The Shroud of Turin Image is NOT Jesus | Debunking the Shroud ep.2 (Artists, Radiation, & Chemistry)

We go deep in the weeds on how the image on the Shroud of Turin could have been made. Artists, chemical reactions, and radiation (oh my)!

Interact with us:

Citations
Baldacchini, Giuseppe, et al. “Coloring linens with excimer lasers to simulate the body image of the Turin Shroud.” APPLIED OPTICS, vol. 47, no. 9, 2008.

Fanti, G. “Hypotheses Regarding the Formation of the Body Image on the Turin Shroud. A Critical Compendium.” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, vol. 55, no. 6, 2011, doi: 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2011.55.6.060507.

Fanti, G., et al. “Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality.” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 2010, DOI: 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2010.54.4.040201.

Fazio, Giovanni, and Giuseppe Mandaglio. “COULD THE TURIN SHROUD BODY IMAGE FORMATION BE EXPLAINED BY MAILLARD REACTION?” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 21, no. 1, 2021, pp. 177-181, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4394070.

Heller, J.H., and A.D. Adler. “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin.” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103, DOI: 10.1080/00085030.1981.10756882.

Ichikawa, Sadao. “Somatic Mutation Frequencies in Tradescantia Stamen Hairs Treated with Relatively Low Thermal Neutron Fluxes.” Radiation Research,, vol. 147, no. 1, 1997, pp. 109-114, doi:10.2307/3579449.

Jackson, J. P., et al. “Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3D structure of a human body shape.” Applied Optics, vol. 23, no. 14, 1984, pp. 2244-2270.

Kearse, Kelly. “A revised, natural explanation for the shroud of turin image: creation of a composite Maillard reaction.” Historical Archaeology & Anthropological Sciences, 2020, DOI: 10.15406/jhaas.2020.05.00236.

McCrone, Walter. “The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's Pigment?” Acc. Chem. Res., vol. 23, 1990, pp. 77-83.

Newhauser, Wayne, and Rui Zhang. “The physics of proton therapy.” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 60, 2015, doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/R155.

Rogers, Raymond, and Anna Arnoldi. “THE SHROUD OF TURIN: AN AMINO-CARBONYL REACTION (MAILLARD REACTION) MAY EXPLAIN THE IMAGE FORMATION.” MELANOIDINS IN FOOD AND HEALTH COST ACTION 919, vol. 4, 2003, pp. 106-114.

Rucker, Robert. “Solving the Carbon Dating Problem for the Shroud of Turin.” 2022.
Schwalbe, L. A., and R. N. Rogers. “Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A summary of the 1978 Investigation.” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 135, 1982, pp. 3-49.

Timestamps:
0:00 - Intro
1:15 - Corrections
2:10 - Image description
3:35 - Photonegative Image
4:57 - 3D Encoded Information
6:00 - Darkened fiber characteristics
8:18 - Half-tone effect
9:30 - No image under the bloodstains
10:45 - Hypothesis 1: Medieval artist w/ paint or stain
17:00 - Hypothesis 2: Maillard Reaction (Ray Rogers)
27:12 - Radiation Primer
30:10 - Hypothesis 3a: Proton Radiation
37:50 - Hypothesis 3b: UV Radiation
41:30 - Hypothesis 3c: Neutron Radiation
50:00 - Problems with Rucker's neutron radiation hypothesis
1:02:00 - Summary
1:05:00 - Fallacy of the Day: Rescue Device

#jesus #shroudofturin #history #atheism

[ReasontoDoubt]

CORRECTIONS:

- The depth of coloration on individual fibers is ~0.2 microns, not 0.4 (0.4 was the original number reported, but later literature has since updated the number)
- The central cavity in a plant fiber is called the "lumen", not the "medulla"; the medulla is for animal hairs. This is an error in the published works we cited that we passed on, thanks to Hugh Farey for the correction.

[YukonCornelius]

As a Christian, i don't believe it's real. The more i see people losing their minds adds more doubt.
I feel it's becoming almost an idol of sorts.

[Don_Matteo]

As a Christian I really don't care if the shroud is fake or real but it is an interesting piece of history. I do not think Christians should present it as evidence of Jesus or the resurrection. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we should rely on any ancient relic.

