Home > Challenge, Image Theory, News & Views > Marcel Alonso on Rogers’ Impurity Layer

Marcel Alonso on Rogers’ Impurity Layer

June 7, 2012

A guest posting from Yannick Clément that is relevant to the Dawkins Challenge:

* * *

imageI would like to share with you a reflection made by a French engineer named Marcel Alonso (member of the French group CIELT and also member of the SSG if I remember well) who supports the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the chromophore of the body image on the Shroud, i.e. that it is composed of a thin layer of carbohydrates impurities found on-top of the linen fibers (external to them). This reflection of Alonso gives us another possible clue that could support the hypothesis of Rogers. Here it is (translation is mine from an original article published in French) :

With adapted numeric treatment, the French engineers Castex, de Bazelaire and Doumax succeed to “equalise” the basic tint of each thread in the region of the face.” (Personal note : they did this to remove the banding effect we see everywhere on the Shroud, particularly noticeable in the region of the face, which had a proportional effect on the intensity of the body image). Alonso continue : “The image carried by the threads appear then purified of every parasites that can deform it, and it is a more regular face, less severe, and more conventional, that we can contemplate.

(Personal note : You can see the result of their numeric treatment of the face here : http://thierrycastex.blogspot.ca/) On this website, it is the second set of 2 side-by-side pictures, showing the face before and after their numeric treatment.

Then, Alonso make a very interesting deduction :

Since these treatment leave the image intact [personal note : with no deformation of the image], the formation of this image WOULDN’T HAVE ALTERED THE SURFACE COMPOSITION OF THE THREADS, which would go in the sense of a DEPOSIT OF COLORATION ADDED TO THE THREADS.

Before making this statement, in the same paper, Alonso said this :

The layer of coloration possess the “additive” nature that allow the numeric treatment (by removing the “noise”) to uncover the (real) image.

It’s maybe a bit complicated to understand, but I think his point of view deserve some serious thoughts ! For Alonso, the fact that a numeric treatment done to remove all the banding effect on the Shroud didn’t produce, at the same time, any deformation of the image is a good sign that the image hasn’t altered the surface composition of the threads (i.e. the primary cell wall of the linen fiber). And if his interpretation is correct, that can only mean, for him, that the conclusion of Rogers regarding the image chromophore (i.e. the coloration didn’t affect at all the linen fibers themselves) MUST BE TRUE !!!

Personally, I’m not enough skilled about things like that (numeric treatment of image versus the chromophore) to be sure if the point of view of Alonso is correct or not. Anyway, I found his reflection very interesting, mainly because this is the very first time I’ve heard something of that nature. For this reason, I thought it deserves to be known. I hope you will seriously reflect upon this, because in the end, it can well be a real good clue that point in favor of the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the chromophore of the image…

 

image

  1. Gabriel
    June 7, 2012 at 6:51 am | #1

    I am afraid that in this case (once again) everything is far from being acceptable. The authors claim that after numerical treatment of the image, they have reached the conclusion, as Yannick says in his writing, that the layer of coloration possess the “additive” nature that allow the numeric treatment.
    If so, in the first place and if we are talking about a solid and scientific fact, they should send their findings to a peer-rewieved journal so that other scientists can check whether their techniques and conclusions are acceptable in the current state of the art. Equally, they should let the image they have used freely available for independent validation by any other expert.

    At the present stage, using these results (not independently validated!!) to go one step forward and thus support Roger`s hypothesis, I am sorry to say, it is just not acceptable.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 7, 2012 at 9:15 am | #2

      Gabriel, I think you touch a good point by saying that there’s a lot of information in the Shroud world that are exposed as being facts while these info were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. But in this case concerning Alonso, we have to understand that it is just his personal opinion that he was expressing without pretending that it is a solid fact. That’s important to make this distinction. Notice how Alsonso express his opinion with great prudence by saying “WOULDN’T HAVE ALTERED…” and “would go in the sense…” That’s not the kind of extreme statement we often read coming from people who think they possess all the truth about the Shroud !!!

      That’s precisely why I thought it was interesting to share with you these quotes from Alonso where he express his personal interpretation regarding the fact that some numeric treatments done to remove the banding effect on pictures of the Shroud didn’t produce any deformation of the image. I think that Alonso’s opinion on this subject deserve some serious thoughts…

    • Yannick Clément
      June 7, 2012 at 9:56 am | #3

      I want to redo the beginning of my answer to Gabriel because I forget something VERY important : “Gabriel, I think you touch a good point by saying that there’s a lot of information in the Shroud world that are exposed as being facts while these info were never published in a peer-reviewed journal AND INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED IN AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OTHER PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL.”

      This precision is very important because history has proven many times that we cannot take everything published in a peer-reviewed journal for granted. So, it’s very safe and intelligent to wait until there is some independent confirmation of this first conclusion in another journal, done by an independent scientist. And particularly in Shroud science, I think we have to apply this principle very carefully because of the subject matter that can lead some scientists to make some “religious biased” conclusion (consciously or inconsciously) and it’s not sure that these biased conclusions will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal… The reality is this : Some scientific journals don’t apply the same high standard in their peer-reviewing than others. We have to be very careful ! And I think the principle of waiting for some independent confirmation of one particular conclusion is the safest and most intelligent thing to do.

  2. June 7, 2012 at 8:43 am | #4

    I am fully in accord with he concept of peer-reviewed research. However, the pace of science today and the necessity of collaboration, makes peer-review the end of the process, not its beginning. The history of Science is replete with examples of important advances that were ridiculed and rejected by “scientific peers.” If we are to wait for peer-reviewed journal articles before examining theories and the facts underlying them, we will seldom advance our knowledge into new theories or unexplained mysteries.

    One of the errors of the Vatican, was its repression of ideas deemed threatening to orthodoxy. I believe that the biggest tragedy of the Vatican’s forbidding Teilhard de Chardin to publish was a limitation on his ability to fully vet his ideas and through vigorous dialogue harmonize them more completely.

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is reviewing its own peer review process. Obviously a peer-reviewed journal article has more authority than research results published on the Internet. However, it is important to both the researcher and and those interested in his research to be informed at in early stage. Critiques addressed to the specific findings or procedures are important and can be very helpful.

    Whether I agree with all the conclusions of the French researchers or not, I appreciate learning of their work and having an opportunity to examine it now, instead of months if not years down the line. After all, it was “peer review” of by the French Academy of Science, of the work of Yves Delage and his protege Paul Vignon that sunk initial scientific investigation of the Shroud of Turin for for decades. They had to wait three decades until 1930 for their vindication. For Delage, it came a decade too late. He passed away in 1920.

    .

  3. anoxie
    June 7, 2012 at 9:08 am | #5
  4. anoxie
    June 7, 2012 at 10:01 am | #6

    1- Concerning the filtering : should a dynamic equalization deform an image ? No.

    2- “Since these treatment leave the image intact, the formation of this image would’nt have altered the surface composition of the threads, which would go in the sense of a deposit of coloration added to the threads”
    (original in French :”Comme ces traitements laissent l’image intacte, le dépôt de celle-ci n’aurait pas altéré la composition de surface du fil, ce qui irait dans le sens d’une couleur déposée, ajoutée à celle du fil.”)
    We only have one information : intensity. Based on this, one can’t conclude on an image added on the shread or mixed in the shread.

    3- Alonso is giving his opinion, I don’t think there is the beginning of a scientific work.

  5. Yannick Clément
    June 7, 2012 at 10:50 am | #7

    Here, I would like to give my personal thoughts about this subject. Sorry again for the length of this comment but I think it could help some to understand better what’s at the heart of Alonso’s opinion…

    In fact, never mind if Alonso’s interpretation is right or wrong on this particular characteristic of the image (concerning the numeric treatment that didn’t produce any deformation of the image), I think the FACT that there is a strong correlation between the intensity of the image and the intensity of the bands on the Shroud is well enough to understand that Rogers conclusion about the banding effect is PROBABLY CORRECT. And if it’s right, then that mean that his hypothesis concerning the thin layer of impurities is PROBABLY CORRECT TOO.

    Firstly, let’s remind people of the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the bands : For him, the banding effect is directly related to a thin layer of impurities of variable thickness found on the top-surface of the cloth (on both sides). In Rogers mind, it is those impurities that were colored during the image formation process (most probably by one or many chemical mechanisms). For Rogers, these impurities were left there after the washing and drying of the cloth and, because this ancient cloth was probably bleached prior to the weaving (bleaching done by batches of threads instead of one global bleaching of the whole cloth), this can account for a difference in the amount of impurities that had been left on the fibers and that’s why we see a banding effect on the Shroud. For Rogers, the more impurities are present on top of the fibers, the more the color of the cloth is dark and inversely, on threads bleached more vigorously, there should be less impurities present and that can account for the fact these threads are more white than the others. And, because there’s a difference in the amount of impurities found on each thread (a difference that can be really different at time), that’s why the intensity of the bands is directly connected to the intensity of the body image on the Shroud.

    Never mind what can think all his detractors, I really think this hypothesis of Rogers offers the best explanation for this unusual property of the Shroud named “the banding effect”. Recently, here on the blog, Thibault Heimburger said that this banding effect and his relationship with the image COULD well be explained by a difference in the density of the threads. I even read the same possibility in a STURP paper, but with a small difference, i.e. that it concerned uniquely the question of the banding effect on the Shroud, without trying to explain the correlation between the intensity of the bands and the intensity of the image… This hypothesis can be found in the STURP paper “Radiographic examination of the Shroud of Turin – a Preliminary Report” (written by Mottern, London and Morris).

    Here, I want to state that I don’t think every single threads used to make the Shroud were of the same exact density. In fact, I agree with what Thibault said the other day, when he said that it is common to see some changes in the density of the threads used to make ancient fabrics like the Shroud. So, I don’t have too much doubt that this is also probably true for the Shroud. But nevertheless, it is very interesting to note one particular finding we can see in the STURP paper of Mottern, London and Morris, that really seem to go against the hypothesis that was bring forward by Thibault the other day. Here’s what they wrote in page 43 of their paper : “In constrast (meaning : in contrast to their hypothesis concerning the differences of density that can explain the banding effect), from a limited number of measurements, the linen threads (of the Shroud) are more uniform in diameter.” Of course, this cannot be taken as a proof that every threads used to make the cloth present the same density, but this particular finding from these researchers is very interesting because, at first sight, it really seem to contradict their hypothesis concerning the banding effect, and at the same time, it look like a contradiction with the hypothesis mentioned by Thibault the other day.

    And more than that, when we put together all the observations and facts we now know about the Shroud and his image (the probable use of a bleaching technique done batch of threads by batch of threads, the ghosts of coloration found in the sticky tapes, the reduction of the color with diimide, the extreme superficiality of the coloration on-top of the cloth and possibly on the 2 sides in the region of the face, etc.), I really don’t think that this hypothesis involving a difference in the density of each threads (or batch of threads) can really offer a decent explanation for the banding effect we see on the Shroud along with his close connection with the intensity of the body image.

    Let me give you one example in order to show that this hypothesis present some enormous problems. First, let’s state one important FACT about the Shroud : There really are body images on each side of the face on the Shroud, but they are very pale. So pale in fact that it need a numeric treatment in order to see them properly. Without any doubt, we can conclude that these 2 zones represent a very drastic change in the intensity of the body image of the face we see on the Shroud.

    So, when we take seriously this FACT into account, how in the world this drastic change in the intensity of the image of the face can be due to a difference in the density of the threads ? Remember that the correlation between the intensity of the image and the banding effect is a FACT. In other word, if the hypothesis expressed by Thibault or Mottern and Al. from STURP was correct concerning the banding effect, can you imagine the importance in the difference of density that it would be necessary to achieve this kind of drastic change in the intensity of the body image ??? In my mind, it is just unbelievable that 2 series of threads from the Shroud, located side-by-side, could possess this kind of high difference of density that would be the cause of this drastic change in the intensity of the image. It’s just too much ! In fact, if this was true, I’m sure that the STURP team would have noticed an important difference in the density of the threads in that region (greater there than elsewhere on the cloth and easily noticeable). Effectively, if this hypothesis was true, the difference of density that would be necessary to produce this drastic effect would have been so important that there’s no doubt in my mind that the STURP team would have note this change quite easily.

    That’s why I don’t believe this hypothesis of a difference in the density of the threads can represent a valid option to explain the close relationship that exist between the intensity of the bands and the intensity of the body image. I firmly believe that we have to look elsewhere for a logical explanation and that’s precisely what Rogers did ! After having put together all the observations and facts regarding the body image of the Shroud, that’s when he came out with his own hypothesis that offer a far better explanation (on the rational level) that the one presented by Thibault the other day. In fact, an ancient bleaching technique done batch of threads by batch of threads with the result of leaving different amounts of impurities on-top of the fibers offer, I think, a much better explanation for, firstly, the banding effect itself, and secondly, the close connection that exist between this banding effect on the cloth and the variable intensity of the body image that can be very drastic at time (the face region is a perfect example of that).

    And if Rogers is correct about that, then the conclusion is this : the image formation of the Shroud has a very good chance to have involved some kind(s) of chemical reaction(s) and logically, those should have been caused by the biological products that were produced by a corpse trapped in the cloth for maybe 36 hours or so. And I really think that’s the main reason why this hypothesis of Rogers is so intensely criticise these days : simply because most of those who yield the louder against it are members of what I call the “supernatural fringe” of the Shroud world. In this context, I think it’s normal that they want so badly to crush down this hypothesis !!! But sadly for them, for the banding effect and his close relationship with the body image, I think science has not been able to come up with a better explanation for the moment. That’s why I truly believe this hypothesis from Rogers is here to stay, at least up until new chemical tests could be performed on the relic (along with new spectroscopic analysis and other tests). I think it’s only then that, let’s hope, we’ll finally know if Rogers was right or wrong !!!

    To conclude, I want to say this : If you don’t agree with my point of view concerning the hypothesis of Ray Rogers (I’m sure there will be some people in that group !), then I would like you to give me a rational explanation for the sudden and drastic change in the intensity of the body image present in the region of the face ! If this isn’t due to an important variation in the quantity of impurities present on-top of the fibers in that region (most probably caused by a difference in the intensity of the bleaching that was performed on each batch of threads), then what is the cause of this drastic change of intensity between the image easy to see of the cheek and the extremely pale image of the side of the face ??? Remember that the presence of this image was scientifically confirmed, even if it is almost impossible to see it with naked eyes. So, taking that into account, if you disagree with Rogers hypothesis, then what is your counter-hypothesis for this very particular feature of the Shroud ? I’m open to hear any thoughts about that, as long as it come from someone honest who, like me, only seek the truth about the Shroud ! So, please, don’t bring back ancient hypothesis like the presence of a chin-band because the real presence of an image on the sides of the face is a proof that this one is incorrect. In fact, what I would really like to hear is someone offering a rational explanation for the drastic change in the intensity of the image in the region of the face while using the hypothesis proposed by Thibault regarding the primary cell wall that would involved a difference in the density of the threads !!! Personally, I just don’t see how someone can come up with a good scientific explanation involving this kind of hypothesis.

    On important note to finish : We often hear that the intensity of the body image is uniquely due to the distance between the corpse and the cloth, but, if we believe Ray Rogers conclusions, that’s not completely true. For him, the intensity of the body image is due to the distance between the corpse and the cloth, yes, but it is also due to the intensity of the different bands composing the cloth. In other words, for Rogers, the intensity of the coloration of the body image was not only due to the number of colored fibers per square unit (greater in the zones of direct contact and non-existent where the cloth was distant from the cloth of over 4 cm), but it was also due to the amount of impurities present on the fiber. For Rogers, these 2 parameters were both important in the production of the body image we see on the Shroud and the very pale image present on both sides of the face is a very good indicator that Rogers was probably right about that. In fact, in itself, the very good correlation that exists between the intensity of the image and the intensity of the bands on the cloth is THE indicator that he was probably right. I thought it was important to shed light on that important aspect of the question because it is not always (not often I should say !) explained the right way on websites or TV documentary dedicated to the Shroud…

    On this particular topic, what is very interesting to note is what Marcel Alonso said about it in a presentation he made at the conference of Dallas in 2005. Here’s what he said (we can find this quote in the paper he wrote for the conference) : “In fact, Rogers was the first to question this halftone model of “areal density of monochromatic dots” proposed by Pellicori (note : a member of STURP), suggesting a more “natural” one based on colors intensities.” In fact, what Alonso summarised here is what I just described. For Rogers, the variation of intensity in the body image is not due uniquely to the number of colored fibers by square unit but it is also due to the variation in the amount of impurities that was present on each fiber and his model is interesting because it can account very well (theoretically) for the strong correlation between the intensity of the bands on the cloth and the intensity of the body image on the cloth.

    So, I think this particular quote from Alonso can help us to understand what he really meant when he said that “Since these treatment leave the image intact (personal note : with no deformation of the image), the formation of this image WOULDN’T HAVE ALTERED THE SURFACE COMPOSITION OF THE THREADS, which would go in the sense of a DEPOSIT OF COLORATION ADDED TO THE THREADS.” Effectively, I think we can presume easily that, for Alonso, if the body image on the Shroud was uniquely a halftone model of “areal density of monochromatic dots” involving some kind of molecular change in the structure of the fiber itself, the numeric treatment that was done by Castex and Al. would have created some image deformation.

    To finish, I’ll say it again, I’m not an expert at all in imagery treatment, so I don’t know if Alonso is right or wrong about that. But, nevertheless, I think the close correlation between the intensity of the bands and the intensity of the body image is a strong indicator that Rogers hypothesis concerning the image chromophore is probably correct.

  6. anoxie
    June 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm | #8

    You clearly explained Alonso opinion/hypothesis. What I say is it you can’t draw this conclusion out of this numeric treatment.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 7, 2012 at 1:02 pm | #9

      That’s precisely why I wrote “I’m not an expert at all in imagery treatment, so I don’t know if Alonso is right or wrong about that”. But, nevertheless, I think there’s much more facts and observations regarding the Shroud that can allow any honest person to think that Rogers hypothesis concerning the image chromophore is PROBABLY correct. I say “probably” because, of course, I know that this has not be fully proven yet. But if you read again my long comment, particularly concerning the banding effect versus the drastic change in the intensity of the image of the face, you’ll understand easily why I favored greatly the hypothesis of Rogers versus the PCW.

  7. June 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm | #10

    I may be missing some subtleties, but all that has been done, it would seem, is to reduce the image brightness of the central portion of the face to match that of the two peripheries. One ends up with a uniformly dark rather than the iconic luminous ghostly image.

    Quite how that process of equalisation (downwards on the intensity scale instead of upwards) has anything to say about the nature of the image layer – chemical modification the PCW as distinct from an impurity layer – is something I frankly fail to comprehend…

  8. Gabriel
    June 7, 2012 at 1:16 pm | #11

    Peer-review system and freely granted access to any material for independent confirmation are two major points of the scientifc method that -with its shortcomes and limitations- have made move forward all the fields of knowledge.
    If we want a solid and valid approach to what currently truly represents a scientifc challenge (the Shroud), let`s start by systematically adopting the same methodology that has made possible progress in the rest of scientific areas.
    I really think that the good amount of scientific peer-reviewed written by Adler, Pellicori, Rogers and others (e.g. the very recent paper on the presence of a trend, with in my opinion very important implications) can and should be used to establish the solid facts know so far.
    HOWEVER putting this kind of literature at the same level of plausability as other, even for the pure purpose of “especulation” or “opening our minds to new paths” moves the Shroud well away from the main stream of science. For example, you can bet that in the scientific climate community nobody would even think of discussing creative analysis of data (ilke the creative analysis of images of the Shroud we see from time to time) if those data are not freely available to anyone and are open to in-depth scrutinization.
    For these reasons Dan, I have to disagree with you: in my view this is not relevant at all to the Dawkins Challenge. He is a scientist and will only hold a discussion with scientists.

    I would also ilke to add that Roger’s theory is a solid theory (although not a fact yet). Its good position in the ranking of plausability is due exactly to the fact that Rogres approach has gone through the peer review system and he even shared his own material for independent research. In this sense, the current contribution on image treatment at this stage, does not represent the slightest confirmation to Rogers theory until it goes through the same system that has put Rogers theory where it is.

    • Gabriel
      June 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm | #12

      By the way, in the same blog there is a quote to the work by Marion on hidden letters found after image processing. Marion’s work is -to the best of my knowledge- the only paper published in a high level peer-reviewed journal regarding flowers, letters or coins in the Shroud. I have always found surprising that in spite of this fact, his work has been largely dismissed by the Shroud community….

      • Yannick Clément
        June 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm | #13

        I think it’s just because supposed hidden letters found after image processing are really open to false interpretations. Until chemical test (along spectral analysis) could really detect physically and chemically something there, I don’t think these pretentions of hidden letters or coins over the eyes must be view as any kind of proof or even just circumstantial evidence.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm | #14

      I think Gabriel that you don’t understand. These quotes from Alonso are not part of an official “challenge” against skeptics. What Dan should have writen at the beginning of the text is “A guest posting from Yannick Clément that COULD BE relevant to the Dawkins Challenge”. This is just a personal opinion (very interesting by the way) of Alonso that COULD help to confirm a bit more the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the image chromophore. The purpose of putting those quotes here is just to incite people to reflect upon this possible “new” clue in regard of this important question that is the image chromophore. That’s it. Don’t take this too seriously, but at the same time, please, don’t be too fast in rejecting this interpretation of Alonso. Since you and me (and probably Anoxie and Collinsberry too) are not expert in imagery treatment, I don’t think we should make a definitive statement about that and try to search for some expert opinion about that very technical question…

      • Gabriel
        June 7, 2012 at 4:00 pm | #15

        Ok

  9. Jose
    June 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm | #16

    From my point of view, the digital treatment of the image removing the banding effect cannot show neither that the fiber surface was not affected nor the presence of a coating. Simply it does not follow. If the bandig was due not to a coating but to a different characteristics of the fibers of the different batches of linen used to make the cloth (different growth conditions of those plants or different sun exposition etc…) this could also have led to a different intensity of the image in those fibers. The equalization process would also have removed this banding. Note that the equalization treatment just reduce the intensity of the image in those areas where it was more intense. The result is what you see in the pictures above. Therefore, this cannot say anything about a coating.

    That is why I cannot agree with Yannick when he says :
    “I think the FACT that there is a strong correlation between the intensity of the image and the intensity of the bands on the Shroud is well enough to understand that Rogers conclusion about the banding effect is PROBABLY CORRECT. And if it’s right, then that mean that his hypothesis concerning the thin layer of impurities is PROBABLY CORRECT TOO.”

    A coating is a possible explanation but not the only one for the banding.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm | #17

      But if the bands are not caused by a coating left on the fibers in more or less amount because of the ancient bleaching technique used, then how can you explain the very drastic change of intensity on each side of the face ??? Please explain this to me. How can “different growth conditions of those plants or different sun exposition” can produce such a drastic change like that in the production of the coloration responsible of the body image ??? Rogers hypothesis offer a very rational answer for this very particular feature of the Shroud. I would really like to hear your other rational explanation.

      • June 7, 2012 at 4:05 pm | #18

        “… how can you explain the very drastic change of intensity on each side of the face ??? Please explain this to me. ”

        Have you considered that the sides of the face are not well-imaged for the same reason that the sides of the body are not imaged? Nowt to do with bleaching or other fibre or fabric pre-treatment, and everything to do with the geometry of the cloth relative to the subject during the image-imprinting process (a presentation normal to the subject surface being far more conducive to imaging than one that is tangential).

      • Yannick Clément
        June 7, 2012 at 4:51 pm | #19

        If we believe the conclusions of Ray Rogers, the body images of the sides of the face (because there really are body images there but very faint) are very faint because there’s 2 bands of threads much more clear than the others that are located there. And since those bands are clearer, the surface of the threads that produced them SHOULD present much less impurities on the surface of the fibers, with the result that there was much less color produced during the image formation process. This would have been caused by a much more vigorous bleaching of these batches of yarns than the others, with the result of removing more impurities at the surface of the fibers. In fact, because they present almost the same result (a very faint image), we can even think that these 2 bands were caused by threads coming from the same batch of yarns. This idea is the MOST RATIONAL I’ve ever heard to explain these 2 very faint images on each sides of the face. If there was no image at all (like there’s no images of the sides of the body and of the top of the head), then we would have needed probably a different explanation (like the presence of a chin-band or something like that), but, as I say, there really are faint images on each sides of the face and the very drastic change in the intensity of the image MUST FIND A RATIONAL EXPLANATION. For the moment, Rogers idea is the most rational I know.

  10. Ron
    June 7, 2012 at 5:49 pm | #20

    colinsberry :“… how can you explain the very drastic change of intensity on each side of the face ??? Please explain this to me. ”
    Have you considered that the sides of the face are not well-imaged for the same reason that the sides of the body are not imaged? Nowt to do with bleaching or other fibre or fabric pre-treatment, and everything to do with the geometry of the cloth relative to the subject during the image-imprinting process (a presentation normal to the subject surface being far more conducive to imaging than one that is tangential).

    Colin I am in total agreement. If these areas on the sides of the face were due to the banding, would they not run along the whole Shroud? …They don’t! …One needs only look at the full image Shroud, put their cursor on either side-face area and follow up or down the Shroud and one would see these non-image areas alongside the face are NOT caused by the banding and deduced pretty simply I would say. It is obvious they have everything to do with the draping….no question, otherwise we would see the same banding on the back of the head image.

    R

    • June 7, 2012 at 6:15 pm | #21

      Yup, for once I find myself in full agreement with you on this Ron.

      If the cut-off were due to banding, it is somewhat improbable that one would get the near-perfect left-right symmetry. One would also expect a sharp demarcation where the banding starts or stops, but it is not sharp, especially on the subject’s right side of the face, where the prominent cheek bone and/or swelling runs into the “dark area”. The hair too seems largely unaffected where it crosses the banded region.

      If the difference in image intensity were really due to banding, one might have expected the equalisation to bring the dark regions up to the luminance level of the light. But it’s been done in reverse – reducing the luminance of the light to match the dark, and therefore failing to reveal new detail in the dark region (ears?), and reducing the attractiveness of the image generally. Why? Because there is no imaging worth speaking of at the periphery of the face, and that would have become all too apparent if that part had been intensified.

      The real reason why the sides are not well imaged is because they present tangentially to the cloth. That’s why other parts that are not at the sides but which also present tangentially – like the underside of the chin and the eye sockets are also dark, i.e. poorly imaged, while the eyelids and other parts that present square on (extremity of nose, brow ridge, chin etc) are well-imaged.

      In passing, it’s because the underside of the chin is imaged through draping of cloth, albeit poorly, that the neck “looks too long”.

    • Chris
      June 8, 2012 at 12:16 am | #22

      I’m going to disagree here. Looking at the Enrie negative in the vertical position I can clearly see the bands on the side of the face run right down into the chest and terminate pretty clearly. I also see them run up past the face (especially visible on the right eye socket) and through the hair up into the cloth where it sort of terminates in a fade. They are not as dark in some places (like the hair) but until we completely understand the image formation mechanism we cannot say for sure why there’s not a uniform variance. But I do see that variance.

      There is also a band that begins directly above the right eye and travels upward where it seems to terminate in the crown of thorns area.

      Who knows how large the hanks of linen yarn were? You can’t predict that they will terminate evenly or will produce a certain length of weave. I do think the banding effect is real and that it can be mitigated for to a certain degree. We will probably get better at it as time goes on.

      • Ron
        June 8, 2012 at 5:23 am | #23

        Chris at one time, I once thought the two areas in question were due too banding until I was made aware of the most likely way in which the Shroud was placed about the face/head area. Here again I cannot stress enough that people view the video I mentioned in my other comment where Jackson demonstrates how most probably the Shroud was bound to the body.

        R

  11. June 8, 2012 at 7:26 am | #24

    Marcel Alonson was not present at the 2005 Dallas Conference as I was there and never saw him at the conference. I actually was looking forward to meet him but unfortunately he was not present. But, he did send a paper for a presentation although he did not present it. I do not see how digital image processing can differentiate between a coloration due to a modification of the linen fiber vs coloration of impurities on the fibers. Moreover, there is no demonstration from Alonso’s paper that such digital image processing could show such a differentiation, so everything written about this possible differentiation from digital image processing is speculation. Besides, the darkened area around the face can be partly due to the distance between the cloth and the face itself. It just happens that if you loosely lay a cloth on a face (the head laying on the ground) with lots of hair, the cloth could come in contact with the hair and the cheek but in between there is a crevasse made of the gap between the cheek and the hair. See my paper from the Dallas conference on this subject. Other factors might play a role in this darkened area around the face, but if coherence is maintained, the distance between the cloth and the body partly explains the darkened area around the face.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 8, 2012 at 8:30 am | #25

      That’s not at all the point of view of Rogers but I respect yours. Effectively, it’s possible that the distance could have played a role in the drastic change between the image of the cheek and the side of the face but so drastic ? I think something else played a role and that’s what Rogers said. The fact is that there is a lighter band right at the spot where there’s a drastic change and elsewhere on the cloth Rogers detect these kind of correlation between the intensity of the bands and the intensity of the body images, so I think we have to take note of this important aspect of the Shroud image. This is surely not a banal fact. There really seem to be a correlation between the intensity of the image and the intensity of the bands and that should be explain. As I said, Rogers explanation seem to me like the most rational that exist. And for Alonso’s opinion, I think he’s the only one who could help us understand his toughts !!! I admit that it’s not easy to follow.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 8, 2012 at 8:32 am | #26

      Just one more thing : I would agree perfectly with Mario’s thoughts about the drastic change in the region of the face IF the bands wouldn’t seem to have played a role in the image formation…

      • Yannick Clément
        June 8, 2012 at 8:32 am | #27

        But that’s not the case !!!

      • June 8, 2012 at 8:54 am | #28

        If batch-to-batch differences in yarn were the reason for the poor imaging of the sides of the face, then one would have expected it to affect the imaging of all features. But there is no diminution in the intensity of the lower crease mark where it crosses the banded regions, and little effect on the hair either. That suggests that poor imaging is due primarily to geometrical factors to do with body-cloth contact – rather than to any major variation in the ability of different fabric yarns to accept and record an image.

        The inevitable conclusion is that the image is imprinted onto the superficial PCW, which is approximately of constant depth and chemical composition all over, rather than on an impurity layer that would tend to be somewhat variable, even over relatively short distances – tending to produce a patchy image. The Shroud image is not patchy – it is remarkably homogeneous from head to toe – as others have noted.

  12. Chris
    June 8, 2012 at 10:09 am | #29

    Ron :Chris at one time, I once thought the two areas in question were due too banding until I was made aware of the most likely way in which the Shroud was placed about the face/head area. Here again I cannot stress enough that people view the video I mentioned in my other comment where Jackson demonstrates how most probably the Shroud was bound to the body.
    R

    Ron, understood. And I have seen that video too, it’s a great video. There is a lot there that looks like I agree with it, I would even agree with how the head was wrapped. I do think there is a banding effect though as I don’t just see it in the face area but all over the shroud. I think it’s most pronounced in the face area because we as humans tend to focus on that feature and of course, everyone wants to see the face of God clearly.

    But again this is all just theory and I am open to other interpretations and definitely believe that more research is needed to help further develop answers to these questions. Understanding the image mechanism will probably be what is needed to fully understand.

    So I accept the possibility of what you and Colin are saying, but as of now I think the banding effect is a more probable explanation. Just my two cents.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 8, 2012 at 10:50 am | #30

      I think Chris that Ron and Collinsberry need a big refresh by reading again the book of Rogers ! He talk in details about all this and he reach a very different conclusion than their own conclusion. The fact is that there really is a close connection between the intensity of the body image and the intensity of the different bands (note : these bands don’t necessarily go uniformly from one edge of the cloth to the other. In fact, there are changes of intensity because of the ancient technique that was used to make the cloth) and I think that the explaination given by Rogers about this close relationship is very rational and it fits nicely with all the facts and observations we know about the body image. Of course, those who believe the body images were due to a burst of energy at the time of the resurrection will always disagree with Rogers conclusions and hypothesis, simply because it doesn’t fit at all with their point of view. I think this fact explain very well why there’s so many people on this blog and elsewhere in the Shroud world that fight so furiously against every possible conclusions and arguments done by Rogers !

      One more thing that is very important to note and that I completely forget to talk : In my long comment here, I said that, for Rogers, the intensity of the body image is due to the distance between the corpse and the cloth, yes, but it is also due to the intensity of the different bands composing the cloth. I should have add this : The intensity of the body image is also due to a 3rd factor : i.e. the amount and concentration of gas that was present in one particular zone of the body. And I think this can also explain partially the drastic change between the image of the cheeks and the image of the sides of the face on the Shroud…

      • June 8, 2012 at 11:17 am | #31

        Can you show me some evidence that Raymond Rogers ever considered the possibility that the image was formed on the primary cell wall (PCW), or that he was aware of its distinctive chemical composition – lacking highly crystalline and thus chemically- inert cellulose, but containing instead chemically reactive pentosan sugars within the hemicellulose fraction?

        My impression is that gifted chemist thought he was, he was simply not au fait with botanical principles, did not appreciate the superficial nature of the PCW and the ease with which it could be chemically modified and/or stripped away relative to highly crystalline cellulose of the secondary cell wall, so immediately looked to Pliny and impurities to explain why the image layer could be stripped away so readily.

        So while it is true that starch and its degradation products, as well as the pentosan sugars in saponins – both of which he presumed to be present without offering high-grade analytical data to back up those two assumptions – are chemically more reactive and easier to modify than crystalline cellulose, the proper comparison should have been with PCW hemicelluloses – a connection which Rogers failed to make (please correct me if I you think I am mistaken).

        Methinks you need to spend less time on what Rogers said, Yannick, and more time looking at what Rogers did NOT say.

      • Ron
        June 8, 2012 at 10:04 pm | #32

        I think you need to rethink the draping of the cloth over the face! Just as been mentioned before by Colin and is a fact side images do not show and these areas can be classified as side image areas. You may also want to review how the “ancient technique” of creating a Shroud was done. Plus I also think you should heed Colin’s last comment in his comment below.

        R

  13. Yannick Clément
    June 8, 2012 at 1:03 pm | #33

    To summarize Rogers thought about the body image formation (I think it’s necessary here), I would say that, for him, there were at least 3 major factors that played a decisive role for the intensity of the coloration :

    1- The relative distance between the cloth and the body.
    2- The relative amount of impurities present on the surface of the fibers. Note : For Rogers, the banding effect was caused by some differences in the amount of impurities and these differences could have been important depending on how vigorous was the bleaching of each batch of yarns. I also think it safe to assume that the evaporation-concentration process due to the washing and the drying of the cloth could also account partially for the probable variation in the amount of impurities that were left on-top of the fibers of the Shroud.
    3- The relative amount and concentration of a reactive product. Note : For Rogers, it was different sorts of amines coming from the corpse and it is very probable that more amines could have come out from some particular parts of the body (like the nose and the mouth) versus other parts of the body.

    For Rogers, every one of these 3 factors played a major role in the formation of the body image on the Shroud. We can easily see the complexity of the body image formation for Rogers. And I think it’s particularly true for the very pale images on each side of the face ! As Mario said, the particular configuration of the Shroud in these regions (that could have influenced the distance between the body and the cloth) could have played a role in the image formation that could explain partially the very paleness of the body images on each side of the face, but if we follow Rogers thinking, that’s not the only factor that caused those very pale images there ! The FACT that there are lighter bands of threads there cannot be taken for simply a hazardous element that had absolutely no influenced at all in the image formation process (especially the resulting intensity of the image). In fact, most probably, this element also played a major role in the fact that the body images there are so pale. Also, it is possible to think that the amount and concentration of the reactive product (amines) could have been much lower in these areas, which could have also accentuate the very pale image that is present there. We have to remember that, for Rogers, the hair could have trapped a lot of the gas coming out of the nose and mouth, leaving much less gas on the sides of the face to react with the impurities at the surface of the cloth. And in this particular case, since there are lighter bands on each side of the face, it’s very probable that there were not many impurities present in these areas in order to produce a coloration anyway. So, in these particular areas, it is possible that there was not much gas present and not many impurities (and maybe a good distance between the corpse and the cloth). I think all these factors put together (every one playing some role in the image formation process) are responsible for the drastic change in the intensity of the body image there. I think, thanks to Rogers, that’s the most rational way to explain this drastic change. And I think that the #3 factor that I mentioned could also explain why, on the contrary to the image of the sides of the face, we easily see the image of the hair ! Like Rogers said, it is probable that the hair could have trapped more gas with the result of producing a very intense and define image of the hair on the Shroud.

    To conclude, I just want to say that it is also possible that there was other unknown factors at work in the Shroud and that they could also account partially for the drastic change of intensity we see on each side of the face. Since we don’t know the exact process (or processes) that were at work in the Shroud, we have to leave the door open for some other influential factors that could have taken part in the image formation on the Shroud. But nevertheless, I think the 3 major factors presented by Rogers could have been well enough to produce this kind of drastic change… And what is the most important thing to note is that Rogers hypothesis is consistent with ALL the major facts and observations we know about the Shroud. That’s the way the scientific method should be used (by taking account of every known elements and not just the ones that can fit well with your preconcieved ideas).

  14. Gabriel
    June 8, 2012 at 2:11 pm | #34

    We have to remember that, for Rogers, the hair could have trapped a lot of the gas coming out of the nose and mouth, leaving much less gas on the sides of the face to react with the impurities at the surface of the cloth. And in this particular case, since there are lighter bands on each side of the face, it’s very probable that there were not many impurities present in these areas in order to produce a coloration anyway. So, in these particular areas, it is possible that there was not much gas present and not many impurities (and maybe a good distance between the corpse and the cloth).

    Please note Yannick that if gas coming from the nose and mouth was trapped by the hair, that is, it is not emitted completely vertically, this is in contradiction with the vertical isotropy model defended among others by Ray Schneider in a recent post here. Honestly, I don’t know if the vertical isotropy aspect is a true fact of the image, but I just want to point out that if it were so, is in contradiction with an horizontal gas diffusion model from the nouse and mouth to the hair. In my opinion, the model by Rogers with a body emitting amines that react with a layer of impurities of the cloth, makes more sense if we think of a vertical flow of gas moving in a laminar regime. In fact, in my view, it is the only option. A horizontal motion of the gas from the nouse to to the hair would be very hard to explain according to the laws of fluid mechanics.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 8, 2012 at 2:30 pm | #35

      Good point Gabriel. I think it is possible, for the hair, to think that the gas there was not coming from the nose and mouth but was coming instead from urea (and maybe other biological products like lactic acid, etc.) that could have been left there in great quantity when the hair full of sweat would have dried. After the drying of the sweat, this (or these) product(s) could have started to produce ammoniac gas that could have been much more concentrate in the hair than in other parts of the body (like maybe the sides of the face). Some years ago, Thibault Heimburger wrote an excellent paper about the hypothesis of Rogers and he proposed a parallel hypothesis based on medical references he found out that proved that a tortured body like Jesus who surely produced a lot a sweating before dying could leave high amounts of urea on his skin. This urea then could have produced fairly rapidly (maybe after 24 hours or so) a released of some ammoniac gas.

      But nevertheless, I still think that, for the very pale images on each side of the face, the most important factor of the 3 I’ve mentioned could well be the fact that there are 2 lighter bands there that could well contain very low amount of impurities…

  15. latendre
    June 9, 2012 at 1:39 am | #36

    The hypothesis that the banding effect is due (solely) to a different linen thread used (either due to differences of impurities left on the thread or of a different growth condition of the linen) must match the weave pattern in almost all cases of banding effect found on the Shroud. There is a major problem with this since there are banding effects that do not match the weave pattern. For example, in the face, we can readily see banding effect that are less wide than one column of the Z weave pattern. Whatever the thread pattern used to create the cloth of the Shroud, the difference in linen thread cannot explain that particular banding effect.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm | #37

      Quote : “There is a major problem with this since there are banding effects that do not match the weave pattern.”

      Comment : If it’s true, you really want me to believe that a guy like Rogers was unaware of this particularity ? And nevertheless, he defended strongly his hypothesis about the banding effect, which was a major part of his image formation hypothesis. I think that speak loud. It’s pretty clear that, for Rogers, there was a rational explanation for these differences that would prevent him to look for a better hypothesis concerning the banding effect. If he had not been able to explain these differences with satisfaction, you can bet your house that he would have changed his mind versus the banding effect on the Shroud. But the fact is that he did not and, again, that speak very loud to me ! Here, we have to remember that Rogers was not the kind of scientist who wasn’t able to change his mind. He followed honestly the scientific method, so much that, in fact, he had to really change his mind on some major aspects of the Shroud. If he never had changed his mind on anything related to the Shroud, I wouldn’t be so sure of his conviction that there really was a strong correlation between the intensity of the body image and the intensity of the bands on the cloth, even if there are some differences on the cloth like you mentioned. Because Rogers never fear to change his mind on a particular subject IF there was evidence that forced him to do so, I’m sure these little difference were not considered by him as really problematic versus his hypothesis concerning the bands. I just can’t see Rogers going in one direction, while the facts would seem to go in another direction…

      Quote : “For example, in the face, we can readily see banding effect that are less wide than one column of the Z weave pattern.”

      Comment : For these cases (I’m not sure there are many), have you ever considered the possibility that there is more or less impurities (depending if the band is dark or pale) located on the sides of these threads versus the middle of the threads ? This could be due to the evaporation-concentration process or maybe because of a mix of threads used to make the weave in these areas that would come from more than one batch of yarns (that would have been bleached a bit differently). This is just a guess of mine but, anyway, I’m sure Rogers was well aware of this particularity and he surely had a proper explanation. If he wasn’t able to explain this, do you really think he would have defend his hypothesis so strongly ? No… He would have started to look for another explanation instead. You can be sure that this is what he would have done.

      General comment : I found very bizarre the fact that Mario don’t seem to be able to note the close connection between the intensity of the bands and the intensity of the color, while this connection have been noticed by many other Shroud researchers other than Rogers…

    • Yannick Clément
      June 11, 2012 at 10:50 am | #38

      The more I reflect upon this observation made by Mario that seem to contradict Rogers hypothesis versus the bands and the more I really think this can be explained by the evaporation-concentration process that was going on at the time the final cloth was washed and dried in the sun, in open air. Remember that this process was going on AFTER the bleaching of the cloth, when the weaving was complete. So, in all logic, it could have affected the appearence of the bands in some places by concentrating more impurities (especially those that were added to the fibers AFTER the bleaching, like the starch fraction for example) in some particular places of the weave. I think this evaporation-concentration process is probably what can explain the best those apparent difference noted by Mario. And if it’s so, that would mean that Rogers hypothesis concerning the bands cannot be discarded on that base.

      I want you to remember what I said the other day about the 3 major factors that, for Rogers, played a decisive role for the intensity of the coloration ? For a refresh, here they are again :

      1- The relative distance between the cloth and the body.
      2- The relative amount of impurities present at the surface of the fibers. Note : For Rogers, the banding effect was caused by some differences in the amount of impurities and these differences could have been important depending on how vigorous was the bleaching of each batch of yarns. I also think it safe to assume that the evaporation-concentration process due to the washing and the drying of the cloth could also account partially for the probable variation in the amount of impurities that were left on-top of the fibers of the Shroud.
      3- The relative amount and concentration of a reactive product. Note : For Rogers, this reactive product was in fact different sorts of amines coming from the corpse and it is very probable that more amines could have come out from some particular parts of the body (like the nose and the mouth) versus other parts of the body.
      Note the point #2 where I was already mentioning the possibility that the evaporation-concentration process could also account partially for the probable variation in the amount of impurities left on the fibers. I should have also said that this process could well be responsible for a non-homogeneous repartition of these impurities on the fibers in many areas of the cloth. In fact, I think I should have made a 4th point concerning the evaporation-concentration process, separate from the other 3 points, because I’m almost sure that Rogers thought that way. To confirm this, here’s another quote from Rogers book concerning an experiment he made with dye, in order that we understand better the evaporation-concentration process and the way it works : “Different types of cloth will show different degrees of concentration of the dye on the evaporating surface, EVEN ON DIFFERENT ADJOINING FIBERS. It is possible to get dye concentration on both surfaces, while leaving the interior of the cloth white.”

      I think this description from Rogers is well enough to understand that a non-homogeneous result in the concentration of impurities, at thread level as much as at fiber level, is what can be expect of the evaporation-concentration process that happened during the drying of the Shroud. In that respect, I think my idea that this phenomenon could account, at least partially, for the observation made by Mario, is truly possible, especially if we take note of this description found in Rogers book… Here, it’s important to understand one major particularity that can apply for almost every natural phenomenon : the non-homogeneous aspect of the result ! And this evaporation-concentration process is surely not different than most of the other natural phenomenon ! In fact, seeing a natural phenomenon producing a real and complete homogeneous result should be considered as something very exceptional…
      Before I conclude, I want to report what Rogers said in his book, right after the quote I just gave you, when he talk about the Shroud itself : “The puzzling “half-tone” effect has been mentioned.” (Note : this concern the fact that, on the Shroud, it’s the difference in the concentration of colored fibers versus non-colored fibers that produced the intensity of the body image). Let’s get back to Rogers quote : “All of the colored fibers showed approximately the same color density under a microscope. Assuming that the color formed by reactions with a very thin deposit of superficial impurities on the fibers, all of the fibers should have showed identical spectra and roughly the same intensity of color. THEY DID.”

      I think this deserves some thoughts ! One thing’s for sure : In regard of all the known facts and observations concerning the Shroud and the body image, the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the thin layer of carbohydrates impurities cannot be discard for the moment ! And I really think it’s exactly the same thing concerning his hypothesis about the banding effect… No matter what the skeptics can think ! And, as I also said Saturday, I just can’t believe that a guy like Mario is not able to see the close correlation that exist almost everywhere on the Shroud between the intensity of the image color and the intensity of the bands, and so, no matter if Rogers hypothesis is correct or if it’s due to another thing, like the density of the threads, as reported by Thibault Heimburger the other day. I’m just amazed to note that Mario don’t agree with the fact that there really is a close connection between the bands and the body image…

      I’m sorry for Mario but this is a FACT that there really is a close relationship between the intensity of the body image and the intensity of the bands on the Shroud and we can find a very good confirmation of that in this observation of the Shroud, reported by Rogers in his book : “A conservator of Turin’s Museum of Egyptology, Anna Maria Donadoni, point out locations where batches of yarns ended in the weft AND NEW YARN HAD BEEN INSERTED IN ORDER TO CONTINUE WEAVING. The yarn ends were laid side by side, and the weave was compressed with a comb. The overlaps are often visible, even in high-resolution x-ray photographs. When an overlap is observed, THE COLOR USUALLY CHANGES. The color of the Shroud is not simply a result of changes in pure cellulose (linen). Note : When Rogers wrote “the color usually changes”, he refers to the color of the body image. And because this particular change of color observed by Rogers represent a real FACT, this lead to only one rational conclusion : A CLOSE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE BANDS ON THE SHROUD AND THE BODY IMAGE REALLY EXIST !!! Understand that when I say “close correlation”, I don’t pretend it is a complete 100% correlation because the evaporation-concentration process done after the bleaching could have affected the bands in some places, along with their influence on the body image. But nevertheless, if we trust Rogers opinion, there is a very good correlation between the bands and the body image that goes far beyond the possibility that it could be simply due to hazard. In reality, how can there be changes of color in the body image when an overlap of threads is observed on the Shroud if there was no direct relationship between the body image and the banding effect ? Good question, don’t you think ? That’s precisely why Rogers was so sure about the fact that there really is a close connection between the bands and the body image on the Shroud.

      As I said before, this close connection MIGHT BE EXPLAINED PROPERLY because it is a FACT. And, for the moment, in regard of all the known data about the Shroud and his image, I don’t see any better and rational explanation that the one proposed by Rogers. It’s as clear as that in my mind. Of course, it doesn’t mean that Rogers was necessarily right, but it mean that his explanation is the most coherent we have right now. And this can have great implications because, if Rogers is right about the banding effect, then he his probably right too about the image chromophore made of carbohydrates impurities on-top of the fibers. And if it is so, consequently, that mean that the body image formation process have great chances to have come from some chemical reaction on the top-surface of the cloth instead of some burst of energy related to the resurrection of Christ, because, as Rogers said, it is highly improbable that any form of energy that would have been enough “energetic” to produce a coloration on the cloth would have only colored the thin layer of impurities and would not have affected, at the same time, the linen fibers under the coating, which is something unrelated to the reality of the Shroud (for Rogers). I hope you can see more clearly now the real implication that is related to the exact nature of the banding effect on the Shroud !!! If Rogers explanation is correct about this banding effect, I really think we can forget any kind of hypothesis involving some burst of energy, whether it would be related to the resurrection of Christ or not…

      • June 11, 2012 at 11:25 am | #39

        I posted yesterday on the banding, and what I consider a major error of interpretation on Ray Rogers’ part. Here;s what i said.

        Quotation from Raymond Rogers’ 2004 (written one year before his demise):

        My italics:

        “Where darker bands of yarn intersect image areas, the image is darker. Where lighter bands intersect an image area, the image appears lighter. This proves that the image color is not a result of reactions in the cellulose of the linen. Some impurities on the surface of the different batches of yarn produced the image color. This observation is extremely important when tests are being made on image-formation hypotheses. If image color is not simply a result of color formation in the cellulose of the linen fibers, image formation must be a much more complex process than we originally thought.”

        My response: We see an image by the light that it reflects or scatters onto our retinas, but the latter depends not only on the light absorbing/reflecting properties of the image itself (obviously) but, less obviously, on what is underneath the image. That is especially the case where the image is exceedingly thin and superficial. If the underlay were, say, pure matt black, absorbing all light that passed through the image layer and fell on it, then less light can be reflected/scattered back to illuminate the image layer from underneath, and the image will tend to look darker than it would be in the absence of the underlay.

        Conversely, if the underlay were pure white linen, with a propensity to reflect/scatter white light, then there would be additional illumination from underneath, and the image layer would look brighter.

        It follows that an image on darker-coloured weave will tend to look darker than one on lighter-coloured weave., due to differences in illumination from BELOW.

        These considerations render null and void the claim of Raymond Rogers (RIP) that the image is not imprinted on the fibre itself, but in a superficial impurity coating. The effect he describes, and failed properly to interpret, tells one NOTHING whatsoever about where the image is located, except that is somewhat superficial.

        “This proves that the image color is not a result of reactions in the cellulose of the linen.”? Nope, it proves nothing…

        There is other evidence too that the assumption by Rogers that the image is in an impurity layer (largely based it seems on the writings of Pliny), formed by a purely hypothetical Maillard reaction between supposed reducing sugars in the impurities and volatile amines from post mortem decay (cadaverine, putrescine etc) is ruled out by Rogers’ own observation in the same paper that the Shroud’s image-bearing areas are not enriched in nitrogen. (All amines contain nitrogen, the amine group being -NH2).

      • Yannick Clément
        June 11, 2012 at 11:34 am | #40

        And what do you make of this other quote from Rogers : ” A conservator of Turin’s Museum of Egyptology, Anna Maria Donadoni, point out locations where batches of yarns ended in the weft AND NEW YARN HAD BEEN INSERTED IN ORDER TO CONTINUE WEAVING. The yarn ends were laid side by side, and the weave was compressed with a comb. The overlaps are often visible, even in high-resolution x-ray photographs. When an overlap is observed, THE COLOR USUALLY CHANGES.” Here, he talk about a change in the color of the body image ! If this is not a proof that there is a very close connection between the bands and the body image on the Shroud, then I don’t know what to say ! Some people just don’t want to see the truth I guess…

      • Yannick Clément
        June 11, 2012 at 11:56 am | #41

        Note about my last comment to Collinsberry : Of course, that doesn’t mean Rogers hypothesis is necessarily the right one but that mean the close connection between the bands and the body image does exist on the cloth. That MUST BE explained and, right now, I don’t think we have a better explanation than the one proposed by Rogers…

      • Yannick Clément
        June 11, 2012 at 1:07 pm | #42

        One more thing for Collinsberry to consider versus the banding effect : Rogers analysed that effect on the Shroud not only with visible light photos but also with UV and x-ray photos. I think Rogers had all the tools necessary to make a good diagnostic, don’t you think ??? And don’t forget also that he spend 5 days and nights with the Shroud in 1978 !!! That’s another important fact to consider.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 11, 2012 at 11:30 am | #43

      Here, I want to explain what I really meant in my comment that I wrote Saturday when I talked about Ray Rogers. What I really wanted to say is this : If Mario Latendresse’s observation regarding a possible difference that can exist in some places (like the region of the face) between the banding effect and the weave on the Shroud was really something new (like a new discovery for example) that Rogers couldn’t have been aware, I would agree that this observation could be considered as really problematic versus his hypothesis concerning the banding effect. But since it’s not something new (in fact, it seem like a pretty obvious observation for anyone who look at the Shroud very closely), it’s evident that an observation like that could not have been missed by Rogers, during the time he was analysing the banding effect on the Shroud. Here, we have to keep in mind that, on the contrary to all of us, he stayed with the Shroud 5 days and nights in 1978 and had the chance to see the cloth more closer than almost anyone in history ! Also, it’s very clear in Rogers writings that he did look closely at the x-ray and UV photographs of the Shroud when he was working to find a scientific explanation for the banding effect. So I think there’s absolutely no doubt about the fact that he was fully aware of the particularity reported on this blog by Mario Saturday.

      Taking this as a fact, we have to presume that if, in the eyes of Rogers, this would have constitute a real problem versus his own hypothesis, he would have taken note of that and search elsewhere for a better explanation. And the fact that he did not and that he defend his hypothesis until the end of his life speaks very loud concerning this “apparent” problematic. In sum, for Rogers, there’s no doubt that the observation reported by Mario never represented a real problem; most probably because he was able to explain it rationally INSIDE his own hypothesis, i.e. with all the elements and processes that are include in his hypothesis. Of course, Rogers is not here with us to confirm my reflection, but anyway, I just can’t see Rogers missing an observation like that, directly related to the banding effect on the Shroud.

  16. June 9, 2012 at 3:59 am | #44

    In any discussion of banding based on the photographs in the post, it’s a case of “let the viewer beware”. Why? Because the photographs in question are light-dark reversed relative to the image on the Shroud, so what we see as two prominent dark bands, one on each side of the face, look far more dominant a feature of the image than is the case when viewing the “pseudo negative” of the Shroud. One also suspects that there has been adjustment of the brightness/contrast control that accentuates the so-called banding effect.

    Anyone inclined to think that the banding is due primarily to yarn differences could do a lot worse than look at an HD picture of the Shroud in close up, one that shows the image in relation to the herring-bone weave. Here’s a link to the picture , apparently a video still, which David Rolfe briefly placed into the public domain – as a banner on his Enigma blog – and then inexplicably withdrew. I have taken his “positive” and reversed it back to a pseudo-negative, as per Shroud.

    Look closely and you will see the “banding” as two lighter regions close to the outer limits of the eyes, with darker regions resuming where the hair is imaged.There is no abrupt transition from light to dark, as one might imagine from the positives. Indeed, the imaging of the eyebrows extends into the banded region, showing that the image is still there, albeit weaker, but definitely not absent. That would argue against any suggestion of a tenting effect that prevented any image-imprinting at all, at least in a model that disallows imaging if there is a sizeable gap between subject and cloth.

    What fascinates me most about the Rolfe HD image is not so much the banding, as those two “bloodstains”, and the manner in which they are largely indistinguishable from other imaged areas inasmuch as the image is confined mainly to the crowns of the fibres. How can anyone claim that the bloodstains are underneath the image areas if they are indistinguishable from image, at least in a photograph? OK, the claim would make sense if one could peel off the blood and reveal an image-free area, but I for one to see how anything could be peeled off from those two “bloodstains”, given the location on ribs, with little if any carry-over into the intervening furrows.

    There are so many questions that could be addressed and hopefully resolved if only we had access to more of the HD image, comparable to the panel in my link.? So what’s preventing you, or the Turin custodians, from releasing all of this vital resource into the public domain, David Rolfe?

    • latendre
      June 9, 2012 at 5:48 am | #45

      Why do you address such demands (high definition photographs) to David Rolfe when actually the largest collections of high definition photographs and macrophotographs is under the control (and ownership) of the Turin authority ?

      • June 9, 2012 at 6:31 am | #46

        Why? Because I know of one HD image only – David Rolfe’s – with a weave pattern clearly visible – and with no possibility of artefacts from the era of older silver-salt photography, and I work on the supposition that there must be more where that came from. It’s been hinted that his solitary image is a “still” from his own video camera footage, in which case I raise my hat to him for its amazing definition and resolution.

        As for what the Turin custodians might or might not have in their possession of comparable quality and value to researchers, one can only speculate.

        So I concentrate on what I KNOW is available, probably in a chest drawer of a fellow Brit, even if he is a dead ringer for Pope Benedict, as distinct from what might be behind lock and key in Turin or Vatican secret archives.

        I’ve occupied myself these last 10 minutes listing supposed features of the Shroud that need looking at again with HD images to hand (like how do “invisibly-rewoven” regions with claimed end-to-end splicing of threads look like in an HD image, or the areas that have been stripped of their image with adhesive tape, leaving allegedly no underlying residue or damage, or the reverse side of the fabric, if available – is there really an image there or not?- or the underside of the foot – is it really bloodstained?- or the markings on the dorsal side that the Lirey badge maker interpreted as a chain, or the scourge marks – do they really have puckered margins?), or the reported lettering in Hebrew, Greek etc etc etc.).

        It is to my mind SCANDALOUS that these questions cannot be properly addressed for want of clear HIGH DEFINITION images that show image areas in close-up in relation to weave pattern (the latter creating noise and possible artefacts in pre-digital era imagery).

  17. June 9, 2012 at 5:07 am | #47

    Sorry – there was a word omitted:… but I for one fail to see how anything could be peeled off from those two “bloodstains”.

    Note too that the HD image in the link is not only light-dark inverted, but also left-right reversed compared with those in the post.

  18. latendre
    June 9, 2012 at 12:04 pm | #48

    Reply to Colins #39

    You appear to be unaware that a large collection of high definition photographs and macrophotographs were taken in 2002 (during the restoration) and in 2008 by haltadefinizione. See http://www.haltadefinizione.com/ and search for Shroud. In any case, you can see the weave pattern versus the discoloration due to banding effects at dshroud.com using the ShroudScope.

  19. June 9, 2012 at 12:44 pm | #49

    Nope. I was not/am not unaware latendre. In fact I included a photograph of the horizontal scanner used to take the 2002 pictures on one of my posts a while ago.

    It’s one thing to be aware that piccies have been taken, but quite another to have access to the same, or at any rate high definition CLOSE UPS, like that which David Rolfe briefly used as a banner but then subsequently withdrew after I had enthused about their quality (and, Oliver Twist like, had the temerity to ask for more).

    I suggest you check out the links you provided above. I’ve spent the last minute or two clicking my way down the list, having first looked up the Italian for “shroud”. None of them are HD close-ups, comparable to the one that David Rolfe published.

    Why are waiting (set to music)….?

    • latendre
      June 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm | #50

      Have you looked at the Shroud Scope? http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml. You did not say so in your reply. I can readily see the relation between the weave pattern and the banding effects from the Shroud Scope when you magnify to the highest level.

    • latendre
      June 9, 2012 at 4:53 pm | #51

      And you misunderstand what I meant when I refer you to haltadefinizione.com. I do not mean that you will find high definition images readily downloadable free of charge from that website. I am saying that haltadefinizione have high definition images, probably better than what David Rolfe could ever be able to provide you (even for free). You need to order them from haltadefinizione. What I am getting at is that you appear to attack one particular person (David Rolfe) but in fact the best macrophotographs are not in the hands of David Rolfe. Far from it.

  20. June 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm | #52

    Excellent. I see that Dan did a posting on your Shroudscope back in September of last year, which curiously attracted only one comment. That was three months before I personally got interested in the Shroud (following the razzmatazz with OTT media attention to excimer lasers and miraculous flashes of light). I must say i am somewhat surprised – your resource is either too little known, too little consulted and thus rarely commented on – maybe all three. I for one shall do my humble best to rectify those omissions, starting maybe with “hair” which, in high def closeup, looks nothing like hair. The same might be said for a lot of the “bloodstains”. Thanks. You’ve been a great help.

  21. June 11, 2012 at 1:21 pm | #53

    Yannick Clément :
    One more thing for Collinsberry to consider versus the banding effect : Rogers analysed that effect on the Shroud not only with visible light photos but also with UV and x-ray photos. I think Rogers had all the tools necessary to make a good diagnostic, don’t you think ??? And don’t forget also that he spend 5 days and nights with the Shroud in 1978 !!! That’s another important fact to consider.

    There were those wacky scientists who spent years collecting and reporting data on what they called ‘cold fusion’. I’m still waiting for my electricity bills to benefit from their demolition of conventional physics….

Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 540 other followers

%d bloggers like this: