How the Shroud of Turin Was Faked

Categories: Hank's RANT!
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: April 12, 2012

How The Shroud of Turin Was Faked


Henry Barnes

Most conspiracies are exposed because of a simple mistake. Pearl Harbor wasn’t a sneak attack. Simple: twenty-eight Japanese warships, including three aircraft carriers the size of small villages, could not possibly traverse three-thousand miles of open ocean and sneak up on anyone; especially since the Japanese military code had already been broken. The assassination of JFK was carried out by at least two shooters. Simple: the original Zapruder film shows a shot from the rear followed by the fatal shot from the front.
The Shroud of Turin conspiracy fails by its most prominent feature: blood evidence ― it is too perfect, too neat; blood on the forehead from puncture wounds; blood and scourge marks on the back; blood around nail holes in the wrists; blood on the dorsal part of the foot; blood from a pierce wound in the side; apparent rubbings on shoulder and back from carrying the crossbar (it would be impossible for a single man to carry the entire cross for it weighted 300 pounds); and apparent marks on the knees from falling. All staged. All too neat. Famed forensic specialist, former chief medical examiner for Suffolk County, New York, says that the Shroud is “too good to be true” and “human beings don’t make this kind of pattern.” (Wilson, The Mysterious Shroud, 1986, pg.29)
“The Roman soldiers saw a great joke in this provincial Jew claiming to be a king. They threw a robe across His shoulders and placed a stick in His hand for a scepter. They still needed a crown to make their travesty complete. Small flexible branches covered with long thorns, commonly used for kindling fires in the charcoal braziers in the courtyard, were plaited into the shape of a crude crown. The crown was pressed into his scalp and again there was copious bleeding as the thorns pierced the very vascular tissue. After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the soldiers took the stick from His hand and struck Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp.”
“But perhaps the most compelling aspect of the Shroud as a subject of inquiry is the extent to which the visible blood flows and physical injuries have been viewed as authentic by members of the medical profession.” (Wilson, pgs. 16-17) “Four or five streams of blood seem to start from the top of the forehead moving downward toward the eyes. Other streams appear clotted in the hair. The face image has one particularly striking flow, shaped like a reversed figure 3, that starts just below the hairline, then meanders obliquely downward, seeming to meet some obstruction in its descent. The back of the head features some eight or more downward-flowing rivulets….Obvious to anyone is some irregular spiked object ― something like a crown or cap of thorns ― would seem to have been responsible for the wounds…Some even see among the rivulets clear distinctions between arterial and venous blood…” (Wilson, pg. 20) Wilson waxes eloquent on the subject of blood on the Shroud. He uses it as incontrovertible proof that the image on the Shroud is the crucified Jesus ― “each [blood flow] behaving in the manner a modern specialist would expect.” (Wilson, pg. 20)
This makes a wrong assumption, that no one had the expertise to fake such ‘modern’ evidence. However, human anatomy has not changed in thousands of years. In this piece I shall solve the mystery of when, where, who and how the Shroud of Turin was faked.
As recorded in the New Testament, Jesus was scourged. STURP (US Shroud of Turin Research Project) in 1978, determined this scourging was done by a Roman flagrum. “The Roman scourge, also called the “flagrum” or “flagellum” was a short whip made of two or three leather (ox-hide) thongs or ropes connected to a handle… The leather thongs were knotted with a number of small pieces of metal, usually zinc and iron, attached at various intervals. Scourging would quickly remove the skin…. The leather was knotted with bones, or heavy indented pieces of bronze.”
The flagrum, was not used to kill, but only for intense torture. “…the verberatio ([T]he highest degree of beating, commonly associated with crucifixion. This is the beating Jesus Christ received. Jesus received this beating as result of the last effort for Pontius Pilot to spare him from crucifixion. It was used mainly as a prelude to crucifixion, but could also have been used for severe punishments.) The whip has evolved from a spiny branch to a meticulously made piece of leather art and has been used in many of the millions of merciless whippings in the Roman Empire during Jesus’ time.”
“Hebrew law was strict on this, limiting it to 40. The Pharisees, in order to make sure that they never broke the law, gave only 39 lashes. The Romans had no limit, except for the fact that the victims should be left with just enough strength to carry their crosses to the place of execution. As the man who condemned Jesus to be flogged was Pilate, the Roman Proconsul, the number of lashes could be unlimited. The Gospels report that Jesus could not carry his cross without calling to an onlooker for help. This suggests a very severe beating. Those who have studied the traces of the flogging on the Shroud have identified over 100 lash marks.”
There is no way that a human being could possible survive a vicious beating of over sixty lashes with a flagrum, let alone 100 or more. Yet, those who have examined the evidence in greater detail than the STURP investigators have determined that there were two men flogging the Shroud victim, one on his right and one on the left. “The victim was tied to columns with their hands above their heads, so we seldom find lash wounds on the arms or forearms. The number of lashes was between 100 and 120, mostly in groups of two or three, in a fan shape, spreading out from two origins, one on each side of the body. The centre of the wounds inflicted from the right are a little higher than those inflicted from the left. The probable explanation is that the executioner standing on the right was taller than the one standing on the left. One of them showed a tendency to lacerate the legs.” (see above link)
Believers in the Shroud’s authenticity often quote Hebrew/Jewish law to excuse contrary evidence. Wilson goes to great length, for example, to excuse the fact that the victim of the Shroud was not washed before burial: “Perhaps the most difficult feature, from the point of view of identifying the Shroud with Jesus and with first-century Jewish burial, is that quite clearly, the blood was not washed away from the body, and among those cultures, but most especially that of the Jews, washing was a standard preliminary to any burial.” (Wilson, pg. 45) So, to get around this, Wilson, on the same page, quotes from the Code of Jewish Law: “One who fell and died instantly, if his body was bruised and blood flowed from the wound, and there is apprehension that the blood of the soul was absorbed in his clothes, he should not be cleansed, but they should inter him in his garments and boots, but above his garments they should wrap a sheet which is called sovev. It is customary to dig the earth at the spot where he fell, if blood be there or nearby, and all that earth upon which there is blood should be buried with him.” (Wilson, pgs. 45, 46)
This is clearly talking about one who has been killed in battle (“One who fell and died instantly, if his body was bruised and blood flowed from the wound…”). This does not apply to Jesus who was a convicted criminal of the state, a criminal condemned by the Jewish Sanhedrin ― The Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus refers to the trial of Jesus before the Jewish Council, or Sanhedrin, following his arrest and prior to his trial before Pontius Pilate. “They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.” (Mark 14:53-65 (New International Version)
But it destroys the entire case of the Shroud being Jesus’ burial cloth if all blood had been washed away.
The Shroud also displays a nude body. It was against Hebrew Law to execute someone in the nude. The Romans crucified victims naked to add humiliation to the torture. Apparently, the Hebrew Law was superceded, if not, then the Shroud is a fake.
Jesus’ back was laid open, his flesh literally cut to ribbons, exhibiting the bones of the scapula, high parts of the spine and back portions of the ribs. This is not evident in the Shroud.
As stated in the New Testament, Jesus was wrapped in a robe and a crown of thorns were forced onto his head and he was mocked as being “King of the Jews.” ― “Then Pilate took Jesus, and scourged [him]. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put [it] on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, And said, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ and they smote him with their hands.” (John 19:1-3)
When he reached the cross, the robe was ripped from him. Anyone who has ever removed a bandage from a wound where the blood has adhered to it knows what happens. “The robe, soaked with wet and dried blood, acted as a large bandage. When it was ripped away, Jesus’ flesh, or a large portion of it, was torn from his body.” None of this is evident on the dorsal area of the Shroud victim. “The half-fainting Jesus is then untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, wet with His own blood. The Roman soldiers see a great joke in this provincial Jew claiming to be a king. They throw a robe across his shoulders and place a stick in His hand for a scepter. They still need a crown to make their travesty complete. A small bundle of flexible branches covered with long thorns (commonly used for firewood) are plaited into the shape of a crown and this is pressed into His scalp. Again there is copious bleeding (the scalp being one of the most vascular areas of the body.) After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the soldiers take the stick from His hand and strike Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp. Finally, they tire of their sadistic sport and the robe is torn from His back. This had already become adherent to the clots of blood and serum in the wounds, and its removal, just as in the careless removal of a surgical bandage, causes excruciating pain…”
“And they crucified Him and parted His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: “They parted My garments among them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots.’” (Matt. 27:35 21st Century King James Version)
Not evident are marks made by the compression of the back between the cloth and the stone of the tomb where Jesus was laid. Although the Shroud has been microscopically analyzed and every aspect has been explored there is no evidence that the body was laid on stone; no unevenness in the dorsal pattern. “Joseph [of Arimathea] took the body and wrapped it in a long linen cloth. He placed it in his own new tomb, which had been carved out of the rock. Then he rolled a great stone across the entrance as he left.” (Matt. 27:59-60)
Removal from the cross required time and the help of at least four men ― see Rembrandt’s Descent From the Cross.
Jesus’ crucifixion began at 9 am and he was pronounced dead at roughly 3pm ― I say roughly because we don’t know how long he had been dead before the Centurion jabbed Jesus’ side with a spear. “He was nailed to the cross at 9 o’clock in the morning, and was dead by 3 in the afternoon.”
In the Law of Moses hanging a criminal on a tree or cross was reserved for the most serious crimes, “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.” (Deut. 21:22-23)
By the time Jesus was laid in his tomb, sunset was approaching, 7pm. This means that, from time of pronounced death, 3―4 hours had elapsed.
STRUP investigators do not take into account the environmental conditions of Jerusalem at the time: mild, windy and dry. By the time the body had reached the tomb, all blood was dry, all sweat evaporated. Wilson makes this mistake: “…the Shroud may have been intended as a temporary wrapping to soak up the sweat and blood from the body prior to a more definitive burial…” (Wilson, pg. 45)
There is dispute about when Jesus was crucified. “The use of astronomical evidence to estimate the year of the Crucifixion of Jesus has led to AD 33 by two different groups, and originally as AD 34 by Isaac Newton via the differences between the Biblical and Julian calendars and the crescent of the moon. John Pratt argued that Newton’s reasoning was effectively sound, but included a minor error at the end. Pratt suggested the year 33 AD as the accurate answer. Using similar computations, in 1990 astronomer Bradley Schaefer arrived at the same date, Friday, April 3 33 AD.[20][21][22][23][24][25] [26] A third method, using a completely different astronomical approach based on a lunar Crucifixion darkness and eclipse model (consistent with Apostle Peter’s reference to a “moon of blood” in Acts 2:20) arrives at the same date, namely Friday April 3, AD 33.”
“Israel enjoys long, warm, dry summers (April-October) and generally mild winters (November-March) with somewhat drier, cooler weather in hilly regions, such as Jerusalem…” The key is drier. At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, April, the weather was mild, dry and windy. The dry atmosphere and wind aided in drying and distorting blood flow.
STRUP investigators allude to the fact that rigor mortis had already taken place.
“As Professor James Cameron of the London Hospital has observed, if the man of the Shroud had been still breathing when laid in the cloth, the natural effect of his inhalations would have been to suck the linen into his mouth and nostrils…” (Wilson, pg. 26) This is one of the more ridiculous observations made. Often a dying person is so weak that breathing is undetectable. I, myself, had a patient who had been pronounced dead by three doctors. I was told to unhook the EKG machine, remove the EKG leads and prepare the patient to be sent to the morgue. I went in her ICU room, started to unhook the EKG machine and observed she was in third degree AV bloc with a heart rate of about ten beats per minute. As I watched the EKG monitor, her rhythm began to speed up and she reverted to a normal sinus rhythm. I went to the doctors, who were busy writing notes on the previous resuscitation attempt. I informed them that the patient was not dead. In minutes, she sat up, disoriented, and asked what was going on.
Cameron also interprets: “…the already noted stiffness of the arms in the burial position as due to rigor mortis. He argues that the arms had become fixed in the attitude of their suspension on the cross and those who took the body down therefore had forcibly to break this rigor at the shoulders in order to place the arms in the burial position.” (Wilson, pg. 26) Again, a wrong diagnosis. There is no way to know when rigor mortis set in. “The onset [rigor mortis] may vary from about 10 min to several hours or more after death, depending on the condition of the body at death and on factors in the atmosphere, particularly temperature. Rigor mortis affects the facial musculature first and then spreads to other parts of the body. It is caused by chemical changes in the muscle tissue. The state of rigor usually lasts about 24 hours or until muscle decomposition takes place by acid formation.”
STRUP investigators make a big deal over the nails being driven into Jesus’ wrists as going against traditional images of the crucified Christ ― “Throughout art history, the thousands of artists’ representations of the crucifixion almost invariably show the nails through the palms, not the wrists.” Wilson, pg. 22) This was common knowledge. “In popular depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus (possibly because in translations of John 20:25 the wounds are described as being “in his hands”), Jesus is shown with nails in his hands. But in Greek the word “χείρ”, usually translated as “hand”, referred to arm and hand together, and to denote the hand as distinct from the arm some other word was added, as “ἄκρην οὔτασε χεῖρα” (he wounded the end of the χείρ, i.e., he wounded her hand).” Also, the Aramaic word for hand is yad, including wrists and base of forearm. The hollow spot in the wrist, a mesocarpal space of Destot, called the “executioner’s hole,” can be seen as a slight depression in the front of the forearm about half-an-inch below the base of the hand. Artists, taking dramatic license, used nails in the hands based on the mistranslation of the word ‘hand.’
“The victim [in this case, Jesus] was then placed on his back, arms stretched out and nailed to the cross bar. The nails, which were generally about 7-9 inches long, were placed between the bones of the forearm (the radius and ulna) and the small bones of the hands (the carpal bones).” ― the executioner’s hole
“The placement of the nail at this point had several effects. First it ensured that the victim would indeed hang there until dead. Secondly, a nail placed at this point would sever the largest nerve in the hand called the median nerve. The severing of this nerve is a medical catastrophe. In addition to severe burning pain the destruction of this nerve causes permanent paralysis of the hand. Furthermore, by nailing the victim at this point in the wrist, there would be minimal bleeding and there would be no bones broken! Thus scriptures were fulfilled:
I can count all my bones: they look and stare upon me. Psalm 22:17
He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. Psalm 34:20”
Professor James Cameron speculates: “…a nail through the writs would be likely to hit not only the median nerve but also the main artery, thereby partially draining the hands of blood and creating an early post-mortem tissue drying effect he refers to as “de-gloving.’” (Wilson, pg. 26) As you can read above, and executioner was careful not to severe an artery because the victim would ‘bleed out’ and die too quickly. Much is made in Wilson’s book of the skeletal appearance of the Shroud victim’s hands. Of course, the hands of a victim of crucifixion would go numb. Even under ordinary circumstance just holding the hands in the air for any length of time will cause them to go numb.
Wilson continues with the blood evidence on the Shroud: “…blood flows that seem to denote nails through the feet…little of any bloodstains at the front of the feet (…at the front not enough length would seem to have been allowed…to stretch the full distance to the toes) the back of the body image incorporates a very complete imprint of the sole of the right foot.” (pg. 24) There is little doubt that the image on the Shroud depicts a crucified victim? But was it real? Was it Jesus? If not real, then how was it done?
“The positioning of the feet is probably the most critical part of the mechanics of crucifixion. First the knees were flexed about 45 degrees and the feet were flexed (bent downward) an additional 45 degrees until they were parallel the vertical pole. An iron nail about 7-9 inches long was driven through the feet between the 2nd and 3rd metatarsal bones. In this position the nail would sever the dorsal pedal artery of the foot, but the resultant bleeding would be insufficient to cause death.
The resulting position on the cross sets up a horrific sequence of events which results in a slow, painful death. Having been pinned to the cross, the victim now has an impossible position to maintain.”
With the knees flexed at about 45 degrees, the victim must bear his weight with the muscles of the thigh. However, this is an almost impossible task-try to stand with your knees flexed at 45 degrees for 5 minutes. As the strength of the legs gives out, the weight of the body must now be borne by the arms and shoulders. The result is that within a few minutes of being placed on the cross, the shoulders will become dislocated. Minutes later the elbows and wrists become dislocated. The result of these dislocations is that the arms are as much as 6-9 inches longer than normal.”
With the arms dislocated, considerable body weight is transferred to the chest, causing the rib cage to be elevated in a state of perpetual inhalation. Consequently, in order to exhale the victim must push down on his feet to allow the rib muscles to relax. The problem is that the victim cannot push very long because the legs are extremely fatigued. As time goes on, the victim is less and less able to bear weight on the legs, causing further dislocation of the arms and further raising of the chest wall, making breathing more and more difficult.”
The result of this process is a series of catastrophic physiological effects. Because the victim cannot maintain adequate ventilation of the lungs, the blood oxygen level begins to diminish and the blood carbon dioxide (CO2) level begins to rise. This rising CO2 level stimulates the heart to beat faster in order to increase the delivery of oxygen and the removal of CO2.”
However, due to the pinning of the victim and the limitations of oxygen delivery, the victim cannot deliver more oxygen and the rising heart rate only increases oxygen demand. So this process sets up a vicious cycle of increasing oxygen demand-which cannot be met-followed by an ever increasing heart rate. After several hours the heart begins to fail, the lungs collapse and fill up with fluid, which further decreases oxygen delivery to the tissues. The blood loss and hyperventilation combines to cause severe dehydration. That’s why Jesus said, “I thirst.’”6
Over a period of several hours the combination of collapsing lungs, a failing heart, dehydration, and the inability to get adequate oxygen supplies to the tissues cause the eventual death of the victim. The victim, in effect, cannot breath properly and slowly suffocates to death. In cases of severe cardiac stress, such as crucifixion, a victim’s heart can even burst. This process is called “Cardiac Rupture.” Therefore it could be said that Jesus died of a “broken heart!’”
“The fifth and final of the Shroud’s visible injury groups is indicated by an elliptical wound 4.4 centimeters wide immediately adjacent to one of the 1532 fire patches [see brief history that follows] and, on the man of the Shroud, locatable in the right side. Even to the layman this looks obvious as the entry point of a spear, from which blood appears to have flowed [sic] for some 15 centimeters. There is general agreement that the exact point of injury would have been in the fifth intercostals space, immediately above the sixth rib, and it is to be noted that the wound is angled perfectly for such a between-the-ribs location.” (Wilson, pg. 26) Again, too “perfect.” And the fire patch obscures much of this area so that Wilson notes in the caption to the photo of this area (pg. 27) “Apparent chest wound of the Shroud, seen immediately to the left of one of the triangular patches sewn on by Poor Clare nuns.”
“Apparently, to make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove his lance between the ribs, upward through the pericardium and into the heart. John 19:34 states, “And immediately there came out blood and water.” Thus there was an escape of watery fluid from the sac surrounding the heart and the blood of the interior of the heart. This is rather conclusive post-mortem evidence that Jesus died, not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.
My problem is the spear piercing the intercostals space between ribs. I’ve watch doctors use an inter-cardiac needle to pierce the intercostals space to administer a drug to revive a stopped heart. This area is tough to penetrate. It would be much easier, and the legionnaire, a soldier of the Roman army, would have known this, to jab the heart from underneath and behind the sternum, entering through the soft flesh of the chest area just below the sternum.

Brief History
taken from:

February 6, 1464: By an accord drawn up in Paris, Duke Louis I of Savoy agrees to pay the Lirey canons an annual rent, to be drawn from the revenues of the castle of Gaillard, near Geneva, as compensation for their loss of the Shroud. (This is the first surviving document to record that the Shroud has become Savoy property) The accord specifically notes that the Shroud had been given to the church of Lirey by Geoffrey de Charny, lord of Savoisy and Lirey, and that it had then been transferred to Duke Louis by Margaret de Charny.
1485: The Shroud is regularly carried around with the Savoys as their Court journeys from castle to castle.
1494 Good Friday: Dowager Duchess Bianca of Savoy exhibits the Shroud at Vercelli in the presence of Rupis, secretary to the Duke of Mantua. Leonardo begins painting of the Last Supper in Milan, on which he will work for two years. (A mistake. Da Vinci began work on the Last Supper in 1495 and worked on it for 3.5 years, finishing in 1499.)
April 14, 1503 Good Friday: Exposition of the Shroud at Bourg-en-Bresse for Archduke Philip the Handsome, grand-master of Flanders, on his return from a journey to Spain. The Shroud, which has been specially brought from Chambéry, with great ceremony, by Duke Philibert of Savoy and Duchess Marguerite, is exposed on an altar in one of the great halls of the Duke’s palace. Savoy courtier Antoine de Lalaing records of the events of that day: “The day of the great and holy Friday, the Passion was preached in Monsignor’s chapel by his confessor, the duke and duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the market halls of the town, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordeilier. After that three bishops showed to the public the Holy Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and after the service it was shown in Monsignor’s chapel.” Lalaing adds that the Shroud’s authenticity has been confirmed by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times ‘but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.’
1509: New casket/reliquary for the Shroud is created in silver by Flemish artist Lievin van Latham, having been commissioned by Marguerite of Austria at a cost of more than 12,000 gold ecus. The Shroud’s installation in this new casket takes place on 10 August, before the Sainte- Chapelle’s grand altar, in the presence of the presidents of the Council of Savoy and other dignitaries. In return for the gift of the casket, the Sainte Chapelle chapter are required to say a daily Mass for Marguerite and her dead husband Philibert.
December 4, 1532: Fire breaks out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, seriously damaging all its furnishings and fittings. Because the Shroud is protected by four locks, Canon Philibert Lambert and two Franciscans summon the help of a blacksmith to prise open the grille. By the time they succeed, Marguerite of Austria’s Shroud casket/reliquary as made to her orders by Lievin van Latham has become melted beyond repair by the heat. But the Shroud folded inside is preserved bar being scorched and holed by a drop of molten silver that fell on one corner.
April 16, 1534: Chambéry’s Poor Clare nuns repair the Shroud, sewing it onto a backing cloth (the Holland cloth), and sewing patches over the unsightliest of the damage. These repairs are completed on 2 May. Covered in cloth of gold, the Shroud is returned to the Savoys’ castle in Chambéry.
May 28, 1898: Public exhibition. Secondo Pia, an Italian amateur photographer, makes the first photograph of the Shroud of Turin. It ushers in a new era in the Shroud’s history, the era of science.
June 20 – July 22, 2002: A small group of textile experts, headed by Mechtild Fleury-Lemberg of Switzerland, perform a dramatic and radical “restoration” of the Shroud under the auspices of the Archbishop of Turin and his advisors at the Turin Center for Shroud Studies, and with the full permission of the Vatican. They remove the thirty patches sewn into the cloth by Poor Clare Nuns in 1534 to repair burn holes from the 1532 fire. They remove the backing cloth (frequently referred to as the “Holland Cloth”) that was sewn onto the back of the Shroud in 1534 to strengthen the fire damaged relic. They photograph the hidden back side of the cloth and then re-attach a new, whiter linen backing cloth. They use lead weights suspended from the edges of the Shroud to “flatten” many of the creases in the cloth and apply steam to certain areas to help accomplish this. They handle the cloth without gloves or special clothing. They scrape away the charred edges of all the burned areas and collect the scrapings into small containers. During a continuous period of thirty-two days, they expose the cloth to significant amounts of potentially damaging light and the polluted air of Turin. They perform this restoration in secret, without consulting any of the world’s Shroud experts (including most of their own advisors) that could have contributed important scientific guidance to ensure that no valuable scientific or historical data was lost or damaged during the restoration. They set off a firestorm of controversy, criticism, debate and recrimination that ultimately engulfs, polarizes and divides the Shroud research community. For more information on how this important event unfolded, see the 2002 Website News page. You will also want to read the Comments On The Restoration page, where fourteen noted Shroud experts express their own opinions of the restoration.

