Joe Eszterhas

So this is what it actually looks like.

This is the actual shroud image.

And when you look at that, you go, okay, I see shadows.

It's very interesting.

And then switch over to the negative, and it all comes to life.

And there's marks from the lashes, from the whip marks.

There's bloodstains from where the rods went through his wrists.

It's very fascinating.

Yeah, it sure is.

And again, this is not dye.

It's not ink.

And they don't really know how it was made.

And again, no one has been able to recreate this.

Right, right.

It says it behaves like a photographic negative and shows some 3D information, which is unusual for normal artwork.

The chemical theories that body heat, sweat, or vapors reacting with the cloth, example, ammonia or lactic acid from sweat may have been proposed, but don't reproduce the shroud's sharp, non-blurry details.

Simple heat or scorch theories likewise fail to match the very shallow, non-burned discoloration of the fibers.

human or man-made image human-made image theories painting or rubbing from bass relief has been tested but studies have not found pigments in the amounts or patterns that would explain the image and there's no clear brushstrokes primitive photography some suggest that a medieval camera using light sensitive silver salts and lenses could have projected a body or statue onto the cloth and experimental replicas show that it's at least physically possible though historically speculative

And now here's the weird one, radiation bursts of energy theories.

Some researchers argue that a brief intense burst of ultraviolet or similar radiation from the body could have discovered, discolored only the top fibrils producing a non-contact image even where cloth and body didn't touch.