Yesterday, publisher Edizioni Segno launched LA SINDONE: primo secolo dopo Cristo! (Turin Shroud: First Century A.D.!) by Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi.
- Here is a link to the publisher’s page on the book. (Use Bing or Google Translation)
- Here is a link to a press release in the form of an interview with Giulio Fanti
- BEST: The The Eponymous Flower blog discusses this book’s launch with a short introduction and a well done translation of an interview with Giulio by Vatican Insider
When I see a scientist publishing his result in a popular book, this makes me sick… Message to Thibault: if you don’t like my opinion versus your friend Fanti, don’t read me.
If Prof. Fanti indicated the following situation :
>Today, we have thus five different dating methods:
the radiocarbon method, my three and those of Rogers.
Then I want to add :
we have SEVEN different dating methods !
In other words, after the previous FIVE (indicated by Eng. Giulio Fanti)
I want to add two ways :
1) SPMs analyses (= AFM, CFM and SNOM controls) and
2) AFM bending tests (three point bending test, etc.)
Unfortunately I had no works (or … popular books)
or true financial helps (see, for example : the interesting project
by Fanti received 54 000 euros ! …)
on these ways (already indicated on this blog !) …
AFM allows 3D nanotopography and morphology profiling …
— — —
Often, in the past, we read some claim “word plant cell walls”, etc.
Well. I have found the following study :
“Subsurface Image Analysis of Plant Cell Wall
with Atomic Force Microscopy”
Authors : Maghsoudy-Louyeh, Sahar; Kim, Jeong; Kropf, Matthew; Tittmann, Bernhard
Source : Journal of Advanced Microscopy Research,
Volume 8, Number 2,
June 2013 , pp. 100-104(5)
Publisher: American Scientific Publishers
Fulltext article, price: $113.00 plus tax
Link :
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asp/jamr/2013/00000008/00000002/art00003?token=004a1c3acbe36809ad82275c277b42572b674c7d283473446e7b46592f3f3b2c45a442af0d
—
Abstract:
>The hypothesis of this paper is that
atomic force microscopy (AFM) is not just limited
to imaging topography, but, with appropriate
image processing, it can give important and
quantitative subsurface information. The technical
approach was to use high-resolution imaging of
cellulosic structures with AFM, then use image
processing with specially developed software.
>The example chosen here was a hydrated plant cell wall.
[My comment : … but this “hydrated plant cell wall” is not
immediately useful in our case. But, using the AFM, we can try to see
something about the differences about waterstains and other areas !]
>The novelty of this work was that with
the new software, it was possible to image
and analyze four layers of plant cell wall laminates
below that of the surface layer. In particular, the
structure of primary celery (Apium graveolens L.)
epidermis cell walls was characterized at
the nano-scale using AFM in the Peak Force Tapping Mode.
>The plant cell wall micro-fibrils were found to be
well separated with spacings of up to almost 50 nm
and it was possible to identify and evaluate five layers
in terms of fiber thickness, angular orientation and spacing.
>We concluded that the micro-fibril structure is
weakly anisotropic and shows evidence of both horizontal
and vertical bundling of micro-fibrils. The results are significant
in that they provide information about cell wall characteristics
several layers below the surface.
— —-
I hope in your comments, but I am a bit pessimist … because
you (often) disregarded the AFM analyses (perhaps as less
important question …).
— —
In any case I believe we have to show how to built
the adequate “AFM-spectacle” on linen fibrils
(there are several ways to explore = Corona Discharge,
Plasma treatments, VUV irradiations, Maillard reaction, etc.)
before to work with linen fibrils coming from the Holy Shroud !
Do you like AFM controls ?
If you check the Web there are several works obtained
using AFM = atomic force microscopes …
Surfing the Web
I have found the following study :
Nanoscale compositional mapping with gentle forces
by
Ricardo García, Robert Magerle & Ruben Perez
Publisher : Nature Publishing Group
Date : Jun 1, 2007
— —
Abstract
>Microscopists have always pursued the development of an instrument that combines topography and materials properties analyses at the highest resolution. The measurement of the tiny amount of energy dissipated by a vibrating tip in the proximity of the sample surface has provided atomic force microscopes with a robust and versatile method to determine the morphology and the compositional variations of surfaces in their natural environment. Applications in biology, polymer science and microelectronics illustrate the potential of phase-imaging force microscopy for nanoscale analysis.
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n6/full/nmat1925.html
Here another (… “difficult and far from the linen
fibrils of the Shroud” !) example, the paper :
Study of the sensitivity and resonant frequency
of the flexural modes of an atomic force microscopy
microcantilever modeled by strain gradient elasticity theory
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science
0954406213507918,
first published on October 10, 2013
Link :
http://pic.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/09/0954406213507918.full.pdf
Abstract
>In this study, the resonant frequency and sensitivity
of an atomic force microscopy microcantilever are
analyzed utilizing the strain gradient theory, and then
the governing equation and boundary conditions are
derived by a combination of the basic equations of
the modified strain gradient theory and the Hamilton principle.
>Afterward, the resonant frequency and sensitivity of the
proposed atomic force microscopy microcantilever are
obtained numerically. The results of the current model are
compared to those evaluated by both modified couple stress
and classic beam theories. Results show that utilizing
the strain gradient theory in the analysis
of atomic force microscopy microcantilever dynamic behavior
is necessary especially when the contact stiffness is high
and the thickness of the microcantilever approaches
the internal material length scale parameter.
Now I ask :
Do you remember the name “Carpinteri” ?
He is an italian prof. skilled in Structural Mechanics and
(if you want to show the right calculations !) … you have
to study Structural Mechanics …
There is another example of what we can found
(surfing the Web) :
http://hdl.handle.net/10397/2104
Title: Characterization of linen modified by low temperature plasma and enzymatic hydrolysis
Authors: Wong, Ka-kee
Hong Kong Polytechnic University — Dissertations
Issue Date: 1999
Editor: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Abstract (beginning) :
>This thesis is concerned with a study on the effects of low temperature plasma pretreatment and enzyme treatment as well as their synergy in order to modify the properties of linen. … …
and here another
short excerpt from the Abstract :
>… With the image processing techniques and
Atomic Force Microscopy, a comprehensive understanding
of the surface morphology of low temperature plasma treated
flax fibers was achieved. The wetting properties of low
temperature plasma treated linen were studied by a
downward wicking experiment. Wicking properties of linen
were greatly improved by the application of
low temperature plasma treatment. …
— —
here another study :
Wicking Properties of Linen Treated with Low Temperature Plasma
Link :
http://trj.sagepub.com/content/71/1/49.abstract
— —
Abstract
The wetting and wicking behavior of linen treated
with low-temperature oxygen and argon plasma is presented.
Wetting and wicking abilities of plasma treated linen
are investigated using contact angles and upward and
downward water wicking methods. The downward wicking method
is more suitable for distinguishing the effects of
plasma treatment under various conditions.
— —
So … there is not the study with “air plasma”…
— —
In any case,
I want to ask :
What is your opinion ?
Dan, good idea posting the link. Shroudstory is the only forum we Shroudies have and no one is bound to agree or disagree with anything that is posted.
Yannick: I’m sure your comments are welcome by everyone as long as you don’t hit below the belly with personal attacks It is not a question of who is who’s friend, we should be discussing thing in a mature way, with no four-letter words and no personal attacks.
Does anyone know if Giulio Fanti’s new book adds anything to his previous one? That was mostly concerned with mechanical ways of dating textile fibres, as, I believe, does this one.
Fanti has a new chapter about Byzantine coins, 70 pages (pp. 131-200) with many photos of coins. He does a quantitative statistical analysis of the details and concludes that there is an almost absolute certainty that the coins had been copied from the Shroud, with odds of 1 against something of the order of 10^-15. Needless to say, I am not convinced…
Wait and see.
More difficult than it sounds, as it is most unlikely to be published in English, and although I read the first one in Italian, I would be reluctant to repeat the experience.
That is understandable and no one will blame you for the reluctance to read the second book. But, wait and see, as someone in the field of science you will soon be able to judge if there has been some progress.
