# Shroud of Turin...is this still a controversy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 15, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517 "2010-03-15T04:11:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/81 "2010-03-19T01:09:47Z")
According to John chapter 20; There was more than one cloth, and the separate cloth for His head was found not laying with the linen but folded in a place by itself. So it would be pretty hard to leave an image on one cloth as the believers of the Shroud would explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/82 "2010-03-19T01:17:33Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > According to John chapter 20; You mean like the John: 20 that was posted all the way back in post #13? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/83 "2010-03-19T13:20:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You mean like the John: 20 that was posted all the way back in post #13? Yes, I just meant to add: that it would be hard to put an image the the Shoud as is,( on one long cloth) when there were more then one cloth, plus why wasn’t there an image on the head cloth?. That is why I wonder why all the talk of the Shroud for years, MGO post #13 had it true to fact. ---
**Author:** ![wedgehed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8edcca/32.png) [@wedgehed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wedgehed)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/84 "2010-03-19T14:19:22Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Yes, I just meant to add: that it would be hard to put an image the the Shoud as is,( on one long cloth) when there were more then one cloth, plus why wasn’t there an image on the head cloth?. That is why I wonder why all the talk of the Shroud for years, MGO post #13 had it true to fact. Well, there was the [Image of Edessa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa). ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/85 "2010-03-19T21:14:54Z")
**garygnu** said: > [@](#): > > As far as the negative effect, it looks to me like it’s a rubbing. The parts of the face sculpture placed underneath the cloth that were higher up would be hit with more pigment than crevices. Since it was dark pigment used on a white cloth, the negative image would be appear “normal,” with crevices dark and peaks light. Steven Schafersman described that as a “pseudonegative” effect. Look at the Shroud - the image shows dark hair and mustache. The negative of the Shroud shows light hair and mustache. If the image were truly a negative, then Jesus would have had to have been a blond or albino. But that is pretty well discounted by most scholars. It does, however, very well match the effect of a rubbing. As described, high points get more pigment, low points less. Since the image is dark on light, it looks more natural to us in negative, with natural high points brighter than dark points. It’s the same effect that makes certain pictures of craters look like domes. If the sun angle on the image comes from below rather than above, the light and shadow combination trigger us to expect the bright part to be a dome reflecting light rather than a crater bottom. It’s an optical illusion created by our brain’s functional expectation. Same thing going on with this image. The high points are more intense because they have more pigment, but the pigment is dark and background light, so the effect is a negative. We perceive the image better when the pattern is reversed because it fits our brains’ expectations better. As has been noted, the artist was not attempting to create a negative, he just was working in reverse color palate. He would not have been working blind, the image has faded since its creation. It’s been _boiled_, for [del]heaven’s[/del] Pete’s sake. It was created in a time when artifacts brought out the masses, who _paid_ for the opportunity to touch it and pray over it. These were everywhere, and big business for the Catholic church. It is no wonder someone would create a fake image of a “burial shroud of Jesus” - that would be much better than the little finger of Saint Annoying Nobody. Or the miraculously reliquifying “blood” of Saint Popular Prayer Target. Fake artifacts were a dime a dozen - why is a fake shroud so hard to accept? **Chronos** said: > [@](#): > > But then, I figure that if God did miraculously bring about the conception of Jesus, He wouldn’t have missed the chance for a bit of extra symbolism, and so would have made Jesus type O negative. O negative is universal _donor_. AB positive is universal recipient. Jesus was recipient of humanity’s sins. Hmmmm. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/86 "2010-03-20T12:59:19Z")
> [@wedgehed](#): > > Well, there was the [Image of Edessa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa). The image\_of\_ Edessa has nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin; and I woulnd’t be surprised if that wasn’t a fake as well. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/87 "2010-03-20T13:08:09Z")
I also think it strange that the image didn’t soak through the cloth,at least I never saw an image on the back. If Jesus came through the cloth( like the priest who used to give talks on it every year said He must have done). He said it was like a bright light that made the image as Jesus was ressurecting. A man in Arizona created an image like on the Shroud, by putting it in the intense heat of the sun. The RCC church used to have a cloth they claimed had an image of Jesus that Veronia got by wiping the face of Jesus, when He was walking to be crucified. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/88 "2010-03-20T17:55:09Z")
Note, by the way, that the name “Veronica” appears nowhere in the Bible, nor does the story that his face appeared on the cloth. The Bible just says that one of the women (not naming who, but presumably Mary, Mary, Mary, or Martha) wiped his face. Then, a cloth surfaced with a face on it, and the story developed that this was the cloth used to wipe Jesus’ face, and that the image was his own. The name “Veronica”, meaning “True Image”, was then retroactively applied to the previously-unnamed woman who did the wiping. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/89 "2010-03-20T18:03:40Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Note, by the way, that the name “Veronica” appears nowhere in the Bible, nor does the story that his face appeared on the cloth. The Bible just says that one of the women (not naming who, but presumably Mary, Mary, Mary, or Martha) wiped his face. It doesn’t even say this, actually. The entirety of the Veronica legend is non-Biblical and late. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/90 "2010-03-20T18:18:13Z")
I hesitate to add this, this being GQ and all, but as an artist and past stage prop maker I don’t see all of the hubbub about the mystery of how it was made. I think the perception to the lay person on hearing “we don’t know for sure how it was made”, translates to “we can’t even imagine a process that could reproduce this”. There are probably several ways to come up with a similar image. Add in mishandling and lots of intervening years and to me this isn’t that great of a mystery. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/91 "2010-03-21T13:23:47Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > I hesitate to add this, this being GQ and all, but as an artist and past stage prop maker I don’t see all of the hubbub about the mystery of how it was made. I think the perception to the lay person on hearing “we don’t know for sure how it was made”, translates to “we can’t even imagine a process that could reproduce this”. There are probably several ways to come up with a similar image. Add in mishandling and lots of intervening years and to me this isn’t that great of a mystery. There must have been a way the Shroud was made, but it no matter how,it could not have been the Shroud of Jesus as believed, because according to the NT there was more than one cloth and the head linen would have the image on it , not the Shroud. I once saw a show on TV where they stated that during the 1st century, people were buried with strips of cloth, now,since the body wasn’t anointed it could have been wrapped in a single cloth, but that doesn’t explain finding “the linens and head cloth” as written in the NT. The story doesn’t add up! ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/92 "2010-03-23T09:26:07Z")
The shroud isn’t actually a photographic negative; it’s a relief negative. Parts of the figure that would be in direct contact with the cloth are darker than recessed areas of the figure. On edit, I see that this has already been discussed above. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/93 "2010-03-23T10:35:44Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > The shroud isn’t actually a photographic negative; it’s a relief negative. Parts of the figure that would be in direct contact with the cloth are darker than recessed areas of the figure. > > On edit, I see that this has already been discussed above. As discussed, I’m not sure the word ‘negative’ applies at all - it is, or appears to be, a relief print. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/94 "2010-03-24T18:43:26Z")
“Negative” in the sense that when you look at a face, you expect the high points to be brighter than the low points, because the high points are in light while the low points are shadows (think nose and cheeks vs. eye sockets). So when the image is dark print for high points on light membrane for low points, you get the inverse of what you would typically see. Ergo, negative. Or what I said in post 85. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/95 "2010-03-29T23:48:50Z")
a feature story on a national newscast mentioned the upcoming The Real Face of Jesus?: Tuesday, Mar 30, 9/8c The Real Face of Jesus?: Saturday, Apr 3, 8/7c on the History Channel on USA cable tv it may be mostly using computers to create 3D from the 2D. one comment made by a person involved saying that the shroud was covered in blood (though this clip is short and out of context so not clear if it was real blood or image of blood) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/96 "2010-03-30T00:38:37Z")
Well, if he was trying to say it’s covered in real blood, he’s full of shit. This sounds like it’s probably using computer modeling to get a 3D image of the face. The answer to the question mark in the title is no. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/97 "2010-03-30T00:40:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well, if he was trying to say it’s covered in real blood, he’s full of shit. > > This sounds like it’s probably using computer modeling to get a 3D image of the face. > > The answer to the question mark in the title is no. No, but a trace from someone? Possible. Maybe one of the artists or restorers cut themselves. Maybe it _is_ a shroud. Just not _the_ Shroud. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/98 "2010-03-30T21:52:18Z")
I wonder why this object has gotten so much attention. There are thousands of alleged holy relics ranging from the “true” cross to Jesus’ foreskin that have been collected by the Church of the centuries. Despite it’s dubious history and the carbon dating the Shroud seems to get more devotion than any other relic in Europe by a wide margin. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/99 "2010-03-30T21:57:48Z")
Probably because it looks so cool…at least to the religiously inclined. -XT ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/100 "2010-03-30T22:22:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](#): > > I wonder why this object has gotten so much attention. There are thousands of alleged holy relics ranging from the “true” cross to Jesus’ foreskin that have been collected by the Church of the centuries. Despite it’s dubious history and the carbon dating the Shroud seems to get more devotion than any other relic in Europe by a wide margin. My guess is that the ‘negative’ effect ups the woowoo factor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517.md?page=6)