text: Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist. As Raymond E. Brown noticed, a corpse in the relaxed position portrayed on the shroud could not be positioned such that its hand covers its genitals as portrayed. The right arm and hand in the image appear to have been elongated to make this possible.
  In 2018, an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or "didactic" representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.
  Image and text analysis
  Image analysis
  Both art-historical digital image processing and analog techniques have been applied to the shroud images.
  In 1976, scientists used NASA imaging equipment to analyse a photograph of the shroud image and decoded the shroud image into a 3-dimensional image.