Yannick has another article for us The Holy Shroud Guild:
- English PDF: Concerning the question of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: please, don’t forget the evidence of the bloodstains!!!
- French PDF: En ce qui concerne la question de l’authenticité du Linceul de Turin : s’il-vous-plaît, n’oubliez pas la preuve fournie par les taches de sang!!!
Congratulations on producing your paper Yannick and getting it onto the web.
I notice that you include cartography, geography and astronomy in your activities.
Depending on how far you may have taken these interests, I suggest these might be adequate qualifications for you to attempt this litte project. I should like to see any attempts to map the surface of a human body frontal and dorsal, say a mannequin, on to a cloth. You can try the mappings with the cloth tightly wrapped around the body, or else merely draped over the body. I think the results may well illuminate what credible processes might be involved in producing the Shroud image. Clearly tightly wrapped will produce a different image from loosely draped.
If the cloth is tightly wrapped and if the process is some kind of chemical contact process, then I think you might find that the mapping produces too wide an image for it to confirm that this was the process involved. On the other hand, if the cloth is loosely draped, it might produce the near-orthogonal image that we see on the Shroud. but then we have to decide what might be a credible process that would produce the image. If it is a gaseous flow process, this would seem to contrain the paths of the molecules in some peculiar way. However if it was some kind of radiation or atomic particle process, then this might do it, but then we would have to ask what could the driving mechanism be that would enable this process?
I hope that you will be able to find time to give this project some little thought.
Thanks Dave for your kind word.
On the question of whether the cloth was very tight around the body or loose at the moment of the image formation, I think science have a pretty good idea of the correct answer, after the work of Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline of STURP that was independently confirmed quite well by Mario Latendresse in 2005. After having read these papers and reflect a long time on the subject, I think the most reasonable and rational way to answer the question is to say that unlike the blood and serum stains (that are a complete produce of a direct contact transfer process between the corpse and the cloth, which indicate that at some point, the Shroud MUST have been tightly wrapped or compressed over most parts of the body), the body image process operate in a different way and was most probably active only when the cloth had changed his configuration and wasn’t so tight around the body anymore. It’s only with a cloth loosely draped over the corpse that it is possible to obtain (with the help of a process of projection of the image) a body image like we see on the Shroud that don’t possess big distorsion (but that possess some minor distorsions nevertheless). In fact, to summarize my opinion, I would say that the blood and serum stains were caused uniquely by a direct contact process when the cloth was, during a time (that could have been short) in direct contact with most parts of the corpse, while the body image was caused by a process acting in direct contact AND at short distance (that could be 4 cm but that could well be less than that in reality). I think this is the most rational way to explain both the blood and serum stains and the body image on the Shroud. Now, for the eternal question of the image formation process, you already know my answer : All the data coming from the Shroud cannot discard the possibility of a natural process (chemical in nature) and I think science should keep looking in that direction to find a definitive answer. Rogers (and Vignon before him) has carved the road and I think others should follow this path…
And here’s a note for anyone who want to know more about me : If you click on the first link provided by Dan entitled “The Holy Shroud Guild”, you’ll be able to read my little autobiography entirely. Dan wrote that it is another paper but in fact, this is the same paper I published here and on the website of Pete Schumacher (shroudnm.com) last month. I’m just glad Giorgio of the Holy Shroud Guild loved so much my paper that he decided to put it online on his website ! I have to say a big thank you to him for his help to diffuse this paper to the world. I have put so much effort and so many hours (in the writting but more on the thinking) that it’s fun to know that I didn’t do all this for nothing… Have a good reading (if it’s not already done) !!!
Footnote: Yannick, I stil think the mapping of a mannequin body surface on to a cloth is quite important. It has serious geometrical implications. Also, think about the leg calves, ankles and feet. How was the Shroud wrapped around these, to produce the images we see. They’re so narrow, it would seem that the cloth would even have to be doubled over itself if they were wrapped at all. This suggests to me that the cloth may only have been draped. Note that we already know that there are no images of the lateral aspects of these.
I agree with about one important thing : The study that was done by the STURP team and confirmed later by Latendresse only focussed on the most probable cloth-body configuration on-top of the body !!! NOBODY HAS EVER DONE THE SAME KIND OF STUDY FOR THE PROBABLE CONFIGURATION OF THE PART OF THE SHROUD THAT WAS RESTING ON THE FUNERAL TABLET IN THE TOMB AND THE DORSAL PART OF THE BODY. This kind of precise study is waiting to be done and I don’t understand that nobody ever done it since 1978 !!!
One thing’s for sure: this dorsal image on the Shroud never seem to pose problem for Rogers versus his hypothesis of image formation !!! Here’s what he said about that (found in the recent paper published by Thibault) : “Evaporation concentration at the surface of a cloth limits the depth of penetration of reactions into the cloth: The dorsal image is NOT a problem.”
I think what Rogers mean by that is that his own hypothesis concerning the chromophore of the image can easily explain why the dorsal image as roughly the same characteristics than the frontal (especially concerning the fact that it didn’t penetrate the cloth more deeply than the frontal image). Of course, explaining the formation of this dorsal image is ANOTHER STORY !!!! He he ! It’s not at all evident and personally, this is the most problematic aspect of the Shroud’s image versus the idea of a natural image formation process. I don’t say that science will never be able to find a natural process that can explain this dorsal image (note : a dorsal image that we know was not caused only by a direct contact process, no matter what John Jackson might think about that) but I’m very curious to learn what natural process can act at some distance from the dorsal part of a body. Maybe the Maillard reaction hypothesis of Rogers could work, but I’m not sure about that. It should be note that Rogers never wrote that much too about this particular aspect of the question… MORE RESEARCHES ARE NEEDED !!!!
As far as the Sindon image formation process is concerned, why is it so easy for a miraculist as Dave or an archmiraculist as Ron for instance, to think the body was “suspended into space” and/or dematerialised in a supine position and SO DIFFICULT for both of them (and a Yannick Clément too) to imagine the same body could just have been laid on its side in extra height (e.g. on two stones) to be subjected to a fumigation (as purifying and drying up ritual)?
Most obviously they STILL did not quite get the idea of pressure release (cloth to body, front and back) and mechanic return force, as the long inner burial sheet (in-soaked with alkaline waters, encircling the corpse lengthwise and compressed widthwise in dry linen strips) gradually shrank, got taut again and separated front and back from the deceased’s skin by applying an external heating source (+ body hyperthermia as an internal source?).
Most obviously, they also STILL didn’t get the whole idea of a stiff rigid corpse tightly
wrapped up to counteract rigor mortis and thus abide by the Judean Religious Law (to wrap up a corpse in rigor mortis so that it shall not be left in an awkward position but rest as flat as possible in a composed and serene countenance expressing dignity).
YC wrote “at some point, the Shroud MUST have been tightly wrapped or compressed over most parts of the body”. I am glad he finally started buying in some of my ideas…as if it were his own! (see his first exegis of Yeshua’s burial).
Max, you always talk about Jesus body being “subjected to a fumigation (as purifying and drying up ritual)”. Can you please give us some links where we can learn more about this burial process ? I never read anything about that… Where did you get this idea ?
Unlike you, I always talked about the TSM’s corpse FIRST being tightly wrapped up and compressed (as evidenced both by the Gospel Greek verbs to describe Yeshua’s burial and the Sindon Turin archaeological blood pattern analysis) and THEN the in-soaked inner burial cloth loosening via a purifying an drying up ritual (fumigation). In the Bible fumigation is currently used to honor dead kings (see e.g. 2 Chronicles 21:19).
Nevermind what was the exact image formation process at work inside the Shroud, I see Max that we both agree that the configuration of the Shroud MUST have change between the bloodstains transfer and the body image formation… The most important piece of evidence that exist is this one : The UV photos analyzed by Miller and Pellicori have PROVEN that there is absolutely no body image visible under the knees while, in that same area, there are some scourge marks that were transferred ! That mean the cloth once touched the back of the knees in order for the scourge marks to be able to stained the cloth BUT… the Shroud was no more in direct contact with this zone when the body image was active, otherwise there would have been the formation of a body image of the back of the knees on the cloth. Since it’s not the case, that prove the idea of a change of configuration for the Shroud and this change most probably happened during the burial operations…
I have to share this with you ! My friend Barrie Schwortz just wrote me about this bio page on the Holy Shroud Guild website. He told me that, with this photo, I was looking pretty much like a refugee from Auschwitz ! HA HA HA !!!! I told him that it is very true ! He he !