In 1981, STURP officially concluded that: No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.(…) The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself.(…) Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved”.
Note: the following will demonstrate when, where, how and by whom the image was formed.

A Chemical Analysis of the Shroud
“The yellow color forming the image is extremely superficial without any sign of capillarity: the colored fibers appear only on the topmost segments of the threads, the coloration extends only 2 or 3 fibers deep into the thread structure and does not appear under the crossing threads2. It is discontinuous: on a single exposed thread, one can find bundles of colored fibers adjacent to bundles of uncolored fibers. The intensity of the color appears to be roughly the same at small scale: the macroscopic differences in color intensity seem to be mainly the result of a larger or smaller number of colored fibers per unit area (the “half-tone effect”). The colored fibers are not cemented together3. No or few particles appear under the microscope at 50 × magnification.
The properties of the blood areas are the exact opposite of those of the image areas: the red to red-brown material has soaked into the entire thickness of the cloth as a liquid material, reaching the opposite side. Many fibers are cemented together and red spots are obvious. A large number of different particles are seen under the microscope.”
Heller (MD, medical Physics and Chemistry, deceased) and Adler (Chemist, specialized in blood and porphyrin chemistry, deceased) performed microscopy and many exhaustive microchemical tests on the same samples. The main differences with McCrone reside in their systematic approach, the best representativeness of the samples and “objects” studied, the many microchemical tests performed and their use of appropriate controls. They concluded that the “blood” on the Shroud was real old blood exudates and that the image was the result of some kind of dehydration-oxidation of the cellulose. They published their discoveries in peer-reviewed journals.”
Note: the underlined phrase is key to how the image on the Shroud was made.

Snowfalls are relatively common during winter, even if in the last 15–20 years they have decreased in frequency . The historic average of Milan’s area is between 35 and 45 cm (16″/18″); single snowfalls over 30–50 cm in 1–3 days happen periodically,
This is important because the Shroud was faked in the winter of 1496, possibly on 2 January 1496.

The roof of the Corte Vecchia, Milan.

Who Made the image on the Shroud?

Leonardo da Vinci was the only person of this time period that knew art, anatomy, dissection and many fields of science and engineering.

Why was the image made?

The Savoys were paying an expensive annual tribute to keep the Shroud. They realized that what had deceived those of earlier centuries was no longer adequate to deceive those of the more enlightened Renaissance and future generations. A new image needed to be made, one that would not only be accepted by the current time but for all time.
The original Shroud was destroyed after Leonardo da Vinci made the one that exists today.


From the above STURP conclusion: “The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself.” And the parallel observation from Wilson’s book, The Mysterious Shroud: “…when seen in negative, [pressed plants on paper] even exhibiting the same effect of naturally lit relief and the same three-dimensionality when viewed under a VP8 Image Analyzer. Besides these similarities to the Shroud’s image, which Volckringer noted as far back as the 1940s, the important fact is that the plant images derive from an undoubted dehydration/degradation/oxidation, the reaction in this instance occurring on the cellulose of the rag paper in which the plant specimen has been pressed.”
“For STURP/Heller and Adler, the yellow color of the pure image fibers is not a painting and does not contain any proteinous binder. The chromophores are the result of some kind of dehydration, oxidation and conjugation by-products of the polysaccharide polymers of the cellulose of the fibers. They did not try to explain this fact. If there are very little iron containing particles on the body-image fibers (except for the water stains), they have nothing to do with the image color.
Comparing the two statements, one understands that both agree that the image is mainly the thin yellow colored layer at the surface of the fibers and not a question of particles. If the yellow color of the body-image comes from a dried highly diluted liquid collagen solution, it is difficult or even impossible to explain the extreme superficiality, the lack of capillarity and the discontinuous distribution. To the contrary, if an artist had applied a concentrated gel-like solution, which would be more consistent with those properties, the fibers would have been cemented together, which is not the case.” (from the chemical analysis, see website above)
The following is from Chemical Analysis and illustrates my point that the victim of the Shroud had not been dead, if, indeed, he was dead at all, for several hours, as with Jesus, but was a fresh victim.
– STURP/Heller and Adler: blood image consists of real blood. This blood is not whole blood but blood clot exudates. The hemoglobin is an old methemoglobin in its para-hemic form and the blood contains extraordinary high levels of bilirubin. In addition, there are haloes of serum around the blood marks. Careful examination of the blood marks shows that they are depressed in the centres, raised on the edges and that small serum haloes can be seen around all of them68.
A consistent explanation for all these facts follows: the man whose image is seen on the Shroud suffered very strong traumatic conditions (scourging …) and many red cells hemolysed (red cells walls were broken) so that free hemoglobin appeared in the plasma.
Under these conditions and within a few minutes, this hemoglobin is destroyed in the spleen and the liver to produce high levels of bilirubin. In addition, if the turn-over is not sufficient, the excess of hemoglobin spontaneously goes to the para-hemic form. In the wounds, the blood then began to clot: most of the red cells were retained in the clots, explaining why they are not found on the Shroud. Later, the material that was in contact with the shroud was therefore composed of serum (including its proteins, mainly albumin), hemoglobin (and quickly methemoglobin) in its para-hemic form and high amounts of bilirubin. Finally, on the cloth itself, the clotting process continued, so that most of the para-hemic methemoglobin (with the iron) was retained in the centre of the clot, while a serum halo appeared around the clots by clot retraction. The final clotting of the blood exudates on the Shroud explains the clotted appearance of the blood marks. Incidentally, it must be known that in blood, the red color does not come from the relatively low content of iron but from the heme of hemoglobin.”
In 1495, Leonardo da Vince began painting the Last Supper, which covers the back wall of the dining hall at Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy. (biographical information are from the biography, Leonardo: Discovering the Life of Leonardo Da Vinci by Serge Bramly, 1991) Since he was working directly on the stone wall he had many onlookers. In 1496, Bandello tells us, “…I also saw him [Leonardo] leaving the Corte Vecchia… to come straight to [work] without seeking shade, pick up a brush, put in one or two strokes and go away again.”
No one knows what “secret project” Leonardo was working on. During that year he worked, as was his habit, on many projects. His biographer assumes he was working on his flying machine, but the facts do not bear this out.
We know that in 1496, da Vince was strapped for money, but failed to do work on the Last Supper for which he had been commissioned. He was so lax in this assignment that his patron complained. In a letter to Ludovico he wrote, “I regret being in need.”
We also know that both da Vince and Michelangelo made fake relics and antiquities for a quick ducat or two.
What was Leonardo working on that was so secretive?
1973: Accordin to Gabrilli in the Commission’s Report on examing the Shroud: “If we consider the [Shroud’s] stylistic characteristics we must admit that this is not the same Shroud which appeared for the first time in 1356, which belonged to Count Geoffrey de Charny, and then became the property of the Dukes of Savoy. It would appear to be a later version by about 150 years, but still predating the fire of 1532.”
Maria Josè, widow of the late ex-king Umberto of Savoy, scoured her husband’s Portugal archives to write a history of the Savoy family. She dismisses the Shroud as a fraud.
“More promising far future research was the identification by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi of a substance chemically resembling natron, a powder used in ancient Egypt to dehydrate the corpse prior to embalming. An accelerated dehydration process producing a form of Volckringer (1942) print similar to those left by plants pressed in paper is a possibility now under investigation.” (see illustration next page)