Hugh, I think you can probably get a taste of it by checking Dan’s links, the Press Release and “Eponymous Flower” (Vatican Insider). Fanti appears to get extensive exposure in Italy, but few can be found to agree with him elsewhere . What irritates me is his insistence on his own explanation, as if he could not possibly be wrong, and his refusal to admit any other theory except his own. “Explosion of energy” Bah! I am not aware of any other scientist who has even conceded that Fanti might be right. Yet Giulio asserts it as if it’s the only possible explanation. He never mentions Maillard reaction, or other possible naturalistic explanations. He doesn’t know, he merely asserts his own view, as if he could not possibly be wrong, and as if there’s no other explanation possible. I’ll admit there’s probable value in his experiments in mechanical testing of fibres as a measure of age.
Hi Dave, I would think if Maillard reaction was still a valid image formation mechanism it would’ve been replicated by now. If we know the ingredients Why can’t we come up with the end result?
“Hi Dave, I would think if Maillard reaction was still a valid image formation mechanism it would’ve been replicated by now.”
Read this comment of mine please: http://shroudstory.com/2014/02/26/giulio-fantis-book-launched/#comment-83118
You’ll understand why there is still no image like the one on the Shroud that have been replicate with the help of a Maillard reaction. The reason is very simple: beside Rogers preliminary tests (which were good enough for him to keep considering his Maillard hypothesis as potentially valid), no one has ever done further testing to confirm or not the vailidity of such hypothesis (beside the poor attempt made by a British TV program with the help of a dead pig, which I don’t even count as a valid and professional effort, even though they were able to reproduce some color on the surface of the linen sample they used that seem to be pretty close to the Shroud image color if we believe Barrie Schwortz’s opinion).
This is funny, not even Rogers was convinced about Maillard. Professsor Giulio Fanti’s views are supported in some way or the other by some other Shroud scientists. Unfortunately Fanti, like these other scientists, has not been given due attention by Turin.
To me the image resolution is really why I don’t think it’s a chemical reaction from secretions, or vapours. The image has photographic qualities, it had to be produced by something electromagnetic in nature.
Mike M: ” I would think if Maillard reaction was still a valid image formation mechanism it would’ve been replicated by now. If we know the ingredients Why can’t we come up with the end result?”
It hasn’t been pursued. Where are the experiments with the little animals? None to date, only a snake (De Liso).
“… it had to be produced by something electromagnetic in nature.” All nature is ultimately electromagnetic. Read up your quantum mechanics. However if it’s wave-form, then it has to be superficial =< 200nm, You wouldn't want to destroy the cloth with your lightning bolts!
Dave, doesn’t that tell you something though, the fact that it hasn’t been tested? Rogers have suggested this long time ago. Also, According to ENEA’s experiment, exposure time is the reason why a flash of Eximer laser wouldn’t destroy the cloth. They were able to replicate the hue of colour and depth ( superficiality) of the shroud image.
The ‘pig’ experiment forced on Barrie was I think essentially Maillard, and he was the only one in the TV program who obtained anything like a persuasive result. Rogers thought it was probably Maillard, but also required something else as well. I’m not persuaded that it’s eximer laser at all, as it requires an external source, which immediately excludes naturalistic, unless you fall back on an earthquake effect or something similar, a stray electric or magnetic field. Find me a scientist outside of Piedmont who thinks there’s something of value in Fanti’s laser theory, and I’d be prepared to listen. What I really object to, is Fanti presenting his theory as the only story in town as if it’s the only one with legs. He ignores any other possible explanation and presents it as if it’s proven fact, when it patently is not!
Dave, I have seen the pig experiment. It did produce a colour change in the cloth but not an image. As I mentioned earlier, the resolution of the image is why it’s probably light or a different wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum. You exclude Excimer because its not naturalistic, well may be its not!
The morning of the resurrection, Jesus said to Mary, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” In similar fashion, one might ask, “Why do you look for a naturalistic explanation when clearly the event in question is beyond anything natural?” The only “natural” explanation would involve the bloodstains being in contact with a corpse. There is no such explanation for the image. The only natural explanation for the image would be that it is the result of some medieval artistic process. If this shroud did indeed wrap the body of Jesus, it is pointless to invoke ball lightning, or neutron radiation from an earthquake or anything else, because none of these theories deal with the fact that the body disappeared. Any theory that assumes this cloth belonged to Jesus must account for the missing body.
What if it doesn’t belong to “Jesus”?
http://apolloniustyaneus.blogspot.gr/2013/12/turin-shroud-proof-or-doom-for.html
Russ, I agree with that comparison. I think a lot of people are still “seeking the living among the dead”.
Why do you look for a naturalistic explanation when clearly the event in question is beyond anything natural?”
BECAUSE THE IMAGE IS THAT OF A DEAD CHRIST AND THAT, BECAUSE OF THE INCARNATION OF GOD IN OUR HUMAN FLESH, WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT, BEFORE RESURRECTING, HIS HUMAN BODY WAS A DEAD CORPSE…
Quote: “Any theory that assumes this cloth belonged to Jesus must account for the missing body.”
Reply: It is truly possible to build a rational and natural hypothesis of image formation that include the idea of a disappearance of the body prior to the apparition of the first liquid of putrefaction. I don’t see any problem in that sense. In fact, I don’t see any contradiction between an image formed naturally that came from the dead corpse of Christ and the disappearance of his dead body later on at the time of his resurrection. I don’t know why you cannot at least leave the door open for such a possibility Russ…
Yannick,
I am not sure I understand your response here, but let me say that obviously some elements of the shroud comport with a natural explanation (e.g. blood, age of the cloth material). Furthermore, there may be some natural explanations for the image in terms of explaining the actual physical phenomena of it. But if the image reflects that of an actual corpse, the question seems to be whether the image could have been caused by a corpse which was later removed by natural causes (e.g. the corpse taken out of the shroud by other people) or if it was caused by a uniquely unrepeatable, un-testable and thus un-falsifiable method beyond the pale of any scientific explanation. IOW, if the image was caused by a supernatural occurrence, then it is not possible for scientific methods to determine that. It may be able to determine some of the phenomena of the image itself but not what materially caused it if it was not the result of a natural occurrence. Since science can only account for natural explanations and not supernatural ones, there is a limit to scientific inquiry if in fact the image was caused supernaturally. That then takes us to a philosophical discussion about miracles. Unfortunately, many scientists are methodological naturalists and rule out of hand any supernatural explanations for certain types of phenomena that may occur.
Quote: “But if the image reflects that of an actual corpse, the question seems to be whether the image could have been caused by a corpse which was later removed by natural causes (e.g. the corpse taken out of the shroud by other people) or if it was caused by a uniquely unrepeatable, un-testable and thus un-falsifiable method beyond the pale of any scientific explanation.”
Comment: The idea of a natural formation of the image doesn’t exclude necessarily the supernatural disappearance of the body (Resurrection) that could have happened after some low mount of energy (still undetermined) was released by the dead body of Jesus. In other words, even if the Shroud is really the one of Jesus and if Jesus is really resurrected, these 2 facts should not lead anyone to assume that the image must automatically have been directly caused by this supernatural event. This is the kind of direct link that we must avoid to do if we want to stay honest and scientifically sound. But having said that, I also want to say that it is possible to think that the disappearance (maybe supernatural) of the body from Inside the Shroud before the apparition of the first liquid of putrefaction have been an important factor for the image formation, in the sense that it prevent the complete destruction of the image by those liquids and it maybe prevent a total blur of the image by stopping the release of a low amount of energy “at the right time”. In other words, maybe if the corpse would have stayed in contact with the Shroud for 12 or 24 more hours than it really did, maybe the resulting image would not have been visible at all or would have been completely saturated with no contrast. In my mind, this is the kind of true possibility that can allow us to build a bridge between a natural formation of the image and the reality of Christ’s Resurrection.
Russ, I have a great deal of respect for your work in presenting the Shroud to your audiences.