I should have told him another thing : If you put a Franciscan robe over me, I could also be easily confused with a franciscan monk !!! ;-)
Max you wrote : “YC wrote “at some point, the Shroud MUST have been tightly wrapped or compressed over most parts of the body”. I am glad he finally started buying in some of my ideas…as if it were his own! (see his first exegis of Yeshua’s burial).”
I didn’t changed my mind about that… The fact that the Shroud was tightly wrapped against the body is easy to note when you understand that the bloodstains on the cloth all MUST have come from a direct contact !!! In fact, they mostly come from exudates of blood clots and this kind of exudate can only be transferred to a cloth by direct contact (with some pressure applied on it). So, there’s no question that the Shroud MUST have been compressed or tighly wrapped over the body for a time. BUT… The studies of STURP and Latendresse showed that it was probably NOT the same configuration when the body image formation started to be active inside the Shroud. At the moment, if the Shroud would still have been tightly wrapped or compressed over the body, we would have get big distorsions, especially in more rounded parts of the body, like the face, the arms, the legs, etc. Conclusion : the configuration of the Shroud MUST have changed between the time of the blood transfer and the time of the image formation process. And unlike Gilbert Lavoie, I don’t think we should call for any miraculous event to explain this probable change of configuration ! I think the participants of the burial rite were good enough to do this kind of change of configuration MANUALLY (with a great care not to disturb too much the fresh bloodstains). By the way, this probably great care not to disturb anything is truly consistent with the meticulous way pious Jews of that era were acting during a burial (Lavoie talked about this particular aspect in one of his paper on the subject that he published for Shroud Spectrum International).
Yannick Clément, you wrote: “I didn’t changed my mind about that [= the Shroud MUST have been tightly wrapped or compressed over most parts of the body]… The fact that the Shroud was tightly wrapped against the body is easy to note [… ]
The FACT is on December 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm | #20
“STURP (Jackson and Al.) and Mario Latendresse’s articles tend more to a NON WRAPPED shroud put loosely over the body… And I BELIEVE there’s enough evidences on the Shroud to say that there’s a good probability that effectively, the Shroud was NEVER TIED UP WITH LINEN STRIPS during the “partial” burial rite on friday. That make plenty of sense that THEY DIDn’T TIE UP the Shroud because they knew full well that they would have to come back to the tomb on sunday morning to anoint the body. So, in this context, WHY ATTACH the Shroud ? A Shroud LOOSELY DRAPED over the body is more logic in the context of a partially done burial rite and that seem to be the most probable conclusion reached by the specialists.”
On January 20, 2012 at 10:02 am | #15
“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.”
AGAIN on January 20, 2012 at 11:38 am | #16
“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.”
I have kept telling you the sindon was FIRST tightly wrapped up/compressed and THEN loosenened up (through the drying up ritual). It does seem you FINALLY have heard me and changed your mind.
Yannick Clément, what’s the use to LIE?
Max, This debate about the way the body was in the Shroud at the time the image process occurred, is precisely why I think it important that the body surface of a mannequin or somesuch should be mapped on to a shroud-like cloth. There are serious geometric problems in most of the scenarios postulated, and the resultant image that we see.
As far as miracles are concerned, I am open to the idea of a supernatural cause for the image. That shows me to be open-minded about the possibility, but it doesn’t make me a miraculist, arch- or otherwise.
Correctin: What’s the use of lying?
Since I wrote on this blog, I never change my mind about that topic. The comment you report here were written by me in the context of the image formation process and not in the context of the blood transfer that occured most probably BEFORE the image formation process. When I refer to the studies of STURP or Latendresse, I talk about the configuration of the cloth (probably loose over the corpse) when the image formation process was active and not when the blood transfer occured. I hope it’s clear. Anyway, at least we agree that the configuration of the Shroud MUST have changed at some point during the burial on Friday.
