Shroud of Turin Mystery Solved

image In the debate about the Shroud of Turin, perhaps the strongest argument that the pro-Shroud side had going for it was that no one could figure out how a medieval forger could have created such a thing. How could the forger have etched a three-dimensional photo-negative image of a crucified man onto a piece of linen? Nathan Wilson has pretty much demolished this pro-shroud argument by showing that it would have been quite easy for a medieval forger to have done this. All he (or she, but probably he) would have needed is some white paint, a large piece of glass, and a piece of linen. You paint a figure of a man on the glass, place the glass over the linen, and leave it out in the sun for a couple of days. The sun then bleaches the material, thereby transferring a three-dimensional photo-negative image of whatever was painted on the glass onto the linen. It's one of those things that seems so obvious when you think about it, and answers so many questions about the shroud, that it has to be the solution. And yet it's taken centuries for someone to figure it out. Wilson has a great (and quite detailed) article in Christianity Today explaining how he went about solving the mystery. There's also a shorter article about Wilson's 'shadow shroud' on Finally, check out Wilson's website: The thumbnail shows a shroud-of-turin replica that Wilson created using his method.


Posted on Fri Mar 11, 2005

More content from the Hoax Museum:


I do not "have faith" that this is true. It has been proven. Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or physical evidence.

You're telling me that the image this guy made should be identical. Maybe it will be, in about 700 years. You cannot sit there and tell me that the shroud is impervious to the effects of nature.

This man has proven that it could have been done at the time specified, with the avaliable materials.

So you're saying that if I believe in proven facts, that I will automatically take it on faith that you have "a statue to sell me". That makes no sense whatsoever.

And anyway, MY whole point had nothing to do with any of this. MY whole point was simply the fact that you were wrong when you said that bricks do not fade.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Wed Mar 23, 2005  at  09:01 PM
It was my understanding that old Jewish custom was to "wrap" the person in the burial cloth, not drape it over the body the way the impression on the Shroud would suggest. Since modern carbon dating indicates that the cloth is not old enough to come from the time of Christ - that alone should be sufficient. As for it being a "forgery", I ask - a forgery of what? If someone made this in the 13th century, what were they trying to copy? Remember that this item surfaced after the Great Schism! Could it have been an attempt to draw back those who had left and formed the Orthodox Church? It's only a question!

Years ago, the actual sites of the tomb and crucifixtion were disputed by the Methodist Church, mainly because Protestantism didn't exist when the sites were preserved. For some time, their claims had a bit of validity, but now have been debunked.

For those who believe, regardless of what church you attend, remember - It's about faith, not proof. Do you need a Shoud of Turin to believe? Look a bit deeper - I don't think you do. As for those who claim to be atheists, I can only wonder why they would take the time to disprove something that they don't believe in.

Happy Easter to All,

Posted by Mac  in  Los Angeles  on  Thu Mar 24, 2005  at  04:50 PM
OK, I've been neglicting work, so this will be the last for a while. Rod, on your three questions. First, the point about the fuzziness around the edges shows that it cannot be a medieval forgery, hoax, fake, or whatever since this requires too much knowledge of perspective, physics and so forth - knowledge that is at least 100 years in the future. Second, has this sort of thing happened to others, I do not know of my own knowledge but I have been told by Roman Catholics that many of those Canonized by the Roman Catholic Church show similar signs on their funeral wrappings, not as clear or distinct but present as well. If it has happened to people other than these I don't know and the only way I can think of to determine it would be to disinter a whole bunch of graves, old ones since I suspect modern embalming techniques would prevent it from happening, whatever it is. Third, how is it done? I don't know, and I do know that there has never been a serious attempt to investigate the possibilities that open up presuming the Shroud is real. Go find yourself a few scientists, in as many fields as you can, and ask them if science knows everything possible in their field on study. If they are honest, they'll say "no" and might even admit that what is known is a minute fraction of what can be known. I forget who it is I am misquoting but around 1895 or so a famous physicist is supposed to have discouraged students from studying physics because all that was left was putting numbers behind the decimal point. Those numbers after the decimal point led to quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory, etc. All of which would be completely outside the understanding of classical (Newtonian) physics. Presuming the Shroud is a relic of the entombment of Jesus, the physics involved may be just as far from our understanding. And lastly, I have always said that the Shroud is not a 14th century forgery and have never said anything explictly or implictly in contradiction of that.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sat Mar 26, 2005  at  04:50 PM
"AS THE SHROUD (re)TUR(i)NS" - Inspired by Myst
"Sub: The Final Chapter"

"on your three questions."

It was FOUR. FOUR! Learn how to read, you total fool.

1.) Templar Treasures. And you addressed this where?

2.) The Lost Whip. And you addressed this where?

3.) Body Movement While Crucified. And you addressed this where?

4.) Burst Of Energy. And you addressed this where?

"And lastly, I have always said that the Shroud is not a 14th century forgery and have never said anything explictly or implictly in contradiction of that." - Christopher Dumbass
Good for you. You stuck by your uninformed opinion. Congratulations.

I was going to respond by re-posting all of your stupid comments. It seems that I don't have to, as you consistently prove yourself an idiot without my help (just check the 'etiquette thread' you posted.)

Your entire argument now consists of "I don't know how it was done, and this is the easy answer, so I'll just accept it. I don't have to answer questions. You just have to believe my crap which is based on absolutely nothing but my own supposition."

I can guarantee that I will not respond to you again in this thread.

Don't even bother to respond to this, it's just too much of a pain in the ass to bother reading your drivel again and again to find that you have nothing to say, especially about what was asked. Perhaps if you had answered what was asked, this could have been a half-decent debate.
As it turned out, it was the equivalent of asking someone questions about water conservation, and getting a long and made-up history of how ice actually shrinks when you freeze it.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Sat Mar 26, 2005  at  05:35 PM
1) Templar Treasures - addressed just a few messages ago.
2) The whip - I said long ago that I couldn't find a reference. I can make a chain of logic to support my point but I doubt you would understand it or pay attention. However, just in case: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire is dated to A.D. 474. Prior to that, increasingly from A.D. 382 the Romans used mercenarry barbarian warbands as part of the army. These bands used their own equipment and tactics. Even if the Roman army used the whip to A.D. 474, that still leaves a gap of almost 900 years when it would not have been used. KNowledge of the whip, its use and design would have have been lost among the general loss of knowledge during that time.
3) The movement of the body on while undergoing crucifixition shows knowledge that a 14th century artist would not have had. There hadn't been crucifixitions for at least 900 years and probably more - the emperors after Constantine were, with one exception, Christian and it would have been considered blasphomous to continue the practice.
4) Science has not investigated the possibilities suggested by the preliminary investigations of the Shroud because science "knows" it can't happen just as science knew that the speed of light was infinite, space was composed of ether, the universe always existed, the sound barrier could not be broken, etc. It would appear I have a more open mind than you.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sat Apr 09, 2005  at  04:39 PM
More mind to fill with drivel... what a sucker.

Spend your whole life walking around acting and looking like a gullible idiot, JUST IN CASE there's an afterlife. Just in case, we should waste what life we KNOW we have, doing what some perverted institution has decided so that they can control you and have access to your wealth to make theirs!
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Thu Apr 14, 2005  at  08:43 PM
Shroud of Turin not solved. Look at the issue in depth, not as a sound byte.
Posted by Todd Green  in  Chicago  on  Fri Sep 02, 2005  at  10:48 AM
Living The glass thing is very simple. You assume glass was used because glass allows light to pass through and it was easy to paint upon. I suggest no glass was used and paper/wood cutouts were used instead of paint on the glass. The cutout templates would simply be lain [laid, lied, put upon] the cloth, and the same effect would be had. Too simple...the glass thing is throwing you off by being overly complicated. While imagining this think of the leaves and keys and such you put on the first piece of unexposed photo paper you ever had. Everyones done that before....
As far as figuring out the whole process, my no brighter than average daughter figured out that the sun bleached out the curtains in the shape of the window, when she was 5 years old. Any doubters left?
I figured out this alternative method within the first sentence mentioning glass. Maybe 5 seconds. A couple brighter people surely could of pulled this off. The monetary gain at the time must of equated to tens of millions.
Posted by Ducksface  on  Fri Nov 04, 2005  at  05:00 PM
Has anyone thought to use common sense?

What happens when you peel an orange?
Try it.
Wrap a piece of cloth over a basket ball.
Paint a face on it. Now lay the cloth flat.
My goodness, look how distorted that face is!

People are so stupid sometimes.
Posted by Edward McCain  in  New Orleans  on  Thu Jul 19, 2007  at  05:10 PM
I've read the book that Chris keeps referring to "The Shroud of Turin" It's the most pathetic attempt at research I've ever had the misfortune of reading. The author bases his entire book on the premise that the shroud is totally 100% real. He digs and digs and reaches to try to find evidence to support this. He provides no evidence whatsoever, his footnotes (if you could call them that) are woefully inadequate and he spends more time chasing his tail than anything else.

As for the experimental copy not being "thin" enough well, all I can say is No Sh!t Sherlock, it hasn't been manhandled for hundreds of years. In a few centuries time it will most likely have been worn off enough to be thin enough.
Posted by Sarah  in  Canada  on  Tue May 20, 2008  at  01:02 PM
I'm not sure of my opinion of the issue. I started as completely against the idea but now i'm not so sure.
Posted by katie-leigh riley  in  tamworth, Australia  on  Thu May 29, 2008  at  12:13 AM
What tit said the fibers were tested to first century......
More myths from the pulpit of lies me thinks.
They were tested to 12th century also the type of weave used in the cloth was not invented till around then. It is a FAKE.
Like the scull of John the Baptist forensic experts identified it as a young boy.
Posted by Neil  in  Brisbane-Australia  on  Thu Jul 31, 2008  at  12:06 AM
This doesn't explain the faint image of the face on the back side. They match up exactly. You kapish wink
Posted by lou  in  usa  on  Sun Sep 13, 2009  at  12:57 AM
Posted by lou  in  usa  on  Sun Sep 13, 2009  at  01:07 AM
There is a bacterial coating on the fibers of the shroud, this effects the carbon 14 dating. When this is taken into the equation, the shroud is dated to around Jesus' life time. I have been researching this topic for some time and the more i research the shroud, the more proof i find for it's authenticity. The origin of the fabric, the plant fibers come from judea, the blood has been proved to be actuall blood not paint nor reflection. Wether you believe depends on faith.
God Bless
Posted by Ashley  on  Thu Feb 25, 2010  at  09:44 AM
The above is simply untrue. It is still dated to the 14th Century by real scientists (not the Christian "scientists").
Posted by frank  on  Sun Jul 18, 2010  at  06:10 PM
Comments: Page 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.