[kevinkingmaker]

If the Maillard reaction caused the image on the Shroud, there should be numerous extant examples of burial shrouds with human images on them.

[rociomallet]

If you can make a photographic negative on a linen fabric. Can you do it so we can see it?

[tomwickes]

U guys have convinced me it's authentic !!

[rociomallet]

In addition, there is an entire historical journey that shows that the Shroud of Turin was in various geographical points long before the date given by the carbon 14.

[jasonrash]

So people have spent 45 years or more in studying this thing. These guys by their own admittance at the beginning of this video said they thought it would take only one video to cover/ debunk The Shroud. At the very least that is some serious foolish arrogance!

[robertrucker]

Jordan & Jared,

I will make my comments on the material prior to your discussion of my radiation hypothesis (27:00 to 1:02:10) for image formation. I will have to comment later on image formation by radiation.

You said (0.03 and 0.30) that your purpose is to debunk the Shroud of Turin. This displays the bias of your presuppositions; that you start your investigation with the presupposition that the Shroud cannot be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and that it cannot be evidence for his resurrection. Starting from these presuppositions, you conclude that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus and is not evidence for his resurrection, but your presuppositions confine you to these conclusions. Your thinking process is goal oriented to prove your presuppositions, so that it becomes merely an exercise in circular reasoning. I started my investigation into the Shroud nine years ago with the neutral presupposition that the cloth may or may not be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and may or may not be evidence for his resurrection. If you want to be honest seekers of truth, you should start your investigation with neutral presuppositions.

In your discussion of the image being a photonegative (3:34 – 4:41), the image being a negative merely means that the light and dark areas are reversed from a photograph of a person. This was an astonishing discovery when it was first discovered in 1898 when Secondo Pia took the first photo of the Shroud. This was astonishing because they realized that this meant that the Shroud could not be a painting because no artist could have painted a negative image of the face because no one would have seen a negative image by about 1355, which is the earliest uncontested date for the Shroud.

In your discussion of the 3D information that is encoded into the 2D Shroud (4:57 to 5:57), the best way to understand this 3D information is that it is the distance of the cloth from the body, so that a 3D statue can be produced from the 2D Shroud. The significance of this is that no painting or photograph has 3D information encoded into it so that the image on the Shroud cannot be a painting or a photograph. Draping a cloth over a statue or a corpse with its surface containing a colorant would only transfer pigment where the cloth was touching the body, which would not produce the smooth gradation of discoloration we see on the Shroud and could not transfer 3D information to the cloth related to the distance of the cloth from the body. The 3D information on the Shroud indicates that the image formation mechanism was not the result of contact between the body and the cloth but was the result of something that acted across the distance between the body and the cloth. This is why, in the four-day conference on the Shroud that I organized in 2017, with day four dedicated to image formation, all the speakers on image formation used radiation as the basis for their hypothesis.

At 7:30, you say the outer discolored depth on a fiber is 0.4 microns. This is probably an older number. This discolored layer on the circumference of an image fiber is now usually quoted as being less that about 0.2 microns (micrometers). I agree that this discolored layer usually goes around the entire fiber.

At 9:20 to 9:30, you say that in the image when one thread goes under another thread, the lower thread is not discolored where it is under the upper thread. I agree but why is this? This indicates that the image was formed by something that flowed from the body to the cloth that was prevented from reaching the lower thread by the upper thread. Again, radiation is a good answer to what could have caused this effect.

