Colin Berry writes, “Did you know there is a high-definition image of the Turin Shroud (most of it still under wraps)?”
And, pondering a piece of that image from David Rolfe’s website:
Given the absence of “eyebrows” except as a darkening of the image along the brow ridge – who is to say that there are eyebrows – as distinct from a pressure imprint off a bony prominence? What about the moustache and beard? Are they really there, or do we just interpret the darker image above and below the mouth as facial hair? Who is to say that they too are not mere prominences that are preferentially imaged.
And a few paragraphs later after some interesting analysis he screams:
Am I the only one to find it incomprehensible that a HD image should have been taken of the Shroud in 2008, and made the subject of a documentary – while here we are, over 4 years later speculating on what it might or might not show – except for the small part that the documentary-maker currently uses as banner on his blog?
RELEASE THE FULL HD IMAGE NOW, PLEASE TURIN – WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED
It is totally unacceptable that controversy and speculation should continue to this day, when much of it is uninformed or pure guesswork – the result of commentators being ignorant of, or denied (easy) access to the facts.
Although I do not support your theory about scorching I do support your request for granting free access to any available material (that includes photos and HD images) for independent research. However, I bet that nobody will release anything. Welcome to the Shroud community!!
The danger of releasing this material to anybody is the risk that you give it to some members of the lunatic fringe and they can make new $$$ on the back of Jesus again or create again new hypothesis that will make believe the resurrection can be proven while using the Shroud.
Noticed that those people have not wait until this HD material can be released before creating their “theories” !!! ;-)
Colin,
The apparent absence of eyebrow on the Shroud face is most likely due to the presence of objects placed on the corresponding areas (such as a small band shaped papyrus fragment
written both in Hebrew and Greek/Latin on one side and covering the right eyebrow arch and
a coin and the petalless head of a cown daisy on the left one).
For purpose research (to check my findings), I myself wrote twice to Turin (in January 2010 and February 2011) to have the HD images of the eye areas. They did have even the courtesy to reply (Was it because they wrongly thought me a member from SSG?).
Correction: “a crown daisy”
+ correction: “they did not even have the courtesy”
+++ correction: “For research purpose (to triple check my findings)”
Correction: “a small band shaped papyrus OR LINEN HEAD-BAND fragment”
++ corrections: “The apparent absence of eyebrowS on the Shroud face is most likely due to the presence of objects placed OR DISPLACED on the corresponding areas”
For information sake, a first and even second generation 1931 Enrie Shroud face photograph is better stuff than the positive image in Rolfe’s banner!
Don’t you ever forget, it is common knowledge in archaeology, glyptology and criminology to use flash in an oblique angle to make appear imprints/impressions that do not appear under other lightings.
“Are [the moustache and beard] really there, or do we just interpret the darker image above and below the mouth as facial hair?”
That can’t be a serious question.
In order for a professional numismatist, archaeological or archaeocryptological analyst to ideally detect and analyse valuable impressions on the eye areas that are not easily seen under normal lighting conditions, high quality (orthochromatic, traditional silver and/or extensive digital), close-up photographs of the Shroud face under appropriate lighting conditions are required. Still ideally, when using a flash, the flash should be held at a 17-18 degree angle and fired from four different positions with at least 90 degrees separation.
Personally, I’m not so sure there AREN’T any eyebrows as I see faintly what I would consider could be taken as eyebrows.
I’m with you Chris, I seem to have no issue seeing eyebrows. But I must be specify they show up more predominantly in the ‘positive’ images. Furthermore they seem to be quite bushy, which can be a trait of semitic males.
Image analysts cannot see eyebrows. Good to you if you can see “bushy” eyebrows!
Max, what can I say! I cannot explain others not noticing the eyebrows, they seem to show quite well in ‘positive’ and ‘3d’ renderings to me, always!. So Image analysts or not they cannot change or challenge what I see and neither can you, just because you or they do not….Humbly I say; maybe I’m just naturally more visually perceptive. ;-)
No image analysis is possible if you don’t know how the image was formed. Put more simply – you cannot interpret a photograph if it is not a photograph…
Colin you say:
“No image analysis is possible if you don’t know how the image was formed. Put more simply – you cannot interpret a photograph if it is not a photograph…”
Unfortunately, this ALSO applies to you… for sadly enough, I might well be the first and sole to know how exactly the bloody body image was formed on the lengthy burial sheet ; -)
Beware if you see things in 3D that you cannot see in 2D. Were you aware, for example, that the herringbone weave in Rolfe’s HD banner disappears in 3D, to be replaced by a grid of verticals and horizontals? (Yes, curious, isn’t it, and I am presently at a loss for an explanation). Given that we can be certain that the latter is an artefact (one of the few things that IS certain, even for those self-styled specialist Shroud image-analysts) then what else that we see, or think we see, in 3D is an artefact – bushy eyebrows included?