Are you kidding?
What does the word ‘NEVER’ means in English in your mouth when you FIRST wrote “the Shroud was NEVER TIED UP WITH LINEN STRIPS during the “partial” burial rite on friday ” but ONLY “loosely draped over the body” while NOW you’re contending “the Shroud was tightly wrapped against the body/tightly wrapped or compressed over most parts of the body”? You’ve never changed your mind about the TSM’s burial topic, really?
When was it the VERY FIRST TIME you ever used the phrase “TIGHTLY WRAPPED OR COMPRESSED” to describe the TSM’s burial on this blog? (It was ONLY a few days ago when I cornered you to account for the shooting star-like shaped blood rivulet at right elbow level and NEVER BEFORE!)
“Are HYPOCRISIS, BAD FAITH & LIE three of your best Catholic virtues?
Ok Dave! Still you should remember there are more perameters than meet the eyes to be taken into account as far as the reconstructive crytovolumetric geometry is concerned.
+ mistyping: cryptovolumetric
Hi Max, thanks for calling me a Arch-Miraculist, I’ll take that as a compliment, as I believe all evidence points exactly to that. By the way, what is “cryptovolumetrics” exactly, I can’t seem to find it in the dictionary?
Ron, SADLY the true fact is ONLY ideollogically biased observations misconceptions, misinterpretations and misrepresentations “point to that” g.od of the gap arch-miraculistic solution… I cannot help thinking the latter has nothing to do with GENUiNE Christian INNER CERTITUDE in Yeshua’s raising from the dead!
I’d be a happy man if only the essentials of projective geometry were satisfied, never mind anything else. To understand better what I’m driving at, check out the Descriptive Geometry work of Gaspard Monge and Jean-Victor Poncelet, both Frenchmen as it happens, so that should be congenial to at least two gentlemen on this site. Both Monge and Poncelet were associated with the Ecole Polytechnique, and both worked with Napoleon. Monge is one of 72 names inscribed on the Eiffel Tower. They were both following the path set out by another French mathematician in the 17th century, Girard Desargues, I studied Descriptive Geometry in my first professional year at Engineering School, 55 years ago, so it’s not a new science. Most of it derives from the work of Monge and Poncelet, and is an essential training for engineers and architects to train them in thinking 3-dimensionally, as well as having its own pragmatic value. The Wikipedia articles on them are barely adequate. The develoment of surfaces of 3-dimensional bodies has a direct relevance to the image we see on the Shroud.
Diffusion works no matter frontal or dorsal side. Question is how the Shroud was wrapped. But first, amines must be determined, then tests concerning the reachable resolution should be run.
I can understand that a body vapour may react with the starches/saccharides on cellulose fibrils to produce a monochromatic colour. But how that can produce a coherent image of an object with high resolution, without geometric distortion, and with 3-dimensionality encoded, will I think remain an eternal mystery to me.
Basically it is hard to avoid convection currents in a gas, but if you do so (cool and still atmosphere), and if you consider the molecular level, you can see high resolution patterns :
Reachable resolution depends on the mean free path of the molecule, boundary conditions, non-linear solid-gas reaction kinetics.
Concerning the distortion and 3-D encoded, it’s not perfect on the Shroud, but our brain fills the gap.
Sorry, Anoxie, Thanks for the trouble you went to in providing the comment and visual, but I still don’t think I can hypnotize myself into buying it.
