The Lede: Charles Freeman believes relic venerated as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth dates from 14th century and was used as a prop
Charlotte Higgins writes:
The original purpose of the shroud, argues Freeman, is likely to have been as a prop in a kind of medieval, theatrical ceremony that took place at Easter – the Quem quaeritis? or “whom do you seek?”
“On Easter morning the gospel accounts of the resurrection would be re-enacted with ‘disciples’ acting out a presentation in which they would enter a makeshift tomb and bring out the grave clothes to show that Christ had indeed risen,” he said.
This will probably get syndicated. Many Guardian articles about the shroud do.
Discussions can be come highly charged at times and it is easy for some of us to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty. If I say someone misunderstands the data (and I mean it), that’s okay. If I say someone is misrepresenting the data, it’s a close call; it goes to intent but it is probably a good idea to avoid such language. If I say someone is manipulating the data that is an accusation, plain and simple. If I’m going to accuase someone, I have to be able to prove it.
I discarded such a comment this morning. Please don’t say that someone is “trying to manipulate the data.”
There have been some recent comments that I perhaps should have edited or discarded. I don’t like to do so, however. So I’m asking everyone to think carefully about how comments are worded to avoid inappropriate accusations.
(only the English Edition was searched)
Do you recall when Wikipedia had a small article on the Shroud of Turin. That article now, if you print it out, is 22 pages long followed by 13 pages of references. But that is not enough. In addition to the main article, Shroud of Turin, there are other articles that include “Shroud of Turin” in the title:
- Conservation of the Shroud of Turin
- Shroud of Turin Research Project
- History of the Shroud of Turin
- Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin
There are articles about many shroud researchers. Here are some of them in no particular order:
- Secondo Pia
- Walter McCrone
- Raymond Rogers
- Isabel Piczec
- Barbara Frale
- Frederick Zugibe
- Gilbert R. Lavoie
- Ian Wilson (author)
- Pierre Barbet (physician)
- Yves Delage
And there are articles with significant discussion of the shroud
- Pray Codex
- Image of Edessa
- Sudarium of Oviedo
- Veil of Veronica
- Manoppello Image
- VP8 Image Analyzer
- Chapel of the Holy Shroud
- Turin Cathedra
- Royal Palace of Turin
Altogether, 430 Wikipedia English edition articles mention the Shroud of Turin according to Google.
Well, would you credit it? There we were, assuming that HD Shroud 2.0 was only available on iPads, at a price, when all the time it was there at the click of a laptop key on good ol’ Auntie BBC, going way back to 2010.
Well, not exactly. The image from the BBC is not the HD image available on iPads. It is a low grade, non-HD, 786 by 2973 pixel, 96 dpi JPEG copy of what is available on the iPad. The real, HD image is bigger than life. You can see all the threads. So when Colin says . . .
Maybe resolution is critical to spotting the two-tone effect. Maybe that’s why it’s been missed previously, by myself and others.
. . . I’m confused. Does Colin mean low resolution? I’ve been looking and looking at the iPad image, even cranking up the contrast. I don’t see the two-tone effect Colin sees. I, do, however, see some pink in the epsilon-shaped bloodstain on the forehead. See:
Did you know that you can follow the 2015 Exhibition news on twitter. It’s @Sindone2015.
You can also follow this blog on twitter at @shroudstory
According to Alexa, this blog is the most popular Shroud of Turin website in the world. No, really, as of today our global rank is 993,584. Notice that I say”our.” It’s the comments that make it so. Look, you can’t really compare websites. This is a daily blog. It is valuable because it reaches so many people. Everyone helps.
I see you are up with a new posting, Who says the Shroud of Turin image is homogeneous? Think again, fellow shroudies…
Did I read that right? Fellow shroudie?
Anyway, you write:
Here are two images of the TS image, frontal v dorsal, that I can confidently state that no one apart from myself has ever seen before. In fact, I too had not seen them until a hour or so ago. (One needs to scrutinize them closely).
In a picture caption you ask, “Can you guess the provenance?”
No Colin, I can’t. I don’t know what you mean by provenance, in this case. “The shroud”? The photograph? The film? The digital file name after conversion from one to the other? The raw bitmap file? The JPEG or GIF on a particular website? The original with original size, dots per inch, contrast, brightness, color saturation, etc.? The website where you glommed onto the image?
Every step – object to film, film to digital, file type to file type conversion, resizing and so forth — introduces artifacts including different color approximations in different density areas of the image; or so I’m told. I’m not a graphics expert so correct me, Colin, if I’m wrong.
Anyway, that may or may not be the case here. It would be nice to know what image you are using. For what you are proposing, it would be nice to get a full color image that has had the least possible manipulation in the past.
It’s been said the TS image is "homogeneous" . . .
These two images show in my humble estimation that the TS image, whether imprint or painting (I still prefer imprint) is most definitely NOT homogeneous. Under the carefully adjusted contrast, brightness and mid-tone settings, but emphatically with NO fiddling with colour, they show some "grey" areas and some "orange-brown" areas, admittedly an approximate description.
Do you know, Colin, what your software does when you fiddle?
And if anyone says it’s "just" blood, I have another image, ready and waiting, to kick that suggestion into the long grass. (Sorry about the idiomatic English – I only use it when animated, and I have to say that fellow shroudies sometimes get me animated, not to say pissed-off, with the dismissive put-down tone of their comments).
[. . . ]
For now, let’s just content ourselves with the two new images, and hang loose for a while, if only to tease my readers (to say nothing of play for time).
Here’s a challenge to fellow shroudies: whose images were these originally, and where did they first appear, before I began to tinker with them in MS Office Picture Manager (legitimately I maintain). ? (bolding emphasis mine)
You may have a point, Colin; an important point, perhaps. But you also have an attitude. That may be why we are so dismissive. The stink bomb you threw on what was intended as a thank you posting for the organizers of the St. Louis conference will be remembered for a long time. It is why your comments are being moderated for the time being.
Homogeneous or Not? That’s the Question. It is worth exploring.
Note: Image shown here is a screen grab from Colin Berry’s site. Its original provenance is unknown.