Stephen E. Jones, with permission from John Jackson, has republished John’s full paper, An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image. That is a great service to all of us because the paper isn’t online and is hard to find. Jones includes his own preface, which reads in part:
"Cloth Collapse theory" to explain the origin of the Shroud’s image is, in my opinion, one of the most important thing ever written about the Shroud of Turin. This is because it claims to, and I agree that it does, "explain all image characteristics found on the shroud image." Yet, it has never been published online and can only be found in a comparatively obscure, out-of-print book: Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX. However, you can see Dr. Jackson’s presentation of his theory at the St. Louis Symposium in the video, "What is Missing? "
Here is the link: The Shroud of Turin: John P. Jackson, "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image" (1991)
Interesting read. Reading this does raise a curiousity in my mind of how the hair left any image. I say this because I am of the opinion that it was a natural process that caused the image. I’d have to wonder though if that would also apply to the hair. Wouldn’t it take far longer to start breaking down and give off gases or whatnot? Are gases from the decaying body below the hair somehow affected by the hair causing the image? These are probably all questions that won’t necessarily be resolved until the image causing mechanism is positively identified but they do cross my mind.
Nice comment Chris. Ray Rogers talk lengthily in his book about the effect of the hairs (and of the beard and mustache) on heavy gas coming from a dead body and what this effect would cause on the image formation process he proposed. It’s very interesting and that offer a possible scientific explanation for the possible penetration of the coloration in the regions of the hair, the beard and the mustache (a penetration that seem to go all the way to the other side of the cloth).
Now, for this particular hypothesis of Jackson, Rogers have showed with very good arguments that it was irrelevant to the Shroud body images. You already now that I tend to believe the point of view of Rogers on those kind of hypothesis… So, I don’t have no more to say.
Yannick, fue usted muy hábil para no contestar a mi última pregunta sobre cómo pudo Barbet medir la distancia DESDE la cabeza del III metacarpiano…….
La respuesta era muy sencilla, colocando el inicio de la regla o la punta del compás en la cabeza del III metacarpiano.
Si entiende lo que ESO significa, aunque usted pueda no estar de acuerdo, entenderá fácilmente por qué, además de otras varias cosas, MUCHOS estamos más cerca de Jackson y más lejos de Rogers en cuanto la interpretación del mecanismo de formación de la imagen.
[quede claro que TODOS tenemos un gran respeto por la ENORME aportación de Rogers al estudio de la Sábana]
Intente ENTENDER el significado de mi pregunta y respuesta.
But Co, you should also consider the fact that there is minor distortions in the hand region ! This is a FACT ! I don’t invent anything here… And for Jackson, you’re free to believe some of his ideas of course. And I’m free to reject them also ! This is call freedom of thinking !
I think Jackson’s hypothesis should get an open-minded hearing. It does rather neatly account for a great many of the image characteristics. The requirement that a hypothesis fit current scientific theory is, in my view, unscientific, and is responsible for a host of past embarrassments, like the outright rejection of meteorites and continental drift. However, my immediate problem with Jackson’s hypothesis is that, at least in the version he has on video tape, he is clear that it leaves no room for 3D properties on the back image, and I think it’s clear that these properties do exist on the back image, even if to a lesser degree than on the front image.
If Jackson’s “collapse theory” was PHYSICALLY true, most if not all of the body front image should have been recorded not just the head and possibly the hand areas on the back surface of the cloth. Besides, his theory just cannot explain the reason why those very partial body images should have been much fainter.
I wonder what evidence, if any, would remain on the shroud that it was removed from the body either by:
1. whomever the shroud was wrapped around
2. by someone else attempting to remove the body within it.
Also I guess we will not know exactly how long the shroud draped it’s occupant until we identify the image forming mechanism or is there a way to infer this?
Very good questions ! Chris, you impress me…
Pierre Barbet noted that the undisturbed aspect of the blood stain on the Shroud was scientifically unexplainable (Barbet add prudently : in the present state of our knowledge) and, for him (and for me also), this is the only “clear” sign of resurrection that a faithful can see on the Shroud. In other word, you search for a sign of the resurrection on the Shroud & Don’t look at the body images, look at the blood stains !!! But sadly, most people always do the opposite !!!
As Barbet point out : If the body was taken out of the Shroud by someone (after the blood had dried, that should have been pretty fast after the draping), then we SHOULD NOT SEE complete blood stains with sharp edges and without missing parts.
In other word, the high quality of the blood stains (and the fact that they are not “broken”, if I can use this term) makes the scenario of a removal of the corpse by someone almost impossible and it really “look like” the body simply disappeared ! As crazy as this observation seem(for someone who don’t believe in the resurrection), this is the REALITY of the blood stains on the Shroud, as noted by a medical expert like Barbet ! It’s not just a pseudo-scientific idea here… This is a solid fact ! The quality and the aspect of the blood stains just don’t fit with the scenario of someone who remove a dead body from
a Shroud. The only way it could be possible, would have been a removal of the corpse almost immediately after he was put in the Shroud, while the blood clots were still humid. This scenario is highly improbable.
For the lenght of time that the corpse remains into the Shroud, it could not have been more than 36 to 40 hours because after that, the first liquids from the rotting process appeared and they would have destroyed the images and the blood stains. Now, for the minimal lenght of time that the body had to be in the Shroud in order for the image to be formed, it is, as you say, impossible to say for sure, not until we can be sure of the image formation mechanism. Vignon, who proposed a vaporographic theory in the beggining of the 20th century said that the body should have been in the Shroud for at least 24 hours, in order to produced an image via his “vaporographic” image formation process. This is just an example. If the image formation process is a natural phenomenon, we can be almost sure that the body should have been in contact with the body for at least this lenght of time (24 hours), but this is just a wild guess…
Thanks for the reply, Yannick, I appreciate it. Just one more question at this time: Couldn’t someone have just removed the body after 24 – 36 hours? Or would this have left some sort of evidence behind?
I would think that by that time (which would coincide roughly with the 3rd day after the crucifixion) the blood would be all dried and removing the shroud without disturbing the blood stains would be easy. And the unintended “image” would have been formed.
In Barbet’s mind, if someone would have remove the body after that lenght of time, it is sure that there would have been clear signs of this procedure in the blood stains… As I said, for a removal of the body without any signs, it would have been done in less than maybe one hour and done with extreme care also. I think this is HIHGLY improbable…
If the blood stains would have been dried, they would have been stuck to the body and, if someone would have removed the body from the Shroud, parts of the blood stains would have stayed on the Shroud and parts would have been pulled away and an expert like Barbet would have noted clear signs of that. He didn’t ! :)
I should have said : The blood stains would have been stuck BETWEEN the body and the Shroud. This is more precise. A removal when the stains were dried would have kept parts of the blood on the Shroud and other parts would have stayed on the body…
I just want to come back on the Jackson hypothesis to note one major aspect of his hypothesis that doesn’t fit with what we know about the Shroud : It’s almost sure that the dorsal image was formed by the same exact image formation mechanism, because it present all the same characteristics, especially regarding the distance information present in the images. Jackson hypothesis postulate the opposite : That the dorsal image is only (or mainly, I don’t remember is exact words during his presentation in St-Louis in 1991) the result of a direct contact process, on the contrary to the frontal image the is not just a direct contact process, but both contact and at-a-distance process. Jackson needs that in order for his hypothesis to work. But the thing is : there’s really distance information in the dorsal image, just like the frontal image ! The only thing is that this distance information is less evident because a bigger portion of the back part of the corpse was in direct contact with the cloth. By the way, this is a proof that Gilbert Lavoie’s hypothesis is wrong also : the image formation occurred while the body was resting in an horizontal position (normal for a dead body) and not when he was lifted up in the air in a vertical position. In the end, this fact that there is distance information in the dorsal image is somewhat like the the Achilles heel of Jackson hypothesis…
Yannick, all through your postings you keep saying the Shroud was just loosely draped over the corpse. In the hypothesis the shroud is Rabbi Yeshua’s, this is IN BLATANT CONTRADICTION with John’s Gospel. The fact is the latter was first fastened/tightly wrapped into LINEN SHEETS. Most probably, the long inner shroud soaked with a watery solution GRADUALLY LOOSENED UP while it was subjected to a myrrho-aleotic fumigation hence your misthinking the inner shroud was just loosely draped over.
The fact that the Shroud was probably loosely draped over the body come from the study done by Jackson, Ercoline and Al. and also another study done by Mario Latendresse concerning possible distortions present in the images and the way the cloth could have been draped over the body. The most probable way the cloth was draped during the image formation process, if I base my judgement on those 2 studies, is loosely draped without being tied up with linen strips. That’s my perception after having read those 2 studies.
What do you make of John’s use of the Greek verb edo (FASTEN/BIND/TIGHLY WRAP)? Do you just overlook it just because it does not fit in your intellectual reconstruction?
Yannick, what do you make of the other linen sheets (othonia) in which the Shroud man’s body was fastened? How long will you keep overlooking what just does not fit in what you believe in?
I always thought the verb thightly wrap was used by John in association with Lazarus and not Jesus ! And for the “othonia”, that could mean simply “cloths”. It is truely possible that he was refering to other linen cloths of small dimensions that could have contained the mix of aloes and myrrh in a solid form. It is not 100% sure that othonia mean “Shroud”. The sudarium that John refers to can well be the real “Shroud”. “Sudarium” was often used by ancient writers in reference to a burial shroud… In fact, they were using many different words to talk about a burial Shroud, so, the interpretation is not evident.
Rabbi Yeshua’s corpse was fastened/bound/tightly wrapped (edesan) in linen sheets/cloths (othonia) according to John. To infer from John’s gospel, the Shroud was “loosely draped over” his body is SHEER EXEGETICAL IGNORANCE!
Yannick you wrote: “I always thought the verb thightly wrap was used by John in association with Lazarus and not Jesus”. Sorry to tell you Lazarus’ napkin was wrapped “around” his face (Greek, perideo). You got it all wrong!
I just think you are mistaking déo (to fasten) with peridéo (“around”).
Typo error: you should read “The fact is the CORPSE” (instead of “the fact is the latter”).
Most probably, the long inner shroud loosened UP & DOWN all around the corpse front and back.
In my Frascati paper I wrote: “it can be theorized that the whole stiff body was all wrapped up with the interior burial shroud soaked with a watery solution and strongly stretched lengthwise, a shorter shroud (a talith or prayer shawl?) or a longer one (a byssus shroud?) wrapping it up widthwise from shoulders to toe. Such a reconstruction does not square well with the tenet of the Shroud science prevailing old paradigm from Bulst’s, Ricci’s, Jackson’s et al’s dubious reconstructions of a linen cloth draped “naturally” over a body. However, it does fit in pretty well with John’s use of the conjugated Greek verb edesan, “fastened/tightly wrapped”, (Jn 19:40).”
Your theory is flawed. Do you not understand that the code of Jewish Law instructs clearly; in the “Laws of mourning”; that a person executed by the government is to be buried in a SINGLE sheet!.
Had The Shroud man be considered just as another criminal executed by the goverment, his shroud should have been black and grossly woven…which obviouly is not the case here.
Besides Rabbi Yeshua was WRAPPED UP IN MORE THAN ONE SINGLE LINEN SHEETS (othonia). Cannot you read what is written in John’s gospel, RON?
Typo error: you should read “NOT IN ONE SINGLE LINEN SHEET BUT IN “OTHONIA”, in LINEN SHEETS:CLOTHS!
Again, the verb Edesan does not translate in any form to mean ‘tightly’ wrapped. Understand that tighty is not in the translation.
R
Ron, you are really thick. “Tightly” is IMPLIED in the ancient Greek verb “deo”. Ron, once again, are you used to BIND/FASTEN… LOOSELY?
I also wrote: “In accordance with the halakha (religious rules), any Judean dead of a violent death was to be buried “with his bloods”. In case of shed of innocent blood by the Sanhedrin, just because such innocent blood could not be atoned, it should also be purified.
Most obviously, the Man of the Shroud’s body was not directly washed. Most probably his interior burial sheet was all soaked with the waters of Red Heifer or Cow (ritual ashes mixed with pure living water) and his tightly enshrouded stiff body placed first on his left side and then on his right side (at head and knee level?) upon two stones and in extra height above a slab to be submitted to a myrrho-aloetic fumigation as if the man of the Shroud were a prince or a notable. Such a specific taharah or ritual purification might as well account for the “weightlessness effect”, part of the 1988 wrong official carbon 14 dating and the overall formation process of the body image (with such neat and almost fresh-looking blood imprints on the linen fabric). Since the double imprint might well result from an overall gradual pressure release of the soaked long interior linen cloth drying up next to the crucifixion victim’s stiff body, a project in experimental archaeology would be most appropriate to reconstruct this specific late ancient Judean burial rite.”
Typo errror: you should read ” “In case of innocent blood shed by the Sanhedrin” instead of “In case of shed of innocent blood by the Sanhedrin”.
I also wrote: “A linen bandage or a (diagonally?) rolled up napkin tied at eye level in a knot at the back and over the veiled enshrouded head might well have stopped the lepton simpvlvm from slipping further along left eyebrow arch that is between the body and the internal face of the Shroud. The same rolled up napkin might have also been used as the abutting cushion of a small logette or “jawbox”; an apparatus made of three wooden pieces (most opportunely cut or sawn from the trilingual titulus damnationis?) to hold the dead man’s stiff open mouth shut just in case the braid of the skullcap either could not be buttoned (or fastened) under the chin and should have been removed as faulty. This might well account for the U-shaped discontinuous laterality of the face imprint and the presence of a couple of Latin, Greek and Hebrew ghost letter sequence images still to be deciphered.
Typo error line 8: “either” is to be deleted.
Think Max. If there was a rolled up napkin tied around at eye level, then how would the image of the eye area or the coins be formed (present) on the Shroud? Truly I see no sign that of a ‘Jaw-box’ or a ‘Jaw-strap’ evident on the Shroud! Remember the dark areas of non image on each side of the face has been concluded to be due to ‘dark bands’ of the Shroud strands itself and evident thru-out the Shroud.
Let’s also not forget the burial was done in haste, where would they find a saw to saw the titulus, into pieces then to inscribe on them and all the other things you mention? There are too many ‘assumptions” in your hypothesis, I suggest.
R
Ron,don’t you ever think all you are asserting here as facts might well be just…recieved ideas?
There was no need to incised the wooden pieces or write on a linen head band: they were already incised and written!
In my 1998 Turin paper, I demonstrated the Shroud man burial time-frame should be reconsidered. Two hours and a half as a minimum time-frame was a much fairer estimation.
The rolled up napkin was tied around at eye level ON TOP of the veiled enshrouded head.
The rolled up napkin is not a must. The improvised “jaw box” can also work just in conjunction with a veil tightly wrapped around the enshrouded head.
I very much doubt you can understand what I mean by “U-shaped discontinuous laterality of the face imprint”.
Typo errors: you should read “lepton simpulum” instead of “lepton simpvlvm” and “further along the left eyebrow”.
Yannick, by the way, what do you make of the U-shaped discontinuous laterality of the face imprint? Nothing I guess as it would contradict your non-archaeological reconstruction you believe in.
Yannick, do you really think the verb “to drape over” means “to fasten” in English or are you eluding the question? Shall I repeat John uses the Greek verb edo, “to fasten/to tightly wrap”?
Typo erro: you should read “deo” (instead of “edo”).
Again edo does not translate with the word or meaning ‘tightly’, it is simply ‘TO-BIND’, BOUND or to-wind, nothing more….You see you are adding the tightly to agree with your ‘flawed’ theory,. So with the word translated as “to-bind”, “to-wrap” or “bound”, John’s narrative does not go against what we see on the Shroud or how Dr. Jackson theorizes the Shroud was wrapped around the body.
R
Sorry typo; ‘Deo’…. Also you should know that Jackson’s hypothesis does include “binding” the Shroud with a seperate cloth; The side strip as mentioned and talked about in an earlier blog posting….So according to Jackson, you have the body laid on half the Shroud, the Shroud then folded head to toe over the body, both ends joining at the feet (plenty of evidence for this), then wrapped and tucked at the sides (evidence for this too), then the side strip or some other strip, bound around the feet, knees, wrists and throat areas….seems logical to me and most is evident in the image we see….I also can not foresee your loosening of the shroud as it would be undoubtably ‘cemented’ to the body because of all the moist blood (This has been shown thru scientific shroud studies)~No separation of blood from the fibrels is evident.
.
R
Ron, shall I repeat it JUST FOR YOU, the ancient Greek verb “deo” (“edo” is a typo error) DOES NOT ONLY MEAN “to bind/wind [linen sheets/pieces of cloth]” BUT ALSO “to fasten [that is to TIGHTLY close/encircle/wrap linen sheets/pieces of cloth around a corpse]”.
By the way, if Jackson’s “cloth collapse theory” is right, how come then the side strip which would have diagonally bound the corpse has not recorded the least partial body images? How come just a much fainter image of only the face and possibly of the hands are recorded on the back side of the Shroud? Besides, how can you or Jackson account for the U-shaped discontinuous laterality of the face imprint?
In spite of my deep respect for Jackson’s pioneering work, I must say his “resurrection physics” JUS DOES NOT WORK here!
Have you ever FASTENED/TIGHTLY WRAPPED a corpse with coton or linen sheets? I have twice in my whole life. Each time, I had to bind AND tighly wrap the corpse to counteract the effects of rigor morts (to avoid awkward positions).
You forget that the words (verbs) Deo and Edesan can be used in different contexts and that fasten is the least excepted translation. Furthermore, in each context it will have a different ‘meaning’ so for you to say it meant ‘tightly’ bound is a huge assumption…get it now? If Lazarus was ‘tightly’ bound for instance, how did he manage to walk out of the tomb of his own accord?
As for Jackson’s collapsing hypothesis, yes it makes perfect sense that the ‘strip’ would not have any image and I think it explains the very faint back image found of the hands and head ONLY….Need an explanation? Here’s a tip; think about “TIME” duration here Max.
R
Ron, you better ask a physicist’s second opinion instead of desesperatly sticking to Jackson’s.
As far as the meaning of the Greek verb deo is concerned, “my assumption” is in no way huger than yours!
Most likely, Lazarus was dressed in his burial garments and had his wrists and ankles tightly bound. He had just to shuffle his way out of the tomb. Rabbi Yeshua’s burial case is quite different.
Ron, once again I ask you: are you used to BIND… LOOSELY?
As early as 1994, I tried to make an experimental reconstruction of the Shroud man burial. The very length of the side strip does not allow to diagonally bind ankles, knees, hands and throat altogether with a body about the size of the Sm (1m75-1m80). Besides, their are blank areas only at hand and possibly ankle levels not at knee level. At throat level, there is a solid object imprint much like that left by a wooden piece.
Max have you viewed the video of Dr Jackson showing his side-strip hypothesis? If not I suggest you visit shroud-enigma.com and look under ‘wrapping’ and watch the first video. You get the picture.
R
Sorry, last sentence should read; You’ll get the picture.
What you call “Jackson’s hypothesis” might well be mine. Shall I repeat, I first mentioned the side strip hypothesis in a memo called “La Solution Archéologique de l’Enigme” (1997 Congrès International de NIce, France). As early as 1994, I tested the side strip hypothesis. When was it Jackson first tested the side strip hypothesis?
The blanks at hand and ankle level are not necessarily to be linked with the burial. The Sm might well have been bound with cords when alive.
Your not serious!
Much more than you are if you ask me.
The remoistened blood had no time to cemented to the Shroud soaked with a watery solution just because both were dried up before the cementing process.
What? Please explain this.
R
What about your common sense,Ron?
…occured.
I can read fine can you? You are clearly speculating that when John states othonia that it means more then one sheet had been bound to the body. He does not say that specifically, understand now?
Your first satement to the “black and grossly woven shroud is laughable”, sorry. Why? becuase you are not taking the whole situaton into account.
R
RON, you may laugh your ass off, you are totally wRONg!
The TRUE facts, are:
The Greek word othonia is in the PLURAL form and does mean ‘linen sheetS “or “pieceS of cloth”. It does imply the use of MORE THAN one linen sheet or piece of cloth, UNDERSTAND?
As far as the use of a black shroud (in a Judean burial in the Second Temple period) is concerned, just read the Talmud Babli and you will know about your IGNORANCE!
I understand othonia is plural, meaning more then one cloth, but you are not understanding my point! Point being; John never states the ‘cloths’ had been bound around the body, just that he saw more then one cloth…There could have been several cloths in the tomb, but not all neccessarily were used to wrap the body! Understand my point yet? But he makes a ‘point’ of stating the sudarium ‘had been’ about his head
As for the black sheet, read the scriptures again Max…all gospels!
R
When will you START reading the Talmud Babli (to start with tamuldic literature), Ron?
Shall I repeat on this blog: Rabbi Yeshua’s buriers use of a white shroud and not a black one means they think him innocent of the crimes he was sentenced to death and executed.
The TRUE fact is John DID write rabbi’s Yesha’s body was fastened/bound/tightly wrapped in OTHONIA (linen sheets/piecesof cloth). Ron, YOU CANNOT READ!
See John 19:40.
The ancient Greek word othonia can be translated into biblical Hebrew either by sedinim or pisheti. These words do not refer to a single linen sheet. NO WAY!
The biblical Hebrew word sadin as “shroud/piece of cloth/linen sheet” is always translated into Vulgate Greek either by sindon (singular) or othonion (singular) not othonia (plural). No WAY!
However a large enough sindon/linen sheet can be divided into SEVERAL linen sheets (othonia).
No, but I think you are!…You make nothing here but loose assumptions with no scientific study to back any of your statements, this has been pointed out to you before by others. My statements on the otherhand are backed by many hours of study by people with first hand knowledge on the SHroud and secondly by my own judgement and should I say common sense.
R
It is most obvious you just cannot archaeologically or scientifically think by yourself!
Ron, just keep studying to ward off your IGNORANCE!
I don’t have to ask Max, I’ve read several physicist’s remarks on the theory.
R
Are those physicist catholics?
My common sense tells me your delusional if you really want to know. Your hypotheses are not based on any common sense whatsoever and that remark I commented on proves it.
R
This I will agree with you and I see you finally agree with me that A white shroud (singular) was used and not more.
R
Shall I repeat here again and again, in the Second Temple period, had Rabbi Yesha been seen by his buriers as a mere criminal executed by the goverment, he would have been buried in a grossly woven black shroud not a white one. Most likely, he was swaddled in more than one white linen sheet (in tachihim or white shrouds + a sovev or lenthy shroud + (possibly) a thalith or prayer shawl)
Typo errors: “tahihim” (instead of “tachihim”); “lengthy” etc
I had not to agree with you on that, you just misunderstood me. RON your are not delusional in believing the “cloth collapse theory” for sure! TOO BAD, your religious bias is just taking over the best of your intelligence!
Typo error: you should read “delusional in believing in the cloth collapse theory”
If the “cloth collapse theory” is now common sense, I do understand the reason why Shroud Science is “commonly” labelled as a pseudo-science!
Ron, is it really what you call common sense?
Is it catholic common sense?
Max I never said the collapse theory is common sense, I said it makes sense, you are putting words in my mouth. What I’ve been trying to tell you nicely is that your hypothesis makes no sense. But if you want to close your mind to a particular notion that’s your prorogative. I’m just attempting (by pointing out flaws to your hypothsis), to get you to rethink your hypothesis. AND please don’t bring up religious bias in this as I think I’ve proved although I believe this is Christ’s burial cloth, that I have strived to be open minded, scientific, reasonable and truthful, much more then I can say for many others here.
R
Ha ha ha !
I am 1000% wth you Yannick (for once)!
At least Max, we agree that the best probability that can explain the Shroud images is a NATURAL kind of phenomenon…
A natural approach, er, in a way I rather would say a Halakhic approach.
Typing error. You should read: “I’d rather say”.
Typing error. you should read “naturalistic approach” (instead of “nature approach”)
In one of my previous twits I most awkwardly wrote in haste: “The remoistened blood had no time to cemented to the Shroud soaked with a watery solution just because both were dried up before the cementing process.” I should have written instead: Through evaporation and gradual pressure release, the interior shroud (soaked with a watery solution) gradually lost contact with the blood stained body. Owing to the purifying and drying up ritual, blood had not time to cement to the shroud. My theory does make archaeological, physical, chemical (see Rogers) and exegetical sense and can be replicated. Jackson’s is archeologiccally, exegitically and physically flawed and connot replicated. Besides you got it all wrong with John 19:40.
Correction: “My theory can be experimentally checked out (I have 3 different archeaological scenari to replicate the body image). Jackson’s cannnot be experimenrtally checked out.”
If you realy understand what I mean by “the U-shaped discontinuous laterality of the face imprint “, please explain that to me within the Jakson’s theory. By the way I am still waiting for you to answer this more simple question: Ron, are used to bind….loosely?
Correction: “within the economy of the Jackson’s and single linen sheet theory”.
…to loosely bind/fasten or wrap when it comes to counteract the effect of rigor mrtis.
Better say: “rigor statuaris”
Ron, your common sense you much boast for is definitely not mine.
On Steve’s blog I read one blogger (“Deuce”) boyh asking & answering to his own quiery: “what do you make of Max Patrick Hamon’s argument, in reply to your comment on that thread, that Jackson’s theory can’t work because the image on the reverse side of the Shroud contains only the face and hands and not the rest of the body? Hamon attributes it to “more pressure” on the cloth by the hands and face.”
Deuce immedialte adding: “Personally, I find Hamon’s idea problematic because if the reverse-side image were the result of more pressure, then there should have been a *much stronger* image of Jesus’ back on the reverse side of the back image than there is of his face and hands on the reverse of the front side. After all, the back is the side of the Shroud he was laying on, with the full pressure of his body weight!”
I would have hoped both Deuce and Steve had more carefully read what I wrote. I wrote; “…his (Rabbi Yeshua’s) tightly enshrouded stiff body was placed first on his left side and then on his right side (at head and knee level?) upon two stones and in extra height above a slab to be submitted to a myrrho-aloetic fumigation.” During the image formation process, his body was not laying on his back (in a suspine position)! Thus my idea is not so “problematic”.It just needs more careful attention to it.
By the way, the very partial body images (head and possibly ands) recorded on the back side of the linen cloth those recorded on the front side are capilar not radiative. Marcel Alonso, a FrenchShroud scholar wrote: “L’hypothèse de la double superficialité de l’image (Fanti, Rogers, 2005) est démentie par l’image en transmission prise par Riggi en 1988, qui montre qu’elle existe bien dans l’épaisseur du tissu.” and “les images par transmission laissent voir un léger épaississement des fils, dans les mailles (pourtant lâches), confirmant la présence de l’image dans la profondeur du tissage. En effet, les fils dont le diamètre est 100 fois plus grand que les fibres n’ont pu piéger un surcroît de liquides, colloïdes et particules associées, qu’aux points de contacts entre eux. Ce seront les zones ayant retenu dans leurs mailles le plus de fluides qui apparaîtront après séchage les plus sombres (celles au contact des cheveux, moustache, barbe, sourcils…). C’est une preuve supplémentaire en faveur du principe d’image capillaire, opposé au à celui d’image radiative.”
Typing errors: AND those recorded on te front side are capilar not radiative.”
“the” & “capillar”
Sorry Steve to disagree with you , but the nose, eye, hair, beard and moustache images on the back and front side of the linen cloth are capillar not radiative images. Ths is most obvious when seen in transmitted light…
Typing error: “eyebrow arch” image (instead of “eye”)
Thats’ a strong statement Max! Do you have proof that the images you mention run completely through the material as would be the case with capillary action? From what I’ve read, those whom have investigated the images FIRST HAND, have stated these images are only ‘superficial’ on the back, same as found on the frontal image and do not run through as found with most blood images.
R
The hair, eyebrow arch, beard and moustache images are in the thickness of the linen fabric and do completely run through it. French Shroud scholar Marcel Alonso noticed it well before me (see his above-mentioned observations extracted from a paper entitled “Le Linceul est-il Surnaturel ?” he wrote in 2005.
See 1988 Riggi photographs taken in transmitted light.
The hair, eyebrow arch, beard and moustache images are blood images.
Correction: “are fluid images” (instead of blood images”).
or better: “dried up fluid images”
Shall I repeat here, this is pretty obvious ONLY when the said areas are observed in transmtted light or from photograph taken in transmitted light.
Dan, can you only translate Spanish and not French to English via Google?