Not a painting, not an early photograph, or from a covered, heated statue; but a contact print. (Wilson pgs. 98, 99.) The pictures on page 98 illustrate the “imprint of a plant collected and pressed, with (right) how this appears on a photographic negative. A remarkable parallel to the Shroud imprint, the exact process of plant formation is still not fully understood.” (Jean Willemin, courtesy Dr. Jean Volckringer)
Wilson with the help of Jean Volckringer, and without realizing it, tripped over the answer, but he doesn’t understand how. Wilson alludes to the fact that the only person who could have faked the shroud was Leonardo da Vinci. He fails to understand, as does everyone who has examined the Shroud, how Leonardo did it. He explores and discounts painting. He explores and discounts it as an early photograph done using a camera obscura.
And no one that I know of has put Leonardo with the correct procedure, a procedure that only he developed for this one project.
Too many discount Leonardo’s genius ― a genius I refer to as unfinished. It was unfinished by the fact that he started many dozens of projects that he never completed. At the end of his life he lamented this flaw in his character. He was not only and artist but an architect, engineer, a scientist who studied many fields, inventor, musician and so on. He dissected corpses, including those who had been crucified. (Although crucifixion had been outlawed by Emperor Constantine, it was still continued, both lethal and non-lethal.
Leonardo also had a library that was “larger than most scholars of his time.” He knew from his plant studies that pressed plants make contact prints on paper.
In, or about 1495, when Leonardo was beginning his mural of the Last Supper, he was approached by Dowager Duchess Bianca of Savoy― 1494 Good Friday: Dowager Duchess Bianca of Savoy exhibits the Shroud at Vercelli in the presence of Rupis, secretary to the Duke of Mantua, who had reservations about the authenticity of the Shroud. What worked in the early centuries does not work in the enlightened period of the Renaissance. (In 1933, the film King Kong had state of the art special effects that wowed audiences. In 2010, in light of the film Avatar, this is now only a curiosity. So it was with the Shroud.) The Savoys were paying a lot of money to have the Shroud and they expected a lot more in future revenues from tourists and pilgrims visiting the Shroud. At this time, Leonardo was 43 years old and a prominent man in many fields. He also was, as always, in need of money ― “I regret very much that….you find me in need…but I hope I shall soon have earned enough money to be able, with peace of mind, to satisfy the wishes of Your Excellency…. And if you thought I had money, Your Lordship was mistaken.” (Bramly, pg. 283) He liked a challenge and faking the best known religious relic was something that intrigued him.
For over a year, Leonardo thought about this problem. He was one of the few men in the world who had intimate knowledge of dissected human anatomy ― cadavers, he explained, did not last long; they decompose in less time than it took to examine and draw them properly….several corpses were necessary ‘in order to discover the differences.’” (Bramly, pg. 374) Leonardo was well versed in anatomy of a crucified man, through knowledge of dissection and the extensive library that he owned. But how to fake the transmogrification of Jesus from flesh to holy ghost? He turned to his knowledge of plant prints made on paper. But how to duplicate this event using a human being?
The key is an object that fascinated Leonardo all his life: mirrors ― “The
mirror ― above all, the mirror is our teacher.” (Mirror Mirror, Mark Pendergrast, 2003, pg. 131) “He [Leonardo] had already been thinking , back in the 1490s, of a machine capable of producing concave mirrors… Leonardo no longer dared even to indicate the ingredients of the alloys he had developed….So, we know next to nothing about the mold, or the form (sagona) from which the great parabolic mirror was to emerge….the great solar reflector never saw the light of day.” (Bramly, pgs. 386, 387)
“Tomorrow morning,” [Leonardo] noted on 2 January 1496, “I shall make the strap and the attempt.” (Bramly, pg. 284)
No one knows what this statement means ― what was “the attempt”? It has been assumed that he was ‘attempting’ flight. But the following from his notebook discounts this and points to his ‘secret project’ as duplicating the Shroud.
“In 1495 or 1496, he [Leonardo] seems to have moved on to practice and physical experiment: he says himself that the roof of the Corte Vecchia, where he had his fabrica, was the ‘most suitable in Italy’ for trying out his device and by placing himself in a ‘sheltered corner behind the tower’ he would be invisible to workmen finishing off the triburio of the cathedral: the experiment was intended to be a secret.” (Bramly, pg. 284)
Why would Leonardo be conducting ‘flight’ experiments in the hot sun, on the high roof of a Cathedral? Why would he need secrecy from workmen who wouldn’t understand the machine in the first place? There is no evidence that Leonardo actually flew from the roof any of his flight models, either as a test with weights or with an individual. No eyewitness, and there were many in Milan, has ever come forth to note a flying machine coming off the roof of the cathedral. If there had been, it would’ve caused a stir akin to biplanes flying over rural America at the beginning of the twentieth century.
My theory is that Leonardo was working on his fakery of the Shroud. This fakery required utmost secrecy, in both method and execution. It also required the sun, most evident on the high roof of the cathedral. Why?
For over a year Leonardo had been experimenting with transferring images to cloth by using mirrors. Leonardo was an expert on making and using mirrors, made of polished metal. There were glass mirrors but they were too small for this project. He understood tha he was trying to duplicate the transference of the human body to ghost. When he dissected a body he was not only searching for mechanisms that made the body work, but trying to find the ‘soul’ and the ‘spark’ that animated that body. From his knowledge of the past, the crucifixion of Christ and others, he was aware of all the physical properties necessary to make his fake look real. Not just today, but for all time.
He, above anyone else, knew that technology was marching forward. A hundred years before Galileo, he designed a telescope but failed to follow up; he designed the first contact lens for the eye; and many other advanced tools. If Leonardo was dropped into the twenty-first century he would be awed but not surprised. And once his fakery had been fulfilled he would have no need to pursue it farther. Being a perfectionist and a procrastinator he began many projects, including painting projects, that he never pursued. He was secretive to the point that no one, to this day, knows why he painted the Mona Lisa, or who she is. It’s estimated that sixty percent of his writings have been lost or destroyed. So, it is not surprising that he did not record this fakery; or if he did he hid it in code buried or lost among his papers.
Although crucifixion had been outlawed in by Emperor Constantine in 337 BC, crucifixions continued; deadly and non-lethal. Religious zealots often, to this day, have themselves crucified in the manner of Jesus. It was easy to find a crucified body, especially a crucified Jewish body ― 1495: Charles VIII of France occupies Kingdom of Naples, bringing new persecution against the Jews, many of whom went there as refugees from Spain.
We need to begin by explaining briefly how the cloth was made; for in understanding that, we can understand how the images are formed.
1) Fibers, much thinner than human hair, were handspun together to form the yarn used to weave the linen cloth.
2) Individual lengths (hanks) of the yarn were bleached with potash. This is not an exacting method and thus some hanks of yarn were whiter than others.
How do we know this? The variation in bleaching caused a horizontal and vertical variegated appearance in the cloth; a faint plaid forming as different hanks of yarn were fed into the loom. As the cloth aged and naturally yellowed, the variegation became more pronounced as can be seen in the contrast enhanced photograph.
3) On the loom, warp (vertical) threads were coated with raw starch to make weaving easier. The starch kept the delicate linen yarn from fraying and made it easier to pass the shuttle with the weft yarn over and under the warp.
4) After weaving, the starch needed to be removed. To accomplish this, the cloth was washed in suds of soapwort.
How do we know this? There is, on the outermost fibers of the cloth a clear washing residue: a thin coating of starch fractions and the various saccharides found in soapwort: glucose, fucose, galactose, arabinose, xylose, rhamnose, and glucuronic acid.
Such a residue is normal in soap washing, even with rinsing. The residue is an evaporation concentration that forms on the outermost fibers of cloth during air drying. It forms on both sides of the cloth.
The residue is so thin it is difficult to see with an ordinary microscope. But we can see it with phase-contrast microscopy or a scanning electron microscope. We say it is superficial.
We don’t know why but in places this residue has turned brown. It has turned into a caramel-like substance. And it is the brownish color, here and there, that makes up the image we see on the Shroud.
Of this we can be certain: the image is not paint and the polysaccharide residue is not is not a photo-sensitive emulsion.
The shroud is sugar coated. A clear polysaccharide residue coats the outermost fibers of the cloth. In places, that residue has changed to a caramel-like substance. hat brown substance forms the images.