We do not know that the image was a by-product of the Resurrection or not. I’m certainly prepared to concede that the image may have been caused by some supernatural agency. However, I’m also prepared to allow that it may equally have been some naturalistic cause as yet unknown. To say that it must have been supernatural because we don’t yet know what caused it, is to employ a weak argument from our position of ignorance. Arguments against it being supernatural are: the image is of a very dead corpse, and nobody’s idea of a glorified risen Christ; minor imperfections in the image argue against it being a miracle, as we would expect a high degree of perfection which is absent in the actual image, as there are minor distortions.
There is a gulf of ignorance concerning the action of corpses on 1st century linen wrappings within 40 hours of death, which no-one has taken the time or trouble yet to explore. Instead they are fiddling with gadgetry such as eximer lasers, maybe because it’s the latest thing, instead of doing some hard experimental work to check out other options. De Liso in Piedmont spent some 12 years checking out seismic action on forming Shroud-like images, and produced the only persuasive imagery I’ve ever seen. But a lot more work ought to be done to check out other options. I’ve mentioned elsewhere a suggestion concerning a programme of experiments involving time-expired lab animals, but everyone got squeamish about it, although they’re probably all meat-eaters! Where do they think the meat comes from, soy-beans?
Dave why is the tortured image problematic.
If the body dematerialized in its tortured state then it is logical that the image that was left was a last snaphot of Christ’s mortal body…he was then raised (ie materialized) in his glorious risen body
Matthias: The general rule is that before admitting a miracle, scientific explanations should first be explored and exhausted. The assessment of miracles is most frequently carried out today in relation to the causes of saints by a curial Congregation, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Causes_of_Saints for more information.
A scientific explanation for the cause of the Shroud image is a long way from being fully explored. In 2003 Ray Rogers treated Edgerton linen, similar to that described by Pliny the Elder, with dextrin and saponaria, and allowed it to evaporate; He then exposed it to ammonia vapour for 10 minutes. After 24 hours a light colour was observed, which was superficial and did not penetrate the medulla. As far as I know, little has been done to carry these experiments forward, or to corroborate them. Your claims of logic are in my view not logic at all, but are wishful thinking. Having said that, I would still be prepared to admit the possibility of a supernatural agency, but only after the proper science has been proven fruitless, which I personally think, may be not at all likely! De Liso has produced images. This kind of work needs to be explored more fully.
It may be that the image is a “secondary miracle” in that Providence ensured that the specific environmental factors were present to ensure the image might be produced by natural means.
Well that’s a bit dismissive! Please elaborate on what is illogical about my idea. Note: only an idea….
I am second guessing but maybe yoh consider it illogical if you dogmatically believe that Christ’s body was transformed and was resurrected through the shroud. ..therefore you would say the image of the risen body should be seen.
What I am proposing – just as an idea with no substantial confidence – is that Christ’s body dematerialised in the tomb, and somehow the act if dematerialisation left the image of the dead and mortal human Christ.He then materialised in his risen spiritual form
Matthias, I don’t think he needed to dematerialize and materialize again. I believe the switch was from a dead body to a glorified body. That glorified body could go through matter (linen cloth), as seen when Jesus entered the room when all the doors were locked. Again this is beyond the realm of science and I don’t claim this is science. What science can tell us about the shroud is what it’s not. As Barrie Schwortz said multiple times ” we can tell you what it’s not but we can’t tell you what it is”
What is illogical about “If the body dematerialized in its tortured state then it is logical that the image that was left was a last snaphot of Christ’s mortal body,” is that the conclusion is not predicated by the assumption. It is not logical to suppose that a dematerialized body of any kind left any kind of image any more than not leaving an image at all. It may have done, but to claim that the statement above is logical is simply wrong.
ok if we want to be pedantic about semantics, how about:
“If the body dematerialized in its tortured state then it is possible that an image might have been made by some unknown process through the act of dematerialization as a snapshot of Christ’s mortal body”
Howz that?
Yes. Absolutely correct. However the distinction is not a minor pedantry. It is indeed possible that a tortured body image was a consequence of the resurrection, but it is not logical to assume it. It could equally well have been any other kind of image.
Naturalistic explanations are based on our current knowedge and laws of science that exist in 2014, which has been formulated and refined over the past few thousand years or so. Backtrack just a few hundred years from the present and many things we now take for granted would seem like witchcraft to the past population,no natural explanation.
In my opinion, as both a scientist & Christian, I believe that when we consider the essence of an omnipotent God, we are seeing only a single pixel or a nanopixel of the full portrait. We experience this earth from birth to death, for a very finite time; consider this relative to God who has always been. It is beyond apples & oranges. It is even beyond a gnat coughing and a nuclear explosion. What does one compare God to? We are made in His image, but we are no means even approaching an equivalence. I don’t think we have the full grasp of all things knowlegeable in 2014, of all scientific priniciples that may operate. We’re just reaching our hand inside of a black box, trying to understand what we encounter. And then we make progress and start to think that we’ve got everything covered, there’s not much left we don’t know or can’t do.
I believe there is a scientific explanation for how a Resuurected Jesus could pass into a closed room. We just don’t know it yet. Of course it seems crazy. So did voices from the sky “cell phones”, or spacecraft, H-bombs, genetic engineering, etc once upon a time.-take your pick.
I would be very, very disappointed if the glass were almost full regarding our knowledge of how everything works. This is it?
Of course, naturalistic explanations should be furtter expolored. This is what we know the most about, how to approach, what to possibly expect. Why wouldn’t somebody do this? But I myself am not willing to rule out alternative possibilites-it’s God after all-He doesn’t have to be handcuffed by natural laws, after all, He wrote the manual-and He’s the only one who knows what page we’re really on, here in 2014.
Confirmation, extension of data is what is most needed. The Georgia Sattelites said it best, “Little less talk and a lot more action”
That being said, I am taking my leave on the blog. Peace.
“Of course, naturalistic explanations should be furtter expolored.”
Comment: I am very glad to hear this… Note: Those potential naturalistic explanations concerning the image are very far from having been fully explored. The one who made the most lab tests about that was Rogers and his tests were still only preliminary. Nevertheless, by exposing amoniac gas to a linen sample made the old-fashion way (i.e. which was showing a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities on-top of it), he was able to reproduce the same sort of faint yellow coloration (both macro and microscopically) that he saw on the Shroud. This was well enough for him to keep searching in that direction until the end of his life… This speaks very loud to me.
“he saw and believed”
What did he see : a ray of light ? miracles ? a resurrected Jesus ? The empty Shroud.
Anyone could fabricate various explanations for what he had seen, skeptics will have countless theories. But a mix a faith and logical deduction leads to the right track.
Perhaps he went to the tomb, saw the way the burial cloth lay and believed because it seemed to him that the body had not been unwrapped.
And maybe “the empty shroud folded in a separate part of the tomb”… This is a possibility since “sudara” means, in Aramaic (the spoken language of John) the same thing than “sudario” in Latin…
Many of us agree that the man on the Shroud is indeed Jesus and many of us believe that miracles are associated with him. I think therefore, that is entirely logical to make the assumption that the image is miraculous, and we shouldn’t be afraid or embarrassed to say so. As for exhausting naturalistic explanations, I think that in the main they have been. The chances of vapours arranging themselves to form a virtually non distorted image is highly improbable, and this method should be discounted. Scorches, applied substances such as pigments have also been discounted scientifically. There isn’t a great deal left apart from radiation models. I don’t buy secondary miracles as it just doesn’t seem to do justice to God’s majesty, and this comes back to my point about being embarrassed about professing a proper miracle. I believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead without any naturalistic factors being involved, and that he walked on water without the aid of a strong wind for example. I also believe that he emitted pure light at the Transfiguration to show his true glorified state.
Much agreed. Those who espouse methodological naturalism automatically rule out supernatural explanations with no real philosophical justification. No one has ever improved upon Hume’s flimsy argument against miracles which has long since been refuted. Nothing rules out an occurrence being uniquely unrepeatable, un-testable and thus un-falsifiable. But that is no argument against its occurrence, it is just something science has no apparatus to explain. The fact is, this is what we would expect if something fit the criteria for a miracle. I am not suggesting that natural explanations have been exhausted or should not be further explored. I am simply saying if everything else points to authenticity and the image cannot be explained naturally, it is time to allow the preponderance of evidence to suggest the image was the result of a supernatural occurrence; and that likely points to the well attested narratives chronicling eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.
well put
As for exhausting naturalistic explanations, I think that in the main they have been.
Reply: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Read this comment of mine please: http://shroudstory.com/2014/02/26/giulio-fantis-book-launched/#comment-83118
And this concern only Rogers’ hypothesis! I don’t even talk about DeSalvo’s natural hypothesis or Mills’ natural hypothesis or Fazio and Mandaglio’s natural hypothesis, which, to my knowledge, have NEVER been tested properly under good lab control…
So how in the world can you claim that “as for exhausting naturalistic explanations, I think that in the main they have been.”? Sorry for you and all the partisans of the supernatural but this is completely false to say something like that.
Can you explain how vapours can cause a near non distorted image on an object as deep as a human body? It may well work on a pressed flower, but not I think on an object with significantly more depth. I also mentioned that it is not unreasonable to assume the image is miraculous because of its association with Jesus. What say you about this?
I have not much to say. I recommand you to read Rogers’ book and papers, especially concerning the “vapor” question. I also the ones published by Alan Mills, John DeSalvo and, particularly, the ones published by Fazio and Mandaglio. They all described interesting naturalistic hypotheses (some don’t imply a vapor transfer but more a heat transfer and/or a molecular transfer at short distance) and, because those have not been properly verify under good lab control, we must leave the door open for them.
And concerning the idea that the image can have been produced directly by the Resurrection, of course someone who trust in Jesus can believe this, but as I said many times, there is nothing in the whole set of known data taken from the Shroud that can lead us to believe some form of energetic radiation of some kind could have been the cause of the image. On the contrary, everything points to an event that happen at normal temperature and which implied a very low amount of energy (still undetermined) that was released by a dead body (which could well have been the body of Jesus Christ before he disappeared from inside the Shroud).
I’m not really enamoured to the radiation theory. How about this: upon instant dematerialisation some kind of biochemical process was enacted that created the image. Who knows what that could be. As bodies just don’t dematerialize instantly in the normal course of events then it may be scientifically impossible to take this idea any further, unless someone is able to deduce theoretically what sort of biochemical process might be enacted by such a miraculous occurrence
No. Miraculous occurrences are not susceptible to any kind of theoretical deduction, being, by normal definition, beyond any necessity for rational explanation. I myself have no time for any kind of supernatural explanation for the formation of the shroud, not because such an explanation is not possible, but because, should I ever become convinced of it, then no further scientific exploration of the shroud would be sensible. A miracle does not need radiation, vapours or any kind of biochemical process to produce an image. Or a thousand loaves and fishes for that matter.
The folded cloth could have been the “Sudario” preserved in Spain, that had been folded and stored before the body was wrapped in the burial cloth
Of course. But it could also have been the Shroud itself. There is still a debate among scholars about that.
When I use my good old logic, I tend to understand te word “sudario” in John’s Gospel as meaning “the Shroud” because it is clear that it was the view of this object in the tomb that was the turning point for him (not the empty tomb itself but this particular object), which lead him to believe (whether he believed that Jesus was resurrected or that simply his body had been taken away is not clear). So, in such context, why the view of a small and insignificant cloth like the sudarium of Oviedo (which has never been described by any gospel writers during their account of Jesus’ crucifixion and death) should have been a turning point for him? I prefer to think it was the empty shroud itself that was the turning point for John…
Kelly, I’m very, very sorry to learn that you are taking leave from this blog. I sincerely hope that it’s a temporary absence only, and that you might be able to return soon. Your contributions have always been among the best seen here, and a model for the rest of us. Your latest is no exception, well-expressed, and as always full of good sense and sound advice. May His light and goodness always shine upon you. daveb.
If the Shroud of Turin belonged to Jesus, then it was subjected to a resurrection event. Science needs to figure out how a 180 pound man converted to light in less than a second and didn’t level Jerusalem in the process! IMHO.
Russ, this looks like you’re thinking of E = mc^2. Remember that the body didn’t just disappear (i.e. transformed into electro-magnetic radiation necessarily), but was resurrected and thus transformed. Whether that required some kind of material energy or not, we don’t know. It certainly required divine action. That the body was corporeal, at least in some sense, is plain enough. It was not just light! Thomas “touched” the wounds, Jesus asked for food, “walked” to Emmaus, ate and drank, prepared breakfast at Lake Galilee. An angel, pure spirit, or a ghost, doesn’t do any of that. Check I Peter 3:18-19. I read that as meaning that Jesus left his dead body behind in the tomb, went in spirit to “those in prison(?)” and then returned to his body which he resurrected. It is not necessary to assume that his burial cloth was subject to any kind of supernatural action. The image on it may or may not be miraculous, either way, we don’t yet know enough about it.
Good point. We have no idea what happened. I assume light is involved, but that may not be the case. His appearance in the upper room was physical yet was not bound by walls. I am still in for light of some kind but you make a good point.
Keep on like this Russ and you will contribute to discredit a bit more Shroud science in the eyes of the scientific community… I’m truly disappointed to see how you, a guy who do official Shroud lectures, don’t want to consider the possibility of a natural explanation for the image. Seriously, I don’t think this is right.
I don’t want people to get me wrong (surely not Russ himself). I just want to add that I really respect the job Russ is doing to make people more aware of the Shroud but, because he do a public job out of it, I think he should have more reserve when it comes to the question of the image formation and leave the door open to both possibilities EQUALLY : a natural (which can be related indirectly or not at all with the Resurrection of Jesus) or a supernatural formation (that would be directly related to the Resurrection). This way, he would not open the door widely to attacks from the scientific community (who could say : see those religious shroudies? They just want to prove the Resurrection event using the Shroud and, because of this, they have absolutely no credibility, scientifically speaking) or from the skeptics (who could say pretty much the same thing as the scientific community). Seeing how bad Shroud science is considered these days by people from the outside of the pro-Shroud world, I really think Russ should take my advice and act properly with balance and a more open-mind concerning the Shroud and its image. That’s only a personal opinion.
Render unto science what is science, and to God what is God’s. I think the Shroud is God’s.
Yannick,why were the hypotheses you mentioned, namely those proferred by de Dalvo, Mills, Fazio and Mandaglio not tested? They have nothing to do with the supernatural, so what is the reason?
I think it is because such hypotheses are very complex and would need a very elaborated test plan to be verified properly. This would need some funding that are simply not there.
Last year, I came accross this video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHgEsx4JZMo
In it, John DeSalvo talks about his hypothesis and, near the end, it is said that he was planning to verify it with the help of a real human corpse. I send some emails to Mr. DeSalvo to know why it seems he never was able to accomplish such a plan but I still wait for an answer. I think I should send him a new email about that… It was a long time since my last email to him and maybe this time, he will agree to give me an answer. If I got one, no doubt I will share it with you.
Thanks, I understand, and if you wish you can send the e-mail you may eventually receive to mine given on the HSG website.
“I also mentioned that it is not unreasonable to assume the image is miraculous because of its association with Jesus.”
Exactly. I can not understand why some of the Christians on this blog do not get this point.
If you believe Jesus did miracles, if you believe he was transformed through a miraculous event (the resurrection) then it is entirely logical to consider the possibility that the shroud that covered His body as he was resurrected might bear the supernaturally created image of Him.
Of course, if you are an atheist – or a “Christian” who considers the resurrection metaphor – then of course it is entirely logical to dismiss any potential supernatural image creation theory.
“Matthias, I don’t think he needed to dematerialize and materialize again. I believe the switch was from a dead body to a glorified body. That glorified body could go through matter (linen cloth), as seen when Jesus entered the room when all the doors were locked.”
but then you have the problem raised by Dave B as to why the image would be of the tortured and mortal body rather than the risen and glorious body, unless he rose through the linen in his dead and tortured state and then transformed after that…possible, I guess
Not necessarily, the transformation started from a dead, tortured body(inside the cloth) and ended in a glorified body(outside the cloth). So its logical that the image should be of the dead, tortured body because that was the last thing in the cloth ( how can you keep a glorified body in a linen cloth). The question would be when the image was formed and how. It’s possible that it was formed at the very beginning of the transformation, but how is really unknown. Did the body emmit a flash of energy at the very begining of the transformation? may be. Trying to explain this scientifically is ludicrous, like people trying to prove the after life scientifically. This is beyond the realm of science. As barrie said, Science can only tell us what the shroud is not.
When it comes to afterlife, private philosophies like the one Allan Kardec inspired, can be a problem, and so can private revelations:
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/mormons-people-dont-own-planets-afterlife-192643724.html
I find myself in a bit of a no-mans-land! On one side there is a professed non-scientist proclaiming that the image on the shroud must have an entirely natural cause, and on the other several people attempting to unravel the physics of miracles, which is a logical absurdity. Yannick is correct in his insistence that the only way to explore the image formation mechanism is by rejecting any kind of miraculous intervention, but he is wrong to suppose that a miraculous cause is impossible. The other side (difficult to pick a chief proponent!) is correct in thinking that a miracle may be the cause of the image on the shroud, but wasting its time in trying to establish how much energy “must have been” produced or where or how in order for it to do so.
Sad to see the British art of compromise descend into syrupy fudge, Hugh. See my email. Oh, and dissociate yourself please (as new BSTS editor) from the Barrie Schwortz site .It does you and our independent-minded country no credit.
Oh, tut. My own attitude is not at all fudgelike, as I hope is clear in my Feb 28, 12:04 pm comment above. I just wanted to compare and contrast, as it were, the extremes on either side.
Oh and, was I ever associated with Barrie Schwortz’s site, that I must disasociate myself from it? Actually I think, and so surely must you, that’s it’s absolutely invaluable in terms of its comprehensive coverage of just about everything anybody’s ever said about the shroud, even the hostiles! It even has my article criticising the Quad Mosaic images, which I know must have caused some pain.
By very much endorsing the site I don’t mean I agree with Barrie’s conviction that the shroud is authentic, but I do think he and I, and Dan, if it comes to that, have arrived at our own opinions in the same way, but reading and researching everything we could, and coming to a personal opinion. We all agree that that we may be wrong, and we none of us rubbish those who have formed contrary opinions, even if they seem to be based on nothing more than a cursory glance at a magazine article, or are so peculiar as to make us privately doubt the author’s sanity. We three are, in fact, jolly decent chaps and I commend us to anybody interested in the shroud if they want to understand the controversy rather than just be told what to think.
As for the scorch hypothesis, it’s that damned fluorescence (rather than the superficiality) which made me lose faith in it. I haven’t yet carried out your LOTTO process, but it’s definitely in the pipeline, and if we lose the fluorescence I shall be filled with renewed heat-scorch (as opposed to chemical-scorch) enthusiasm again.
Telling others what to do…my my…how British of you.
Yup. We say what we think and even, if only once in a while, when pushed, say what we think. If that’s British peculiar, then so be it.
There are those who use the Shroud to push an agenda.
Some of us think they are wrong. Some of us, not only Brits, have no time for that agenda – and resent the fudge of those who suggest we may be misjudging, making out we have been too hasty in our conclusions.
Sometimes one has to take a firm stand on what one believes to be right – or wrong,
The shroudie pro-authenticity case is wrong,
Quote: “There are those who use the Shroud to push an agenda.”
Yes Colin but that’s true as well for the pro as for the anti-Shroud side… There are dishonest people on both sides unfortunately.
Dishonesty? Maybe. I prefer to think of it as over-zealousness.
It’s the latter that makes me realize the futility of commenting on this site. I came here this evening simply to tell Hugh Farey I’d sent him an email, protesting against an increasing tendency on his part to concede points to the zealots, shifting from his previous stance of strict scientific objectivity.
He seems to be going native. Stuff happens.
As I said, wait and see, a lot of zen is needed to tolerate some of the nonsensical comments and suggestions posted here.
Fudge.Superior British fudge, but fudge all the same. Grow some, Hugh.
Yannick, re.#52 It seems that it refers to the head cloth because it says “over the head”, and the Shroud was over the whole body.
Fudge. Fluorescence is a side show, Hugh (unless you know its explanation at the molecular level). Kindly spare me the fudge. Not interested…
Yannick, re.53:I understand what you mean and must add that we inevitably walk around in circles when it comes to the text because it is vague.
Exactly and this is unfortunate that John wasn’t more precise about those things. Nevertheless, I have a sense that his text was probably much more precise for the community to which he was speaking… And in the end, the most important thing to understand from this account is the fact that not only did he and Peter found the tomb empty that morning, but also all the burial cloths that were left there without the body. That’s what really matter.
OK, in a broad sense that is alright. The video you referred to is old and a lot of things may have changed after that, but feel free to e-mail me if there is anything at that end you may find worthwhile probing. I have my doubts about pyramid power.
I just send a new email to DeSalvo and if he answer me, I’ll share his answer right here… Note: Pyramid power has nothing to do with the hypothesis he described concerning the Shroud image. Read this please: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part4.pdf
This is a very interesting paper talking about a very interesting hypothesis that still need to be fully tested…
I read this ages ago, but we still have along way to go in Shroud research. It doesn’t bother me that much how far this research can go because my faith needs no props and there is a lot more in the box than just authenticating the Shroud.
Then let this Canadian be equally blunt. Your Templar scorch theory, while admirable in its creativity, is also wrong. You have no more scientific proof than anyone else, pro or con authenticity. See, I actually had the gonads to say that. Woo hoo.
Rather than slagging Barrie’s site you could have been providing papers to it. But you prefer to be the one man gang, the maverick. It’s your life, do as you please. But if Hugh prefers to play nice with the rest of the kids, even the ones he disagrees with, well that’s his choice.
Now get back to your experiments you crazy (in a good way) tub-thumper.
” You have no more scientific proof ”
I do not seek proof, merely corroborating evidence.
Admittedly the evidence is thin. But then so is the available visual or written record. But unlike most, I don’t pass by on the other side (Lirey badge, the Machy mould addition (SUAIRE plus Jesus’s face), Antoine de Lalaing’s testimony re “tests” like boiling in oil etc). When were they ever given the prominence here that they deserved?
No, I’m not a tub thumper as you put it. I’m simply protesting against the incessant appearance of pseudo science in the MSM that pushes Shroud authenticity.
I used to cover a wide range of hyped-up pseudo-science before Di Lazzaro and ENEA proposed their uv excimer laser beams in December 2011. That was on a site called “sciencebuzz” where I posted my riposte (that ordinary infrarerd and visible light could colour linen provided a dark pigment was present).
This “tub thumper” has since placed over 200 postings on his specialist Shroud site, and just today summarised some 35 that have made observations and interpretations you won’t find elsewhere. So kindly spare me your insults. I do not need your personal approval rating to press on with what I believe to be the correct course.
I despise agenda-driven pseudoscience.
And where’s your peer review? Oh fudge.
Hugh, I fully agree with you (except for the Quad-Mosaic, that I am currently studying in depth).
Colin provided another scorch hypothesis, namely the LOTTO process which can be easily tested. I am still waiting for his experiments.
Since Colin is now far away from science (see his blog), you are the only one who can test his hypothesis.
The fluorescence problem is just one of the problems but not the only one.
We should work together on the LOTTO process.
You have my email address.
“Since Colin is now far away from science ”
I remain a lot closer to real science than you will ever be, Thibault, like posting data where they can be challenged (unlike your haughty pdfs), to say nothing of a record of peer-reviewed publications that you lack. So once again, Thibault, I say : “Get off your high horse”.
“Get off your high horse” said the man riding a giraffe.
The best line so far!
Quote: “The fluorescence problem is just one of the problems but not the only one.”
Of course not! The evidence coming from the blood and serum stains, coupled with the ultra-superficiality of the image in every part of it (no matter if we look at a dark or a very faint zone) are other problems (much more important in my opinion) for this kind of man-made hypothesis… I know I said it before but I can’t help myself. ;-)
Question for Thibault: Instead of studying the Quad mosaic images of STURP yourself, wouldn’t be more proper (scientifically speaking) to get in touch with a true imagery expert and ask him to do the kind of job you want to do?
