For example, it is claimed to be the negative image of a crucifixion victim.
It is claimed to be the image of a man brutally beaten in a way which corresponds to the way Jesus is thought to have been treated.
It is also claimed that the image is not a painting but a miraculously transposed image.
Skeptics believe that the shroud of Turin is just another religious relic invented to beef up the pilgrimage business or impress infidels.
(Another equally famous painting, also claimed to have miraculously appeared on a cloth, cropped up in Mexico in the 16th century, "Our Lady of Guadalupe.") The case for the forged shroud is made most forcefully by Joe Nickell in his Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin, which was written in collaboration with a panel of scientific and technical experts.
It has been noted that if the shroud were really wrapped over a body there should be a space where the two heads meet.
It has also been noted that there is a space where the front and back of the head meet, and that what appears to be the outline of the back of the head is a water stain.
Some have noted that the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long. In any case, the image is believed by many to be a negative image of the crucified Jesus and the shroud is believed to be his burial shroud. Apparently, the first historical mention of the shroud as the "shroud of Turin" is in the late 16th century when it was brought to the cathedral in that city, though it was allegedly discovered in Turkey during one of the so-called "Holy" Crusades in the so-called "Middle" Ages.Most skeptics think the image is not a burial shroud, but a painting and a pious hoax. In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350.