I agree with Daveb
I think Dave that if it ever happen the way Rogers describe it, the image formation MUST have benefit from some extraordinary and special conditions inside the tomb and inside the Shroud (and probably also because of the particular state of the tortured corpse). I think we should leave that door open for the moment, while we wait patiently that some expert in chemistry (a biochemist would be the best person for this task) can take the work of Rogers and do more testing and lab experiments (ideally with fresh mammals corpses and a linen cloth made the ancient way). Remember that if Rogers hypothesis concerning the chromophore is correct (and I don’t see any good reason to doubt it right now), that would mean his Maillard reaction hypothesis wouldd be the only one we have right now that can have some rational chances to fit with all the data we know about the Shroud…
I forget to add this very important comment (I know I repeat myself but that’s too important) : The key to understand the image on the Shroud is the chromophore. If one day, Rogers hypothesis could be scientifically and independently confirmed, I truly think we will have to forget all the hypotheses that need some energetic radation to work, including the one involving heartquakes… That’s why the question of the chromophore is so important. As Rogers said, he was not aware of even one single energetic radiation (remember that it’s a true expert who speak and not just an engeneer like Fanti) that could uniquely colored a very thin layer of impurities without producing any easily visible defects (at least easy to detect for an expert like him) on the primary cell wall of the linen fiber that is present under the impurities. To me, that’s one of the most important FACT to evaluate any image formation process and that’s why presently, I don’t put any faith in any hypothesis involving some by-product of the Resurrection…
Agree with Dave 100%
It’s a tantilizing mystery.
Thank you for the info. Since Rogers almost never talk about the image formation process for the back portion of the Shroud, I wasn’t sure… Thanks alot ! Note that this is not at all a surprise to me to learn that the hypothesis of Rogers could theoretically work also for the back image because he was a true scientist who always tried to evaluate all the data and possibilities before publishing an hypothesis. Fanti (and a bunch of others like him) should learn to do the same thing…
Max your doing it again! How do you know FOR SURE, that it is not YOUR ideological, biased observations, misconceptions, misinterpretations and misrepresentations that at work here? Do you actually believe in your head you have the only ‘correct’ answer to the questions of the formation of the image on the Shroud? …Pretty high status you give yourself Max, …NOT a very humble Christian virtue! Actually in English we’d call that; “Having A Swelled Head” ;-/….Oh and the question I asked at the end of my comment, it was an honest question and was not a derogatory one. It is a shame you took it as such.
Do I read Max correctly, that he is denying the possibility of miracles? If so, he should check out the requirements of the Vatican Congregation for the Causes of Saints, current prefect Cardinal Angelo Amato. Adequate attestation for the occurrence of miracles is rigorously demanded in each of the steps towards the process of canonisation.
Extract: “The miracle may go beyond the possibilities of nature either in the substance of the fact or in the subject, or only in the way it occurs. So three degrees of miracle are to be distinguished. The first degree is represented by resurrection from the dead (quoad substantiam). The second concerns the subject (quoad subiectum): the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum). There is then a third degree (quoad modum): recovery from an illness, that treatment could only have achieved after a long period, happens instantaneously.”
I understand that the medical team assessing the alleged miracle frequently comprises or includes non-Catholic medical specialists.
A genuine Christian certitude on any matter of faith, including the Resurrection must at least start from some rational basis, otherwise it might be classified as fanatacism.
Dave, you just don’t. I have no problem with ‘nature’ or ‘supernature’ (actually this is one and the same thing in the light of Infinite Intelligence)
G.od of the gap fanaticism…
Shall I repeat I don’t belong to any Church, Temple, Mosque or Synagogue?
I am neither an atheist /agnostic nor a theist/gnostic. As far as the TS is concerned, I am a true freethinker as I am for the archaeological and scientific truth NO MATTER WHICH SIDE THE COIN MAY FALL ON.
This makes a world of a difference e.g. with…YOU.
Too many facts have been either ignored or twisted so far by arch-miraculists, arch-sceptics, arch-fraudulists, arch-survivalists and the like. My theoritical reconstruction of the TSM’s burial is TRULY original & consistent e.g. with the Gospel Greek verbs, archaeological blood pattern analysis, Judean funerary rites, customs and practices, archaeoastronomy, ancient textile ingineering, palaeopathology, archaeobotany sindon chemistry etc.
Most of Shroud Literature is based on ideologically SWOLLEN untruths or halftruths (not on scientific and archaeological truth). Actually in French-English I’d describe you as an arch-miraculists “having AN ideologically swollen head”.
The phrase “cryptovolumetric geometry” is to be read in the light of a laterally truncated bloody body (3D source object) pattern recorded on the inner side of a twill weave linen fabric (plane of variablegeometry receiving surface).