Incidentally, 3D images of the “eyes” show no greater information to my pair of eyes – just patches of largely undifferentiated grey – no sign of coins etc – but then what does a mere “chemist” know about such matters?
Colin,
Don’t you rely too much on Rolfe’s banner. This is a much too biased photographic material to be used for scientific observation. Shall I repeat, even Enrie Shroud face photograph 2nd and 3rd generation copies are far better.
The HD image is digitally patched.
Shall I repeat, in order for a professional numismatist, archaeological or archaeocryptological analyst to ideally detect and analyse valuable impressions on the eye areas that are not easily seen under normal lighting conditions, high quality (orthochromatic, traditional silver and/or extensive digital), close-up
photographs of the Shroud face under appropriate lighting conditions are required. Still ideally, when using a flash, the flash should be held at a 17-18 degree angle and fired from four different positions with at least 90 degrees separation.
The “I think I see” or “I don’t see” argument is of no value here.
Ron,
When it comes to partial Pilate coin blood decals on the eye areas, you think I am the varlet of “I think I sees” in spite of the very fact I used the very strict methodology of an eidomatic numismatic reading grid based on blood pattern analysis and triple check to detect, study and understand the factual/physical evidence. 3D image specialists such as Soons and Dawkins have independently noticed the absence of any eyebrow imprint on the Shroud face. Now your “I think I see” is king enough to assert you think you see “bushy eyebrow imprints” on the Shroud face without even recurring to the slightest analytical methodology. Are you serious?
Your mistaking me for someone else Max, I never refutted anything you ‘think you see’ on the Shroud. In fact I’m in favour of the idea that something is or are over the eyes, as can be ‘seen’ clearly in 3d renderings and mentioned by Jackson et al,. As I said before you can’t ask me to expain how ‘others’ cannot or do not see the eyebrows, when I do. What makes Soons or Dawkins anymore reliable then I in viewing elements of the Shroud?. Still don’t believe me? look at the left right eyebrow, the one where the backwards 3 bloodstain dribbles too. The bwrds 3 stops but there is another bloodstain sitting directly on where one would assume is an eyebrow, look right or left notice something? there is also blood all along the eyebrow and it also widens as it goes along. Compare this area; colour, brightness, shape to the beard or mustach area, see anything comparable?
Again Max, you say you see things, and scourn people when they refute you (again not I) yet you will question others when they believe they see things? …Get a hold of yourself man.
R
Correction above; look at the left eyebrow, right on the positive,
R
Ron,
You wrote “I’m in favour of the idea that something is or are over the eyes, as can be ‘seen’ clearly in 3d renderings and mentioned by Jackson et al.” So was Tamburelli and is Soons who both as CLEARLY did notice in their 3D renderings the absence of eyebrows… In order to become aware of it, you can perform a simple test: make a blood decal of your eyebrows on a linen sheet (soaked or not in a watery solution) and then compare it to that of the Shroud face. Cannot you see the difference?
Now, take a digital photo of the blood decal of your eyebrows and make a 3D image of it. Still cannot see any difference with the Shroud 3D images?
Correction: “When it comes to Pilate coin partial blood decals on the eye areas”…
Max your forgetting something; NO ONE knows how the image got onto the Shroud. How could I possibly compare me putting blood on a sheet and taking a picture of it with what is seen on the Shroud? Seriously man!!…..Believe what you will Max. But I say you and Tamburelli and Soons are wrong. From what “I see” and deduce….nothing you say will change my mind. As I see what I see. Thanks for coming out…
R
It is all right with me if you want to stick to ‘your’ bushy eyebrows and totally overlook or ignore the possible presence of objects placed or displaced on them. You are free to think Jackson, Tamburelli, Soons, Dawkins are wrong and you are right.
Ron, you are forgetting something: (shall I repeat?) sadly enough, I might well be the first and sole to know how exactly the bloody body image was formed on the lengthy burial sheet ; -)
Max are you Daft? I have mentioned many times I agree with Jackson and others that there are ‘objects’ over the eyes. Even in a post above! I’am not so much saying their wrong but that I see what I see when I view the images of the Shroud just as they see what they see. Are you maybe under the influence of some drug(s)? As you have now several times claimed you have ‘outsmarted’ all others and have found the method of the image production…That is a very arrogant statement my friend.
R
Ron,
I was talking about objects over the EYEBROWS (NOT over the eyes)! Cannot you read (my) English? Are you “daft” or “under the influence of some drug(s)”?
“ArwRONgance” would be a much fitter word..
Could you tell Peter Soons & Ray Downig YOU CAN see “quite bushy eyebrows” on the Shroud face. BTW I am still waiting for you to provide me a 3D image showing what your “semitic males’.eyebrows” look like LMAO.
