Facts and Dubious Claims: Frequently Asked Questions
1) How are the images recorded on the cloth?
A thin amorphous film, as thin as anti-glare coatings on eyeglasses, coats some of the outermost fibers of the cloth. In discrete places, this otherwise clear coating of starch fractions and saccharides has undergone a chemical change. The chromophores of these newly formed complex, conjugated double carbon bonds appear straw-yellow. Chemically, they resemble a Maillard product. See The Shroud of Caiaphas and Chemistry
2) Didn't a world renowned microscopist and expert in art forgeries find paint particles on the Shroud and determine that it was painted?
Maybe. Some think he found trace amounts as contaminants. Other scientists think he was mistaken. McCrone was the only scientist to claim finding paint. He refused to allow peer review and his work has been completely refuted. Unfortunately, he is still quoted. See Ray Roger's FAQ Question 1
3) Didn't a forger confess to a bishop in the mid-1300s?
The actual details are that in 1389, Pierre d'Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes wrote a draft of a memorandum to the Avignon Pope Clement VII. The memorandum was never sent. The account is second hand. Pierre claimed that his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in which a painter had confessed to painting the Shroud. The painter is unnamed. The inquest is not in the historical records. At least eight other documents of the period challenge the accuracy of the d'Arcis Memorandum.
4) Didn't carbon 14 dating prove that the Shroud was medieval?
The area from which the carbon 14 samples were taken in 1988 are chemically different than the rest of the cloth. It is a spliced-in repair to the main cloth. Unlike the rest of the Shroud, the threads contain cotton fiber and are dyed to look old with Madder root dyes in a mordant of alumina and gum. Also, the splice site (C14 sample site) contains vanillin indicating that the spliced-in fabric is much newer than the rest of the cloth. See Carbon 14 Tests and Ray Roger's FAQ Question 5
5) What is the significance of the second face on the backside of the cloth?
Like the face on the front of the cloth, it is superficial to the outermost fibers. There is no in-between imaging, soaking, capillarity, wicking, etc. It is a powerful argument for authenticity. See Second Face Image and The Shroud of Caiaphas
6) Are the bloodstains on the Shroud from real blood?
Different scientists working independently conducted immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens that prove it beyond reasonable doubt. And several experts in forensic medicine and blood chemistry conclude that the stains were formed by real human bleeding from real wounds on a real human body that came into direct contact with the cloth. Many of the stains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of the clot and a clear yellowish halo of serum. See Ray Roger's FAQ Question 2
7) Isn't it proven that the blood is type AB?
Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB. Recent tests at SUNY (State University of New York), while confirming that it is real blood, cannot confirm that it is type AB. See Ray Roger's FAQ Question 2
8) Are there images of coins over the eyes?
That is an observation that is challenged by many Shroud researchers. See Coins Over the Eyes. Other observations include the appearance of skeletal features (the jaw, the spine, fingers in the hands) and floral images. See Pollen and Floral Images
9) Is the image 3D encoded? Are the images made up of pixels? Isn't the image a negative image?
While true, these image qualities are often exaggerated or misinterpreted. It is an important subject. See Pixels, Negativity and 3D
10) So where is the miracle?
The images are simply to realistic to be happenstance by chemical reaction as explained in The Shroud of Caiaphas. Yet, they are too complex in terms or the chemical facts, the second face, the negativity, the 3D aspects, and many other optical qualities to be manmade. This is not a good answer. It remains a good question, unanswered.
© 2004 Daniel R. Porter, Bronxville, New York