At 11:04 to 11:22, you said “the Bishop, d’Archis, who was the Bishop of Troy, he wrote a letter to his pope saying that this was a forgery and it was done by a painter and he knew it was done by a painter because his predecessor had wrong a confession out of the artist who had made it.” I discuss this issue in Section 6.2 of my paper #17, “Evaluation of ‘A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin’” on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network. The d’Archis Memorandum is an angry letter written by Pierre d’Archis, Bishop of Troyes, France, to Pope Clement VII in Avignon, France. Troyes is 12 miles from Lirey, France, where the Shroud of Turin was exhibited as the true burial cloth of Jesus by its owner, Geoffrey II de Charny, in about 1355 or 1356. In 1389 it was being exhibited again with permission of Pope Clement VII. This angered Pierre d’Archis, because as Bishop of Troyes with authority over Lirey, his permission should have been required. In the memorandum, Pierre d’Archis claimed that the previous Bishop in Troyes, Bishop Henry de Poitiers, investigated the Shroud when it was previously exhibited in Lirey 34 years earlier (1355 or 1356) and that Poitiers had found a painter who admitted to painting it. The reasons for rejecting this allegation in the d’Archis memorandum are many: 1) We only know about the d’Archis memorandum based on two draft copies, 2) There is no evidence that the memorandum was ever sent to Pope Clement VII, 3) There is no indication that d’Archis had any personal knowledge of this alleged investigation 34 years earlier, he makes no mention of any documentation so he evidently found none, so his allegation is probably based on second-hand hearsay evidence, 4) Though the memorandum is about six pages long, there is only one sentence in the memorandum regarding this painter that admitted that he painted it, though no name is given and no other information, 5) If there was a painter that said he painted the Shroud, he may have only meant that he painted a copy of the Shroud, since there were 40 to 50 copies made of the Shroud, and 6) the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) that spent five days, 24 hours a day, of hands-on scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978 concluded that the images were not due to paint, dye, or stain for multiple reasons. Thus, there is no reliable historical documentation to indicate that the Shroud of Turin originated in the 13th or 14th centuries.

In 11:41 to 12:22, you discuss the painting hypothesis of Walter McCrone. This hypothesis was thoroughly investigated at the time by the 33 members of STURP and rejected. This is documented in the 225 page book “Report on the Shroud of Turin” by Dr. John Heller, 1983. Walter McCrone was not a member of STURP, but was loaned fibers from the Shroud by a member of STURP. It is not clear what McCrone was seeing in his microscope, but it may have been burned red blood cells or iron oxide from the retting (rotting) process used in extracting the linen fibers from the flax plant.

Thank you for your consideration. Robert A. Rucker, Shroud Research Network

[joebridges]

Here's the bottom line from watching this entire video. We don't know how the image on the shroud was made PERIOD

[cjyoung]

The section of the shroud that was carbon dated was a piece of a repaired corner and not the original shroud. This has already been established by the scientific community.

[robertmarkiamonlyakjvbible]

Jesus Christ wasn't buried with one piece of linen clothes he was buried with two different piece of linen clothes in John 20:6-7 Then cometh Simon Peter following him and went into the sepulchre and seeth the linen clothes lie 7 And the napkin that was about his head (that means the napkin was covering Jesus face) not lying with the linen clothes but wrapped together in a place by itself that means the napkin was lying in a other place by itself... And the shroud of Turin is one piece that they said is Jesus Christ face...The Bible proves that the shroud of Turin is a hoax it's not the face of Jesus Christ...

[robertrucker]

At 49:55, “It seems like we are working backwards here. Yes, what’s happening here is that this hypothesis, the problem with it, is that it is completely, utterly, and fully ad hoc. It is starting at the end point and working backwards.” In solving a difficult maze, it is often beneficial to work both ends to the middle, i.e., begin at the starting point and work forward, and at the same time, start at the end point and work backwards. The same applies in trying to solve a difficult scientific problem, such as the carbon dating of the Shroud or how the images were formed. The ultimate question is not the sequence in which the hypothesis was developed but whether the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence and whether it makes predictions that are testable and falsifiable. To develop my hypotheses to explain the carbon dating and the image formation, I started from the evidence that was available from the Shroud and then, for each of the evidences, I asked the question “What could have caused this”. I worked this manner so that I could objectively follow the evidence where it led. For the carbon dating, I started from the average value from the 16 measurements (1200 ± 31), the three average values from the three laboratories which indicated that the carbon date depended on the distance from the bottom of the cloth (slope = 36 years per cm = 91 years per inch), the distribution and range of the 16 individual measurements performed by the three laboratories, and the statistical analysis of all this data. Later I also considered the carbon date for the Sudarium of Oviedo. For development of my image formation hypothesis, I started with the 10 evidences below, then for each of the evidences again I asked the question “What could have caused this” so that I could follow the evidence where it led. The evidences related to the images on the Shroud can be summarized as the following.

