In a comment, here, he informs us:
. . . Tomorrow’s my big day. Tomorrow’s when I finally tackle head-on the surviving Mr. (Dr.) Big of STURP and indeed Shroudology, after trying to keep a safe distance from this ‘big hitter’ for the best part of a year. Can you guess who? I don’t suppose he’ll be quaking in his shoes – but I will…
Next topic: Focus on Dr. John Jackson of the Shroud Center of Colorado, his continuing, and, to my way of thinking, inexplicable advocacy of radiation over contact scorching, and his apparent blind spot for heat transfer of the third kind in that strange preoccupation of his with ‘cloth-body distance’.
And he provides this visual aid with some text:
John Jackson’s view of cloth-body distance when a sheet of linen is draped over a corpse with no applied forces except those of gravity…
Would it really do that between chin and chest? Did a side strip (“selvedge”) have to be snipped off and used as a neck-encircling binding to achieve that effect – and then later re-attached in the interests of archival completeness?
(Occam’s razor?)
Should be fun to follow.
It’s a sad case, too narrowly focused, ignoring all other evidence to the contrary. Where is this great massive life-size template that would be more even impressive than its mere cloth impression? Would any so-called craftsman even contemplate manufacturing such an object for the trivial business of merely obtaining a cloth impression?
We’re now looking at clay as a buffer instead of fine sand. Yes, there are mineral residues on the cloth. Guess where they are! They’re under the foot (road-dust) knee-cap and on the nose (A fall perhaps?) There are no other mineral residues, anywhere, that is, nowhere else! And you’re trying to tell me that isn’t pseudo-science! Physician, heal thyself!
Agree 100% with Daveb, this ‘craftsman’ would need the abilities of a Michelangelo just to create the template and for what purpose, just to create a cloth impression?….Laughable. One must be simply closed minded to believe this, and is surely ignoring all evidence and specifically the blood evidence which in all essence points this Shroud to have actually covered a real corpse. I think the scorch theory is a dead end, it’s time to give it up.
R
When it comes to his scorch hypothesis, Colin reminds me of a fundamentalist creationist attacking the accomplshed work of true scientists in order to prove that the world is a mere 6000 years old.
It’s fun to note that I’ve used the same creationist analogy in my paper about the evidence of the bloodstains to decry the persons who, in face of all the solid facts and observations concerning the blood and the image, are still seeing the Shroud as a manmade forgery!
Here is my Highly Serendipitous Theory of the Turin Shroud Scorch Hypothesis – in short HSTTSSH, the significance of this acronym becoming clear as I outline the details of the theory below. Being a Highly Serendipitous Theory, it has several elements to it outlined as follows:
1. It is a matter of sound Christian Doctrine that Christ’s body after his death was transformed to a resurrected body. Now a body comprises various biological cells. However these cells are rejuvenated by the ingestion of food and other nourishment, not part of the body, and old cells are disposed of by the process of digestion and are ejected in the normal way. Clearly these old cells are also no longer part of the body, and therefore we cannot expect that they would have been part of the resurrection process, and their residues would have been left behind.
2. One of the products that are expelled include significant quantities of methane gas, a highly inflammable compound. The human and animal expulsion of methane is a major factor in global warming, and is addressed in those forums such as KYOTO protocols. It is a major consideration in NZ where there are some 40 million sheep for instance. In sewerage plants, the amount of methane is quite enough to be used as a fuel for the various pumps, lighting generators and other machinery to make the plant energy consumption self-sufficient.
3. In the Catholic Epistle of I Peter 3:18-19, we are told that Christ, having been put to death, that “in the SPIRIT, He went to preach to the spirits in prison”, that is to those who had already died, or in other words some abode of Hell. This found expression in the Apostolicum – the Apostles’ Creed – of about 200 AD, “descendit ad inferna, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis”.
4. Now we know that Hell is a very hot place, with fiery elements, sufficient to act as an ignition aource to any methane that might be hanging about. Clearly as Christ returned from “inferna” to attend to the business of resurrection, this is what happened.
5. Dr Berry by his own experimental research has succeeded in convincing himself that the Shroud image is a scorch. He claims that scorching of linen can have the effect of imparting 3-dimensional information, as shown on the Shroud, that the scorching can be superficial, as shown by examination of the linen fibrils. And it is now apparent what the source of the scorching was.
