The shroud of Turin is an intriguing relic, and it turns out to be one of those cases where truth is far more interesting than the myth. And clearly I've already tipped my hand here, but seriously most intelligent and unbiased debate now centers on the strong conclusion that the Shroud of Turin is a manufactured icon, albeit meticulously crafted. Indeed the official Vatican interpretation has always been that it's merely symbolic although many Christians and others of faith sincerely disagree. And as usual the mainstream mass-media will focus on the extraneous information leading one to almost believe the thing is legitimate. Error laden dating methods, contradictory interpretations pollen grains, even tedious studies of the blood type of the stains!

Two primary questions stand out in my mind upon first sight of the artifact. The first and perhaps most serious obstacle to the legitimacy of the shroud is the physical shape of the image. It defies logic because it is so accurately proportioned in the shape of a man, despite the geometric impossibility of crafting an accurate two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object. Think of a globe, every map has to be distorted in some manner by virtue of the process of warping a sphere onto a plane, this is why in the most common Mercator projection Greenland appears so gigantic. Now if the body was wrapped tightly with a cloth it is possible to get enough contact with the skin to create a chemical imprint but by doing that you will necessarily not have contact with indented portions of the body such as the eyes. Thus the facial image would only consist of points of contact such as a nose print a forehead print and a chin print, etc. Conversely if the shroud was wrapped loosely enough to catch the indented parts of the body and face then the image would have to be distorted, rendering a very un-human looking image to the casual observer.

The second problem concerns the image itself: how was it imprinted, and how did it get to be (according to official analysis) only on the surface of the fabric? Any fluid chemical would logically seep through the fabric creating not a consistent coloring but discolored blotches and pools, in other words anything but a literal human image. Oddly enough the blood marks DO behave this way, however the rest of the body image is purely a yellowed surface effect.

One very simple yet remarkably ingenious method to create the surface image effect is camera obscura, the pinhole camera of science fair fame. Camera obscura is a neat trick that formed the basis of the earliest photographs. Light passing through a hole into a darkened room or inside a box will form an upside down image on the opposite wall of the world outside. By using a lens in front of the pinhole the image can be focused. Recording the image is the tricky part. Silver iodide has the useful property of being permanently altered by light. Silver salt crystals are used in film to make photographs. The linen acted as the photographic paper, a white high albedo statue the Christ image, sun as the light source and painted on blood as the realistic detailing.

It is acknowledged that the image which appears on the Shroud of Turin is caused by oxidation to the upper fibrils of the cloth (Allen, 1995a:21-35). This oxidation has been shown by Allen's research to be easily duplicated by the effects of photochemical degradation as caused by the application of a silver salt (such as silver sulphate), onto an ester (such as linen). The focussed image of a sun-illuminated corpse or body-cast will produce a shroud-like image after eight to twenty four hours of exposure, which makes use of an optically clear bi-convex quartz lens. After exposure, all reduced silver may be removed by the agency of ammonium hydroxide. The resultant images contain no dye, powder, stain or pigment, contain three-dimensional information, are negative and are only visually coherent at a distance in excess of three to four metres. In this regard, these experimental images, which are produced by use of materials, apparatus and chemicals which collectively are known to have been available to both Islamic and Christian scholars by at least the thirteenth century may be safely compared with those found on the Shroud of Turin, addressing as they do, each and every image characteristic as identified by the STURP committee in 1977. As is the case with the Shroud of Turin, the images produced by this method have a slightly top-lit quality and display visual distortions in keeping with spherical aberration as caused by the agency of a lens. The Shroud of Turin and the Singlet Oxygen Fallacy PROF NICHOLAS P. L. ALLEN

Although radiocarbon dating is often problematic on items like this, most researchers conclude it was made between 1260 and 1390 AD. In addition burn marks from a church fire place a limit on how new it can be. Personally I wouldn't put too much into the radiocarbon dating for something as recent as the Shroud because the error factor is too spread; if it was a million years old - different story. Regardless if it's 2000 years old, well that's one miraculously durable stained piece of fabric.

From the Church's standpoint it would be foolish to set this icon up as something legitimizing Christianity, the story of Jesus Christ crucified. However for religious followers, being superstitious by nature, the Shroud essentially takes on that perforce role. Since religious beliefs can't be disproved the faithful continue to flock to view the Shroud, believing it to be a powerful symbol of Christianity. And still after several hundred years the Shroud fulfills its role, bringing in the parishioners remarkably well and making it one of the best investments the Church ever made.

How many times has the wheel been reinvented in history? It's increasingly apparent that our assumptions on ancient technological abilities are often severe under-estimations. Since the Shroud is such a polished product the medieval photographic scientist contracted to produce the relic must have spent years honing his technique. He (or she) could easily have carried their useful technology into diversified and socially enriching directions. Instead the Church kept photographic technology a guarded secret and destroyed the evidence to maintain the religious significance of the Shroud. At least 500 years before the photographic process was established a perfect example already existed!

Thanks to the Church whose idea of social progression was increasing ignorance, superstition and religiosity, we had to wait 500 extra years to get the technology of the photograph. Instead of crude drawings or portrait paintings we could have actual photographs of famous people like William Shakespeare, Gutenberg, Newton, etc. But we never will because of that judgment choice to keep photographic science a Church secret and instead use it to boost attendance by manufacturing a hoax. It's such a fantastic illumination of how far the medieval Church would go to maintain converts and ruin opponents, the mind control of the heretic label and the sheer evil of the entire theocratic system. I wish I could write a book on it because it deserves it and then some, but fortunately many good ones have already been written.

NEWS:

• 6.2005 - 'New Doubt over Turin Shroud's Origins'

• 3.2005 - 'Turin Shroud An Easy Forgery'

• 2.2005 - Age of Shroud still clouded by conflicting tests

URLs:
usnews date of shroud http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000724/mysteries/shroud.htm
abc news dating shroud http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/turin990803.html
cath enc excerpt http://www.shroud.org/otterbein.shtml
brief history of sh http://web.mountain.net/~havoc/rational/turinhis.html
making the image http://web.mountain.net/~havoc/rational/turinimg.html
shroud exhibition http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html
nature and causes http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/nature.htm

REFERENCES:
The Shroud, National Geographic Magazine, June 1980
Encyclopedia Britannica: camera obscura