1. The pristine nature of the blood that is on the cloth indicates that a crucified man was wrapped in the cloth. This is the main conclusion from the first 75 years (1898 to 1973) of research on the Shroud of Turin.
2. The front and dorsal images have good resolution and are negative images with light and dark areas reversed. These images are not due to pigment, scorch from a hot object, any liquid, or photography.
3. The cloth does not contain images of the sides of the body or the top of the head.
4. Only the top one or two fiber layers in a thread are discolored.
5. Only the outer circumference of the image fibers is discolored.
6. The linen fibers that make up the Shroud have a diameter of about 15 to 20 micrometers, which is about one-fifth the diameter of a human hair. But the discoloration on the circumference of the fibers is less than 0.2 micrometers thick, which is only about 2% of the fiber radius. The inside of the image fibers is not discolored.
7. The discolored fibers occur in a mottled pattern across the area of the images.
8. The discoloration of the thin outer region in a fiber is due to single-electron bonds being changed to double electron bonds in the cellulose of the fiber, as though from an oxidation-dehydration process.
9. The images were encoded even where the cloth would not have been touching the body.
10. The images on the Shroud are 2D images, yet they contain 3D information related to the vertical distance of the cloth from the body.

This process of carefully considering the evidence to develop my hypotheses has taken about nine years of my effort. I hope it is clear that the development of my hypotheses to explain the carbon dating and the image formation has not been a simple ad hoc process. To say that my process of developing my hypotheses is “completely, utterly, and fully ad hoc” is to essentially misunderstand what I have done and the process that I have gone through.

At 50:40, the issue is raised why I proposed that the neutrons and protons came from the splitting deuterium nuclei when “deuterium is super stable”. The answer is that the deuterium nucleus requires less energy input to the nucleus to cause it to split (fission) than any other isotope of any other element.

At 51:00, “He (Rucker) says that only a small number of the deuterium will fission, in fact it is 0.0004% of the deuterium fissions. … My question is why only 0.0004%.” In response to their request a few days ago, I explained these values in my last comment to their previous video on the carbon dating of the Shroud. There I said “My previous MCNP nuclear analysis computer calculations indicated that a homogeneous emission of 2 x 10^18 neutrons in the body would be required to shift the carbon date for the corner of the Shroud from about 33 AD to about 1325 AD, which is the midpoint of 1260-1390 AD. Emission of this number of neutrons from the body is only about one neutron for every ten billion neutrons that were in the body. If 2 x 10^18 neutrons were emitted in the body by splitting of deuterium nuclei, it would only require 0.0004% of the deuterium nuclei to split (fission).” This is merely a statement of what it would take to shift the carbon date from 33 AD to 1325 AD, if the Shroud were the burial cloth of Jesus from the first century and if the corner of the Shroud carbon dated to 1260-1390 AD. To accomplish this shift in the carbon date from 33 to 1325 AD at the corner of the Shroud, it would require 2 x 10^18 neutrons, if they were emitted homogeneously in the body. This is only one in every 10 billion neutrons that are in the body, and would occur if 0.0004% of the deuterium nuclei in the body were to split. If you doubt these values, perhaps you can calculate them yourselves to check my values. These values are just information to give people a feel for what it would take for the carbon date of the corner of the Shroud to be shifted to 1260-1390 AD if the cloth is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus from 33 AD. There is no reason here is reject my hypothesis to explain the carbon dating or the image formation.

52:10. They are again assuming that I require that the neutrons be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range so that the protons would also be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range, so that they would not penetrate sufficiently to discolor the front three fibers. I have explained above that I do not required the neutrons to be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range, but most of them end up in that energy range after scattering off atoms in the limestone of the tomb. Therefore, the neutrons and protons can be emitted at a higher energy. And again they are creating problems for protons to create the image by assuming that the image is produced by proton collisions in the fibers, whereas my hypothesis is for the deposition of the positive charge of the protons onto the cloth to cause electro-static effects that discolor the fibers by heating in the 0.2 µm thick region around the circumference of the fiber and possibly also by electron discharge causing ozone that chemically attacks the fiber from the outside. This is quite different than their assumption.

53:56. “But that doesn’t work because he (Rucker) needs way more neutrons than protons, orders of magnitude more.” This results from his assumption that the neutrons and protons are emitted by deuterium splitting on the surface of the body, which is not my hypothesis. My hypothesis is for the source of the protons and neutrons to be homogeneous (uniform) throughout the body. A high percentage of the neutrons would escape from the body, probably over 99% depending on the energy with which they are emitted. A much lower percentage of the protons would escape the body but it would again depend on the energy with which the protons are emitted. My estimate that the image could be formed if about 20% of the protons exited the body is an estimate based on Dr. Art Lind’s experiments of proton irradiation of linen titled “Image Formation by Protons” available on Mark Antonacci’s website.

55:00. “The word he (Rucker) uses is astonishing.” I am not sure I remember using this word but I may have used it regarding the agreement between my MCNP calculations and the results of the three laboratories regarding the dependence of the carbon date on the distance from the bottom of the cloth. The experimental value of this dependence from the three laboratories is a slope (the rate at which the carbon date changes as the distance from the bottom of the cloth increases) of about 36 years per cm = 91 years per inch, and the MCNP calculations produced a very similar slope. This was astonishing to me when MCNP first calculated these results.

55:16 “It should be astonishing to absolutely nobody because that is the input to his model.” Has he reviewed my MCNP input file to determine whether this is true? No. If he had my MCNP file in front of him, would he know how to make sense of it? Probably not. None of my input into MCNP forced it to calculate the same slope for the carbon date (as a function of the distance from the bottom of the cloth) as produced by the carbon date measurements from the three laboratories. To have this very close agreement between theory (my MCNP calculations) and experiments (carbon date results from the three laboratories) indicates that my hypothesis of neutron emission in the body has significant merit.

[paulbishop]

Interesting discussion. I note that you don’t know how the image was formed, the same conclusion as the STURP team. If Jordan’s possible thought on formation being naturalist and 14 th, it ties in with Michael Tite’s later thoughts that there was indeed a body in the Shroud and John Crossan’s view that either a dead or a living crucified body was used in the 14th century. Surely you are doing what you accuse Bob Rucker of doing with his facts. As for some artist later applying blood on top of the paint, then why is it still red, why is serum albumin on the Shroud and is only visible with uv light? You seem to be able to debunk but not offer any real alternative. I think the weight of evidence these days is generally in favour of authenticity rather than against it.

[markwise]

In addition to the shroud, there is also the accompanying Sudarium of Oviedo and the Seamless Tunic which have matching bloodstains to the shroud. So an forger would need to have forged all three at the same time. The sudarium has a verified history back to the 6th century AD.

[davidglastetter]

The good thing is, the shroud is not why I believe in the resurrection. However, if you want to debate the shroud, be mature about it and don’t laugh and scoff at those that provide views counter to your own, you have proven nothing.

[paulmichelet]

This is absolute rubbish. The Shroud is genuine beyond doubt. To suggest Sturp did the carbon dating shows the level of lack of serious research in this video.
Truth will prevail. Amen

[myfanwyrees]

How do you explain that the blood on the shroud has been found to be over 1000 years?

[robertvalentini]

So for all of you non believers of the shroud, you have to claim that all of the agencies involved in the testing of the shroud were either in on a group lie or that their incredibly sophisticated equipment couldn't match the wits of a 12th century forger. Those agencies would include: The U.S. Air force academy, Los Alamos National Laboratories, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, IBM, Brooks Institute of Photography, and Sandia Laboratories to just name a few. Not to mention that out of the dozens of scientists that were involved there were only 3 Catholics. And please don't hold on the the carbon dating testing that was done in 1988, which was completely debunked. Besides they refused to show the data for the testing they did until they were forced to 5 years ago. Every legitimate scientist has said that the findings of that testing showed completely bogus results. Besides that, they were supposed to take 7 different samples from different areas of the shroud and they only took one, which was clearly a patch job that has been done centuries ago and included cotton in it. The shroud is pure linen.
So please deal with reality rather than uninformed bias.

[DrDGr]

I think there’s a problem with the Chemical Hypothesis… As an example, If you put a reactive rag over your face and let it be imprinted for a while the imprint will be distorted once the rag is removed and layed flat on a table. If I use a wash cloth on my face and meseare the distance between both my ears holes, I got about 13inches…. Nothing like the image on the Shroud…..
I hope you can address my question. Thank you for your videos!