Stephen Jones’ Critique of Charles Freeman Continues and Continues and Continues

In this ninth part, of Stephen’s critique of Charles Freeman’s "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 9: "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa" dealing with the Tetradiplon question, he writes:

And that:

"If we take a full-length photographic print of the Shroud, double it, then double it twice again, we find the Shroud in eight (or two times four) segments, an arrangement seeming to correspond to what is intended by the sixth-century description (fig. 25). And the quite startling finding from folding the Shroud in this way is that its face appears disembodied on a landscape-aspect cloth exactly corresponding to the later ‘direct’ artists’ copies of the Image of Edessa."


. . .  "Tetradiplon," The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ, Dan Porter, 2009. Illustration of Ian Wilson’s discovery, that if the Shroud of Turin is doubled four times, keeping Jesus’ face image uppermost, the result is Jesus’ face only, in landscape aspect, exactly as it is in the earlies copies of the Image of Edessa!]

So again Freeman, "fails to tell his readers relevant material which might undermine his case, weak though it already is" (to quote Freeman’s own criticism of Wilson in this very paper), so that he can take a cheap shot at Wilson, knowing that his Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website readers would be unlikely to notice his self-contradiction.

Part 10 is coming, Stephen tells us.

6 thoughts on “Stephen Jones’ Critique of Charles Freeman Continues and Continues and Continues”

  1. Dan

    Thanks for the plugs. But you might want to correct the typo “Jone’s” in this post’s heading.

    And thanks also for your wonderful graphics that I often post and link to. I’m glad that you allow such `piracy’. You might quote to Colin Berry that HE is the one potentially breaking the law by demanding that you delete your posting of extracts from his blog, “without [him] determining whether that posting reflected `fair use’ of the copyrighted material”:

    “In August 2008 US District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected `fair use’ of the copyrighted material. …” (“Fair use: Fair use on the Internet,” Wikipedia, 15 May 2012)


    Stephen E. Jones

  2. “if the Shroud of Turin is doubled FOUR TIMES keeping Jesus’ face image uppermost,”?!

    Sorry Dan, I just cannot see your/Wilson’s FOUR successive foldings, only THREE in the illustration! This might well be no very good archeaoLOGICAL illustration to back up his point!

  3. It IS doubled four times, although not the way Dan shows it in his Tetradiplon graphic. I remembered that there was something wrong with Dan’s Tetradiplon graphic but I forgot what it was.

    I have a cut-out copy of the Shroud in my hands. First doubling is between the two head images into one half. Second doubling of the top visible 1/4 concertina style behind the head image. Third doubling is the visible 1/3 also concertina style behind the head image. Fourth doubling is the visible 1/2 concertina style behind the head image.

    Looked from the side, which may be how the Edessans saw it, there are four folds doubled. Which is no doubt where tetradiplon four-doubled” came from.

    It is hard to describe this, especially as I need to get ready for work, but do it and you will see it works. I will make my own graphic and post it to my blog in place of Dan’s.

  4. Dan posted URL to a video by John Jackson a month or two back, demo by Jackson purporting to show folds under raking light. There was considerable comment on the posting, some remaining unconvinced by Jackson’s demo. Yannick Clement of course had quite a lot of sceptical comment about it, as he doesn’t accept Mandylion theory. From memory there was a clear fold mark across the cloth at one-eighth of length from centre, which I thought significant. Other folds might have been more in the “I think I see” category.
    Under raking light, the impression is complicated by wrinkles caused by rolling up with the backing cloth. Criteria for a valid fold mark are: it must be clearly visible as a fold mark; it needs to be straight and extend the full width of the cloth at right angles to it; it must be periodic; it must occur at a one-eighth point. If it’s still there, URL is:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: