The Shroud Of Turin

Doubt Says...

Is it wrong to question - or even doubt - what someone has told you? No, it isn't - but is IS your responsibility to hear the FACTS before you decide to believe (or disbelieve) what you were told.

But be careful - the "FACTS" many people will give you can be either scientifically incorrect... or just a flat-out lie!

So what's the difference? It's simple - if the person ALREADY KNOWS what they're telling you is scientifically incorrect, but they keep telling you anyway... well, that's a lie. Check the scientific facts and decide for yourself.

THE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH

DISMISSING THE DOUBTERS
AND DISPROVING THEIR THEORIES

THE "SUBMICRON IRON OXIDE PAINTING" THEORY
The Person	Walter McCrone, a microscopist who was NOT a member of the STURP research team, was given a "sticky tape" sample from The Shroud Of Turin. He found a minute trace of submicron iron oxide (Fe₂O₂) and somehow assumed the theory below.
The Theory	Submicron iron oxide (Fe₂O₂) was used to paint the image on The Shroud Of Turin, probably around the medieval era.
The Scientific Conclusion	Completely and utterly false. Disproven by the STURP team of scientists on numerous fronts.
Why It's False	Where should we even begin? Submicron iron oxide has only been available for about 200 years, so it could not have been used in medieval painting. That is basic, common knowledge to any professional scientist. But that's just the beginning... Examination of the tape samples by the STURP team members found no evidence for McCrone's theory. There were no signs of any medium that a medieval artist could have used, and there was no sign whatsoever that any kind of liquid had been applied to the fibers of the Shroud. McCrone's theory was disposed of by the X-ray fluorescence and visible light examination of the Shroud, and also by microchemical studies. These tests determined that there is not nearly enough iron oxide on the cloth to account for even an enhancement of the image. His assumption, like other fraud theories, is finally disproven by the three-dimensional, superficial, non-diretional nature of the Shroud image, as well as by the absence of any plateaus or saturation points in the image. The STURP project team's summary of research concluded that the iron oxide was "irrelevant to the image formation". In short, McCrone was flat-out wrong and his theory was concretely disproven in at least twelve different ways.

THE "MYRRH / ALOES / STRETCHED CLOTH" THEORY
The Person	Joe Nickell, a self-proclaimed amateur detective (who obviously was NOT a member of the STURP research team) developed a completely nonsensical theory which did not at all correlate with the FACTS obtained through the scientific research of the STURP team.
The Theory	Nickell says the Shroud image was created by a dry powdered form of myrrh and aloes brushed onto a cloth stretched over a bas-relief. As evidence he submits photos of a rubbing obtained from a bas-relief of Bing Crosby.
The Scientific Conclusion	A scientifically unsound result which is not in accordance with the ACTUAL characteristics of The Shroud Of Turin. Disproven by the STURP team of scientists on numerous fronts.
Why It's False	Nickell's product shows none of the clarity and resolution of the image on The Shroud Of Turin. The Popular Photography article in which he proposed his theory also contained a lengthy and inaccurate attack on previous research and the work of the Shroud Of Turin Research Project. He misquotes or quotes out of context from the 1977 Proceedings no fewer than eight times, contradicts himself, and reports incorrectly that there is no evidence of blood on the Shroud (?!). Nickell also incorrectly states that the scientists had no direct access to the Shroud. This, he claims, is why the scientists found no pigment on the cloth. His theory fails for numerous other reasons as well. The fire and water of the 1532 fire would have affected an image formed with organic substances, such as myrrh and aloes. Photomicrographs reveal there is no way for an image created by Nickell's method to be superficial in nature Also, his application of powders would have a directional nature, but the Shroud image is non-directional Even more devastating to Nickell's theory are the results of testing his image for three-dimensionality on the VP-8 image analyzer. It was found that his image was NOT three-dimensional He thus failed to match nearly all of the crucial characteristics of The Shroud Of Turin. The basic fact remains: neither Joe Nickell nor any other artist or forger has ever created an image showing all the chareacteristics of the image of the man of the Shroud. For example, none of them are three-dimensional, superficial, or non-directional. Joe Nickell's theory produces an image which does not come close to the actual, scientifically-tested characteristics of The Shroud Of Turin.

THE "ACID PAINTING" THEORY
The Person	N/A - Theory in general circulation
The Theory	Acid and/or other chemicals added to the cloth to produce an image
The Scientific Conclusion	Theory has been scientifically disproven.
Why It's False	Experiments have revealed that acid painting is not superficial... that is to say, the acid or other chemical does not remain only on the surface of the material (as is the case with The Shroud Of Turin). Testing also revealed that densities from such techniques differ from densities in the Shroud image. Acid painting also involves an additional consideration in that if the acid is not neutralized, it will destroy the cloth. Clearly, this has not been the case with The Shroud Of Turin. These and other refutations clearly invalidate this thesis. Additional refutations include the lack of three-dimensionality, thermal stability, water stability, non-directionality and more.

"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 bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin."

- Summary of Official Statement
   issued by
   The Shroud Of Turin Research Project
   (STURP)