This is my critique of Moraes, C., 2025, "Image Formation on the Holy Shroud—A Digital 3D Approach," Archaeometry, 8 July, which is embedded in my "My critique (1) of Sarzeaud, N., 2025, "Further evidence suggests Jesus was not wrapped in 'Shroud of Turin'," Scimex, 29 Aug 2025." I am posting this as a separate post, lightly edited, because I could not find my critique of Moraes' article by a Google search.
I had been emailed a PDF of the article: Moraes, C., 2025, "Image Formation on the Holy Shroud—A Digital 3D Approach," Archaeometry, 8 July. It is an exercise in self-deception. The claim is: 1) create a computer simulation of the frontal side of the Shroud (ignoring the back side); 2) the simulation resembles the Shroud's frontal side (surprise, surprise!) (see below); 3) therefore the Shroud was created by draping ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre[10Jul15; 03Aug24] linen
[Above (enlarge): Extract from Fig. 6 of Moraes' article showing the frontal image of the Shroud (left) and overlay of the low-relief model (right)[MC25,8].]
cloth over a "low relief" (i.e. a bas relief[03Mar12]) of unspecified material, and either rubbing pigment on the cloth[01Nov08; 03Mar12; 09May15] (cold); or scorching it[03Mar12] (hot). The article has been answered by Shroudie Alessandro Piana in Piana, A., 2025, “Was the Shroud Laid on a Sculpture? A Study Full of Errors," UCCR, 3 August. Piana's first paragraph says, "The Shroud was allegedly not laid over a body but over a bas-relief sculpture. This is the `new' theory proposed by Brazilian designer Cicero Moraes, but it is riddled with errors that undermine its methodological validity."
Problems of the Shroud having been created by overlaying its cloth over a bas relief and either rubbing pigment on the cloth, or scorching it, include: • Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377–1395) would be wrong that the Shroud had been "painted" by an artist who confessed it to his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370)[09May15; 03Jul18]. • As leading Shroud sceptic Walter McCrone (1916-2020) pointed out, a medieval forger would have simply painted the Shroud[07Jul23]. • Art based on bas reliefs did not exist in the 14th century[01Nov08; 03Mar12]. • A bas relief is one-sided, whereas the Shroud image is two-sided: front and back[03Mar12]. So a medieval forger transferring a bas relief image to the Shroud cloth would need to have created two bas reliefs: one for the man's front and one for his back[29May22]! • Such bas reliefs, engraved with anatomical details unknown in the fourteenth century[01Nov08], would be great works of art in their own right[01Nov08; 03Mar12]. So where are they; or where is the record of their having existed[03Mar12]? • STURP found that there is no paint, pigment or dye which constitutes the Shroud's image[01Nov08], so that rules out a cold transfer of the bas relief image to the Shroud cloth using pigments, etc, as they would inevitably be trapped in the Shroud's weave[03Mar12]. • STURP also found that bas-relief shrouds do not reproduce the Shroud's three-dimensional, superficial and non-directional properties[01Nov08; 05Feb17]. • If the Shroud image was created using heated bas reliefs to scorch the man's image onto the Shroud's linen, he would need to have manipulated a ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre (~14.4 x ~3.6 feet) linen cloth over two bas reliefs, heated at just the right temperature to not burn the cloth[03Mar12; 29May22], when the only heat source was burning wood, charcoal, coal or oil, because electric heating was not invented until the 19th century[03Mar12; 29May22]. A heat scorch of a cloth draped over a hot bas relief inevitably causes hot spots (e.g. the tip of the nose) on the image, but there are no hot spots on the Shroud image[03Mar12; 11Feb2229May22]; • Heat scorches fluoresce but the Shroud image does not fluoresce[03Mar12; 23Jun15; 11Feb22; 29May22]. • The blood was on the Shroud's linen before the image[see above], which also rules out heated bas reliefs which would cook the blood[03Mar12]. • If the Shroud was printed on linen laid over two bas relief, then the forger could run off many Shrouds, so why did he stop at one Shroud[01Nov08; 03Mar12]? • How did the forger obtain a ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre rare and expensive herringbone twill linen cloth, which the Shroud is[10Jul15; 08Apr20]? Which `just happens' to be close to 8 x 2 Assyrian cubits of 21.6 inches[10Jul15; 08Apr20]!]
Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
Posted 6 March 2026. Updated 15 March 2026.
Posts
6 comments:
Good reading: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395338103_My_Public_Response_to_the_Centro_Internazionale_di_Studi_della_Sindone_CISS_Regarding_the_Study_in_Archaeometry_2025
Cicero
I repeat, "It is an exercise in self-deception."
You need to: 1. actually replicate two bas reliefs (front and back), incorporating anatomical knowledge not available in the 14th century; 2. Lay a ~4.4 x ~1.1 metre linen cloth over the two bas reliefs; 3) apply clotted human blood before the image; and 4) Either by heat or pigment rubbing, produce an image that has all the major features of the Shroud .
From my book in progress-references omitted:
"Straw man Claimed replications of the Shroud which do not include each and every major feature of the Shroud, are a type of `straw man' fallacy. That is, they present a claimed replication of the Shroud which does not truly replicate it, and then falsely claim that they have replicated the Shroud!
Major features of the Shroud include: 1. Double body image; 2. Negative; 3. Three-dimensional; 4. Extremely superficial; 5. Non-directional; 6. Uniform colour; 7. Faint; 8. No added colour (paint, pigment, etc); 9. Blood is real and human, 10. Blood was on the cloth before the image and 11. X-ray images of bones and teeth."
Then explain: 1) where are the two bas reliefs, or records of them, which would be major artworks in their own right; 2) why would a 14th century forger go to so much trouble and not simply paint the Shroud image, as leading sceptic Walter McCrone pointed out:
"Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption[]; Occam's Razor applies here" (my emphasis)[11Jul16];
3) Then claim your US$1 million prize from David Rolfe[22May22]!
Stephen E. Jones
MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate (2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post. See 05Jan16.
I am from Germany, member of the shroud-science-group (email- group of 130 shroud researchers) and would like to come into contact with you, Stephen. I consider your hacking theory very interesting and would like to discuss it in this forum. See my URL.
Helmut. I would appreciate it if you did discuss my Hacker Theory in the Shroud Science Group. I don't have the time to join that group myself. Nor do I have time for private email correspondence about the Shroud. What with writing a book, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!", writing my blog, and recently writing my "Open Letter to Nature: Were the Shroud laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" Read "My Hacker Theory in a nutshell" (https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2025/01/my-hacker-theory-in-nutshell-turin.html) for my latest thoughts on my Hacker Theory. You can communicate any SSG questions about my Hacker Theory in comments under that post. Stephen E. Jones
I always found it ridiculous that the Moraes "study" got the attention that it did, and that so many Shroud skeptics ran with it as proof of... well anything, really.
At most what Moraes showed was that, assuming the Shroud was formed by transferring pigment or a scorch from a sculpture by contact, the image was more consistent with the sculpture being a bas relief than a statue.
Except we already know independently from the Shroud's microscopic properties that it wasn't formed by pigment or scorch, so the whole thing is moot.
And it couldn't possibly provide evidence of the Shroud being inauthentic, because the study was only comparing theories of inauthenticity to begin with.
The Deuce
>I always found it ridiculous that the Moraes "study" got the attention that it did, and that so many Shroud skeptics ran with it as proof of... well anything, really.
Agreed. What was worse was that Archaeometry published it! A fact-free computer simulation,
It shows that the secular, naturalistic, world is *desperate* for anything against the Shroud!
Stephen E. Jones
Post a Comment