Thank you by advance to the attention you will give to this text.

Maybe if you come to this page, you should know some little things about the Shroud of Turin and some of the contradictions that surrounds its scientific studies.

May I remind you the problematic about its authenticity:

1. Tests conducted in Zurich, Oxford, and Arizona using AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) gave a definitive result by Carbon-14 dating. We cannot argue, following ill-informed correspondents, that foreign bodies like carbon have changed the result. The fragments were carefully washed before determination and thoroughness with which the review was conducted does not doubt. Nor, we cannot speculate on imaginary radiations that would have disrupted the sample. If this were the case, radiocarbon tend to increase its value and the result would date the linen before Christ.

2. If the determinations of 1988 are certain, the conclusion is that someone from the thirteen century has falsified the impression.

3. And if that "someone from the medieval" had the prodigious knowledge of forensic for:
- Get a perfect photographic negative when the technical picture was unknown
- Get a correct three-dimensional image before the analysis of the twentieth century by NASA
- Know how in reality was the crown of thorns;
- Know the exact point of the crucifixion in a space named “Destot” while at this epoch painters represented the nailing in the palm of the tortured;
- Know the exact brands of torture;
- Have dared to paint a naked Jesus at a time when modesty forbade such representation;
- Know how to forge with equal precision and scholarly knowledge of the twentieth century, a semi-incandescent image!
Examining thoroughly the case everybody come to understand they were contradictions. And at the top of these contradictions, is the C14 datation of the linen (1268 AD) against the necessary medical and technical knowledge need to create a so precise forgery at this epoch.
So either :

• Hyp. 1. The C14 datation was wrong,
• Hyp. 2. The actual Shroud of Turin is a forgery.

In the case of this second hypothesis, what could be the real age of this « forgery » ? For sure, it would involve recent medical knowledge and the use of a thirteen century linen.

A way that could ensure us that no modifications has occured since the end of the nineteenth century century would be to compare precisely the first photo taken by Secondo Pia's in 1898 with subsequent photos (official photos were rare).

Of course, doing a comparison between the photographies taken by Pia (1898), Enrie (1931) and Schwortz (1978) may be somewhat misleading. They each used different cameras, films and lighting for their photographs. Also, since the Shroud was behind a glass when Pia photographed it, there was some problem with distortions and reflections. Enrie and Schwortz photographed the Shroud directly (no glass), with the Shroud unrolled and laid out before them. Moreover, as the cloth is woven, there would definitely be some differences between the Enrie and Schwortz images due to the variations in just laying out the cloth. The Shroud linen is not a stable substrate and can vary in size by a centimeter or more based solely on the relative humidity in which it is stored.

So, as differences are attended, doing a serious comparison must involve differents numerical operations to correct the distortions and transform the images to match the differents "stable patterns" (stains, marks, patterns, etc.)

Another difficulty is to get high resolution images to work with: the differents photos are copyrighted and owned by individuals or organisations:

• Pia's photographs are owned by the Archdiocese of Turin,
• Enrie photos are administered by an Italian professional photographer, Aldo Guerreschi.
• Schwortz photos are administered by Barrie Schwortz throught a non-profit organization, STERA, Inc. (Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc.)

At this time no numerical copy of these source has been retrieved.
While expecting to get a better material, a preliminary verification has been conducted using a photo scaned from the book "The Shroud of Turin" by N. Noguier of Malijay. This book dating from 1929 contains several Pia's photographic reproductions. The negative and positive photos of the face are shown p56/p57 are approximatively of 13.22 by 9.57 centimeters height and width.

These photos were scanned at 600 dpi and the resulting pictures showed a resolution of 2260 by 3112 pixels (or 7MP). The dots composing the photos are visible at a resolution of 3 pixels, or 200 lines per inch, which is an excellent result for an halftone reproduction.

Then, the relative position of the elements has been corrected to surimpose the stains and patterns on each photos.
Essentially, it has an impact on the position of image elements, the creases and the wrinkles. However, they concerns only the relative location of these observable elements: they do not undermine their existence as objective elements.
The result of this surimposition is given below  (click to enlarge the picture):

Surprisingly, significant differences emerge (or remains) between the photos taken by Secondo Pia and those taken in 1931 by G. Enrie (in color below). Above, S1, S2, S3, S4 are higlighted, but these are not the only differences...

We can hardly consider that S1-S4 are burrs/artifacts resulting from the book publication: the same stains are reproduced both on the negative and positive photos and are consistent in hue with the nearer elements.

Some remarks:

- The stain named S4, visible on the left cheekbone, is similar to the mark of a liquid that would have flowed. Below, exactly the same detail comparing Pia's photo (left) with Enri (right).

- The stain named S1, is of enough dimension to be clearly visible at a far greater scale than the resolution of the printed image: the size-ratio between S1 and the halftone dots is 30:1 (on vertical axis). More precisely, S1 is made of 4507 pixels / 500 halftone dots. And these pixels seems to be completely missing in the photo of Giuseppe Enri (below, at the right), as if they were "erased":

Obviously, despite the poor quality of these pictures, resolution is sufficient to show that there is nothing at the same location on the photo from Giuseppe : S1, even very contrasted, has litteraly disappeared from the photos.

In addition, looking closely at S1, we can see a slight difference of contrast between the crease (S1.1.) and the stain (S1.2). This difference is measurable via an RGB histogram: S1 is also in coherence with Sx, the nearer big stain while S1.1 is darker following the crease.

Simultaneously and paradoxically they are a lot of little stains and patterns - much more little than S1-S4 - which are correctly placed on the Pia's and Enrie's photo.

Also, there is no problem to compare the photos taken since 1931 with each other: they superimpose almost perfectly and show fundamentally *stable patterns*. Only Pia’s photos show such degrees of changements.

So the question is open: there is something there worth exploring. And whatever it could be, try to understand the origin of S1, S2, S3, S4 and other visible differences as they can be the door which open to new revelations.

[>>>] Discuss about this position.