Skip to main content

'2nd face' on Shroud points to supernatural origin

By Jerome R. Corsi
4/28/2010
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
The second face image on the back of the shroud was hidden for centuries, until the 2002 restoration when the Holland cloth was removed.


TURIN, ITALY (Catholic Online) - Scientists examining the Shroud of Turin since the restoration that began in 2000 have found a "second face" on its reverse "hidden side," a discovery they believe adds evidence to the argument it is not a medieval painting or photographic rendering.

As part of the restoration undertaken in the summer of 2002, the Holland cloth - the backing cloth placed on the shroud by the Poor Clare Nuns to preserve it after the 1532 fire - was removed, permitting for the first time in centuries an examination of the back side.

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.

Fanti and Maggiolo used image-processing techniques, including Gaussian filters and Fourier transformations to highlight the extremely faint second face on the backside of the shroud, including details of a nose, eyes, hair, beard and mustache.

To the naked eye, the backside of the shroud appears to show no image whatsoever.

Like the face image on the front side of the shroud, the previously hidden image on the backside is a superficial image that exists only on the topmost linen fibers, created by the same dehydration process characteristic of the face and body image on the front.

The backside of the shroud contains only a limited ventral image of the crucified man in which a stain appears to correspond to the crossed hands seen on the front.

Fanti and Maggiolo found no dorsal image of the crucified man on the shroud's back side.

The researchers concluded the image of the face on the backside of the shroud was not created by a process of painting in which the facial image on the front "bled through" to create an image on the reverse side.

Similarly, if a photographic process created the image of the face, the photographic emulsion on the shroud must have been applied separately on the front and reverse surfaces, without any photographic emulsion soaking through the linen fibers at the center.

The two scientists demonstrated this by noting the image of the face impressed on the backside has "some slight differences" from the front image.

For instance, the nose on the back presents "the same extension of both nostrils, unlike the front side, in which the right nostril is less evident."

Moreover, Fanti and Maggiolo concluded "the central part of the fabric was clearly not involved in the creation of the image [on the backside] - i.e., the internal part of the linen fabric does not have an image."

The researchers, other words, found a "doubly superficial" face image on both the front and back sides such that "if a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle."

The shroud, therefore, they concluded, was not created by paint soaking through the linen or by a photographic image printing through to the reverse side, because the front and back facial images are not identical and the center fibers show no image creation whatsoever.

Fanti and Maggiolo concluded the shroud image was created by a "corona discharge," understood as a radiant burst of light and energy that scorched the body image of the crucified man on the topmost fibers of the shroud's front and back sides, without producing any image on the centermost of its linen fibers.

"Imagine slicing a human hair lengthwise, from end to end, into 100 long thin slices; each slice one-tenth the width of a single red blood cell," writes Daniel Porter, editor of ShroudStory.com. "The images on the Shroud of Turin, at their thickest, are this thin."

Fanti and Maggiolo found the faint image of the face on the reverse side of the shroud contained the same 3D information contained in the face and body image of the crucified man seen on the shroud's front side.

The current Exposition of the Shroud in Turin, underway until May 23, is the first time the Shroud of Turin has been displayed since the 2002 restoration.

The back side of the shroud is not being shown for public observation; a new backing cloth has been sewn on to replace the Holland cloth, hiding the reverse side once again.

-----

Jerome R. Corsi is the author of the newly published novel, "The Shroud Codex." A New York Times Bestselling author of non-fiction books, Corsi has been a life-long student of the Shroud of Turin.


Iv
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
To the naked eye, the backside of the shroud appears to show no image whatsoever.

Like the face image on the front side of the shroud, the previously hidden image on the backside is a superficial image that exists only on the topmost linen fibers, created by the same dehydration process characteristic of the face and body image on the front.

The backside of the shroud contains only a limited ventral image of the crucified man in which a stain appears to correspond to the crossed hands seen on the front.



I pulled the above sentences from the post. to me that would be very hard to achieve by human hands.

very interesting......
quote:
Originally posted by House of David:
quote:
To the naked eye, the backside of the shroud appears to show no image whatsoever.

Like the face image on the front side of the shroud, the previously hidden image on the backside is a superficial image that exists only on the topmost linen fibers, created by the same dehydration process characteristic of the face and body image on the front.

The backside of the shroud contains only a limited ventral image of the crucified man in which a stain appears to correspond to the crossed hands seen on the front.


I pulled the above sentences from the post. to me that would be very hard to achieve by human hands.
very interesting......

XXXXXXXXXX

Did you see the documentary on TV the other night?

It leaves no doubt the shrould is real.

.
quote:
Scientists examining the Shroud of Turin since the restoration that began in 2000 have found a "second face" on its reverse "hidden side,"


jesus christ. this stupid shroud has been tested to hell and back and it is not old enough to be the shroud of jesus.

secondly, and this is the most glaring, is that the "face" on the shroud (or "faces" now) actually looks like a well proportioned face. so well proportioned that it IS NOT POSSIBLE that it was imprinted via some magical process when the cloth was wrapped around the face.

you can try this experiment at home: cover your face in a harmless powder such as charcoal. now take a square piece of clean, white sheet and press it on your entire face. now, remove the sheet from your face and look at the image you created. what you will see is NOT a perfectly proportioned face that is about 5-6 inches wide, but a wildly stretched face that is about 12 inches wide. you can also do this by wetting your face and pressing it into a single sheet of newspaper and look at the watermark. it will not look like a normal face, people.

this link kind of gives a idea of the distortion:


do you believers ever find it even remotely weird that your faith requires that you accept as fact crap that has been proven to be bogus?
Crusty, i'm sending this to you in a private message because i don't want anyone to know but, i'm curious, will the slivers of the "one true cross" help with erectile dysfunction?

$39.97 is a bargain compared to the homeopathic stuff i've been spraying on it. that hasn't worked for some reason.

keep this between you and me, ok?
The argument that the Shroud is not old enough due to the carbon dating results also don't hold water. Fact is that of all the places, on the Shroud, that they could have cut cloth to test they chose a part that was actually added at a newer time after it was repaired from being burnt. They tested a verified newer cloth and not the actual shroud. Actually the patch they tested contained both old and new thread as it was interwoven. The dating results came out to be a mix between the two dates. A date that was between the new addition and the expected original date.

I have no doubt, in my mind, that the Shroud is authentic and was the burial shroud of Christ at the time of His resurrection. Go on disbelieving if you wish, that's your right and your prerogative but be factual about reporting the dating process. Since the carbon dating it was revealed that the piece tested was not wholly taken from the original Shroud and contained newer thread material so that threw off the dates.
quote:
The argument that the Shroud is not old enough due to the carbon dating results also don't hold water.

That's not the only "argument" against it. I wonder, do you ever search for differing opinions or do you just type in "proof shroud is real"? I've seen so many things about this shroud and like I told invictus they still haven't dated it. You know why, I know why. The "holders" of the shroud won't allow proper testing. What are they afraid of? We know. It seems to me that if it had been proven to be real it would be earth shattering news and be talked about 24-7 on the news stations, Internet, everywhere.
I can't dispute that the caretakers of the Shroud are not allowing testing but that doesn't mean that they will not. Frankly my faith isn't contingent upon the Shroud being the burial shroud of Christ. The reason I believe that it is though is the dating that was done and the explanation of the time they came up with along with the intermingling of the threads.

Additionally failure of science to be able to explain or reproduce the image. I fully believe that the miracle of resurrection imprinted the image on the Shroud at the moment of Resurrection. I also can fully understand any non-believers desire and want to have it be a fake for if it was ever proven real or with a very high percentage then that would force confrontation as to what caused the image and of the reality of Christ.

Either way faith should not depend upon it, for anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
I have no doubt, in my mind, that the Shroud is authentic and was the burial shroud of Christ at the time of His resurrection.


dude, the "blood" was found to be a pigment (PAINT!) called red ocher. this is quite conclusive.

did you even both to consider my post proving to even the most deluded that a face on a shroud WOULD NOT appear as the face appears on the turin shroud? can you really not grasp this simple fact?

proving once again that the mind of the believer will accept anything told to them as "proof" of their imaginary friend.

jesus.
quote:
Additionally failure of science to be able to explain or reproduce the image. I fully believe that the miracle of resurrection imprinted the image on the Shroud at the moment of Resurrection. I also can fully understand any non-believers desire and want to have it be a fake for if it was ever proven real or with a very high percentage then that would force confrontation as to what caused the image and of the reality of Christ.


No, I don't care what you believe, and even if it was ever proved that the shroud wrapped a body, (by the way, one argument against it is that there is no imprint of the top of the head, which there should be if it wrapped a body). Any way back to what I was posting, if it was proved it wrapped a body how would that prove it wrapped the body of jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
The argument that the Shroud is not old enough due to the carbon dating results also don't hold water. Fact is that of all the places, on the Shroud, that they could have cut cloth to test they chose a part that was actually added at a newer time after it was repaired from being burnt. They tested a verified newer cloth and not the actual shroud. Actually the patch they tested contained both old and new thread as it was interwoven. The dating results came out to be a mix between the two dates. A date that was between the new addition and the expected original date.

I have no doubt, in my mind, that the Shroud is authentic and was the burial shroud of Christ at the time of His resurrection. Go on disbelieving if you wish, that's your right and your prerogative but be factual about reporting the dating process. Since the carbon dating it was revealed that the piece tested was not wholly taken from the original Shroud and contained newer thread material so that threw off the dates.


This is idiotic.
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
I can't dispute that the caretakers of the Shroud are not allowing testing but that doesn't mean that they will not. Frankly my faith isn't contingent upon the Shroud being the burial shroud of Christ. The reason I believe that it is though is the dating that was done and the explanation of the time they came up with along with the intermingling of the threads.

Additionally failure of science to be able to explain or reproduce the image. I fully believe that the miracle of resurrection imprinted the image on the Shroud at the moment of Resurrection. I also can fully understand any non-believers desire and want to have it be a fake for if it was ever proven real or with a very high percentage then that would force confrontation as to what caused the image and of the reality of Christ.

Either way faith should not depend upon it, for anyone.


This had to be written by one who has read nothing but propaganda about the dis-proven shroud.
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
"Faith is when you believe in something that nobody in their right mind would believe in." Archie Bunker


Although you didn't say it yourself it's evident that you agree with the Bunker quote at least with this post and others of yours. At least you are consistent.

So you don't have faith? You ARE in your right mind then right?

I propose that you and everyone else has faith. Faith that a bridge will support their vehicle and not drop them in the river. Faith that a building will not fall down around them. Faith that a elevator cable will not break and drop them to the ground. We all have faith, even you. What you are doing is being biased and judgmental. You are biased against Christians and those with religious faith revealing your own inadequacies.

Why don't you just spell out what you mean and clarify FAITH and show your inner anger toward people of faith rather than trying to conceal it?

You actually have a religious type faith also. You have faith there is no God and that upon your death that you won't face a God that you deny exist. We all will find out the answers to those questions one day but our destiny from there will be determined and irreversible and all of us without excuses.
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
I don't know about that Jennifer. Philosophically Hope/Faith used in that context with many would be interchangeable and mean essentially the same thing, at least on a sub-conscience level.
I don't think so. If I had faith in the bridge, no doubts, I'd never think about shoddy construction.
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
"Faith is when you believe in something that nobody in their right mind would believe in." Archie Bunker


Although you didn't say it yourself it's evident that you agree with the Bunker quote at least with this post and others of yours. At least you are consistent.

So you don't have faith? You ARE in your right mind then right?

I propose that you and everyone else has faith. Faith that a bridge will support their vehicle and not drop them in the river. Faith that a building will not fall down around them. Faith that a elevator cable will not break and drop them to the ground. We all have faith, even you. What you are doing is being biased and judgmental. You are biased against Christians and those with religious faith revealing your own inadequacies.

Why don't you just spell out what you mean and clarify FAITH and show your inner anger toward people of faith rather than trying to conceal it?

You actually have a religious type faith also. You have faith there is no God and that upon your death that you won't face a God that you deny exist. We all will find out the answers to those questions one day but our destiny from there will be determined and irreversible and all of us without excuses.


You are just silly.
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
"Faith is when you believe in something that nobody in their right mind would believe in." Archie Bunker


Although you didn't say it yourself it's evident that you agree with the Bunker quote at least with this post and others of yours. At least you are consistent.

So you don't have faith? You ARE in your right mind then right?

I propose that you and everyone else has faith. Faith that a bridge will support their vehicle and not drop them in the river. Faith that a building will not fall down around them. Faith that a elevator cable will not break and drop them to the ground. We all have faith, even you. What you are doing is being biased and judgmental. You are biased against Christians and those with religious faith revealing your own inadequacies.

Why don't you just spell out what you mean and clarify FAITH and show your inner anger toward people of faith rather than trying to conceal it?

You actually have a religious type faith also. You have faith there is no God and that upon your death that you won't face a God that you deny exist. We all will find out the answers to those questions one day but our destiny from there will be determined and irreversible and all of us without excuses.


You are just silly.


gosh, what a clever and witty counterpoint.
i'm not sure they will recover from literary lashing like that.


for the record, i don't buy the shroud either.
i put it on the same shelf with the crazy cat ladies and half-wit rednecks who see elvis at burger king, and the whacko people that see jesus in toast or a stain on a wall or (heaven help us) a lay's potato chip.
Originally Posted by gbrk:
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
"Faith is when you believe in something that nobody in their right mind would believe in." Archie Bunker


Although you didn't say it yourself it's evident that you agree with the Bunker quote at least with this post and others of yours. At least you are consistent.

So you don't have faith? You ARE in your right mind then right?

I propose that you and everyone else has faith. Faith that a bridge will support their vehicle and not drop them in the river. Faith that a building will not fall down around them. Faith that a elevator cable will not break and drop them to the ground. We all have faith, even you. What you are doing is being biased and judgmental. You are biased against Christians and those with religious faith revealing your own inadequacies.

Why don't you just spell out what you mean and clarify FAITH and show your inner anger toward people of faith rather than trying to conceal it?

You actually have a religious type faith also. You have faith there is no God and that upon your death that you won't face a God that you deny exist. We all will find out the answers to those questions one day but our destiny from there will be determined and irreversible and all of us without excuses.

You really don't understand this, do you? Faith is nothing more than mis-placed imagination. Neither you nor I have any evidence for God, yet you believe and I don't. You are a atheist who doesn't recognize that fact. Do you believe in Amun Ra, Thor, Wotan, Zeus, Thor, Athena, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If you answer "No" to any of these, then you are an atheist. If you forget about your lifelong brainwashing and think, you will realize how silly belief in any of the Gods is.

Pardon my absence for a while due to the horrible weather but thankfully we faired much better than many.  Although we had damage, due to water, we had no external damage so other than being out of cable/internet for a while we faired very well.  I feel for those neighbors who are out of power for week(s) and especially those who died and suffered loss of homes.  Our arguments or debates here are so minor at times.

 

That said, it's not a surprise you feel this way Jimi and that's not a problem.  You seem obsessed, at times, with those that have very valid reasons for their belief.  Frankly there is no GOD because you don't know God and if you continue on you most likely never will and that will be yours to account for.  If there is no God then you have nothing to worry about if there is I leave that to you.  Consider your long list of "deities".  Do you at times wonder why people for eons or time and in diverse parts of the world seek a greater being or creator?  Why is that inner thirst for a God there?  If we are but evolved life why is there such universal thirst for knowledge of God or whatever name you wish to give to Him?   

 

You state blatantly, there is no God, and I believe you, trust you, and have no doubt of that because frankly all evidence that you have exhibited here is that God doesn't exist to you but that none the less doesn't mean God is not there.  It means that you have never known God.  God is not an illusion for God's Holy Spirit makes Himself very real within me that I cannot and will not deny God for God IS very real.  God is also very real and evident to others who have accepted Him and although you have not and have no knowledge of God only shows what you don't know and not what you do.

Originally Posted by gbrk:

Pardon my absence for a while due to the horrible weather but thankfully we faired much better than many.  Although we had damage, due to water, we had no external damage so other than being out of cable/internet for a while we faired very well.  I feel for those neighbors who are out of power for week(s) and especially those who died and suffered loss of homes.  Our arguments or debates here are so minor at times.

 

That said, it's not a surprise you feel this way Jimi and that's not a problem.  You seem obsessed, at times, with those that have very valid reasons for their belief.  Frankly there is no GOD because you don't know God and if you continue on you most likely never will and that will be yours to account for.  If there is no God then you have nothing to worry about if there is I leave that to you.  Consider your long list of "deities".  Do you at times wonder why people for eons or time and in diverse parts of the world seek a greater being or creator?  Why is that inner thirst for a God there?  If we are but evolved life why is there such universal thirst for knowledge of God or whatever name you wish to give to Him?   

 

You state blatantly, there is no God, and I believe you, trust you, and have no doubt of that because frankly all evidence that you have exhibited here is that God doesn't exist to you but that none the less doesn't mean God is not there.  It means that you have never known God.  God is not an illusion for God's Holy Spirit makes Himself very real within me that I cannot and will not deny God for God IS very real.  God is also very real and evident to others who have accepted Him and although you have not and have no knowledge of God only shows what you don't know and not what you do.

Pure, meaningless nonsense.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×