In the last century the Turin Shroud was generally considered as the only important relic from the tomb of Christ that has remained throughout history of Christianity. But there have always been existing others, less well known, as the Sudarium of Oviedo in Spain and above all the Veil of Manoppello in Italy.
A photographic comparison of the face of the Turin Shroud and the face in the Manoppello Veil has revealed very strong relations between both relics even if there seems to be no similarity. The Turin Shroud shows a dead person after crucifixion, with signs of a coronation with thorns, a broken nose, with swollen parts of the face and hurt eyes. The Manoppello Veil shows a living person with the same particularities of wounds and deformations. Both faces have the same asymmetry and show the same irregularity in deformations. There is a possibility to put together the hurt marks in a way that results in one single and congruent face. The traces of the images confound with one another and certain deformations appear more clearly and distinctly, for instance the traces on the broken nose. In both relics the mouth appears as if open and the teeth are equally visible. The difference between both images lies in the fact that there is a vital aspect in the Manoppello Veil whereas the Turin Shroud shows the dead body aspect of the same person.
A group of scientists (EDICES) have made researches on the relation between the Turin Shroud and the Oviedo Sudarium. They have verified the same group of blood (AB), only post mortal blood, and also that the position of the cloth never has been changed during the procedure of the Descent of the cross. The Oviedo Sudarium in the place of the central part of the face in consequence has real imprints of wounds that correspond exactly with the hurt marks in the Manoppello Veil along the nose and on the upper lip. There is no contradiction between the wounds in the Oviedo Sudarium, the Manoppello Veil and the Turin Shroud. These three grave cloths are documents of the Passion and the Death of Jesus Christ, but they would not exist today if there had not been an event that has extinguished the death.

The Shroud of Turin and the Veil of Manoppello do not only belong to the most remarkable objects in the frontiers of physics, but - because of the correspondence between the two faces - they also supply evidence of both these images representing one and the same person.
For me as a paranormologist, however, the foremost question was whether the congruencies shown were that consistent to be defined as being out of the ordinary. For an answer three requirements had to be fulfilled:
I had to take my own photos on the spot and to make a sketch of the points of congruence between the face on the Shroud and the face on the Veil. With this sketch of several points of orientation and the specific points of congruence, which I proved on the Shroud of Turin, the Veil of Manoppello and other images of Christ, I came to the following conclusions:
1. The correspondence between the face on the Shroud and the one on the Veil is, as far as the selected points are concerned, highly significant.
2. The faces on the Shroud and the Veil show one and the same person.
3. The highly significant correspondence between the faces on the Shroud and the Veil can - in terms of physics - not just be explained by putting the one on top of the other: because of the differences in consistency, folding and refraction of light between the two cloth and because the Shroud bears the face of a dead person whereas the Veil bears the face of a living person.
4. The highly significant correspondence between the faces on the Shroud and the Veil with images of Jesus Christ dating from the third century proves that even in those days there existed stringent norms concerning the proportions when portraying Jesus Christ which were taken from the face on the Veil and not from the one on the Shroud. This suggests that the face on the Veil as the holy legacy of the image of the face of Christ had already been known to Christians before the third century.

What is the "ultimate" scientific method? We tackle this question in general and in particular for the Shroud of Turin. We show that the scientific community accepts some variations of the "scientific method" but that reproducibility is always an ultimate and essential characteristic. Repeatability is a similar concept where accuracy, precision, and statistical variations are involved. Repeatability implies reproducibility. Our presentation focuses on reproducibility. If we cannot reproduce an experiment (natural science) or a series of logical steps in a proof (mathematics) the experiment or proof is typically rejected by the scientific community. This is indeed a very good reason for rejection. The lack of reproducibility might have many sources: lack of access to the artifact tested, lack of precision in the description of an experiment, and so on. For example, we cannot reproduce the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin for the simple reason that the sample used to date it was burnt (i.e., destroyed) in the process --- the sample cannot be burnt a second time. We cannot also reproduce an experiment that required a rare instrument accessible only to a restricted group. But, despite the l ack of reproducibility, some experiments are still labeled as "scientific". For example, in 1919, Eddington and colleagues reported light deviation by the Sun during a total solar eclipse. It was not possible to reproduce this specific experiment immediately by other scientific groups although it was accepted as a strong evidence for the General Theory of Relativity. This was based on trust and the possibility of reproducing a similar experiment at a latter time. In this class of experiments, trust is an essential element in accepting a scientific result, but it is not as acceptable as complete reproducibility. Typically, an experiment based on trust must eventually be replaced by a complete reproducible experiment before its results are accepted by a majority of scientists and the general public. Through several historical examples, some involving the Shroud of Turin (e.g., the 1988 radiocarbon dating), we elaborate on these classes of scientific experiments and show that reproducibility is always an essential element for acceptability. Furthermore, based on these general principles, we suggest acceptable venues for publishing scientific results on the Shroud. For example, due to the general non-accessibility of the Shroud, we propose that standard Shroud photographs be accessible on the Web such that references can be made to them. We also briefly describe how reproducible length measurements can be done using an available tool on the Web. Finally, standard scientific practices can only be maintained if scientific publications on the Shroud enforce them: how this can be done is still a difficult issue for the community of Shroud researchers.

A thorough eidometic [1] examination of the areas of the orbital and near orbital counter-imprint of the Man of the Shroud of Turin confirms the presence-absence of nearly circular small objects. These prove closely associated with tiny blood decals each time suggestive of the letters of a very fragmentary inscription running around the vestige of a central motif. From a numismatic point of view, they might turn to two small Roman colonial coins known as the lepton simpvlvm and the dilepton litvvs minted by Pontius Pilate 29-32 AD. Two coins whose faint haematic traces left on the fabric had been more "sensed" than correctly identified up to now.
So much so that in order to leave no or very little room for subjective interpretation and unconscious bias, the best 2D and 3D images available (old and new ones from Enrie's 1931 photograph) [2] of the said areas have been submitted to a more appropriate eidomatico-numismatic reading grid. For the first time it clearly shows that both coins had been originally orientated along the vertical axis of their obverse: the one on the right eye with the central device of the dilepton (an augur's staff or litvvs) almost exactly right-side down and the other on the left eye with that of the lepton (a libation ladle or simpvlvm) exactly right-side up (which is in blatant contradiction with past and more hazardous observations). From the reduced scale (1/2) stroboscopic counter-imprint of the latter money type on the arch of the left eyebrow (the resilient burial cloth being initially tightly stretched in this precise area), it is even possible by computer enhancements to reconstruct the trajectory of the small coin initially placed on the left eyelid: while rotating either 170° clockwise or 190° counter clockwise, it had fallen off the eyelid lowered to half and then gradually slipped to the middle of the arch of the eyebrow after the head of the crucified man had been wrapped in the wet shroud and in a veil with a rolled up sudarium or band tied around and on top at eye level in a knot at the back.
Thus starting from the first year the two coins were struck by Pontius Pilate to his last year in office in the Roman province of Judea; the shroud image can be conclusively given the most probable average date span 29-36 AD.


Notes
[1] I.e. in relation to eidomatics or electronic imaging.
[2] In 1978, the already faint blood decal in the right eye image area was irretrievably damaged by Max Frei's too vigorous pressure of a sticky tape on the linen cloth.

G. Ricci [1, 2] suggested, about fifty years ago, that Jesus carried only patibulum on his shoulders and not the entire cross. In support of this hypothesis Bishop G. Ricci alleged the two roundish spots appearing on the back of the Shroud. Those spots were caused by the epidermis of the Shroud Man rubbing on the patibulum scraggy wood. That hypothesis was welcomed, perhaps for the reason of not being able to give a different explanation to the two spots.
Nevertheless, this hypothesis does not seem realistic for two main reasons. The first is that Jesus wore, as it is reported in the Gospels, a honour robe. Normally under the robe a lighter garment was worn. This second garment could also be the Tunic of Argenteuil, which is more a petticoat for both the fabric lightness and its size. These two garments acted as a pad between the skin and the rough wood of the patibulum. The rubbing would, first of all, ruined the fabric of the tunic causing irretrievable loss of value. Loss that is both contrary to the Gospels and to the fact that that garment was so valuable as to prohibit the division to the executors into many pieces. Also, if friction had been there, it would have covered the spine and shoulder. In the spine area however it does not appear any excoriation.
The other reason is that the shaft brought up in correspondence of the shoulders is an unnatural position. The weights are carried on the shoulders and not on the back. The shaft loaded on the shoulder blades would drag back the prisoner. Author's experiments have led to infer that this was not the way to bring a shaft.
Those spots were perhaps caused by the limited movement that the Shroud Man had to do on the cross in order to breathe. Those spots on the shoulder image can not therefore be related to the patibulum transport but to other events that should be better studied in the future.

References
[1] Ricci G., "La Sindone Santa", Centro Romano di Sindonologia, Holy Shroud Guild, Esopus, New York, 1976.
[2] Ricci G., "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud", Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Turin Shroud, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, K. Stevenson ed., Holy shroud Guild, 1977, pg. 58-73.