6.The elements of serendipity are as follows: (a) It affirms the CB theory of scorching; (b) It affirms the canonicity of I Peter, and the Apostolicum; (c) It affirms the doctine of two natures – divine because he was resurrected – he was also human in that he expelled methane (in a word, he farted) (d) it provides a coherent explanation of image formation on the burial cloths (e) The incineration cleaned up the mess left by any residual sewage, not part of the resurrected body.
7. The significance of the acronym HSTTSSH is now plain. This is the euphonious assonance of the escaping gases. I knew all along that the idea of a metal template was crazy. The HSTTSSH is a far more credible explanation.
Dear all,
still waiting for Colin’s “D-day” ;-)…
More seriously, it seems to me that Colin is furious with me because I did not answer to his 3-part rebuttal of my paper about the scorch hypothesis.
I will not answer. Why ?
1) Because his rebuttal (and some following posts) does contain many ad-hominem attacks
2) Because his rebuttal is a non-sense, i.e. an incredible “bouillabaisse”.
3) Because he thinks that all of my observations are meaningless since I used a bad template. Therefore, I asked him to show his own photographs using his microscope (with his “good template”) at thread and fiber level. But for him, I had not the right to decide what he has to do ! And finally, he obliquely admitted that his own observations were similar to my observations.
It is interesting to follow Colin’s thoughts : snow, sand, clay, conduction and now convection etc..
What does it mean ? It means that the the first simple scorch hypothesis does not match the TS image properties.
And Colin has to try to find more and more “ad hoc” complex mechanisms through “thought experiments”
“Ad hoc” means that it is absurd to think that a medieval forger had to use some very complex mechanism to fool the 20th century researchers, while it was so simple to mislead a crowd in the Middle-ages .
Thibault.
.
Re Thibault’s pdf (let’s not waste time addressing the rest of his tittle-tattle) – my critique of which he admits to ignoring on account of some gentle ridicule – I’m reminded of some words I once met in different context, from a Jewish rabbi as I recall.
“What is new isn’t true, and what is true isn’t new.”
No prizes for guessing what the Jewish gentleman was referring to… ;-)
As I know, Colin Berry has not be able to this day to rationally explain how in the world a forger would manage to create the realistic human blood and human serum stains we see on the cloth (some coming from venous lesions and some coming from arterial lesions; some coming from pre-mortem blood and some coming from post-mortem blood; some coming from exudates of moistened blood clots and some coming from blood in a liquid state) BEFORE making a body image with a scorch technique that is forensically perfect in every details and that has been able to encode a tridimensional information.
This idea is so ludicrous to me that I don’t understand why Thibault or any other credible Shroud researchers are wasting their time arguing with someone like Colin Berry… Every intelligent person who have study the data from the Shroud in dept knows very well that this cloth has really covered the tortured and crucified corpse of a man (whether it be Jesus or another person) and, consequently, the image on the cloth must have been caused by this interaction between the dead body and the cloth it covered. This conclusion has been scientifically proven long ago by the STURP team.
I dream of the day a real honest skeptic with some scientifically sound ideas will come up to challenge us with some hypotheses that involves natural and chemical processes instead of constantly making believe that the Shroud is the product of a manmade forgery, which is, in itself, an unscientific statement !!!! That would certainly elevate the debate to a scientifically acceptable level…
Because in taking on Colin, Thibault teaches us so much. Since it is never a waste of time to read him, it is not a waste of time for him to write for all of us. Thank you Thibault.
Well, I appreciate Colin’s efforts and ideas, if not always his mannerisms.
I am certainly not truly convinced of his scorch theory, but I always keep an open mind, as a shroud agnostic (but one who is 70% oriented towards authenticity).
some questions re: the bloodstains (I’ve also offered my own preliminary answers where relevant):
– why would a forger place blood trails down the arms? Surely a hand (wrist) wound would be sufficient in biblical terms?
– The wounds on the buttocks seem to mirror each other????
– Why the pooling of blood at the bottom of the back? Maybe blood running down from the hands / forearms and pooling at the back?
Matthias, I recommend a reading of “A Doctor at Calvary” by Pierre Barbet, first published in English in 1953 – my copy is 1963, I wouldn’t know if it’s still in print or not. From the blood-flows on the arms, Barbet calculates that the crucified arms were at about 65 degrees to the vertical.
He counted 100 to 120 visible dumbell shaped scourge wounds inflicted by the two-thonged Roman flagrum, implying about 60 visible lashes, and inflicted by two executioners, the taller one standing to the right and the shorter to the left. This may account for any symmetry of the wounds lower down on the buttocks. Only blows that pierced the skin and caused bleeding are visible. Blows that would cause bruising only would not be so visible. I don’t know about any blood pooling at the lower back, Barbet doesn’t mention it, and it’s not evident to me, but you may be correct, I’m not sure. Perhaps someone else can comment.
Barbet claims the scourging was inflicted with the victim being bound to a post, facing it, and with his arms above his head, as there are no scourge marks on the arms. However one of the executioners had a trick of using the flagrum so that it whipped around and also inflicted wounds to the front of the legs.
Barbet himself was a highly experienced pathologist, and had conducted several experiments with recent cadavers and amputated limbs, to check his findings. Having read through much of his descriptions, amd his repeated assertions that all the wounds are anatomically correct, together with his detailed explanations, I feel that any allegations that the image is not based on a real crucified body can only be based on an ignorance which trivialises the facts.
Daveb -thanks. You’ll see the blood across the lower back if you go to shroud scope. Its what Colin Berry calls the chain across the back on the Lirey badge….
I’ve just imitated the Shroud man’s pose (!!!) and I could see that blood from the hand / wrist wounds could flow down from the wrists down the hip / waist region and pool towards the lower back
Thoughts???
amazing timing! I just see that Stephen Jones has posted on bloodstains, and mentions those on the small of the back that I refer to…divine intervention???
I really interested in those small of the back bloodstains…their presence really leads to an air of authenticity
Let me know your thoughts about my theory that the blood from the wrists flowed down through the waist to the lower back
The blood stains at the small of the back, it has been concluded came ‘most probably’ from the side wound and once the body was placed horizontally on te Shroud.
Although I agree this ‘small-of-back blood pool does smack of authenticity, the blood stain off-image of the left elbow is to me much more enticing as a mystery and a possible clue to the actual wrapping of the Shroud about the body, not to mention another point to authenticity.
R
A pool of blood at the small of the back seems so natural and convincing that it would argue quite strongly for authenticity if in fact it existed at all, which it doesn’t. There is no pooling of blood in the small of the back. I would recommend that people actually look at the shroud, but alas, even when they do people tend to see what they expect rather than what is there. If the body, with side wound reopened and dripping with lots of blood, was laid gently, being held by a couple of people maybe under the arms and knees, on a flat sheet, would two neat little rivulets of blood trickle across the sheet from one side to the other, and then immediately dry so as not to get smudged? Or would the twin trickles flow from the chest wound across the back of the body itself, not dripping onto the sheet at all, and then dry so perfectly that they didn’t smudge at all when it was laid on the sheet? Or did the trickles of blood cleverly make their way across the body along the top of the arch of the back (warped by rigor mortis), in defiance of gravity, so that by not touching the cloth they didn’t get smudged? In which case how did they arrive on the cloth?
So: Matthias. Well done for at least trying to envisage what might have occurred, but your experiment appears to have demonstrated the likelihood of something that is not represented on the shroud.
And Ron: Who has “concluded” that the trickles occurred after the body was placed on the shroud, and upon what evidence? A ‘conclusion,’ after all implies some sort of decision making process rather than an instant impression.
And other readers: Check again. There is no pool of blood in the small of the back, is there?
Hugh – I’d like you to explain why you think there is no blood on the small of the back. To my eyes at least there is a thin horizontal trail that looks to be of similar colour to the other alleged blood stains on the shroud. If the other similar coloured stains are indeed blood (I’m assuming they are) then I can’t see why the trail on the small of the back might not be blood. Then to the left and right of this thin trail are bigger stains.
Rather than Ron’s conclusion that this blood comes from the side wound, I think its highly likely that the stains to the right and left of the small back trail have come from the underside of the forearms. If you mimic the shroud figure’s pose like I did you will naturally see that blood would flow down the from the wrists on the underside of the forearms and collect around the hip area, possibly then trailing off across the small of the back.
Hugh – I’d be interested in your thoughts and why do you conclude that this isn’t blood? Is this because you think the other apparent blood stains on the shroud are not in fact blood either? Or do you think the other stains are blood but these ones aren’t????
Again I don’t understand why a forger would / could have gone to this level of detail.
Matthias, it is not my “conclusion” but that of others who have studied the stains. I probably should have actually stated it as; a “probable conclusion”. As for the stains being caused or coming from under the arm pits? Probable, yes but very unlikely they would form in the manner we see….think about it. Hugh, I will search for my references and get back to you.
R