Ron,
BTW, in all likelihood, the Shroud image results from an autocollimated vaporographic mordanting (just in case you’d like to know). Besids, I wish you could show me just one 3D image of the Shroud man’s anatomic eyebrows.
There are points I could make that may (or may not) help the discussion, that may, or may not, upset those of a delicate disposition. But I’m not posting comments and then hanging around, logging on and off, just to see whether they have cleared Dan’s twitchy resort to pre-moderation. I discovered the solution late last night, which is to post just before bedtime. (Think about it). That will be my solution while the present pre-moderation regime continues. Expect another comment in approx 14 hours, and not before…
Colin wrote: “I discovered the solution late last night” (his third or fourth solution to the Shroud enigma?)
Was it just after I wrote him:
“Hope some day you will be able to REALLY understand what I wrote (My letter to David Rolfe). Ever heard of mordantings ancient textile with ashes? Ever heard of water mechanically entrapped in the void spaces among the flax fibres and evaporating while compressed? Ever heard of the effect of alkali pretreatment on mechanical and morphological properties of flax? Ever heard of a compressed linen burial sheet in direct contact with a stiff rigid body and gradually getting taut again while shrinking and acting like a autocollimating membrane? Ever heard of 3/1 twill weave linen fabric return force? etc.
Don’t you waste your time and energy with your “scorchographic hypothesis” to explain how the image got onto the lengthy linen cloth (your explanation is chemically, physically, archaeologically and forensically illiterate). In all likelihood, I repeat, the image results from an auto collimated vaporographic mordanting.”?
So now your claiming there is objects or ‘misplaced’ objects over the eyebrows! LMAO, Max your something else. Furthermore, YES I think your arrogance has reached a new plateau in claiming you have outsmarted ALL others and have solved the mytsery of the creation of the Shroud image…Congradulations Max. Now as we all here on this blog have read your statement on this, I will ask you to produce the image then, just as we asked our friend Colinsberry to do.
Use your own body if you like, I don’t care.
R
I wrote “displaced” not “misplaced”.
Have you ever heard of post mortem body handling?
Cannot you see e.g. the somewhat rounded protrusion on the external part of the left anatomical eyebrow on Tamburelli’s 3D reconstruction?
Ron,
One day or another, you’ll have to face the fact there are smarter people than you all over the world!
Ron,
As far as the Turin Shroud is concerned, the main difference between you and me is I am doing first hand research FOR FREE while you are only reading research papers and articles and just compile them. This is a world of a difference. It takes you 15-30mn to read a research paper or article that may have taken YEARS OF RESEARCH FOR FEE… You produce nothing but are very demanding for others to produce for free. Experimental archaeology has a cost if one wants to reconstruct Yeshua’s burial and solve once for all the image formation process mystery.
Correction: “YEARS OF RESEARCH FOR FREE (and in parallel with my professional activities)”
Ron,
BTW, do you REALLY want the Shroud image process mystery to be solved once for all? I very much doubt it…. as you WANT IT to be not just providential but the result of a most unexplainable miraculous burst of resurrectionnal/radiant energy.
In other words, much in the line of Fanti’s paper for image criteria, you have a tendency to want the rest of the world read the Shroud through YOUR most subjective, arbitrary and obviously biased scientific view in an unconscious attempt to lead Shroud Science in a dead end so as to convince
everyone that the image miraculoulsly was formed.
(PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC) DEAD END WILL NEVER PROVE RESURRECTION
Sorry typo “DISPLACED” …still Max where are these displaced objects and where are they displaced from or too??….It’s funny how I cannot possibly see eyebrows or what seems to me to be eyebrows but it’s okay, no it’s more accurate that you see displaced objects…come on Max don’t you realize your hypocracy! Furthermore, I guess because I’m not scorching linen or wetting towels, I should just refrain from commenting whatsoever on the Shroud?….Grow up Max.
R
Very cheap and childish comment from an alleged “all brained” grown-up…
…not even funny…
I will just insert a quick word here before bed (leaving the Frenchman to continue trashing my own site as he has been doing all day).
I thought Irene Corgiat produced a reasonable model of the Shroud face a couple of months ago, which Dan reported here:
http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/irene-corgiats-shroud-of-turin-image/
But if you look at the criticisms levelled, many ignored completely the image, and took the form of “what about the blood stains”? etc etc. it’s what I call XYZ nitpicking. If X looks tricky, then move to Y, if Y lloks tricky, move to Z.
Corgiat’s pyrography involved drawing a negative image – perhaps its weakest aspect, but at least it did show some encoded 3D characteristics, which are not that difficult to embed – all that’s needed is a gradation of image density- rather like contour lines on a map. Even the 1532 burn marks on the Shroud respond to 3D imaging – not surprising when you think about density gradients in charring.
Oh, and let’s not forget that the challenge is not merely to reproduce putative medieval technology, but all the ageing changes and assorted insults from hot pokers (allegedly) fires, water, mending etc etc.
I’m pretty certain that the Shroud image is some kind of pressure imprint, dare one call it a barograph. It’s knowing how the imprint was captured and memorised is the next question. I stioll believe it was a scorch. The head may have been a metal bas-relief, as suggested earlier, but I’m coming round to the idea that it was fired or even unfired ceramic – simply clay that was allowed to set, and then heated to make the ‘barothermograph’ aka scorch, which fits with a lot of the crucial characteristic of the Shroud image.
OK, I know I’m wasting my time here, but I saw my name mentioned, and as I say, there’s someone rampaging around my own site as I write…
Goodnight one and all. Expect no replies in the next 24 hours.
More trash and pseudo scientific blabla from an old retired chemist “losing it” while working from biased shroud photographic material to come…
Ron, you are “losing it”!
IRon, if I am right, I do hope you won’t get sick…
I have been following this diatribe over the last few days so far without comment. It’s evident that Max Patrick Hamon has a serious communication problem, correcting, recorrecting and then re-editing his own comments, I am disgusted with the arrogance he displays both to Ron and to Colin Berry who in their own way both make worthwhile contributions, irrespective of whether agreement is found or not. If Max is incapable of showing basic courtesies to other participants, he would be better confining himself to what he’s best at – … Being Vague! He needs to take something for whatever ails him!
Davelish goes again with his forked tongue!
I guess Daveb’s dream (who apparently habours an old ill rancor against me) would have me out of this blog. Ill-rancor is definitively not one of his best Christian virtues.
As for “Being Vague”, just check my detailed reconstruction of Yeshua’s burial together with my persnal exegesis of the Gospels’ Hebrew and Greek time, object and action markers… Bad faith is not one of Daveb’s best Christian virtues either.
What ails Daveb? That is question?
Correction: “That is THE question?”
But back to the REAL question (namely the Shroud image formation process).
I maybe neither a high priest of physics nor a high priest of chemistry but, according to my detailed archaeocryptological scenario, it is rather easy to reconstruct the shroud image formation process: the absence (back and front) of almost any air gap between the width wise compressed burial sheet tautly wrapped lengthwise around the corpse in blood (still in hyperthermia at 41-42°C?) and soaked in warm alkaline solution (ashes and/or limestone mixed with water) and the body skin acted as a body shaped collimator when the tightly wrapped up corpse was subjected to an aloetic/myrrhic-aloetic fumigation and the watery solution started to evaporate. The linen cloth back and front were coincident with the central axis of the watery solution molecular beam and almost no air gap was left during the image formation process… Being still too vague?
My objections are to downright displays of arrogance and rudeness, which ill befits the solemnity of the artifact that we are all in awe of. I ought to have said that if he cannot observe the common courtesies, it would be better if he at least attempted to be vague.
Most of us attempt to conceal our personal idiocies by engaging our brain before hitting the keyboard or ‘Post Comment’ button, and so we avoid the need for persistent rephrasing.
Those who have already achieved at least some success in their lives seldom feel the need to resort to rudeness as any kind of dubious debating tactic!
My lovely grandma had French forbears, and so I refuse to believe that displays of arrogance are necessarily any kind of national trait!
Really too bad Dbofwnz hasn’t retained his lovely grandma trait!
Correction (communication/twitting problem): “his lovely grandma’s trait!”
A mention has been made of Fanti’s published work on images. It’s not clear which paper is being referred to, but having just persevered with that author’s prolix 2004* paper on the “Second Face” and reverse side images I have to say i am not hugely impressed (an understatement if ever there was, given everyting I write here is now pre-moderated and vetted). It’s not just that the faint hints of images appear only after many levels of computer “enhancement”, filter techniques etc to separate signal from noise (leaving one wondering if Fanti was really seeing a reverse side image at all as distinct from a transmitted/filtered front side image. It’s the fact that there are only 7 mentions of “blood”, and only one of those addresses the key question as to whether blood seeps across linen as expected. Yup, apart from one brief reference to the famous “3” (epsilon) that’s it. So why, one may ask, if it’s only the head and hands that are vaguely imaged on the reverse side, why does one not see all those blood trails of the forearms prominent there also, even if the rest of the image is absent?
How can a scientist fail to address so obvious an issue, relegating blood almost to a footnote? It is yet another instance of the “credibility gap” that exists in Shroud so-called science, says he choosing his words carefully…
* The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud
Fanti and Maggiolo
J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 6 (2004) 491–503
Max seriously; How old are you? From the childish little rants you keep posting, I’d swear your like 13 or something. Seriously please refrain from insulting people….I can’t believe Dan has not begun to screen your posts, it’s getting to much.
Ron