Doesn’t nature come from the supernatural, and yet it is still scientifically explored? And is this not the reason that Jesus could perform all manner of miracles and indeed be resurrected? I’m sure the disciples who witnessed the Transfiguration called it a miracle, where he shone brilliantly.
This is quite an obscure philosophical question, but the answer is no. Christianity is a supremely rational set of beliefs. The supernatural, if it occurs, is an overriding of that rationality. If Jesus overrode rationality by becoming luminous, then he was certainly displaying a power over rationality, but that does not, and should not, imply that rationality is derived from irrationality. Quite the reverse. A miracle is a diversion from rationality, not the other way round.
If there is one thing that was never contested, it was Jesus’ ability to heal and cure, one of the reasons he was hated and feared by the religious authorities, and according to Shimon Gibson the reason why he was handed over to the Romans to be nailed to the cross. Years after that, his enemies continued to not deny his ability to perform miracles, while also continuing to add insults to his name and demanding that he be “obliterated from memory”.
The topic does not call for a discussion about rationality, it demonstrates the superiority of spirit.
My peer review is right here – having to respond to your insults, instead of addressing the scientific detail. That’s why I don’t bother with this site anymore.
Yours is not the kind of peer review that I want or need. So if it’s all the same to you, I’ll discuss the issues on my site – nowhere else.
Colin, for someone who doesn’t bother with this site anymore, you bother with it quite a bit.
You once cajoled an SSG member into using you site to attack the scorch hypothesis, reporting a risible experiment with a hot coin. You then allowed another SSG member to repeat the performance, but as a pdf, permanently on display, almost as risible given the ridiculous choice of template, and who like the first has ignored my critique. Now sadly we have the new editor of the BSTS being dismissive of the scorch hypothesis on entirely spurious grounds, claiming that it is impossible to scorch one side of linen without scorching the other. You yourself instantly ridiculed one of the most telling experiments I have ever done, reported in real time in response to that fatuous straw man argument with the hot coin, showing how the one-cell thick dried onion epidermis, consisting of little more than a pair of primary cell walls (NO SECONDARY CELL WALL) of roughly the same thickness as the TS image, i.e. 200-500nm, apart from the desiccated vacuolar remnants of a single plant cell can receive an intense scorch image with scarcely any effect on underlying linen. A scorch image can be both highly superficial AND highly localised too, with sound theoretical reasons, botanical and chemical, for why that is the case.You and your commentators and guest contributors are not just closing ears to the science. You are attempting here systematically to trash it.
Yes, you allow people on your site to ignore and/or trash the science, and indeed encourage and incite them to do so. So while I have no desire to participate further in discussion here, I will continue to flag up abuse of site for as long as your open access (which I suspect will soon disappear, yet again) allows me to do so.
Dan. as I wrote on another thread, Jesus is simply not left alone,even in an increasingly sceptical world. The problem is that sceptics in general think that the Shroud is the last resort of Christians to justify their faith and that is a big mistake. The relic is not a part of the Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church and there are millions of Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox Christians and even Catholics who do not need relics as props for faith.
“The problem is that sceptics in general think that the Shroud is the last resort of Christians to justify their faith and that is a big mistake.” Do they? And is it a problem? There are a handful of people commenting on this blog who think that the shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus. I’m one of them, and a Christian too – a Catholic to the core, in fact – so I don’t think Christians need the Shroud to justify their faith. Colin is another. He’s a biologist who wants to discover how the shroud image was formed in terms of its cellular structure, which he has found by experiment conforms quite well with a contact heat scorch. Is he campaigning to destroy Christianity by debunking the shroud? Another is Charles Freeman, an archaeologist, who thinks the shroud conforms better to Byzantine art than to 1st century burial practices.
In the nasty world beyond the cosy confines of this blog we have Joe Nickell. He enjoys debunking myths of all kinds, from ghosts to UFOs to spiritualist mediums; the shroud is just one of his enthusiasms. Is he out to destroy Christianity?
Previously, the most famous sceptics have been Pierre d’Arcis, a bishop, and Ulysse Chevalier, a priest, as well as Walter McCrone. Did these people think that the shroud was the last resort of Christians to justify their faith?
Actually, in the case of the clerics, they probably did think that – at least that the shroud was the last resort of some Christians, and that it shouldn’t be, and that by declaring its inauthenticity they would encourage those Christians to try to found their faith more securely on the teachings of Christs rather than his graveclothes.
I don’t think there are any “sceptics in general” any more than there are “authenticists in general.” If there is a big mistake, it is to clump together people who disagree with one’s own views into a single concerted opposition.
Yannick, Louis: Thanks for the De Salvo link which I’ve just read, (possibly for the first time) and saved. The Volkringer patterns are certainly intriguing, both in negative and 3D. I had thought about a kind of ‘flower pressing’ process some time way back, but hadn’t followed it up. The main objection to me seems to be that the Vk image penetrated into the fibre medulla and is not superficial. Maybe that’s why we haven’t heard much about it since. But something like it might have played a part in the TS image.
Dave, not only, as you mentioned, the image of the pressed leaves penetrate through the cellulose. But it is also a contact process caused by the action of lactic acid on the cellulose. What about the areas that didn’t touch the shroud?
Daveb, I found the Volckringer pattern and Professor Tamburelli’s image fascinating when I first saw them in a Shroud book entitled “Shroud Guide” by Rex Morgan given to me years ago by my mother when I was in London, England spending most of my time doing some research in mediaeval history. I had read Ian Wilson’s first Shroud book years before that but it was this book that made me aware that research was under way.
I agree with you that something like it might have played a part in the Shroud image, but as you know, we still have a long way to go to get to the heart of the mystery that lies hidden in the image. It doesn’t seem likely that Turin will throw the doors open once again for another hands-on examination, and in my view that is because the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing in many areas in the Shroud media.
But we have Dan’s shroudstory to share research and thrash out differences openly, from which we can always learn something.
Do you think the image has something to do with a scorch?
I’m glad Dave that you leave the door open for the possibility that DeSalvo’s hypothesis can potentiallyu explain the Shroud image (at least partially).
And concerning your objection, I think you forgot Rogers’ hypothesis for the chromophore… In the case of the Shroud image and unlike what have been seen in images of flowers and leaves, the non-penetration of the color deep into the cloth or deep into the fiber structure is maybe due only to the fact that the image formation phenomenon was very mild and, for this reason, was only able to affect the thin layer of carbohydrate impurities proposed by Rogers, without ever affecting the fibers themselves.
And concerning Mike’s objection, let me remind you that DeSalvo have proposed that, in the case of the Shroud, the image formation process could have acted by both direct-contacts and also transfer of lactic acid molecules at short distance (maybe transferred to the cloth’s surface with the possible water vapor released by the corpse?)… Of course, this is only a theoretical supposition that would need to be tested one day under good lab control.
Talking about that, here’s a response I just get from John DeSalvo himself, after I send him an email asking him why he never had the chance to verify his hypothesis properly under good lab control despite the fact that he was planning to do so shortly after having published his article (concerning this, please look at this comment of mine: http://shroudstory.com/2014/02/26/giulio-fantis-book-launched/#comment-83449).
Here’s what Mr. DeSalvo told me: “I never verified my hypothesis as I was not at a university at that time and did not have access to the lab and equipment I needed. So, I was hoping someone else would eventually do it. Finally I kind of lost interest in Shroud research so never pursued it.”
It’s sad to see guys like DeSalvo’s lose interest in Shroud research but I understand why this can happen…
Yannick, “transfer of lactic acid with water vapour released by the corpse?”
this is not logical. The image resolution doesn’t allow for any diffusion process. Molecules diffuse in random Brownian motion, this doesn’t give any image resolution whatsoever.
Mike M: “The image resolution doesn’t allow for any diffusion process. Molecules diffuse in random Brownian motion, this doesn’t give any image resolution whatsoever.” Not necessarily.
Individual molecules diffuse in random Brownian motion, but that’s only seen at the microscopic level. Check out you “potential flow” theory in any fluid mechanics text book. Your molecules are embedded in a laminar potential flow. Now assume the molecules are unstable, and changing their chemical make-up during a short time span. That accounts for the 3D pattern. A diffusion pattern could still work, but I suspect there’s something else as well. Maybe Volkringer, maybe seismic radiation or magnetic field variations. Who knows?
Hi Dave, I think we are talking about 2 different things here. The situation in the shroud is slow evaporation of water molecules (as they gain some heat energy from the body I assume) where the molecules diffuse in random from a high concentration to a low concentration gradient. I find the potential flow theory that you invoked more applicable in aerodynamics as in the flow of air on the surface of the wing of an aeroplane. Where would the laminarity come from in the shroud. Where does the air currents come from?
Mike I did 3 years of Fuid Mechanics at Engineering School. There’s many more applications of it than streamlining of aircraft and fast cars. One of my early lab projects was modelling seepage under dams tracing the flow-lines with ink injection. It sure gave me confidence in potential flow theory. The basic fundamental is the Laplace equation, which only needs to be modified in turbulence. The laminar flow arises at low Reynold’s Number, and is appropriate for most gas flows. In a case like the Shroud, the path lengths are of course extremely short. The flow itself would probably arise from convection.
Hi Dave, isn’t this very close to Vignon’s vaporgraph theory?. If convection can produce this much of laminarity and image resolution it should be very easy to prove. did Vignon succeed in producing an image from his experiments? The same with the pig experiment in the smithsonian documentary. Didn’t produce any image, just discoloration.
De Salvo is a serious scholar but it seems that the study of the pyramids would have little to do with Shroud research.
Mike, we are talking of a very mild diffusion process that only worked at very close range. I’m not an expert on this question, but I think that because of that, any diffusion hypothesis must be check out properly under good lab control before we can completely discard it.
Concerning DeSalvo’s reply to me, I want to add that this prove what I said to Louis the other day (see: http://shroudstory.com/2014/02/26/giulio-fantis-book-launched/#comment-83447) about the fact that it is not easy at all to test a natural image formation hypothesis because each one of them are very complex… As I said, in order to check out properly one of those hypotheses, someone would need very good equipments and a lot of $$$…
Yannick: see my response to Louis below at #112 and his reply. All options are on the table because we don’t know enough about it. Corporate funding for further experimental work is sorely needed. In the meantime, most theories, even those of Rogers & Fanti are all untested speculations as far as I can see. It’s almost pointless discussing them. Dogmatic assertions are out of place.
I agree, except for the idea that Rogers’ hypothesis is still only theoretical. May I remind you that he was able to do some preliminary experiments by himself and those yield a result that was good enough for him to keep believing this was the most likely explanation for the image formation. Of course, more work still need to be done to fully test Rogers’ hypothesis, but at least, we must acknowledge that the preliminary experiments did not gave a result that allowed Rogers himself or anyone else to throw the Maillard reaction hypothesis in the garbage.
Read Thibault’s comment again. It’s bizarre! What kind of mindset allows someone to commandeer another’s discovery on the grounds (apparently) that he’s not moved fast enough to address all the details to his own satisfaction. while refusing to respond to criticism of his own work, kept safe and secure on pdfs? As I say, bizarre. I ceased trying to understand Thibault Heimburger a long time ago. He lives on a totally different planet.
Only too evident that ad hominem agenda-driven pseudo-science is not the prerogative of authenticists living on Planet Earth, as distinct as those living on the planet of Pluto, the Prince of Hades!
Daveb, since you mentioned Pluto:
Chariton,how are things below?
All dark,
And what about the way up?
A lie,
And Pluto?
A myth.
Then we are done for.
—–Callimachus
Looks somewhat like what is going on in the realm of Shroud studies.
re. Hugh and “sceptics in general”. The comment was addressed to Dan because I know that his Anglican (Episcopal Church) faith does not depend on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud and he is aware of the “sceptics in general”, not least because of comments other Shroudies, particularly Americans, have posted on the blog.
But, let us get to the point now: It was a specific point I was making and should be easy for you to understand if you review the queries/accusations that were directed both to you and to Dan regarding the faith of both of you, on separate occasions.
Dan has not dodged any comments aimed at him, on the contrary he has answered all of them, for all to read. In your case, it is not that you have dodged any question, it only seems that you have not been aware of the “why” behind it?
Why was one comment (not on this blog) interested in knowing if you were a Christian believer or not? You did answer the question, making it clear that you are Catholic, but did you pause to think why the question was asked?
It has something to do with my previous comment.
Further to the above comment, addressed to Hugh, whoever is worried thinking that the Shroud is important for Christian faith should see the example of Laura Keynes (Darwin’s grand daughter) who has become a Catholic apologist and not because of any relic:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/13/descendant-of-darwin-becomes-a-catholic-apologist/ho has become a Catholic apologist
Sorry, the link got pasted, here is the correct one I hope:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/13/descendant-of-darwin-becomes-a-catholic-apologist/
Thanks, but I’m not sure of the relevance. Charles Darwin, with some reluctance, felt that his ideas tended towards a denial of the God he was brought up with. Laura Keynes, it seems, does not. I agree with her.
I must say I don’t usually bother about the secret motives of people who ask me personal questions. If the question seems “in the public interest” I’m happy to answer it, as above. As indeed, I do here and now. I do think that there is a “Shroudie” tendency to assume than any inauthenticist views are more or less Satanic in origin, and I’m vain enough to hope that explaining my views may go some way to modifiying this attitude.
There is nothing to thank me for, a good and objective discussion generated by both sides is what we all need. I say “objective” because it is a misunderstanding to think that many Christians base their faith on a relic like the TS, which is certainly not the case, and therefore the relevance of the link. When one pries into personal beliefs when discussing Shroud science, that is not an objective approach.
It seems to be incorrect to link any inauthenticist views to Satanic tendencies, whether as belief or influence, and that is because evil is easy to find. You can see it among people who think they are religious, just as you may fail to find it among atheists. If that was not the case we would not see Pope John Paul II inviting Italian President and atheist Sandro Pertini to accompany him when he went skiing, or Pope Francis asking those with no belief in God to help in creating a better world for all of us.
There is a lot more evil than many people imagine, however the Christian faith in the risen Christ pushes that into a secondary place. The “mysterium iniquitatis” is something that has still not been solved, but it did not — deep inside at least — affect the faith of many important scholars who tackled the problem:
https://www.academia.edu/5559678/C._G._Jung_Father_Victor_White_and_privatio_boni
Louis at #103: “Do you think the image has something to do with a scorch?”
I make little secret that my personal view of the TS is that it is very likely what it appears to be, the burial cloth of Jesus. As to how the image came to be, I think all options are on the table. If it was miraculous, then sure it can still be studied, but we have no way of fully understanding it. If it was naturalistic, than it has to conform with the laws of nature, the process has to comply with physics and chemistry, and for that matter quantum mechanics. The image is superficial, so that if it can be classified as a scorch, then it has to be limited to what can scorch superficially. If the scorch was radiation derived, that might restrict the wave-band. As there’s 3D content, I think that might exclude contact. Perhaps it is a mix of causes. We don’t really know enough about it, and there hasn’t been the experimental research needed which ought to have revealed more answers than we have at present. It needs some Corporate funding behind it. Anyone got Bill Gates’ phone no? Isn’t his wife a Catholic?
Good answer, something I was looking for.
Melinda Gates? Yes, she’s Catholic, but probably looking after other kinds of charity since the Gates donate millions. Perhaps one might appeal to Hewlett Packard (HP). They donated five hundred thousand US$ worth of computer equipment to the Vatican around two years ago.
>> Another is Charles Freeman, an archaeologist, who thinks the shroud conforms better to Byzantine art than to 1st century burial practices.<<
I think, if the Shroud is ever proven to be a human creation, it originated in the Eastern Church, and wasn't a painting done in 14th century France.
I agree.
And what would be the reason for the Eastern Church producing such a human creation?
And do we have anything even close to this style (negative, dorsal and ventral, with real human blood, 3d information, with dirt and pollen from Jerusalem ) in any of the eastern church artwork?
Mike M; (# 109): ” If convection can produce this much of laminarity and image resolution it should be very easy to prove. did Vignon succeed in producing an image from his experiments? The same with the pig experiment in the smithsonian documentary. Didn’t produce any image, just discoloration.”
Not so easy to prove. The Smithsonian documentary proves that a discoloration occurred.
To choose a pig was a good idea since pigs are (for good reasons) generally chosen to simulate human bodies. Unfortunately, the design of the experiment does not allow any kind of conclusion regarding resolution.
I tried to obtain the linen sheets to look at the properties of the discoloration but unfortunately the answer was that the sheets were destroyed because of safety (bio-hazard)
In any case, this experiment seems to show that a chemical reaction can occur between a fresh cadaver and a linen sheet via probably a Maillard reaction.
The problem of resolution is much more complex.
Re-read carefully what Rogers himself wrote:
http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/rogers-maillard-reaction-for-dan-blog-2.pdf
Hi Thibault, thanks for the link. Yeah, very complicated indeed. I hope this could be experimented properly to validate this complex hypothesis.
As it is for any image formation hypothesis involving a natural phenomenon, to verify this in deep, someone would need high-tech equipments and a lot of $$$. It’s not for today or even tomorrow… But who knows? Maybe some day, a CSI guy will come in Shroud science and check some of the best natural hypotheses that have been proposed over the years and maybe propose a new improved one… We can dream!
Quote from Thibault: “In any case, this experiment seems to show that a chemical reaction can occur between a fresh cadaver and a linen sheet via probably a Maillard reaction.”
Comment: ABSOLUTELY! And I see such result as a confirmation of the preliminary experiment that was done by Rogers himself while he submitted an old-fashion linen sample to ammonia gases for some minutes and obtained a coloration that was very close (macro and microscopically) to what he had seen on the Shroud.
Note concerning the pig experiment: If a new experiment of that nature should be tried in the future, I hope the one who will design it will read Rogers book and articles before writing down his test plan!!!
This is absolute rubbish, Rogers had doubts about the Maillard reaction. We need Kelly Kearse to test this for us.
Can you describe precisely what is “rubbish” for you? Rogers had doubts, of course since he wasn’t able to fully test it. That doesn’t mean he didn’t thought his hypothesis had still the potential to explain the image formation.
And I don’t think Mr. Kearse would be the best to test such a hypothesis since, to my knowledge, he’s not a chemist or a forensic expert. There’s a huge difference between a Maillard reaction and a DNA test.
So who is the chemist here?
The best question is: Is there a CSI guy in the room? ;-)
If you say that, you also admit you lost, unable to defend your previous argument. As I told you before, wait for a while and there will be news for everyone this year — nothing to do with Maillard and coming from more than one quarter.
It’s like you have the supernatural solution. Can’t wait to see this crap.
Quote: “If you say that, you also admit you lost”
What the hell are you talking about? Lose what? You sound like someone very frustrated…
Yannick you are out of bounds.
Yannick, please refrain from personal attacks and post your comments like a decent person. You were edged out of this blog for using four-letter words, then you began posting as “anonymous”. It is a sign of intelligence to learn from mistakes.
Dan, thanks for intervening. I know you cannot keep an eye all the time on what is being posted on the blog, but please try some moderation via your phone whenever occasion arises. It will help bring people people interested in the Shroud and with something useful to contribute into the discussion.
Just came across this Quote from Dr. Jean-Baptiste Rinaudo “Experiment with ammonia impregnated plasters gave such poor images that he (Vignon) finally concluded that the image looked as if it had been the result of some irradiation”
In what kind of context did the experiment with ammonia was done by Vignon? Did he used an old-fashin linen sample with a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities on-top of it? Did he did his experiment in various environmental conditions? Before discarding this completely (as RInaudo does because he had a supernatural hypothesis to promote), I think we should wait until it is tested in every possible environmental conditions with a good linen sample (i.e. made the old-fashion way)… Also, I think such a hypothesis involving ammonia alone should be tested with other potential coloring agent like heat coming out of a fresh corpse. Things are complex when it comes to fully test a natural hypothesis. We should be very prudent before concluding that this has no value versus what happened on the Shroud.
Yannick, you’re absolutely right. “We should be prudent before concluding that this has no value.” All most of us are asking, however, is that you should be prudent before concluding that it is only possible solution to the problem.
I never said Rogers hypothesis is the only one that can be valid. DeSalvo, Mills and Fazio-Mandaglio’s hypothèses are all interesting hypotheses that should also be tested properly.
And if you read carefully my paper about the bloodstains evidence (link : http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n76part5.pdf), you will see that I even left open the scenario of a supernatural process as a possibility because of the fact that we deal with the reported Shroud of Christ. Nevertheless, I must say that I still consider this kind of supernatural scenario as being highly improbable in regard of all the data we know concerning the image…
I don’t mind more testing. I find it very difficult to believe that gases will move in straight lines under these conditions, so I seriously doubt any image produced will have a resolution but hey…if it makes everybody feel better test it.
When I see someone like Fazio, Mandaglio or Ray Rogers believing it’s possible, I tend to push for any credible expert to test Rogers’ hypothesis properly under various environmental conditions…
The question of the resolution is maybe overestimated in the sense that it is truly possible, as Fazio and Mandaglio noticed in their papers about the Shroud, that a VERY SMALL amount of gases could have lead to the formation of a latent image that would only have fully “develop” after many years and even decades.
In such context, I think it’s easier to believe that the result would not be an image that would be totally blurred, but on the contrary, would show a good degree of resolution. Of course, this would need to be tested properly. Even Rogers never did this kind of test with a very small amount of ammonia or some other post-mortem gas…
Another important factor that should be considered concerning Vignon’s experiment with ammonia is the time factor, along with the amount of ammonia that has been used. How many times did Vignon exposed his linen sample with ammonia and what amount of ammonia was used during that time? Note : If Fazio and Mandaglio are right and the Shroud image is the result of a stochastic process involving a very small amount of energy, I think it’s fair to assume that Vignon probably used too much ammonia than what could have happened inside the Shroud. I think more researches should be done with ammonia and other post-mortem gases and should involved only a very small amount of these gases but for a very long period of exposure (several hours) and then, the linen sample (old fashion sample of course) should be baked to simulate ageing. Would be interesting to see what kind of results this kind of test would produce…
You should read: “How many minutes or hours (instead of “times”) did Vignon exposed his linen sample with ammonia and what amount of ammonia was used during that time?
Now it’s better…
Looking for this quotation i’ve found the following one in Mark Antonacci’s book:
Rogers was a STURP member, he perfectly knew why Vignon’s theory had been rejected.
Superficiality -> thin external reactive layer.
Resolution -> steep diffusion gradient / heavy molecule.
And more if you read his theory.
Mark Antonacci is obviously not in the same league as Rogers.
This is normal since Antonacci is an attorney while Rogers was a top notch chemist… Same reasoning apply here with my friend Fanti, the engineer.
dear friends,
I am a past technician dyer …
and then I have studied Chemistry.
I suggest you to try with H2S (gas) on linen treated with Pb (=lead) acetate (a white salt
[Pb (OOCCH3)2], see also under : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%28II%29_acetate) in order to observe what are the results (on surface, etc.) … because
the ending product will be PbS (= black).
Obviously this way is very far from the exact experiments
with cadaveric gases on treated linen (= Saponaria officinalis treatments of lineen), perhaps using the artificial skin treated with swoon …
Are you able to show us what happens (taking a photograph, etc.) ?
Using a mask with very little holes (the H2S gas will be coming
through that mask) the experiment can be very simple …
and then you have to model your “face” …
But …
Warning : this is not the Maillard pathway !!!
This is only a model…
— — —
Instead, if you are true experts, then you can work
using :
– a treated linen sheet,
– the electro-negative Manikin and
– the cadaveric emissions (or the adequate reactive gas)
in order to see what happens on your linen !
I am curious about the results obtained from that strange idea …
And see also the other particular way :
the experiment with plasma polimerization.
At the end you have to control
(using the advanced microscopies = SPM techniques …)
what you have obtained in your experiments in order
to see what is the result from the comparisons
with linen fibrils coming from the Holy Shroud..