Simple test:
1. Put color on your face. Paint. Sweat. Tea. Whatever.
2. Cover your face and head with a towel, rag, cloth. Whatever.
3. Remove the cloth.
4. Look at it.
5. It doesn’t look like a face.
6. Paintings are a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object from a fixed point.
7. Your experiement produces a two-dimensional representation of a three dimensional object from an infinite number of points, where each point on the cloth matches a distinct point on your head.
8. The shroud matches #6.
9. Your test cloth matches #7.
The shroud is a painting.
There’s no pigment on the cloth, no brush strokes on it either, and you have no examples of medieval paintings that are photographic negatives, as the Shroud is. One thing it isn’t, is a painting.
Wow! Maybe they should hire you as part of the International Test Team. Did you read the links in the article itsel?
As they discuss, the image on the shroud is not all that great as a “painting”. It is out of proportion, etc. However, it has 3D code within it, so they can create a 3D image from it.
They then tired to figure out how the image might have been created. The washcloth over the face didn't do it. A single point of light (like a flash photography) didn't do it. It turned out that a regular copier machine scanner with a flat edge of light taken of a 3D image would create the image shown on the shroud.
Some nuclear physicist on the show was also saying how this image is also on the backside of the person, but the image is not compressed by the weight of the body. So the body and fabric all the way around was suspended in air.
She likened it to a mini “Big Bang” of light and energy - a “singularity event” or something. Way above my knowledge, but I did find the theory interesting, as Christ did talk about a “new Creation”. Maybe that mini “Big Bang” was the start of the new Creation, and based on the same design as the original Creation.
Not suprisingly your cloth on face attempt has been tried numerous times. Not once has the resulting image even closely resembled that found on the shroud nor has it produced the 3-D nature of the image. Let alone a photographic negative. . . .
Your comment is just stupid. Semi intelligent beings untethered from reality and responsibility tend to create their own alternative worlds. It is unlikely we will ever discover advanced life on planet mbarker12474.
The Shroud image is not a contact transfer. We know this from over 117 years of scientific examinations and studies. The Shroud is the single most studies object in history. The image was created by a force that was vertically collimated both upwards and downwards to a degree that is amazing.
The image exists only on the surface of the fibers and does not penetrate the fibers. We know exactly what the image is. It is a caramelization of the hydrocarbon starch and saccharide fractions of a coating which is about the thickness of a soap bubble (200 - 800 nanometers) that was left on the individual fibers of the Flax Linen when it was retted (washed) in a soapwort like plant extract and sun bleached in hanks laid over bushes before it was woven into cloth, a technique not used in medieval times.
The caramelization can occur by several means including age. All of these processes are melanoid processes. The Linen of the Shroud itself is caramelizing to the color of the image as it ages due to that process. Other means are heat, light exposure, chemical exposure such as exposure to the gases of decomposition Cadaverine and Putrescine , radiation, electrical phenomenon, and potential unknown modalities. However, all of those do not work in the collimated modality from every portion of the body we see in the Shroud of Turin.
Radiation might be the closest, but the radiation would have to attenuate in just 4-5 centimeters and then not penetrate the coating of the fibers. The image density is directly proportional to the distance from the body. i.e. the closer to the body, the darker the image, or the greater the caramelization of the coating. . . but the degree of resolution detail obviates any spill over due to spreading that any radiative source would have had. The only source that could have had such a form would have been a coherent light from each point on the body only upward toward the zenith and only downward toward the nadir with absolutely no degree of divergence, fading quickly with rapidity to nothing within a very short distance. We know of no such extremely short wave coherent radiative source.
Incidentally, the image is a radiograph as well. The image shows the teeth in the mouth, the carpal bones of the fingers and the orbits of the eyes, as well as shadows of other bones in the body that are close to the skin. What ever source caused the image came from inside out. No painting or man created object would have such a feature.
Also there is no image underneath the blood stains. In other words, the blood stains existed prior to the image.
You are incorrect.
But that is not the definition of painting. In addition to above, a painting is such representation produced by application of paint to a surface. The shroud is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object more consistent with photography than with painting. But since neither it is a photograph, it is, well, miraculously produced, at least from the vantage point of our technological knowledge.
“The shroud is a painting.”
The image wasn’t made by paint or any other method that X-ray, fluorescence or microchemistry could detect. The image appears solely on the surface fibers of the cloth. There is no known method for creating an image of this sort. Moreover the image is a photographic negative that reveals three dimensional detail when processed through a NASA image analyzer.
It is so remarkable and mysterious that one of the STURP techs who studied it, Barrie M. Schwortz, a non-religious Jew, created a website for the study of the Shroud:
https://www.shroud.com/menu.htm