Correction: a laterally truncated bloody body IN COUNTERACTED RIGOR MORTIS (3D source object) pattern
So you are a ‘Naturalist’. Which obviously brings it’s own biases into the picture. No different then an athiest’s point of view. Only that science is your religion….I’m hoping your not throwing in STURPS conclusions as “Swollen untruths or halftruths” as that would just verify my statement that you have a swelled head.
If believing, from what I gather and understand of the Shroud image’s qualities, leads me to believe the Image is miraculous, i.e; Not possibly made by man or have a natural causation, How does that possibly mean I have a swelled head Max? …Makes no sense to me.
Ok, no problem.
But I can’t try to clarify things if you (and Grabriel) don’t explain your objections more precisely.
Ron wrote : Max your doing it again!
Question : When did you ever see Max not doing it???
Ron you wrote: “So you are a ‘Naturalist’. Which obviously brings it’s own biases into the
picture. No different then an athiest’s point of view. Only that science is your religion…”
Shall I endlessly repeat here, Truth is my sole quest? I don’t care whether the Sindon Image formation process is natural or supernatural. What I do care for is which process is true or the most likely to be true (whether ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’).
I am neither a “Naturalist”, nor a “Supernaturalist”. As a professional archaeocryptologist, the fact is I did study the Sindon image formation process issue. On re-visiting and reassessing one by one all the anti-shroud and pro-shroud current pet theories/approaches whether stricto sensu naturalistic, fraudulistic, survivalistic or miraculistic, it finally occurred to me in all likelihood the Sindon kept in Turin was Yeshua’s long inner burial sheet and Shroud scholars had totally overlooked/underrated/ignored so far the ritualistic approach. Actually the latter turned out to be the SOLE viable and consistent approach/theory that finally allows piecing the scientific and archaeological puzzle together without having to recur to a g.od/devil of the gap solution and fuel pseudo-scientific and pseudo-archaeological fanaticism of all persuasion.
Max you are not seeking the truth, you are seeking your ‘interpretation’ of the truth. You are a ‘Naturalist’ by your own admission, by stating exactly what you claim you are not! I submit that you DO care whether it was a natural or a supernatural cause, and this is clear in your attacks and name-calling on anyone who may believe in a supernatural causation!! The fact you state I am ‘brainwashed’ and that I “blindly accept” pseudo-sindonlogical dogma, hense I am a arch-miraculist proves my point. You assume I and others, who may have come to the same conclusion as I, have not studied the Shroud indepth, and/or with an open mind! This cannot be farther from the truth, and a terrible assumption on your part, not to mention insulting. You think I just blindly follow others ideas? Nonsense! I do not agree with much that has been written, but I have studied, as best I can, all that I’ve managed to acquire and in depth! As I’ve mentioned before; From my understanding of all pertinent evidence available: I have come to the conclusion that the image formation was almost certainly not man-made, and it is improbable it was a ‘natural’ phenomena….You don’t have to agree with my conclusion Max, but don’t go calling me or others names or insulting me because I think different from you.
Ron, I wrote: “SADLY the true fact is ONLY ideollogically biased observations misconceptions, misinterpretations and misrepresentations “point to that” g.od of the gap arch-miraculistic solution…” AND you FIRST could think better to reply I had a “swelled head”… Was it an insult or a compliment in your mouth?
Mistyping: AND you FIRST replied I had a “swelled head”… Was it an insult or a Christian compliment in your mouth?
When I wrote you were an arch-miraculist with an ideologically swelled/swollen head I meant you were ideologically brain-washed and most proud of it .
How can you (almost) blindly accept (as a new pseudo-sindonological dogma?) the TSM in counteracted rigor mortis dematerailzed and/or miracously got “suspended into space”? This is quite beyond my comprehension when a much more “down-to-earth”/simple archaeological explanation can be easily provided.
Mistypings: “dematerialised” – “miraculously”:
How “to TOTALLY disagree with your arch-miraculist approach” possibly mean I have a swelled head? …Makes no sense to me either.
Comments are closed.