Since the 1970's, the debate has raged over the validity of the Shroud of Turin. Is the shroud an ancient burial cloth? Is the image of a man, or the result of an elaborate hoax?

Take a guided tour beginning on the next page and see what medical experts who examined the shroud first hand have to say.

For those who simply want a summary of what the doctors found:

• All medical indications are that the image on the Shroud of Turin is of a crucified man.
• The "blood" stains are indeed blood. Human? Maybe. The stains are at least primate blood.
• Spores from plants around the Dead Sea during Christ's era are on the shroud.
• The cloth's weave is from Christ's era.
• There is both post-mortem and pre-mortem blood stains on the cloth in the logically correct locations indicating death had occurred just prior to the man's having been wrapped in the shroud.
• No thumbs are visible on the shroud--a physiological truth that the thumb is drawn into the palm of the hand--a reflex action--as a spike rubs the median nerve when driven into the wrist.
• Serum albumen surrounds the scourge marks--a byproduct of traumatized and broken skin--visible only under ultra-violet light (which of course technology did not provide access to in the 13th and 14th centuries).
• The image shows no signs of capillarity: evidence that a pigment was not used on the shroud.
• The scourge marks reveal that the weapon used was common in Christ's era.
• The blood flows are physiologically accurate and are concurrent with the positions induced by crucifixion.
• The right arm and shoulder are slightly more developed as a right-handed carpenter's would be as a result of pounding nails.
• There is physiological evidence that a heavy object was carried across the man's shoulders after he had been given over 90 lashes by two men.
• All wounds evident on the man of the shroud are concurrent with the description in the gospels.

The argument against the validity of the shroud is the age of the cloth as revealed by carbon dating. Since the shroud had been exposed to many different environments for various lengths of time--none of which can be duplicated in a laboratory--the conclusions drawn from these tests can only be the result of presumption, not fact. It is important in all matters of science to remain objective and not accept theory and speculation as fact until the process can be duplicated and proven in a laboratory, in a controlled environment. As we all know, "scientific" conclusions are continually being revised as technology continues to improve our access to impartial data.

For a more thorough and descriptive analysis of the Shroud of Turin, please follow the "Guided Tour" and view the man of the shroud from a physician's point of view. It is an intense experience.

New findings on the Shroud of Turin:

Newest findings regarding the age of the Shroud of Turin: