Home > Image Theory, News & Views, Science > Thibault Heimburger: Now, I know for sure that the TS body image is not a scorch

Thibault Heimburger: Now, I know for sure that the TS body image is not a scorch

October 21, 2012

imageThibault Heimburger sent us a significant 24 page paper, THE TURIN SHROUD BODY IMAGE: THE SCORCH HYPOTHESIS REVISITED along with the following email:

This paper is not only for Collin Berry but also for all of you. I knew that the "scorch hypothesis" had been long ago dismissed by STURP authors but often on indirect arguments. I must confess that their conclusions (at least in the papers I have) were often not so definitive as expected.

I had to look for the evidence. Fortunately, the scorch hypothesis is probably the only one that can be tested without sophisticated scientific instruments. Only a microscope is needed.

I did not try to reproduce the TS image but only to study in depth the fundamentals mechanisms shared by any kind of scorch on a linen fabric.

Now, I know for sure that the TS body image is not a scorch. Whatever the different parameters, it simply can’t be a scorch. It is not a paint or a dye. What is it ?

A slightly different version in French is available here:

http://www.linceul-turin.com/science-saint-suaire-linceul-turin/styled/tissu-saint-suaire-linceul.html

This is a much needed contribution to shroud science. We – all of us – should  appreciate Thibault’s efforts.

*Picture shown is image 24 from page 18 of the paper.

  1. Yannick Clément
    October 21, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Even if I’m sure Thibault did a very clever job as usual, I have to say that this was a totally useless effort in my opinion… I hate to say this but that’s the truth. First, this demonstration has already been done long before by the STURP team (by John Jackson particularly) and secondly, if anyone has read carefully my paper about the Shroud’s authenticity, IT IS EVIDENT that this relic has not been created by any artistic technique !!!! The solid evidence of the bloodstains ALONE is well enough to prove that the Shroud CANNOT have been created by someone using a scorch technique !!!

    Question : Do you really think someone could have been crazy and skilled enough to take a blood stained burial cloth and reproduced a body image around the stains with a scorch technique so well that it would have fooled all the medical experts that have studied the Shroud over the years and have all concluded that the body image MUST have come from the natural (or supernatural) interraction of a real crucified corpse with a real burial Shroud made of linen ??? This simple exercise of logical thinking is well enough to understand that the Shroud CANNOT have been created with any artistic technique, including a scorch technique !

    Thibault, don’t take my comment as an insult or anything like that. I’m sure you did a great analysis of that hypothesis but the thing is this : I really think this was a useless effort and you should concentrate on analysing all the natural hypothesis for image formation that has been proposed over the years. On this subject, I have a question for you : In 2007, you published a very interesting paper that analyzed the image formation process proposed by Rogers and you came up with a very interesting complementary hypothesis concerning the possible presence of urea all over the skin of the Shroud man that could have caused the released of ammoniac gases and eventually lead to the formation of the body image on the top-surface of the cloth (note that if this hypothesis is correct, we must assume that the chemical reaction occured with the thin layer of impurities proposed by Rogers). At the end of this paper, you wrote that you would published a follow-up paper for this 2007 paper. WHY DON’T YOU START WRITING IT RIGHT NOW ??? Honestly, I really think such a paper would be a “much needed contribution to shroud science” than this paper about the scorch hypothesis !!!

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      October 22, 2012 at 3:27 pm

      Yannick,

      It is not true that “this demonstration has already been done long before by the STURP team (by John Jackson particularly)”. Did you really read Jackson’s paper ? Do you want me to quote exactly what he wrote in the 1982 article quoted in the references of my paper ?
      The same for Rogers.

      That’s why I wrote: “I must confess that their conclusions (at least in the papers I have) were often not so definitive as expected.”

      Although I knew the arguments against the scorch hypothesis, something was lacking (to my knowledge) :direct observations through the microscope with various parameters.

      It seems to me that you think that your demonstration starting from the bloodstains only is the absolute proof against an artifact and therefore that my work is useless. This is clearly a problem for any hypothesis involving a forger. But not a proof. Rogers himself never thought that the authenticity (i.e. a burial sheet) could be based on this kind of “proof”.

      You wrote: ” At the end of this paper, you wrote that you would published a follow-up paper for this 2007 paper. WHY DON’T YOU START WRITING IT RIGHT NOW ??? Honestly, I really think such a paper would be a “much needed contribution to shroud science” than this paper about the scorch hypothesis !!!”

      Why did I not write this paper? For many reasons that I can’t explain now.

      I am now convinced that any kind of paint, dye or scorch can be ruled out with the highest degree of certainty. A chemical reaction remains as the most probable body image formation process.
      Maillard reaction is probably the most interesting (perhaps not the only one). Putrescine and cadaverine are not the reactive amines as suggested by Rogers (whatever you might think). But other reactive amines are possible. I will post as soon as possible a message explaining what I found in the scientific literature.

      In any case, Yannick, I have not be surprised by your comment. It was so foreseeable !
      You are not required to read my paper and/or to comment it stating that it is a “waste of time”. For me it is not.
      Lets go step by step.

      Thibault.

      • anoxie
        October 23, 2012 at 3:51 pm

        Thibault HEIMBURGER :
        A chemical reaction remains as the most probable body image formation process.

        Definitely.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm

        Thibault you wrote:

        “A chemical reaction remains as the most probable body image formation process.”

        OK but in conjunction with, a specific PHYSICAL overall circumstance (a tightly wrapped-up stiff rigid body with no to next to no air-gap body-to-cloth front and back, placed in extra-height) and a specific PHYSICAL event (a long inner burial cloth gradually getting unstuck from the body skin as the cloth somehow got taut again through pressure release).

  2. Yannick Clément
    October 21, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Oups, I forgot two word in my last phrase. Here’s the complete phrase : Honestly, I really think such a paper would be a “much needed contribution to shroud science” much more than this paper about the scorch hypothesis !!!

  3. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 22, 2012 at 5:50 am

    The fact is the possible presence of remoistened dried-up urea all over the body skin of the TS man could have caused the release of collimated ammoniac gases under one very specific circumstance: the ritual fumigation of his tightly wrapped up stiff rigid corpse within an in-soaked long inner burial sheet.

  4. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 22, 2012 at 5:58 am

    “Mists Typing”:”The fact is the possible presence of remoistened DRIED-OFF UREA RESIDUES all over the body skin of the TS man

  5. Louis
    October 22, 2012 at 8:37 am

    As anyone can see, if there are accusations of agenda-driven papers on one side the accusing party also has its own agenda.

  6. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Better explore new avenues to archaeologically and scientifically solve the TS mystery than just keep promoting what an old arch-miraculist wants to hear. The latter challenged you once to come up with a solution. Now you come up with an archaeological and scientific solution, he’s accusing you of being agenda driven…

  7. anoxie
    October 22, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Thank you Thibault, this is an excellent analysis of scorching at the microscopic level.

  8. ChrisB
    October 22, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Contrary to Yannick stating that Thibault’s paper is a useless effort, I think it is a wonderful paper, with previously unseen information about the nature of a very light scorch. It was compiled in response to some genuine questions posed by Colin Berry. Credit to Colin for stating that a light scorch can be superficial, but I think Thibault has demonstrated convincingly that the TS cannot be such. The ball is back in Colin’s side of the court now.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 22, 2012 at 3:42 pm

      I never said that it was a bad paper ! I just said the work of Thibault was useless from my point of view because we ALREADY KNEW VERY WELL THAT THE SHROUD IMAGE WAS NOT MADE WITH A SCORCH TECHNIQUE ! He he ! But if you needed Thibault’s paper to be convinced folks, then I’m glad you’re now convinced ! Concerning me, that’s been a very long while that I KNEW perfectly well the the Shroud could NOT have been made with this technique or any other artistic technique… At least now, I think we all agree that the scorch technique MUST be ruled out as a possible answer for the Shroud’s mystery, just like any other artistic technique.

  9. daveb of wellington nz
    October 22, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    I agree with Chris and Anoxie, an excellent paper. CB has been persisting with his scorch hypothesis, and Thibault is the right person to give an effective response. I personally consider that Yannick’s comments are gratuitous and presumptuous – YC “a totally useless effort …” What are Yannick’s credentials in passing such a judgement on another’s efforts, on one who has the professional qualifications and track record? He proposes writing a paper on the identity of the TSM! Talk about useless! If YC thought this of Thiebault’s excellent paper, he ought to have confined his comments in an Email to him instead of publishing it and demonstrating himself as a thoughtless clown.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 22, 2012 at 3:51 pm

      Unlike what you might think Dave, I don’t think the paper I’m currently writing (just like the previous one also) is a lack of effort on my part. I think its worth the effort because it is an interesting exercise of rational thinking and it can be an eye-opener for some skeptics out there, even thought I know perfectly well that it is NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL. Just like Thibault’s paper is not important in the end because his conclusion was already known ! He he !

      And you must also understand one thing : Thibault is not an expert in the field of microscopic analysis (he’s a generalist doctor) and I never pretend that I was an expert in any field of science. BUT… Me and Thibault shared one important thing : The passion for truth about the Shroud ! In my book, Thibault is one of the few researchers in the Shroud world that is completely unbiased. I don’t say this to be nice. I say this because I mean it.

      And the fact that we both seek the truth about the Shroud is the thing that allow both of us to write non important (but interesting) papers about the Shroud ! ;-) After all, is there a law that prevent someone like me or him to write about the Shroud ?

      Personally, you can throw me all the tomatoes you want, I don’t care because I knew from the start that my paper was NOT IMPORTANT (but interesting nevertheless). Go ahead ! Spit on me. I don’t care. Remember this : What we are all doing here is not important. Relax.

  10. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 22, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    No theoritical stone should be left unturned for both specialists and non specialists to walk on safe ground. Excellent paper.

  11. Gabriel
    October 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Thibault, thanks for this work. I have found it really interesting because I have learnt a lot on the Shroud at fiber level. Its comparison with the scorch clearly indicates their different origin.
    I would like to suggest you a further step of this work and it could be the development of a mathematical model describing the patterns present in the colouring of fibers, something that you have qualitatively already done. From figures 20 onwards it seems to me obvious the existance in the Shroud at fiber level, of a consistent pattern regarding the color, layout, grouping of fibers…that in my view, could be described mathematically with state-of-the-art algorithms.
    The advantage of this is that any future claim on tentative methods that could explain the image could be evaluated on the basis of the mathematical pattern obtained when analyzed at fiber level. A quick mathematical test on similarity of fiber patterns could be the key for evaluating to which extent the new tentative method reproduces the characteristics of the Shroud.
    Besides, what we see in figure 20 onwards, is really interesting. The coloured fibers tend to group in clusters of coloured fibers including a certain number of them. The really interesting thing is that colourized areas tend to follow the profile of the fiber and do not jump from certain areas of a fiber to another fiber leaving uncolorized zones. Why.?
    Finally, Thibault you once mentioned new apportions on the heavy amines issue. Have you written anything on this?

  12. October 22, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    I have a question for anyone who would like to answer. Wouldn’t Barrie Schwortz’s back-lit (transmitted light) photo of the Shroud prove the image is not a scorch? I look forward to reading Thibault’s paper.

    • Matthias
      October 23, 2012 at 6:37 am

      An excellent, compelling paper. I’d like to see a response from Colin. And one that is as detailed and robust as Thibault’s, not a rushed 5-10 paragraph write-up.,
      As someone said above, the ball is back in Colin’s court to refute this.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 23, 2012 at 8:31 am

      Andy, the FACT that the blood on the Shroud comes from exudates of blood clots is the SCIENTIFIC CONFIRMATION that the image can only have come from some kind of interraction between the cloth and the corpse it covers. PERIOD. No need to still look to disprove any sort of artistic technique that could have caused the image on the Shroud because that’s not that way this image was formed on the cloth. The EVIDENCE of the bloods and serum stains on the cloth is a SCIENTIFIC PROOF of this. The Shroud is a real Shroud of a real crucified man who bled a great deal in this cloth and consequently, the image on it could only have come from some kind of interraction between that tortured and bleeding corpse and the cloth. THAT IS CALL A SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

      • October 24, 2012 at 11:07 pm

        While that may be so, Yannick, my question remains unanswered. If my thoughts are accurate with reality, anyone asserting the image is a scorch is no scientist.

  13. Yannick Clément
    October 23, 2012 at 8:27 am

    In order to set the record straight, here’s a quote taken from my paper about the authenticity of the Shroud :
    “In order to clearly summarize the situation, we can say that science is now able to provide two important conclusions concerning the Shroud of Turin:
    1- IT IS NOT AN ARTWORK OF ANY KIND, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BLOODSTAINS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IT IS A REAL BURIAL SHROUD THAT ENVELOPED, FOR LESS THAN 72 HOURS, A REAL MAN WHO WAS TORTURED, SCOURGED, CROWNED WITH THORNS AND DIED BY CRUCIFIXION.
    2- THE BODY IMAGE ON THE SHROUD MUST ABSOLUTELY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SOME FORM OF INTERRACTION BETWEEN THE CLOTH AND THIS TORTURED AND CRUCIFIED BODY.
    It is crucial to emphasize the fact that these two scientific conclusions are VERY SOLID since they are only based on the vast amount of data and observations that were accepted by the majority of the scientists who have studied the Shroud. BECAUSE OF THAT, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO SERIOUSLY DOUBT THESE TWO CONCLUSIONS. It’s also important to mention that these conclusions are the same as the main conclusions reached by the STURP team, after the scientific investigation they did on the Shroud at the end of the 1970s and at the beginning of the 1980s. In this context, why would we waste one more second of our precious time arguing about false ideas (like the Shroud being an artistic forgery) that simply do not fit with what science knows about the Shroud?”
    Unfortunatelly, Thibault di djust that (wasting one more second of his precious time) with his paper !!!
    This quote from my paper that you just read IS THE SOLID TRUTH WE KNOW RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE SHROUD. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
    Because of this, I really don’t understand that a doctor like Thibault don’t seem to be able to understand that the bloodstains evidence (which is far from being a banal data concerning the Shroud) is WELL ENOUGH to conclude that this cloth is a REAL BURIAL CLOTH OF A REAL CRUCIFIED PERSON and consequently, the image on the cloth IS NOT and CANNOT BE the work of an forger that would have use some sort of artistic technique (like the scorch technique he analyzed)… Unlike Thibault, the vast majority of the medical experts who analyzed the Shroud over the years (from Barbet to Zugibe and many others) NEVER thought for one second that the image on this cloth could have come from anything else than an interraction between the cloth and the corpse that was once present inside it !!! The truth is this: once you accept the STURP conclusion that the blood on the Shroud really comes from exudates of blood clots, you have to also agree with the conclusion that the image can only comes from an interraction with the cloth and the corpse it covers and not by the will of a forger using some sort of artistic technique! THIS IS PURE RATIONAL THINKING!
    And this leads me to state this other truth that most people don’t seems to understand: even if Thibault’s experiments would have give a result that would have closely match up the chemical and physical nature Shroud’s image, that would not have change one iota of this truth that the image on the Shroud is NOT the product of a scorch and can only comes from the interraction between the cloth and the corpse it covers!!! Again, the FACT that the blood on the Shroud really comes from exudates of blood clots is the SCIENTIFIC CONFIRMATION of this TRUTH!!! Note that the same line of thinking is also true for all the 20th and 21st centurties technologies that could produce a coloration that can come more or less close to match up the chemical and physical nature of the Shroud’s image, like the UV lasers of the ENEA or any kind of nuclear bombardment of linen that have been done in the past (by Rinaudo for example). Sadly for some “true believers”, the image on the Shroud is no more the product of 21st century technologies than the product of a forger who would have used some sort of artistic technique…
    I hate to make this kind of hard critic (especially in this case because I know Thibault really seek the truth with honesty), but I definately think it is important to clearly set the record straight once again versus what the Shroud is and what it is not !!!!
    Sometimes, like in this particular case, truth hurts and I know it very well… So, Thibault, I hope you’ll forgive me for this “hard” critic that I hope will be constructive in the end. Believe me, I only hope this critic will help you to focus on serious and credible things like all the possible natural hypotheses that exists regarding the image formation, while it will leads you to forget definitely all the artistic hypotheses that have been proposed over the years. I repeat that this is a pure waste of time for the simple and good reason that all those hypotheses have been set aside by science long ago and again, the very particular nature of the blood transfer that occurred on the cloth is the best SCIENTIFIC CONFIRMATION of this…
    And by making the kind of paper you just wrote (note that I don’t have any doubt that you made a clever job as usual), you only play the game of skeptical persons like Colin Berry and I still think it’s a pure waste of time… In your reply to my first comment, you end’s up by saying that in our quest for truth about the Shroud, we have to go step by step. Even if I agree with the heart of this general principle, that doesn’t mean we have to constantly take 2 steps back by trying to disprove what already have been solidly disprove by the STURP team or by some others SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD. Again, by acting like this, you only play the game of people like Colin Berry. The question is : WHY? I really don’t understand. Don’t you think the mystery of the Shroud is enough thick right now when we try to find a natural mechanism that could have come from the interraction of the corpse and the cloth and that can account for the image on the Shroud??? When it comes to explain the image on the cloth, I really think we should only focus on hypotheses of that nature because that’s the correct and only road science tell us to follow right now if we want to finally solve the mystery of the Shroud!!!! As for the potential supernatural aspect of this image, I don’t think science should focus on that because it goes way beyond his field of expertise.

    • October 24, 2012 at 11:08 pm

      I would think you could just refer them to your paper, pgs x – xx…:o)

      • Yannick Clément
        October 25, 2012 at 10:50 am

        My friend Andy, the problem I can see is this : PEOPLE DON’T SEEM TO GET THE MAIN POINT I TRIED SO HARD TO MAKE IN MY PAPER, which is to understand once and for all that the Shroud is a real burial cloth of a real crucified man, that it cannot be the product of any sort of artistic forgery and on the contrary, that the image on it can only be the product of some kind of interaction (most probably natural and biological) between this ancient cloth and the body it covered for less than 72 hours !!!

        That’s where we SHOULD AND MUST stand in the Shroud world versus this relic but sadly, we constantly see people from the inside as much as from the outside casting doubts over this general conclusion made by STURP, even though this general conclusion (which I separated in two in my paper) is as solid as any other fact in other scientific fields. And the confirmed presence of blood and serum stains on the cloth is the ultimate proof that the general conclusion made by STURP is very good and that there is no good reason to seriously doubt it.

        That reality is really discouraging to note for a guy like me who have studied intensely all the data from STURP and who is convinced of the validity of the major part of their conclusions and observations. Sometimes, people tend to forget that most of the STURP members were far from being second class scientists ! These guys knew what they were doing and to come back on the general conclusion they reached, I don’t see why we should doubt it, except if our name is Colin Berry…

  14. Hugh Farey
    October 23, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    A few days after learning of the BSTS meeting, I began to renew my acquaintance with current ideas about the shroud, and came across the various blogs and their most communicative adherents. Having a school science laboratory to play with, I began to investigate the degradation of cellulose in some depth, mostly, like Thibault, by scorching linen. You can read how I got on in my comments on Colin Berry’s blogs, if you’re interested. I’m writing here because I want to defend my approach (and Thibault’s, possibly). Whatever the actual mechanism for producing the shroud’s image, a real understanding of how linen behaves under a variety of circumstances is a worthwhile study. It’s not so much the source of energy – heat, light, nuclear radiation, acid, vapours, whatever – that we’re understanding, but what linen does when that energy arrives. I found Thibault’s paper very interesting and very worthwhile – and I wish I had a good microscope camera!
    It seems clear that there are at least two effects that have to be explained: the overall discolouration of whole threads, and the superficial darkening of the topmost fibres. There may also be an even more superficial coating which also has to be explained. Actually carrying out and observing the results of experiments brings a much better understanding of the problem than just reading about it. And it’s fun!

    • Yannick Clément
      October 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm

      I agree to some extent concerning the principle that making experiments can help to understand some phenomenon but this has already been done by Jackson and other members of the STURP team who tested in real time the effects of scorch on linen and came out 100% convinced that the body image on the Shroud WAS NOT created by heat and this is normal since this image come from a most probable natural and chemical interraction between a dead body that has been severily tortured just before dying on the cross (remember the very high level of bilirubin folks because this can potentially be important in order to understand the nature of the image and to eventually solve the mystery) and a linen burial cloth that was most probably covered on his surface with a thin layer of carbohydrates impurities… In that context, how in the world a corpse like that could generated enough heat to colored the top-surface of the cloth ? This is ridiculous. And don’t tell me the Resurrection because there is absolutely no evidence that this spiritual event ever created one bit of energetic burst. This idea is what I call the Hollywood syndrome of what people think the Resurrection event should have produced…

  15. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 23, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    According to tmy reconstruction of the TS man’s burial, the thin layer of carbohydrates impurities could result from warm alkaline solution evaporation (ashes and/or limestone mixed with water)

  16. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 23, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    + starch (contained in ancient linen)

    • Hugh Farey
      October 24, 2012 at 5:28 am

      I think that’ll be next on my to-do list. Starches, sugars and a bit of saponin = soapy custard!

  17. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2012 at 8:29 am

    Hugh, you on a diet?

  18. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2012 at 8:31 am

    Hugh, add also urea residues to yout list…

  19. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2012 at 8:34 am

    …mixed with ashes and /or limestone in warm water, it may be (I am not a biochemist nor a chemist) a fairly good substitute to saponin….

  20. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Reminder: the TS man’s body imprint is a mere 200 to 600 nanometers thick, as thin as the wall of a soap bubble… (starches may aslo be warmly recommended here).

  21. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2012 at 8:46 am

    I just cannot help thinking of a body-shaped collimated soap/starch bubble as mollecular beam. Yet I am maybe just dreaming after all…

  22. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Whether the ‘body only’ image elements are or not associated with iron oxide in the malky stone dust (and/or other “opaque” in the Judea desert dust) is also to be considered too.

  23. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2012 at 8:54 am

    Typo: “opaqueS”

  24. Hugh Farey
    October 24, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    To be honest I’m not happy with the 200-600nm coating. There are a few photomicrographs about, from McCrone’s blob of gelatine and paint, through Valdez’s bioplastic coating, and now Rogers’s saccharides. Unless some of them are faked, they must all be considered. Rogers seem to be claiming (like McCrone, but for a different reason) that without the coating, there would be no image. However, it also seems that the image is visible on the back side of the shroud Although I have not seen close-ups of the fibres on the back of the shroud, this suggests that the discolouring mechanism, starting at the top surface, somehow flowed completely around the fibres, discolouring the back surface too, without actually affecting the fibres themselves. Is this what he thought, or have I misunderstood?

    • Dan
      October 24, 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Hugh, Rogers explained it this way:

      “Because the cellulose was not involved in image formation, the color must have formed in impurities on the surfaces of the image fibers. Independent observations have proved that all of the image color resides in a very thin layer on the outside surfaces of colored fibers.

      “Evaporation concentration can explain the superficial nature of the image and the identical properties of the front and back images. It can also explain the “doubly-superficial” image, i.e., the presence of a superficial image on the back surface of the cloth as reported by Ghiberti and Fanti and Maggiolo.

      “When a solution evaporates at the surface of a porous solid, dissolved solutes are concentrated at the evaporating surface. The principle is illustrated in the photomicrograph with blue dye. A piece of linen was saturated with a dilute solution of blue dye, and the cloth was dried while laying on a sheet of Teflon. All evaporation occurred at the top surface, and the dye concentrated on that surface. It is obvious that most of the dye deposited on the highest parts of the weave and the upward-pointing fibers of the nap. A sheet of cloth that contained sugars and starches would deposit those impurities at the very topmost part of the weave after washing and drying.”

      • Ron
        October 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm

        Dan, this is something I have a problem accepting. I understand it may have been experimented with, but still to accept ALL solutes would concentrate completely on the uppermost surfaces and not leave some or even minute residues on the sides, seems unbelievable to me, residues that would undoubtably be affected by whatever ‘reaction’ may have caused the changes…This is something I think needs to be experimented further, and with linen manufactured and treated precisely as described it was in ancient times. Otherwise, I would say it is still unproven and tethering on speculation….I may be completely wrong here, but without confirmation we can never know for sure.

        R

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm

      The fact is the body image is NOT visible on the back side of the shroud. Just ‘form imprints” of part of face and maybe hands i.e. the parts that most probably had been subjected to the greatest pressure in terms of a stiff rigid body having been tightly wrapped up within a long burial cloth).

      • Ron
        October 25, 2012 at 4:13 pm

        Max. I am quite aware that a ‘whole’ body image is not present and is only ‘possibly’ of the face and hands. Emphasis on the ‘possibly’ as it has not been 100% confirmed that there are images on the back side whatsoever, and/or images equivalent to the front image…My point was more to the issue of no traces of image on the sides of the fibrels.

        Thanks,

        R

  25. Louis
    October 25, 2012 at 8:12 am

    There seems to be no certainty that the body was tightly wrapped, in fact it may not have been tightly wrapped because the burial was a temporary arrangement as Sabbath was approaching. Giulio Fanti’s famous paper on the “echoes” showing part of the face and hands remains unchallenged as long as Turin does not make available the microphotographs in their possession.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      October 25, 2012 at 3:16 pm

      Louis, it seems that a few certain works were permitted on the sabbath, and I believe that coompletion of a burial may have been one such. Both Nicodemus and Joseph A being members of the Sanhedrin would have been well aware of what was permitted. Nevertheless, I do have a problem with Max’s contention that the body was tightly wrapped because of the orthogonal aspect of the image – there are no lateral aspects for example and lateral distortion is minimal, If the cloth was fully wrapped tightly around the body, and the image was formed by some contact process, then I expect that the body’s sides would be visible on the image, and the width of the image would be extended or stretched, but they’re not. The only way that I can envisage the orthogonal aspect occurring, is if some of the 100lb package was packed along the sides of the body, to present an orthogonal view, and concealing the sides. But this is starting to get a little too conjectural. Max, I know we have been here before.

      • Louis
        October 25, 2012 at 6:15 pm

        David, It all depends on who exactly wrapped Jesus and laid him in the tomb. Nicodemus and Joseph could have got away with breaking any rules because they were part of the elite, so to say, but there were limits with those arrogant, avaricious and dangerous Temple high priests (some of whom are known to have practiced witchcraft to reach the level of high priest). Look what they did to James. Now, If there were helpers around, and it seems there were, they would be less likely to break any rules and the job would be done in great haste.

        Yes, it is probable that the packages Nicodemus bought were placed along the sides of the body, which explains the lack of lateral aspects, (and which also contributed to the Maillard reaction theory in the 20th century!).

    • Yannick Clément
      October 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm

      Quote from Louis : “There seems to be no certainty that the body was tightly wrapped, in fact it may not have been tightly wrapped because the burial was a temporary arrangement as Sabbath was approaching.”

      Comment from me : You got it right on the target Louis ! And this is exactly the impression we get when we analyzed properly all the data coming from the Shroud… In other words, these data that indicates a very incomplete burial (that include no wrapping of the body with strips of linen, except maybe for the feet, no washing of the body and no anointing as well) exactly echoes the Gospel accounts of Jesus burial. For example, let’s read the description from St-Matthew’s Gospel: “Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.”

      Many people like like to speculate wildly about certain Gospel parts in order to fit them with their preconceive notions concerning Jesus burial, but when we forget to make any speculation or additions to this particular text, we understand perfectly that Jesus burial was very partial and done very fast. In fact, that’s exactly what the data from the Shroud indicates : When it reached the tomb, the corpse was most probably put inside the Shroud without any preparation of the body whatsoever (i.e. the body was still covered with dirt, blood clots, etc. and no anointing was done) and then, move to his final location, which was a stone bench. Nothing more, nothing less, except maybe, if we believe St John’s account, for the possible use of aloes and myrrh (most probably in powder put in bags that were placed around the body) that was only done to chase the bad odours in prevision of a return to the tomb on sunday morning to complete the burial rite properly.

      That’s what the Shroud’s data indicates and it fits very well with the Gospel accounts. The idea that they could have continue to work on the burial rite during the Sabbath (which was also the day of the Passover by the way) is quite simply ludicrous and doesn’t rest on any credible historical source as I know…

      • Louis
        October 25, 2012 at 6:32 pm

        Yannick, you are absolutely right in all these comments. The body was not washed and that was another reason for keeping the final preparations for early Sunday morning.

        By the way, did you get the feel of things in the ancient Syrian Orthodox ritual? It helps to see how the Shroud was probably impregnated with smoke right from the early centuries and what makes Tyrer’s contention more plausible. An invitation to attend a mass (in Aramaic, of course) said by the Iraqi Syrian Orthodox Church Archbishop of Baghdad some years ago “took me to the fourth century.”

  26. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 25, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Louis, please stop repeating the same catechism and indulging in “ready-thinking”. Read the Greek version of the Gospels and do some Greek and Hebrew philological homework for a change… Get familiar with the Halakha… Think by yourself (never too late).

    • Louis
      October 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm

      Max, what exactly are you referring to? You’ll have to explain that further.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 25, 2012 at 8:33 pm

      Louis I mean “The body WAS NOT washed/in fact it may not have been tightly wrapped because the burial WAS A TEMPORARY ARRANGEMENT (?!) as Sabbath was approaching//the final preparationS (!?) for early Sunday morning/”stuff you Christians learn from childhood and keep repeating ad nauseam as if they were ABSOLUTE HISTORICAL truths (?!) without really knowing what you are talking about.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        October 25, 2012 at 8:39 pm

        Women were not allowed to grind spices on sabbath (to make spicy oil perfumes); They had to wait till the following day after the sabbath. That’s all.

      • Louis
        October 26, 2012 at 10:54 am

        Max, you are going off the point by mixing objectives studies with religious beliefs, which is evident when you say “you Christians.” Do you know that many Jewish biblical archaeologists, many of them secular, accept the New Testament accounts and would you say they were pro-Christian?

  27. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 25, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Part of a face and hands doesn’t make a whole body image on the back side of the TS!!!!!!

  28. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 25, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Dave,

    In my TS man’s burial reconstruction, the very presence of solid objects (such as medical /insect repellent fresh plants and flower heads) laterally compressed to the body skin act as a screen yet full of air-gaps thus preventing any lateral body image to be recorded on the long inner burial cloth.

    • Louis
      October 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm

      Can you show the exact location of the plants and flower heads in the burial reconstruction?

  29. Thibault HEIMBURGER
    October 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Hello,

    Thank you for your kind comments.
    I will reply to some of you as soon as possible.
    Thibault.

  30. October 25, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    to understand once and for all that the Shroud is a real burial cloth of a real crucified man, that it cannot be the product of any sort of artistic forgery and on the contrary, that the image on it can only be the product of some kind of interaction (most probably natural and biological) between this ancient cloth and the body it covered for less than 72 hours !!!

    No doubt about that.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 26, 2012 at 8:32 am

      Unfortunatelly my friend Andy, this is not admit by everyone around here !!! As I often said : there is no serious reason to doubt this general conclusion of STURP and once we admit it as solid, there are a lot of crap hypotheses we can easily put aside and never look back upon them… The scorch hypothesis being only one among many wrong hypothesis versus the reality of the Shroud.

  31. daveb of wellington nz
    October 26, 2012 at 6:24 am

    YC” “… to understand once and for all that the Shroud is a real burial cloth of a real crucified man, that it cannot be the product of any sort of artistic forgery and on the contrary, that the image on it can only be the product of some kind of interaction (MOST PROBABLY NATURAL AND BIOLOGICAL) between this ancient cloth and the body it covered for less than 72 hours !!! ”

    AW: “No doubt about that.”
    daveb: There’s every doubt about it! Nobody was there! Speculation after speculation! Body washed, body unwashed. Temporary burial! Body wrapped tightly!, Work completed! Repetition after repetition of unsupported dogmatic statements has no effect whatsoever on their truth value at all! FORTY Years after STURP, and we’re really no closer to the answer! YC: “”Naturalistic!” daveb: “Miracle!” Neither view has any greater weight than the other. Stop pretending that we know! We don’t! Matthew says he was (merely) laid there! John says according to the custom of the Jews! THEY can’t even agree! God is laughing at our self-opiniated humanity.
    “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and not rely on your knowledge.
    In all ways Acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight”.
    Prov 3:5-6

    • Yannick Clément
      October 26, 2012 at 10:44 am

      In the end my friend Dave, I think the most important thing for both of us who are Christian is much more to focus on what is on the Shroud instead of debating on the exact nature of it. As I often said, the principal thing about the Shroud for a Catholic like me is the two great signs (not proofs!) I can see on it, which are the sign of the Resurrection versus the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains (and the fact that this burial cloth has been preserved) and also the sign of the Incarnation of God (that comes from both the image and the blood and serum stains).

      And when we come to the scientific study of the Shroud, I think Dave you should put aside a bit more your religious beliefs when it comes to interpret the data coming from the Shroud, because each time someone put some religious beliefs into a scientific thinking, it always give bad results ! Each fields (religious and scientific) are very different and should not never be mixed up. That’s what I really think.

      • Louis
        October 26, 2012 at 11:01 am

        How can a “sign of the Resurrection” be seen if the image is “natural” in a previous comment?

      • Yannick Clément
        October 28, 2012 at 8:23 pm

        Why always thinking that there should automatically be a direct connection between the image and the Resurrection Louis ??? This is ridiculous my friend ! Why do you think the Resurrection (which was a “spiritualization” of the body of Christ who left the material world and went to the spiritual world) should have left any kind of physical traces whatsoever ? By the way, this “materialistic” idea is not even a part of the official teaching of the Church !

        I don’t see any contradiction between my faith that Jesus really resurrected on Easter morning (i.e. that his body simply disappear from this material world and consequently, from inside this burial cloth, without any noise, burst of energy of any sort, etc.) and the strong probability that the Shroud image was formed by a biological interraction between his body and the surface of the cloth BEFORE this supernatural event occured and consequently, stoped the chemical process that was active on the surface of the Shroud.

        On this point, I think Max Patrick Hamon will agree with me…

  32. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Dave, we maybe closer to the answer than you think…

  33. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 9:04 am

    Dave, t
    In all likelihood, the fact is, the TS man “was washed and not washed”, that is my cryptic answer, MPHamlet.

  34. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 9:11 am

    Dave,
    In all likelihood, the fact is, the TS man’s stiff rigid body was first tightly wrapped and then not quite so tightly wrapped”. MPHamlet, scene two.

  35. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Dave,
    In all likelihood, the fact is, the TS man image “is miraculous and not so mirculous”. MPHamlet, scene three.

  36. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 9:26 am

    Jesus of Nazareth = (in Hebrew) Yeshua ha-Notry

    Now ‘Yeshua’ in Hebrew means “[providential] Salvation]”. To ancient Hebrews the very symbol of salvation was the brass SNAKE…

    Beside ‘Ha Nostry’ in Hebrew means “the Hidden [Prince]”, “The man of the grotto(es)”, “The Troglodyte”… He was born in a unsused cave tomb, mostly lived/slept in grottoes all his life long and was buried in a cave tomb…

    Don’t you rely too much on your knowledge…

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 26, 2012 at 9:38 am

      ++typo: “born in a disused cave tomb”/ “buried in a still unsused cave tomb”

  37. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 9:27 am

    Typo: Notsry

  38. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 9:29 am

    + typo: an unused cave tomb

  39. October 26, 2012 at 9:34 am

    I suspect the reason no one addressed my question of seeing the scorch through back-lit photography is because the scorch would be seen. Yes Yannick, I know if everyone would just accept the excellent science done by STURP, the scorch would not ever be spoken of again. Yet the transmitted light photography comes from the work of STURP’s own Barrie Schwortz, so technically, the scorch is disproved by this means (and others) from the STURP work.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 26, 2012 at 10:49 am

      Scientifically, there are many data from the Shroud that are enough to disprove the scorch hypothesis but in the end, our simple logicial thinking should be enough to discard it (along with all the other artistic hypotheses that have been proposed over the years). That’s precisely the point I tried to make here on the blog versus Thibault’s paper. The simple FACT that the Shroud is a real shroud of a real crucified man is well enough to understand that the image on it could only come from an interraction between the cloth and the corpse that was under it and nothing else. The image was truly not made by human hands (on the contrary to the Mandylion by the way even if the Orthodox Church of the 6th century onwards tried hard to make believe that it was the case).

    • anoxie
      October 27, 2012 at 5:22 am

      I don’t think a scorch would necessarily be seen in a back-lit photography :

      -We see the direct image on the shroud thanks to reflected light on its surface, contrast in a given direction depends highly on superficial fibers.

      -In a back-lit photography light diffuses through the cloth, the slight intensity fluctuation due to superficial chromophore is masked by variegated pattern in the whole thickness of the threads.

      Then a very light scorch would not be seen either in a back-lit photography.

      That’s why i think this back-lit photography is an indirect macroscopic argument against scorching whereas Thibault’s article is a much needed direct microscopic argument against scorching.

      • Ron
        October 28, 2012 at 7:23 am

        Although I agree with you in that Thibault’s paper is relevant and needed, I do not agree the back-lit photos are indirect evidence. Evidence comes from the comparing actual burn marks left from the fire and the different intensities one can view, to the image area; from deeply scorched to the very lightly scorched areas. If the image was a scorch it would have to have been ‘extremely’ light scorching. But the back-lit photos and decreasing intensity scorches seen on the Shroud, place this in extreme doubt. Even the very slightest of scorch marks on the shroud will block the light. It is hard to believe a scorch could be produced ‘light-enough’ to not block any light as one would think each individual fiber would be darkened…Personally I think the back-lit photos is definately enough proof the image is NOT a scorch, and only the most sceptic mind would think otherwise.

        R

      • anoxie
        October 28, 2012 at 9:24 am

        Yes, I agree with you, that’s why it is an indrect argument.

        But a very light scorch may not be seen in a back-lit photography.

  40. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Impara l’arte e mettila da parte…

  41. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2012 at 10:13 am

    …this was addressed to Superscorchman Colin Berry

  42. October 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    I have added this to our library (http://shroudnm.com/library.html).

  43. Yannick Clément
    October 28, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    In order to backed-up the opinion I have expressed many times here that Thibault’s paper is really irrelevant to Shroud study because we were already well-aware of the fact that the image on the Shroud did NOT come from a scorch of the linen fibers, here’s a very important quote from Barrie Schwortz website concerning the general concensus of the STURP team versus the Shroud (published in 1981): « We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of A REAL HUMAN FORM of a scourged, crucified man. IT IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF AN ARTIST. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give positive test for serum albumin…»

    And if this last quote is not enough for you, then here’s some quotes from Ray Rogers book A Chemist’s perspective on the Shroud of Turin (published in 2008):

    First quote: “Microscopy proves that image fibers and scorch fibers are quite different in structure and composition. The distribution of color is different, even at the level of single fibers. The image was NOT formed by scorching the linen fibers.”

    Here’s another one: “Other than observing collored medullas, crystallinity and birefringence give good clues for differenciating between scorched and image fibers. The evidence is strong that the image is not a result of dehydration of the cellulose (note: don’t forget that when Rogers was using this word, this included the primary cell wall of the fiber, which is partially composed of cellulose) by any mechanism, thermal or radiation.”

    And here’s a third one: “Image fibers do NOT show the properties of scorched linen fibers.” Then he add this very important comment: “The observation of colorless cores in image fibers, « ghosts » pulled from fibers by the adhesive, the reduction of the color with diimide, lack of fluorescence in image area and optical differences between image and scorched fibers eliminate any high-temperature heating event or energetic radiation in image formation.”

    Now folks, what do you need to understand that Thibault’s demonstration don’t really bring any new stuff to the sum of data we already knew about the Shroud ???

    I’m sure Thibault did a great comparative analysis (as usual) between the image of the Shroud and a scorch image on linen, but the truth is this: it was unnecessary ! Just like any future comparative analysis between the Shroud and any other artistic technique on linen will also be unnecessary because WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT THAT WAY THAT THE IMAGE ON THE SHROUD WAS FORMED !!!!! WHEN DOES PEOPLE WILL FINISH TO UNDERSTAND THIS BASIC TRUTH ABOUT SHROUD ???

    And in the future, if there’s another Garlaschelli or Colin Berry who wants to make us believe that the image on the Shroud don’t come from the natura interaction between the tortured corpse of a crucified man (most probably chemical in nature and related to some biological products released by the dead) and an ancient linen burial cloth that most probably possess a thin layer of carbohydrates impurities on its surface, why not just ignore their false claims ? I think that’s the best thing that could be done… Why wasting our precious time challenging hypotheses that we already know are completely wrong versus the Shroud ? Good question, no ?

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      October 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm

      Dear Yannick,

      I don’t understand your insistence on saying that my analysis was unnecessary.
      This is your opinion and I respect it but please don’t repeat again and again the same things.

      In fact, I had many good reasons to study myself the scorch hypothesis.
      The first one is that I do what I want !!
      The second one is that there are some arguments (the reflectance and UV spectra) which seem to support the scorch hypothesis.
      The third one is that I was not able to find any STURP paper based on experiments that truly and completely rule out the scorch hypothesis as the result of the the conscious work of a man.
      In my opinion, nobody can definitely exclude any hypothesis without experiments showing that this hypothesis is false.
      In this case, it means spectra, 3D, microscopy, fluorescence and if possible chemistry.

      Jackson studied 3D properties and did not definitely rule out this hypothesis
      Miller and Pellicori studied fluorescence and concluded from their experiments that there is strong evidence that the TS image is not a scorch.
      To my knowledge, nobody made chemistry experiments on lightly scorched fibers
      And nobody (to my knowledge) tried to compare under the microscope the color pattern of any kind of scorch with that of the TS image.
      In my experiments, the differences were so obvious that I could write: “now I know for sure …”

      You are quoting Rogers. I am glad to read that some of my observations were also found by Rogers particularly this one: “Microscopy proves that image fibers and scorch fibers are quite different in structure and composition. The distribution of color is different, even at the level of single fibers.”. However, Rogers’ observations were made on scorched fibers of the TS (from the 1532 fire) and therefore were not necessarily relevant to the scorch hypothesis as a result of the conscious choice of a forger.

      Testing a hypothesis is a construction. My observations are only the last step.
      Now there is no doubt.
      You was convinced a long time ago. I was not completely convinced before my own experiments.
      So, now we agree. It is definitely not a scorch.
      So please forget my “paper” now.

      Thibault.

      • Hugh Farey
        October 29, 2012 at 6:24 pm

        Thibault. I was so impressed by your paper that I have gone and bought myself a microscope with a built in camera. Forget your paper? Certainly not!

      • Carlos Otal
        October 29, 2012 at 10:21 pm

        Thibault:

        ¡Muy buen trabajo y magníficas fotografías!

        Carlos Otal

      • Yannick Clément
        October 30, 2012 at 8:31 am

        No problem Thibault ! I WILL FORGET YOUR PAPER EASILY because the image on the Shroud cannot come from any other thing than a interraction between the corpse and the cloth… It’s as simple as that in my mind !

  44. Louis
    October 28, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Yannick, in answer to #60:

    Why should a Maillard reaction have occurred only when Jesus’ body was entombed? Was it only because Rogers said that ? Why did it not occur with other enshrouded bodies, as far as we know? As far as the Resurrection is concerned, see the last question I posed in the interview-article on the website where you also have material. Concentrate on the question.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 28, 2012 at 9:21 pm

      Because at the exception of the Shroud of Turin, there is no ancient burial shroud that has ever been found and that would have contained for only a short period of time the corpse of a crucified criminal… So, how do you know that there was not other shroud that could have bears such a body image if the exposure between the body and the cloth would have been also stoped after less than 72 hours ?

  45. Louis
    October 28, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Please read carefully before answering. I said “as far as we know” without claiming that there was no other shroud with such characteristics. To go further, do you think this other shroud would also demonstrate what has been called a “veiled presence”? Then, there is still no answer to the first two lines of my question.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 29, 2012 at 8:28 am

      I’m curious… What is the “veiled presence”?

      And just a precision concerning the Maillard reaction : In the present state of our knowledge on the Shroud, I still think this hypothesis of Rogers is likely to have been part in the formation of the image but I still think also that there could well have been another (or others) process(es) active inside the Shroud, like a sort of Volckringer pattern, especially in the zones of direct contact (which are the zones wheres the images are the most defined). But in the end, no matter what was the real exact process (or processes), I’m still convinced it acted according to the known laws of nature. That’s what I think in face of all the data and observations we know about the Shroud.

      • Yannick Clément
        October 29, 2012 at 8:29 am

        Oh I forgot to add that what I just said never mean for one second that Jesus never resurrected ! This precision is important.

  46. Louis
    October 29, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    That’s funny. Anyone who is really familiar with Shroud studies knows what has been described as “presence”, “Real Presence” and more recently as “veiled presence” in Shroud books and articles. Have a look at a book review in the last shroud.com update for a start.

    It is good to see that possibilities other than the Maillard reaction are being considered, otherwise a lot of emphasis on this would make things sound like a broken record. The Volckringer pattern is another interesting example but appears insufficient because it does not explain the image as a whole, which is what even you almost say in your comment.

    What convinces you that the image was produced according to the known laws of nature?
    Laws of nature are propositions and God does not seem to be bound by things he created for the material universe. The Resurrection, in which you believe, is the prime example. Both natural and supernatural explanations for the image formation are possible and it is good to remember that Rogers was not dogmatic about what he wrote; he did seem, however, to be keen on avoiding metaphysical possibilities at any cost to suit a worldview.

    So do think about the reaction atheists, agnostics, or just-non-religious people have had when they saw the Shroud with an open mind. It is there in Shroud literature.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 30, 2012 at 8:26 am

      Quote from Louis: “What convinces you that the image was produced according to the known laws of nature?”

      Answer: The STURP data and observations, along with others made later on by Adler, Rogers and some others. It’s as simple as that. Science is pointing toward a natural process coming from the biological interraction between a dead body and the linen cloth. You got to remember that before resurrecting, Jesus was a dead man !

      • Louis
        October 30, 2012 at 4:06 pm

        And how did the dead man get out of the Shroud without being unwrapped?

      • Yannick Clément
        October 30, 2012 at 4:45 pm

        It is called the Resurrection of Christ (but without the Hollywood special effects) ! He he ! Or a “dematerialization” of the body if you prefer. Personally, I even prefer to use the term “spiritualization” of the body. I think it’s closer to the reality of what happened on Easter morning.

      • ChrisB
        November 1, 2012 at 12:41 pm

        According to Acts 13:37, “But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay”. If there wasn’t any decay, then what part of the dead body reacted with the linen cloth?

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        November 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm

        ChristB, this s a very good scriptural point to oppose to YC’s “ready-to-think”!

      • Yannick Clément
        November 1, 2012 at 3:37 pm

        Quote from the bible given by Chris (who use it as a “proof” that Jesus body never acted like any normal corpse) : “But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay”.

        My friend, if you take everything’s writen in the bible like it is a real journalistic report, YOU GOT A MAJOR PROBLEM ! This quote you gave me simply mean that Jesus body didn’t stayed in the tomb until he became dust and bones ! That don’t mean for one second that before sunday morning, his DEAD body didn’t reacted like any other crucified and tortured body in history ! DON’T NEGLECT THE GREAT MYSTERY (AND REALITY) OF THE INCARNATION MY FRIEND !

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        November 1, 2012 at 3:54 pm

        YC, Forensically speaking, could you refer us to any serious research paper mentioning there were signs of decay on the TS?

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        November 1, 2012 at 3:55 pm

        Typo: sign of body decay

      • Yannick Clément
        November 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm

        Read Rogers work. There was most probably a first degree of putrefaction that was active inside the cloth, i.e. the release of amines by the corpse, which is TOTALLY NATURAL for a crucified and tortured body, and that most probably took an active part in the image formation. Of course, this is not an absolute proof, but this MAKE SENSE.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        November 2, 2012 at 7:01 am

        YC the exact quote, please.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        November 2, 2012 at 7:02 am

        Did Rogers ever thought of a corpse fumigation and the way decay can thus be suspended?

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        November 2, 2012 at 7:03 am

        Of course, I mean temporarily suspended.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        November 2, 2012 at 7:04 am

        Typo: Did he THINK…

  47. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 29, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    The scientific and archaeological quest for the whole plain truth, is a must here no matter which side the image formation process issue may fall on.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 30, 2012 at 8:27 am

      I don’t think anyone will disagree with you about that Max…

  48. Louis
    October 29, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    That’s right, Max. That is why John Paul II left the matter to science and the Shroud is not a part of the Church’s deposit of faith. If it was, and the relic is proved to be a forgery tomorrow, the entire Catholic Church all over the world, so to say, will become empty overnight.

  49. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 30, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    Actually my opinion as a professional archaeocryptologist is that it the laws of nature, men (re the Halakha) AND G.od, as far as a specific Judean burial ritual is concerned, could be the KEY to solve the image formation process mystery.

  50. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 30, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Typos: is that laws of nature, men and G.od

  51. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    I mean G.od as provider here of a PROVIDENTIAL (hence half ‘miraculous’) image of Yeshua left to Christians.

    • Yannick Clément
      October 30, 2012 at 4:49 pm

      For me, the role of God in the formation of the image is maybe related to the exact moment of the Resurrection that probably stopped the chemical reaction that was going on at the right time in order that a very high quality image could be formed on the cloth. But here, it is just my personal feeling and nothing else.

  52. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 30, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Supernature/magic is everywhere at work in…nature e.g. my own body cells DAYLY PRODUCE DNA 300,000KM for their rejuvenation and the very maintenance of my life. They are not that many those even among Christians who really cares about it…Who really cares about daily ‘ordinary’ miracles? Who is even aware of them?

  53. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 30, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    What if there is no direct link between the TS image and Yeshua’s alleged resurrection?

    Or to put it in other words, what if the latter’s body was not resurrected through the sindon at all but Yeshua had just taken it off his body leaving the blood clots intact as his body skin, blood clots and inner long burial cloth had dried out and and the cloth mechanically gotten unstuck through shrinking ON his stiff rigid body fumigation and drying ritual?

  54. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 30, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Reminder:

    The buriers had to do without the spicy oils on Yeshua’s burial and his innocent blood had been shed by the Sanhedrin. Since his shed innocent blood couldn’t be atoned by men, his corpse was all the more to be honoured and purified one way or another by those same buriers (among whom at least two Sanhedrin members) who did not take a hand in his being sentenced to death.

  55. Louis
    October 30, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    Response to Re#90 But then it is no longer according to the laws of nature.

  56. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 6:07 am

    In reply to Dave Belz et al (just in case they missed my C-comment):

    Since the corpse was left in the open for more than an hour, corpse colonizing flies had laid eggs in countless numbers on the body’s natural orifices (ears, eyes, nose, and genitals) or any open wounds (hence the use of a sudarium on the cross to wrapped up the TS man’s head)) In all likelihood, the corpse was purified by in-soaking the long inner burial sheet with alkaline waters (waters mixed with ashes and/or Jerusalem malky stone dust) to kill the eggs

    Reminder: The TS image was not really PROjected onto the cloth surface but sort of gradually RETROPROjected as the long inner burial cloth somehow got taut again (through shrinking and watery solution evaporation) and gradually unstuck front and back from the body skin in blood via a fumigation and drying out ritual.

  57. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 6:12 am

    Typo: Beltz

  58. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 6:45 am

    Here is a more readable version of my comments (previously made in snatches):

    No one can deny the scientific and archaeological quest for the whole plain truth, is a must here no matter which side the image formation process issue may fall on.

    My opinion as a professional archaeocryptologist is that the laws of nature, men and G.od could be the KEY to solve the image formation process mystery as far as a specific Judean burial ritual is concerned. I mean G.od as a provider here of a PROVIDENTIAL (hence half ‘miraculous’) image of Yeshua left to Christians.Supernature/True Life magic is everywhere at work in…nature e.g. my own body cells DAYLY PRODUCE DNA 300,000KM for their rejuvenation and the very maintenance of my life. They are not that many those even among Christians who really care about daily ‘ordinary’ miracles. Who is even aware of them?

    What now if there is no direct link between the TS image and Yeshua’s alleged resurrection? Or to put it in other words, what if the latter’s body was not resurrected through the sindon at all but Yeshua had just taken it off his body leaving the blood clots intact as his body skin, blood clots and inner long burial cloth had dried out and the cloth mechanically gotten unstuck through shrinking via his stiff rigid body fumigation drying/purifying ritual?

    1st reminder:
    The buriers had to do without the spicy perfumed oils on Yeshua’s burial and his innocent blood had been shed by the Sanhedrin and Roman soldiers. Since his shed innocent blood couldn’t be atoned by men, his corpse was all the more to be honoured and purified one way or another by those same buriers (among whom at least two Sanhedrin members) who did not take a hand in his being sentenced to death.

    Since the corpse was left in the open for more than an hour, corpse colonizing flies had laid eggs in countless numbers on the body’s natural orifices (ears, eyes, nose, and genitals) or any open wounds (hence the use of a sudarium on the cross to wrap up the TS man’s head). In all likelihood, the corpse was purified by in-soaking the long inner burial sheet with alkaline waters (waters mixed with ashes and/or Jerusalem malky stone dust) to kill the eggs

    2nd reminder: The TS image was not really PROjected onto the cloth surface but sort of gradually RETROPROjected as the long inner burial cloth somehow got taut again (through shrinking and watery solution evaporation) and gradually unstuck front and back from the body skin in blood via a fumigation and drying out ritual.

  59. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Typos:

    “flesh or corpse colonizing flies had deposited larvae in countless numbers around/on the body’s natural orifices (ears, eyes, nose, rectum and genitals) or any open wounds”

    “to kill larvae”

    In terms of blood pattern analysis, the blood on the Turin Sindon comes from exudates of (alkaline water?) remoistened/dampened relatively fresh blood clots, rivulets and drippings.

  60. Louis
    October 31, 2012 at 7:44 am

    Why “G.od”? Orthodox Jews write “G-od”, some Christians use YHVH because of Orthodox Jewish sensibilities. Also, why “Yeshua”, when it is Jesus in English and that is the language being used?

  61. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Louis, why do you care so much for the form and so little for the content?

  62. Louis
    October 31, 2012 at 8:17 am

    The content is of course more important but what is the justification for the form?

  63. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 8:23 am

    I don’t belong to any church, temple, synagogue or mosque and I write English as I write/can write English (note it is only one year, I started currently writing up comments in English on this very blog and to the two sole exceptions at Fascati in 2010 and Torun in 2012, I hadn’t practiced English for the past 25 years and not that very much even before).

  64. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Typo: Torun in 2011

  65. Louis
    October 31, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Max, your religious affiliation is not important at all, but the fact is that you are writing like an orthodox Jew, therefore the query.

  66. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 8:32 am

    In Hebrew the very name Yeshua DOES have a meannig: ‘[providential] Salvation’

  67. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Even when I speak Arabic I say Yeshua’ not ‘Issa…

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      October 31, 2012 at 5:18 pm

      One of my best friends’ name was ‘Issa (he untimely died in 2009). I used to called him ‘Issa while thinking Yeshua’…

  68. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 8:39 am

    …or in any other language I can get along in…

  69. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 9:07 am

    G.od: So many people are putting so many thoughts in G.od’s heart, so many words in his mouth and so many actions in his hand…

  70. Max Patrick Hamon
    October 31, 2012 at 9:11 am

    G.odd.

  71. November 1, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    I have seen many write the divine name G-d.

  72. Bippy123
    December 28, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Ok , I have heard some explanations of why there are no side images (because as some claim that spices could have interfered with image formation ) but that just doesn’t jive with me because of the anatomically perfect image that comes forth, and please don’t tell me that who put the spices on the body could have done it in such a perfect way for the image to come out as it did. Remember that they simply didn’t have the time to line up the spices so perfectly in order for the image to have come out with absolutely no side image whatsoever.
    That turkey don’t jive.

    As for the image coming from some natural method (
    Mail lard reaction amongst others) this is also completely blown away when you consider the smaller secondary image found when they took off the back stitching ).

    Think about this folks, didn’t Professor Jackson predict this second image in his cloth collapse theory.

    In my opinion these 2 natural explanations seem to be an opinion of some folks trying desperately to explain the the image formation in a naturalistically way , but as one naturalistic theory comes tumbling down, why not focus more on the unnatural theories.

    Science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, not just the pursuit of methodologically natural truth.

    • anoxie
      December 29, 2012 at 8:58 am

      Bippy123 :
      As for the image coming from some natural method (Maillard reaction amongst others) this is also completely blown away when you consider the smaller secondary image found when they took off the back stitching ).

      1/ is there a secondary image on the back side ?

      2/ does it blow away a natural explanation as presented by Rogers ?

      • Hugh Farey
        December 29, 2012 at 1:37 pm

        The secondary image on the back side. Well yes and no.

        Fanti and Maggiolo did a lot of deconvolution of some photographs of the back side, and managed to derive a faint correspondence of the hair, moustache and nose, an even fainter correspondence of the hands area, and nothing resolvable from anywhere else. Given that the ‘normal’ image is entirely superficial, they assumed that the ‘back’ image was also entirely superficial, and consequently that the fibres between the two images did not carry the image through. They also show that the image on the back is not due to the frontal image “showing through,” as it might if it were much darker. They do not describe the back image as ‘smaller'; the correspondence of the bloodstains (which appear clearly) is accurate. They do describe it as having some slight differences from the front (specifically the nose appears more symetrical).

        The secondary image is in keeping with Rogers’s hypothesis. If an entire sheet is washed in a weak solution (and/or suspension) and allowed to dry, the solute appears concentrated on the outer fibres of the sheet, and minimally in the middle. The tightness of the weave may also prevent penetration to the middle anyway. I have not confirmed Rogers’s vaporograph ideas myself (cadaverine and putrescine seem remarkably difficult to get hold of…), but IF the image on the shroud is due to emanescing gases reacting only with the solute layer, and IF the gases penetrated the cloth, then I would expect an image on both sides but not in the middle, and considerably stronger and better defined on the contact side.

        The reaction of (e.g.) putrescine with starch is a Maillard reaction, so IF Rogers’s ideas are at all valid, then the discovery of the ‘back’ image certainly does not blow them away.

        I agree with Bippy that nearly all the naturalistic theories are flawed, and that, so far, none have produced wholly convincing explanations. However, even if they all ‘tumbled down’ I fear they are truly all science will ever have to offer. There is no scientific paradigm for the investigation of ‘unnatural theories,’ however true they may be. I don’t know where you got the idea that Science was the pursuit of truth. Only non-Scientists think that! Science is the gradual refinement of models that describe or explain observed phenomena – methodologically natural if you like – and it does a pretty good job of it. For truth however, you have to go to Philosophy or Theology.

  73. Bippy123
    December 28, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    There are also a few other problems with the theory that the spices blocked a natural image formation on the sides of the shroud. There are even more problems then I previously suspected, as Stephen jones has brilliantly noted on his blog.

    The more I research into this the more unplausable this theory becomes.

    http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2012/01/john-p-jackson-unconventional.html?m=1

    A second problem concerns the directional relationship between points on the body to their corresponding image location on the Shroud. For example, a point on the side of the nose might conceivably be mapped perpendicular to the local body surface, or the local cloth surface where point is imaged, or vertically upwards from the nose point onto the Shroud. After careful study, I have concluded that body points are imaged essentially in the vertical upwards direction for the entire frontal image. This conclusion is further reinforced by noting that there are no side images about the frontal image and particularly in the space between the frontal and dorsal heads. If the image formation mechanism discolored the Shroud according to a principle that projected perpendicular to either the body or cloth surfaces, image shading should have occurred along the sides of the body and at the top of the head. On the other hand, a vertical mapping logically precludes shading in these regions where, in fact, no shading is observed.

    We cannot, however, argue that the cloth was held away from the sides of the body as an attempt to explain the lack of side images, or that intervening material, such as burial spices, blocked image formation. Lavoie has shown that the blood feature off the elbow in Figure 1 could only have occurred by direct contact of the cloth with the side of the arm. Thus, the Shroud must have been in intimate contact with the body at that location and, yet, no image discolorations were formed there.

    A similar argument follows from a consideration of the space between the frontal and dorsal heads. Geometrically, the Shroud must have been in intimate contact with the top of the head, as we have shown by enfolding a human body in a cloth model of the Shroud. Again, no image discolorations can be seen there. A hypothetical chin band may explain part of the void, but it is likely not to have covered the entire head and at the same time tuck neatly under the jaw.

  74. Ron
    December 29, 2012 at 5:56 am

    Very well informed comments Bippy, and I agree with ‘most’ all you have stated. I particularly like your comment; “Science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, not just the pursuit of methodologically natural truth.” …Unfortunately the pursuit of truth has been lost to many in todays’ scientific world and to some right here on this blog.

    R

  75. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 29, 2012 at 8:51 am

    Bippy123, what is/are your field(s) of expertise to be so categorical/dogmatic? Are you an expert in Second Temple period burial customs and practices?

  76. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 29, 2012 at 8:59 am

    BTW, Lavoie is neither a forensic medical examiner nor a blood pattern analyst.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      December 29, 2012 at 9:01 am

      …or a paleaopathologist….

  77. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 29, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Typo: bloodstain pattern analyst

  78. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 29, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Bippy123 wrote: “Think about this folks, didn’t Professor Jackson predict this second image in his cloth collapse theory.” Actually, Jackson’s prediction just failed. Can Bippy123 show me for instance any chest, leg or foot images on the Sindon backside?

  79. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 29, 2012 at 9:48 am

    On October 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm | #39 I already wrote:
    ‘The (true) fact is the body image is NOT visible on the back side of the shroud. Just ‘form imprints” of part of face and maybe hands i.e. the parts that most probably had been subjected to the greatest pressure in terms of a stiff rigid body having been tightly wrapped up within a long burial cloth).

  80. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 29, 2012 at 10:43 am

    Could Bippy123 account for a much fainter image of only the face and possibly of the hands being recorded on the back side of the Shroud? Was is really what Jackson had predicted? Is really Bippy123’s comment, a “very well informed comment”? I very much doubt so.

  81. Louis
    December 29, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Professor Giulio Fanti’s attempts to verify what he and Professor Maggiolo stated in their paper-reviewed paper have been thwarted by the Turin Archdiocese’s refusal to make the hundreds of microphotographs in their possession available for study. What we have, instead, is the Vatican Insider publishing claims by another scientist refuting Prof. Fanti without publishing any paper, let alone a peer-reviewed one.

  82. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 29, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    The corona discharge theory is biased (it all started with the coin-on-eye issue). Now most likely, the partial coin decals are blood decals (I do agree with Barberis).

  83. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 29, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    …and Moroni and Rodante.

  84. Louis
    December 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    What about Oswald Scheurmann? Prof. Fanti’s contention is not at all based on the coins-over-the-eyes theory, far from it.

  85. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 30, 2012 at 6:45 am

    It ALL started with Alan Whanger asking Scheurmann to make experiments from a dilepton littuus (see the Whangers’ book). Fanti just followed up Scheurmann’s experiments. The initial aim was to check if a metalic object can be recorded on a linen fabric through a coronal discharge.

  86. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 30, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Typos: metallic object / corona discharge

  87. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 30, 2012 at 6:57 am

    The archmiraculist agenda just biased the whole approach.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      December 30, 2012 at 7:00 am

      Typo: archmiraculistic agenda (sorry for all the typos, I am at work)

  88. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 30, 2012 at 7:13 am

    Shall I endlessly repeat, all the work has not been done in terms of ritualistic approach as far as the Sindon image formation process is concerned.

  89. Max Patrick Hamon
    December 30, 2012 at 7:18 am

    How long will archmiraculists keep ignoring Augustine of hippo’s very sound and accurate exegesis of the empty tomb?

  90. Louis
    December 30, 2012 at 11:25 am

    Sorry, Professor Fanti’s peer-reviewed paper has nothing to do with coins and he has not had an opportunity to verify what he wrote.

  91. ArtScience
    December 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Hugh Farey :
    The secondary image on the back side. Well yes and no.
    Fanti and Maggiolo did a lot of deconvolution of some photographs of the back side, and managed to derive a faint correspondence of the hair, moustache and nose, an even fainter correspondence of the hands area, and nothing resolvable from anywhere else. Given that the ‘normal’ image is entirely superficial, they assumed that the ‘back’ image was also entirely superficial, and consequently that the fibres between the two images did not carry the image through. They also show that the image on the back is not due to the frontal image “showing through,” as it might if it were much darker. They do not describe the back image as ‘smaller’; the correspondence of the bloodstains (which appear clearly) is accurate. They do describe it as having some slight differences from the front (specifically the nose appears more symetrical).

    Hi Hugh, I notice that you are that relatively rare breed of being a physicist interested in investigating the shroud (as am I but without much time to spare) and you seem to know about Fanti’s back image. I was intrigued by this back image as my favoured theory (scorching) didnt easily fit with this nor with the claim that the blood stains seem to have come first. How certain are the claims that this back image has no intermediate image in the fibre strands in between and likewise for the blood stain having no body image beneath them.
    Also I noticed a little while back you had some experiments questioning the validity of the fluorescence claims though I wasnt sure what the conclusions were. I’d be grateful for a summary if you have the time. Thanks

  92. Hugh Farey
    December 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Hi ArtScience, good of you to join in! I have been a member of the British Shroud of Turin Society for donkey’s years, but began my present series of experiments as a result of renewed enthusiasm following the recent National Meeting of the BSTS. The two most active blogs seemed to be shroudstory (this one) and shroudofturinwithoutallthehype, so I began to read them, and start from there.

    I never take anybody’s word for granted if I can avoid it, so whenever possible I like to refer to original authors. I now have a copy of Pellicori and Miller’s paper on ultra-violet fluorescence, for example, and also Fanti and Maggiolo’s discussion on the image on the ‘back’ of the shroud. Perhaps curiously, the former’s photos are not as good as the one in Rogers’s “Chemist’s Perspective” and the latter do not actually include a straight photo of the ‘back’ side, which I had to Google for.

    Anyway, equipped with a school laboratory (I should say I live and work at a residential school, with continued access to ‘my’ lab in the holidays) I set to work, starting with the long-term axiom: “The image on the shroud cannot be a scorch because scorches fluoresce but the shroud image does not.” With a bas relief, a UV lamp and a sheet of linen, it was easy to discover that although fluorescence is an invariable associate of scorching, it appears as a surrounding ‘aura’ to a scorch, while the discoloured fibres themselves do not fluoresce. (unlike cotton, as I discovered much later, where the brown image itself glows brighter than the background under UV light). Further experiments showed that it was extremely difficult to prevent a scorch from travelling through the cloth and producing a clear image on the ‘back’ side, except by gently brushing the surface with a very hot spatula. However on obtaining some twill-woven cotton (I couldn’t obtain twill linen), it is very noticeable that the ‘back’ image was then much weaker than the front, compared to the 1/1 weave linen I was using. Returning to UV, it then became apparent that although strictly speaking the visible image does not fluoresce, the whole image area fluoresces quite brightly, so that any extra fluorescence produced by scorching could be difficult to detect. Rather to my surprise,I find that this background fluorescence can be obtained from myrhh (which is fluorescent in its own right, or simply heating the cloth to a little over the boiling point of water (say 150C or so).

    As to blood stains. Observations of photographs of threads are pretty inconclusive, I think. It appears that a solvent called diimide removes bloodstains to such an extent that the fibres beneath go white (i.e. no image). However it is not clear whether the same solvent applied to image fibres without blood, or indeed non-image fibres which are ‘yellowed with age’ has the same result. It may be that diimide removes everything, including any image, in which case the idea that there is no image under the blood stains is distinctly not-proven.

    You have noticed, I think, my capitalising of the word IF in my posting above. I have carried out a number of experiments with gravy browning, which in my bottle consists almost entirely of ‘ammonia caramel’ in water. The chemical is reasonably equivalent to the ‘impurity layer’ postulated for the shroud, with the advantage of being easily visible. Allowed to dry and teased apart, it is apparent that the colour appears principally on the outer surfaces of a cloth and, depending on how well it is soaked or rubbed in, rather less so within the thickness of a thread, or in places where two threads overlap. How much of this is due to evaporation concentration, and how much due to a failure to penetrate in the first place is difficult to say. Either way, Colin Berry’s latest post on shroudofturinwithoutallthehype reminds us that image formation had at least some effect on the structure of the fibres beneath it, which are described as altogether more fragile than non-image fibres.

    I think I’ve gone on long enough for the general readers of this blog! If you want to contact me for more information my address is hughfarey (at) hotmail (dot) com. My latest experiment is using minced beef, which I have left to decay in a boiler-house with a starch-washed sheet over it, it the hope of catching some putrescine!

    • anoxie
      December 31, 2012 at 6:36 am

      “How much of this is due to evaporation concentration, and how much due to a failure to penetrate in the first place is difficult to say. Either way, Colin Berry’s latest post on shroudofturinwithoutallthehype reminds us that image formation had at least some effect on the structure of the fibres beneath it, which are described as altogether more fragile than non-image fibres.”

      Concentration does not occur only on a thin layer. Think of a longitudinal section of a flax fiber, then focus on dislocations.

      Flax fibers break statistically on dislocations.

  93. ArtScience
    December 31, 2012 at 7:12 am

    Thanks for that, Hugh. You seem to be having fun with your experiments! … I have images of the HeadMaster of your school returning after the Christmas break to find you’ve turned his boiler-house and science labs into a scene from Silence of the Lambs as you search for putrescine (is that a substance/chemical for real?)
    Also donkey’s years ago, I first heard of the Shroud via the Dean of my college who so happened to be Rev John Robinson, but I didnt really follow it until last Christmas and wondered why the uncertainty about it hadn’t been resolved one way or other over the intervening years. One of my interests over the years has been artistic techniques and trying to unravel how various artists created their astonishing works. So I started to look at the Shroud from that perspective whilst taking in the information that seemed to indicate an earlier than 1300 date (much of it mildly persuasive). Without carrying out experiments its hard to know for sure but it did seem to look like a mild scorch. To get the projective image it had to be either contact with a flattened plate or something like Roger’s theory (I’m not sure about Fanti’s discharge theory nor the seismic discharge theories either as neither seemed to be have appropriate directionality). My problem with Roger’s theory is 1)resolution 2)turbulence and 3)being gravity dependent it only seemed to work for the upper body image, as I can’t see how the warm gases could move downwards. Its great that you are at least experimenting with some aspects of possible image formation mechanisms.

    So am I to take it from your experiments that it might be possible to scorch and the fluorescence might be masked or will it always show? Thanks

    • anoxie
      December 31, 2012 at 7:23 am

      1/ further tests are needed, but reactants are still unknown.
      2/ no convection (ambient temperature gas, cold skin).
      3/ gravity is not a first order parameter, mean free path is.

      Have look to his theory as presented in the upright corner of this blog.

  94. ArtScience
    December 31, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Thanks for that reference Anoxie as I’ve only really skimmed through Roger’s theory. I’ll have to read it in detail….but by mean free path is he saying the image forming gases diffuse randomly, and the darkness of the image due to any particular path is inversely proportional to distance gone (or some such like mechanism)?

  95. anoxie
    December 31, 2012 at 8:22 am

    Yes, basically the distant mechanism is gas diffusion.

    But the darkness of the image depends on many parameters, cloth-body configuration, porosity of the cloth, products of the reaction ( what color is your beer ?), kinetics (with the modern theory of cracking in physics)… It is really a complex issue.

  96. Hugh Farey
    December 31, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Anoxie. At 25X it is easy to see individual threads are most coloured on their exposed surfaces. At 250X and greater, it is much more difficult to identify the coloration of individual fibres, but I’m working on it! The trouble is that the thicker I make my caramel solution, the less it travels, but the thinner it is, the less visible at high magnifications.

    ArtScience. After cooking a piece of linen for 20 minutes or so at 150C, or after smearing it with myrhh oil (or both, I guess), it glows quite cheerfully under UV light. In the first case it appears a faint yellow-brown under visible light (‘yellowed with age’), and in the second it has an oily translucency. Subsequent scorching at low temperatures (250C say) actually decreases the overall fluorescence. This is because the brown scorch marks do not fluoresce, so the more there are of them, the less area of fluorescent cloth is left. I do not know if it it makes a difference whether the ‘overall’ fluorescence is applied before or after the ‘image’ fluorescence.

    And yes; putrescine and cadaverine are amines produced by decomposing flesh. I was trying to use ammonia, but it is much too volatile. These two are heavier than air, and, I hope, more easily blocked by cloth

    • anoxie
      December 31, 2012 at 9:43 am

      You know putrescine and cadaverine have been ruled out. Thibault is thinking of other heavy amines.

      Trying ammonia, you should try to produce it slowly. Glutamine is a good candidate to produce ammonia at ambient temperature.

      Rogers used EDTA for mimicking heavy amines (resolution tests).

      Amines should not be blocked by cloth, it blurs the image (it may happen if production is too quick), they should react when they hit the cloth/diffuse through it.

  97. Hugh Farey
    December 31, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Thibault Heimberger’s excellent paper ‘The Image on the Turin Shroud – Analysis of the Maillard Reaction Hypothesis – Part 1′ does suggest that there wasn’t time for those particular amines to be produced, but as I don’t have access to any other heavier-than-air amines I think they are worth a try. Incidentally, was there a Part 2 to his analysis? I can’t find it on the internet. I may return to ammonia experiments, but as I don’t have a fume cupboard, I have to do them outside, and it’s been too rainy for much fun to had there recently!

    • anoxie
      December 31, 2012 at 12:30 pm

      He explained he could not finish part 2 and asked a physicist for help.

      But part 1, the origin of reactive amines, is to be continued since it doesn’t give potential reactants.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 606 other followers

%d bloggers like this: