ignored their very existence and not tried to learn as much as possible about them? How could he not have tried to get them or their brandea (substitute relics) at least? Actually, as early as 797 CE, Charlemagne/Charles the Great caused relics of Christ’s Passion and Saints to be searched for at Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople and Baghdad. Why not as far as Edessa then regarded as the Medieval Rome of the East?

Re the Stuggart Psalter miniature of the Flogging of Christ-Turin Shroud (TS hereafter) man’s
dorsal image connection, to the astute observer:

●Both men are stark naked with long flow of hair in the back. Part of the hair tied up like a
pigtail at the back of the head can be made out.
●Both have arm(s) bound/crossed in front. Had both no scourge marks on the inner side
arms? This cannot be checked today any longer.
●Both have bloodied furrows/scourged marks in conjunction with two whips with lashes each
fitted with doubled (metal) pellets implying two executioners.
●Both have almost feminine curved left hip & thigh (to be called later “the Byzantine curve”).
●Both are/were tied at tibiofibural level with left leg in front of right leg (TS man accurate
Forensic description: left leg in front of right leg with rope-mark in the tibiofibular fleshes).
●Both show a most unnatural/awkward feet position.
●And last but not least, by means of a very curious tailed-Epsilon hand sign each time, the
executioner on the left seem to point with his left hand index finger to his own head while the executioner on the right does point to Christ’s head with his left hand index finger too. Both left hand signs cryptically echoe the tailed-Epsilon-shaped like small blood rivulet we can observe on TS man’s forehead, just above his left eyebrow.


All these pieces of evidence piled up into a crucial evidence: the bloodied body burial cloth now kept in Turin was already in existence early in the 9th CE. The Stuggart Psalter miniature Shroudlike Christ does predate the radiocarbon date by no less than half-a-millennium.

What really may be not that obvious to the layman’s eyes can just stare in the face of an old (yet not so old) Archaeological Image Cryptanalyst…

End notes:

  • Absent the Baptism of Christ iconography, the depiction of a stark naked Christ is very rare as far as Christological iconography is concerned prior to the 12th c. CE. From 1200 to 1350 CE, it is still rather uncommon.
  • Iconographically speaking, most likely the early 9th c. CE Carolingian miniaturist-monk
    (from the Saint-Germain-des Prés or Reims monastery that was under the Benedictine rule
    then), did not copy the Shroud dorsal image directly in situ but visually stored it and painted it back onto the painting surface at the risk of interpreting it. Less likely he copied it from nother MS miniature.