Natron (sodium carbonate) was found in the dusts aspired from the back surface of the TS [Shroud of Turin] (RIGGI G., Rapporto Sindone 1978-1982, Il Piccolo Ed., Torino 1982.)
The mineral was used in Egyptian mummification because it absorbs water and behaves as a drying agent.
Leonardo was an expert in using egg tempera, the medium he used to paint The Last Supper. Egg tempera paint is made from artist quality finely ground dry pigments, egg yolk and water. The standard medium is pure yolk which is free from the white.
Leonardo often strayed from the norm. I believe he mixed the yolk with honey and milk. It is sugary of honey that gives the Shroud it’s color and was caramelized during the technique used in creating the images on the Shroud.

There was general agreement among researchers on the nature of the image – degradation and/or dehydration of the cellulose in superficial fibers resulting in a faint reflection of light in the visible range (Pellicori 1980). Only the topmost fibrils of each thread are dehydrated, even in the darkest areas of the image, and no significant traces of pigments, dyes, stains, chemicals, or organic or inorganic substances were found in the image. It was thus determined that the image was not painted, printed, or otherwise artificially imposed on the cloth, nor was it the result of any known reaction of the cloth to spices, oils, or biochemicals produced by the body in life or death. STURP concluded that “there are no chemical or physical methods . . . and no combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances which explain the image adequately” (Joan Janney, quoted in an Associated Press report, October 11, 1981). Two theories currently contend among STURP researchers: a “photolysis effect” (heat or radiation scorch) and a “latent image process” where by the cloth was sensitized by materials absorbed by direct contact with a corpse.

The Shroud History

The Shroud as we know it today has no clear history before the De Charnys, “Geoffroi de Charny and his wife Jeanne de Vergy are the first reliably recorded owners of the Turin Shroud.” Wilson, pg. 11, quotes the damning memorandum of the fourteenth Bishops d’Arcis of Troyes, France in 1389: “…procured for their church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by clever sleight of hand was depicted a twofold image of one man, that is to say the back and front, they falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual Shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.”
In light of this, Wilson, and other believers in the Shroud’s authenticity, go to great lengths to assume ― through conjecture, hypothesis, suggestion, etc. that the Shroud as we now know it existed before Leonardo ― that faces, medallions, coins and other objects coincide with the face on the Shroud. (Almost any face can be superimposed on the blurry Shroud face and given key points of matching. I took my own face and digitalized it and matched it to the face on the Shroud. And the most bizarre example is Wilson’s color plate, fig. 23 with the caption: “Christ face, tenth century, church of St. Angelo in Formis, Capua, Italy, showing example of the strange facial markings that seem to indicate an early awareness of the Shroud.” The face looks like an android, devoid of humanity.)
This leads us to the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, aka. Pray Codex. Believers are fixated on this illustration as proof that the Shroud existed before Leonardo’s birth and that the Shroud is real.

“An ancient codex, known commonly as the Hungarian Pray Manuscript or Pray Codex, named for György Pray, a Jesuit scholar who studied the codex in that late 1700s. The codex, written about 1192 to 1195 AD, is preserved in the Budapest National Library.
The codex includes five hand drawings. One shows Jesus being placed on his burial shroud and then the discovery of the empty shroud. The artist seems to have drawn the very unusual herringbone weave of the cloth and several other graphic characteristics that match those of the shroud:
• Jesus is shown naked with his arms modestly folded at the wrists
• The fingers are unusually long in appearance as they are on the Shroud.
• There are no visible thumbs just as there are no visible thumbs in the images on the shroud. Forensic pathologists say that makes sense. Nails driven through the wrist would force the thumbs to fold inward into the palms.
• There is also a clear mark on Jesus’ forehead where the most prominent facial bloodstain is found on the forehead on the shroud
The most interesting feature in the drawing are four holes drawn on the cloth of the shroud. These match the so-called poker holes found on the shroud.”
1. The Pray Codex came from Constantinople, the Mecca of fake relics.
2. It clearly shows that a naked supine figure is being washed by holy men, indicated by the halos above their heads, and there is no indication that the supine figure is the crucified Jesus ― the lack of marks for hands, head, side, feet are not shown, (a given for any artistic depiction of the crucified Jesus) ― indicate that this wasn’t a crucified Jesus, and may not be Jesus at all. This assumption is based on the halo around the supine figure with a cross within. “A cross within, or extending beyond, a halo is used to represent the persons of the Holy Trinity, especially Jesus, and especially in medieval art. In Byzantine and Orthodox images, inside each of the bars of the cross in Christ’s halo is one of the Greek letters ώ Ό Ν making up I AM—literally, “the Existing One” — indicating the divinity of Jesus. At least in later Orthodox images, each bar of this cross is composed of three lines, symbolizing the dogmas of the Trinity, the oneness of God and the two natures of Christ. In mosaics in Santa Maria Maggiore (432-40) the juvenile Christ has a four-armed cross either on top of his head in the radius of the nimbus, or placed above the radius, but this is unusual. In the same mosaics the accompanying angels have haloes (as, in a continuation of the Imperial tradition, does King Herod), but not Mary and Joseph. Occasionally other figures have crossed haloes, such as the seven doves representing the Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit in the 11th century Codex Vyssegradensis Tree of Jesse (where Jesse and Isaiah also have plain haloes, as do the Ancestors of Christ in other miniatures).”
The washing of Jesus’ body goes against the Shroud being the body of Jesus (Wilson, pgs. 45—46) . Leonardo was criticized when he did not paint halos around the Christ figure or the apostles in the Last Supper. Up until this painting, all illustrations of Jesus or any holy person had a halo painted around their head. So, it is impossible to say, just because there is a halo with a cross inside around the head of the supine figure, that it is Jesus; as noted in the above link, many high holy men had similar halos.
3. There is no indication of nail holes in wrists, hands, pierce wound in the side (the feet are not in the illustration) or thorn marks on the upper forehead. There is a spot on the supine figure’s forehead (see , obviously a spot caused by the aged paper as there are several spots all over the illustration, known as foxing. This occurs as paper ages. Take a look at the foxing on the most famous self-portrait of Leonardo done in red chalk in 1512 ― 1515 and ironically titled the portrait of Turin.
4. There is no blood evident on the supine figure.
5. The hidden thumbs, which Wilson (pg. 114) and others make a big deal of, is: (A) The thumbs are simply not drawn but tucked under in order to better display the elongated fingers which are protecting the figures genitals; the art work is crude and you’ll note the fingers and thumb of the angel are all the same length; (B) “The most favored pose for men in paintings, by contrast, with elbows projecting outward, which “proclaimed a man to be physically vigorous and to possess bravery, the virtue and feeling deemed as essential for men as chastity was for women’”. “… men sometimes were shown with hands folded when they were scholars or clerics, or trying to show they did not engage in manual work.”
(C) The fingers are unusually long in appearance as they are on the Shroud. Since fingers are not elongated in life as they are in art, the fact that the fingers of the Shroud are elongated means that someone created the image. Elongated fingers, used for esthetic reason, were a trade mark of Leonardo. Entire books have been written about this:
6. As for the holes illustrated in the Pray Codex matching the “poker” hole pattern in the Shroud (; they would match almost any hole pattern because there are three in a row; but, there is also, by my count (Wilson, pg. 115) six more holes that do not correspond to anything on the Shroud. It’s a pick and chose game. Not only that, the nine holes in the Codex illustration are in the lower portion which is a rug and a tiled floor, not a burial cloth.
7. Saying that the Codex illustrates an early drawing by someone who witnessed the original shroud is false. It is clear that the lower portion of the illustration (Wilson, pg. 115), which Shroud believers state as a weave pattern identical to the Shroud’s weave pattern , is evidence that the Shroud existed before Leonardo’s birth. This weave pattern is a rug not the Shroud cloth: (A) the stacking pattern in the portion beneath the sitting angel (evidenced by wings) was used by many Byzantine artists, and is a crude indication of a rug, note the rectangular outline; (B) the series of crosses on the second and lowest pattern in the illustration are floor tiles beneath the rug; (C) neither of these two areas indicate this is shroud cloth; and the small circles drawn in these two areas, four on the rug, five in the tiles, do not correspond, as believers state (, Wilson, pg. 114), to the burn holes in the Shroud; (D) the supine figure is lying on a cloth that has no weave design, blank with two odd gaps in the forward edge, one at the neck and another in the middle of the torso; it also curves upward and left toward the supine figure’s halo as if the artist miscalculated its length or is suggesting a hood: (D) there are three figures with the angel and the object lying on the rug, seems to be a cloth type headdress but it is impossible to define; (E) even if this did mimic the weave pattern of the Shroud, which it doesn’t, this would not be unusual in that this type of pattern existed at this time; (F) the angel is pointing to a crooked long object held in place by something ill defined at the angel’s feet; the long object has a cross at the top ― a crude drawing of a staff ― and extends from the lower portion of the illustration to just below the cloth beneath the supine figure and this is the only connection to the top and bottom of the illustration; (G) although the drawing is crude it seems that the supine figure is relaxed, resting; there is no indication that any form of violence has been done to it; (H) there has been much made about the supine figure being naked; but this figure was not, by lack of any violent markings, crucified, but is being readied for some holy ritual, evidenced by: either being washed or anointed; the cloth beneath him seems to be a robe with a headdress on the rug where the waiting angel is pointing to his holy staff; (I) and the two upper holy men on either side of the one pouring water or ointment on the supine figure’s chest seem busy readying clothes; the one on the right is holding the outer edge of something behind the water pourer (a drying towel, perhaps?) and the one on the left is waiting to do whatever it is he does during the ritual; (J) the supine figure has no beard, also unlike the usual representations of Jesus after the second century AD; (K) on the bottom half the angel is on the left and there is a group of three holy men in a tight cluster, the one on the left has the outline of a man’s face profiled behind his right arm and on his left sits what appears to be a vessel but no hand holds it.
The more one studies this Pray Codex image the more one sees how it is not related to the Shroud; and one can see holes everywhere: around the angel’s right and left wings, on the angel’s belt, around the middle lower figure’s neckline, on the lower figure on the right ― holes everywhere. Symbols of holes in the Shroud’s suthenticity.

The following history taken from:

• 1498: King Louis initiates extensive remodeling of the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. An inventory detailing the Shroud when at Turin in this same year describes its case as “a coffer covered with crimson velours, with silver gilt roses, and the sides silver and the Holy Shroud inside wrapped in a cloth of red silk.”
• June 11, 1502: At the behest of Duchess of Savoy Marguerite of Austria, the Shroud is no longer moved around with the Savoys during their travels, but given a permanent home in the Royal Chapel of Chambéry Castle. Duke Philibert, Duchess Marguerite, Francois of Luxembourg, viscount of Martigues, husband of Louise of Savoy (grand-daughter of Duke Louis), together with nearly all the local clergy, attend the ceremony of translation during which Laurent Alamand, bishop of Grenoble, solemnly carries the Shroud in its silver-gilt case from Chambéry’s Franciscan church to the Sainte-Chapelle. The Shroud is displayed on the Chapel’s high altar, then entrusted to the care of archdeacon Jacques Veyron and the canons of the Chapel, who replace it in its case and deposit it behind the high altar, in a special cavity hollowed out of the wall. In this cavity it is secured by an iron grille with four locks, each opened by separate keys, two of which are held by the Duke. Pope Sixtus IV confers on the Chambéry chapel the title Sainte Chapelle.
• April 14, 1503 Good Friday: Exposition of the Shroud at Bourg-en-Bresse for Archduke Philip the Handsome, grand-master of Flanders, on his return from a journey to Spain. The Shroud, which has been specially brought from Chambéry, with great ceremony, by Duke Philibert of Savoy and Duchess Marguerite, is exposed on an altar in one of the great halls of the Duke’s palace. Savoy courtier Antoine de Lalaing records of the events of that day: “The day of the great and holy Friday, the Passion was preached in Monsignor’s chapel by his confessor, the duke and duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the market halls of the town, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordeilier. After that three bishops showed to the public the Holy Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and after the service it was shown in Monsignor’s chapel.” Lalaing adds that the Shroud’s authenticity has been confirmed by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times ‘but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.’ The trial by fire is represented by three hot poker holes, possibly surrounded by pitch, on the Shroud cloth, which had been folded by four. (Wilson, page 81)

• April 14, 2004I: The peer-reviewed journal of the Institute of Physics in London announced that Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, both of the University of Padua, Italy, have found a second face image on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This image corresponds to the front image but is much fainter. And this image, like the front image, is completely superficial to the topmost crown fibers of the cloth. Because both images are superficial (meaning there is no image or colorant of any kind between the two image layers on the extreme outer faces of the cloth) and because the images are in registry with each other, all so-far-proposed fakery proposals are moot. The images are not paintings and not some form of medieval proto-photography.

If true, this advances my theory that Leonardo experimented on the cloth before he completed his forgery.

• December 4, 1532: Fire breaks out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, seriously damaging all its furnishings and fittings. Because the Shroud is protected by four locks, Canon Philibert Lambert and two Franciscans summon the help of a blacksmith to prise open the grille. By the time they succeed, Marguerite of Austria’s Shroud casket/reliquary as made to her orders by Lievin van Latham has become melted beyond repair by the heat. But the Shroud folded inside is preserved bar being scorched and holed by a drop of molten silver that fell on one corner.
The melting point of silver is 1763.2 0 F. The temperature inside the casket/reliquary was hotter. This heat not only causes the sepia-yellow coloring of today’s Shroud but it aged the image Leonardo made on the cloth. Seven inches of the bottom feet area of the front of the Shroud are so severely scorched it is cut away during restoration. April 16, 1534: Chambéry’s Poor Clare nuns repair the Shroud, sewing it onto a backing cloth (the Holland cloth), and sewing patches over the unsightliest of the damage. These repairs are completed on 2 May. Covered in cloth of gold, the Shroud is returned to the Savoys’ castle in Chambéry.
(Wilson, in his book, The Mysterious Shroud, speculates that the Shroud is either short in the front, not quite covering the feet, or was cut off.)

How Leonardo Faked the Shroud of Turin

The Shroud images were made using large mirrors. This was done after experimentation with contact prints on cloth. Leonardo used a Jewish male cadaver and, using various tools and human blood, faked the attributes of crucifixion on the body as only he could do. (“Da Vinci injected the blood vessels and cerebral ventricles with wax for preservation, an anatomical technique still used today His drawings of the human anatomy have long been considered as unrivaled..”
We know that, at this time, he claimed to be searching for a face for the portrait of Judas in the Last Supper. “The artist’s notebooks provide even clearer evidence of his habit of discovering models in certain disreputable places in Milan.” (Bramly, pg. 292) He also searched for heads at the Santa Caterina hospital, where he also had access to the hospital’s morgue.
With the aid of Leonardo’s most trusted assistants, the cadaver was carried to the roof under the cover of darkness. The linen cloth of the Shroud ― a 2,000 year old linen was easily obtainable from Constantinople, the Mecca of phony religious relics ― had been soaked and dried in a mixture of egg yolk, honey and milk. The weather was cold, snow on the ground, which slowed the decomposition of the corpse, prepared internally with several injections of wax. The Jewish male cadaver was dusted in natron to facilitate preservation of the skin, dehydration and aid in the carmelization of honey at the contact points with the skin and cloth. The victim was laid on the bottom of the Shroud, suspended on the straps that Leonardo had devised, so the concentrated light and heat could be transferred beneath the body ― the reason that the hands look skeletal is from the thinness of the skin in this area and the nearness to the strong light (like when you hold a flashlight under your hand and can see the bones). Like a make up artist for today’s cinema, Leonardo created markings and blood evidence to fit both the depictions in the New Testament and what he knew of history and anatomy; scourge marks on the back, buttocks, back of the legs; puncture marks on forehead; rubbing on shoulder, back and abrasions to knees to replicate falling; nail wounds in wrists and feet. The spear to the side was administered by Leonardo to release fluids, which also ran to the back ― this was a flaw as an upright victim would not exhibit this trait; a trait of the Shroud image expounded upon by Wilson. “…there is a post-mortem spillage associated with it [the lance wound], in this instance in the form of a copious and intricate splashing of blood visible right across the small of the back on the dorsal image, extending out to each side.” (Wilson, pg. 26)
The cloth was folded over the frontal portion of the body, which had been staged in the position we find today. Using several large mirrors, Leonardo was able to not only direct heat and light to portions of the shroud covered victim, but to control the amount and intensity. Leonardo had, in effect, created a solar oven to bake, in a controlled way, the victim. He was able to apply just enough heat to create a contact print of the victim to the cloth ― “There was general agreement among researchers on the nature of the image – degradation and/or dehydration of the cellulose in superficial fibers resulting in a faint reflection of light in the visible range (Pellicori 1980). Only the topmost fibrils of each thread are dehydrated, even in the darkest areas of the image, and no significant traces of pigments, dyes, stains, chemicals, or organic or inorganic substances were found in the image.. ”
“Leonardo proposed to his master the use of solar energy, captured by a huge parabolic mirror, to boil the water in the dyers’ vats. We know little of this work on mirrors, made of glass or polished metal, except that they kept him busy a long time and would soon be the source of trouble. He had already been thinking back in the 1490s, of machines capable of producing concave mirrors ― possibly burning glasses for welding operation, and others to laminate and polish metal. (Bramly, pg. 386)
It also counts for the three-dimensional aspect of the images and the fact that it looks like a print negative when photographed ― “It was as if the Shroud, in addition to or alongside its negative characteristics, was somehow encoded with relief information of the body it once wrapped, which the VP8 Analyzer could convert back into its original form.” (Wilson, pg. 49, see also photos on pg. 48) Leonardo knew of Alhacen’s work on optics; Alhacen first describing the camera obscura in 1021 AD. (Mirror Mirror, Mark Pentergrast, 2003, pgs. 68, 69) “Inspired by Alhacen (Ibn al-Haytham), an 11th century Islamic philosopher and pioneer of the study of optics, Leonardo investigated certain “errors” of sight.” “Leonardo made an important contribution to the study of optics when he realized that the eye and its pupil operated like a camera, in that images were reversed and inverted when they entered the eye.”
The smoky, undefined images of the Shroud, is an example of Leonardo’s technique, sfumato. “Sfumato is one of the four canonical painting modes of the Renaissance (the other three being Cangiante, Chiaroscuro, and Unione).[1] It refers to a mode of painting in which there are no extreme darks or lights, as the brightness values are grouped more or less tightly together around middle gray. It corresponds to the concept of ‘low-contrast’ in photography. The Italian word sfumato (pp. of sfumare, ‘to smoke’) captures the idea precisely.”
Leonardo employed the sfumato effect not only in his painting and writing but in his manner of drawing a veil, or so it seems, over certain circumstances in his life, as if he were leaving a trail of smoke behind.” (Bramly, pg. 364) It explains why Leonardo did not write about his ‘secret project’ in his notebooks. And it was not unusual for Leonardo to do this one experiment, find the result that he needed and then abandon it, never to be repeated.
Only Leonardo had the expertise to create something like the Shroud for the ages.
In June-July 2002, a major restoration of the Shroud of Turin was undertaken by its owners. This restoration, in my opinion ruined the integrity of any future scientific investigation of the Shroud.
“In 2004, Professors Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Padua in Italy published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Optics their study, “The Double Superficiality of the Frontal Image of the Turin Shroud.” They concluded there exists a second, even fainter face image on the backside of the Shroud of Turin, corresponding but not identical to the face image of the crucified man seen in head-to-head dorsal and ventral views on the front side.”
The second face image on the back of the shroud was hidden for centuries, until the 2002 restoration when the Holland cloth was removed.
There is speculation about words written on the Shroud. If so, this would be the kind of trick Leonardo would play on the future.
As Leonardo, haunted by his illegitimate birth and lack of formal education, was arrogant about those who were legitimate and had credentials. He was so arrogant he complained that he was unable to do as good as God: “He was almost jealous of the Creator, whom he called the primo motore: the inventor of everything was a better architect and engineer than he himself would ever be.” (Bramly, pg. 275) It was, for him, the ultimate prank ― and he loved pranks ― to fake the most highly regarded of Christian relics, Jesus’ Shroud. “He believed in God ― though not perhaps a very Christian God; rather, one closer to the idea of Aristotle or the German theologian Nicholas of Cusa, and prefiguring the God of Spinoza.” (Bramly, pg. 275)
“Leonardo da Vinci was a man who rarely walks the earth, in his or any other century: Vasari, in his Lives of the Artists, makes the assumption that Leonardo embodied some superhuman quality: il divino.” (Bramly, pg. 5) Vasari wrote of Leonado: “Celestial influences may shower extraordinary gifts on certain human beings, which is an effect of nature; but there is something supernatural in the accumulation in one individual of so much beauty, grace, and might.”
Cardinal Ballestrero, “The Church has nothing to fear from the truth.” Meaning that the faith of the Church does not rest with the Shroud; yet, too many base their faith on this relic.
Dr. Alan Adler, “’Is this Jesus Christ?” is not experimentally testable. We do not have a laboratory test for Christness.’” (Wilson, pg. 137)
But there are tests for fakery, if the right ones are administered. I believe my theory of Leonardo making the Shroud as a human contact print is correct, but it will be for someone who has the proper equipment to prove it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Recent Comments
Welcome , today is Thursday, August 17, 2017