When you get the image you want with one-finger-scrolling and thumb-and-finger-sizing, 1)press the round home button and hold it while 2) clicking the top sleep/wake/power button. The screen will flash white and you will have an image file in your Photo Camera Roll. Then just email it to yourself. The file size I’m getting 1136 by 640 pixels weighing in at 1.4 megabytes. Too bad about the nasty watermark.
Adler, Baima Bollone, Barbet and many other medical and/or blood experts (not Colin Berry obviously) would comment this image like this: You’re looking presently at a bloodstain that was formed by exudates of a blood clot that was present on the forehead of a human being, which was humid enough at its surface to leave a mirror imprint on the cloth. This was most probably caused by a blood clot that had time to dry completely before getting re-humidified again (for an unknown reason possibly related to the state of the body and/or the damp environment inside the Shroud). Important note: this kind of stain (the very precise shape of it especially) is not compatible with a staining of the cloth with blood that would have been in liquid form.
Dear (spokesmen for) Adler, Baima Bollone, Barbet and other medical and/or blood experts;
a) the reflectance spectrum for a 6mm x 3mm sample of this bloodstain shows a distinct spike at 600nm, unlike the reflectance spectrum of any other blood sample.
b) there is no invisible serum halo which fluoresces brightly under UV, unlike the serum we are told exudes from exudates.
c) almost the entire deposit has been eroded away, leaving a few flakes jammed in the interstices between threads, contrary to the ‘fact’ we are frequently told that the bloodstains are completely ‘undisturbed.’
d) the surface of the exposed threads looks in no way lighter than the surrounding linen, which is one of the darkest parts of the image, having been in direct contact with the covering cloth, which is surprising if there was in fact no image at all formed under the original stain.
Apart from these niggling little objections, I agree with everything you say, so if you could just clear them up…
One day, the skeptics will be confuse… ;-)
How do you know all this? I am not sure any of this can be gleaned looking at an HR image from the internet. To assert it with only the aid of a digital image makes one look a bit ’round the bend as they say.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m just in total awe at the amazing condition of the linen.
R
To get a more realistic impression of blood, one needs to shrink it down (e.g. Con-) to what one considers would be the size of the epsilon bloodstain on the forehead.
We can discuss another time whether there really is a concentration of blood in furrows as distinct from ribs of the herringbone weave. All I would say for now is – beware of optical illusions that are created by framing effects.
One thing’s for sure : With such a high resolution, be prepared for a dramatic increase in the number of people who will suffer the “I think I see” syndrom! I have already noticed that on some websites dedicated to the Shroud and I’m sure this is only the beginning.
I wonder what kind of madness will come out of this.
Or maybe this is a real chance, to resolve, once and for all, the issues about coins, flowers, letters etc. To confirm, or disprove their actual presence, and verify the observations made on 1931 Enrie phoots.
I’m affraid those kind of issues will only be resolved by a new series of direct tests (including a proper imagery analysis done by real experts in this field) and not by only looking at normal light photos of the Shroud, whatever their high level of resolution.
Of course, I say about proffesional imagery analysis. I don’t see any obstacles, preventing this to be done.
Such analysis by an expert was done at least once -by Andre Marion and his team, in the mid 90s. Marion was clearly a specialist in the field of image analysis, and I can’t understand why his observations are largely ignored in the english-language Shroud community (except that, I think there is some certain bias against French researches, that I have noticed). Of course, the discoveries by Marion have been challenged, but actually, they were NEVER disproved. Barrie Schwortz objections doesn’t convince me. They are no serious charges. I have Marion-Courage book, and it clearly states that analysis were done not only on 1931 Enrie’s photos, but also on 1978 Miller’s and STURP pictures. If one looks on his results (without the letters contours superimposed), some of the letters are quite clearly visible, and they are too large structures, to be merely considrd artifacts, or optical illusions.
I don’t say I am 100 % certain that Marion is right, and there letters on the Shroud. But it is very plausible, and further examination of digital HD images may confirm this or show that they are indeed optical illusions, or aritfacts on Enrie photos.
Besides André Marion (deceased) there is also Thiery Castex who has been doing image analysis of the Shroud. His web site (http://thierrycastex.blogspot.com/) has some of these analysis. I think that the hypothesis offered by Thiery Castex that the Shroud was partially folded (over a few centimeters) in the back right below the buttocks is very plausible. That would explain the strange lengthening of the legs at that location. Yet again we are in the domain of the most simple analysis: length measurements.
Haltadefinizione has images of the Shroud of higher definition than the one they provide in the Shroud 2.0 app. This can be concluded by measuring the pixel density offered by the app and the 70 gigabytes image of the Shroud they have. This is also confirmed by Haltadefinizione.
Since we still don’t know the correct image formation process, I think it is very premature to state that Castex hypothesis is the most probable regarding that particular feature of the Shroud image. His hypothesis is one among many other possible hypotheses that can explain this and some of them can be directly related to the image formation process itself.
In my previous comment I should have add this : The feature describe by Mario can well be directly related to the image formation process and/or the particular position of the corpse inside the Shroud… I think until this image formation process can be clarified, it will be impossible to state which hypothesis is the most probable concerning this particular feature. And even if we would know the image formation process for sure, I’m not certain we would be able to easily explain this feature. Things are very complex and not easily explainable when it comes to little features of the image like that.
Sorry, I mistyped the name of Thierry Castex, it is indeed two “r”s in Thierry.
I was once given a very hard time on this site for suggesting that the dorsal image was taller by several centimetres than the frontal – yet that is surely what is implied by the suggestion that the linen had rucked up/folded/creased immediately below the buttocks such that there was a failure to image both scourge marks initially, and a few hours later later body image.
Yet the height difference when I was being castigated here could indeed have been more apparent than real, if it were the result of the underside of the feet being imaged in the dorsal view, without the corresponding addition to “height” in the frontal image if there had been no corresponding imaging of the the topside of the feet.
If the differential “feet anomaly” does account for the apparent height difference, then one has to look for a different explanation than folding of linen where the buttock region is concerned. Might that not be tenting rather than folding between two prominences? If so, that might favour a model of imaging that required direct contact between body and linen? Or should that be “body” rather then body?
It is quite an easy job to superimpose the front and back images, and to switch back and forth using an opacity toggle. I arbitrarily decided to match the bloodstains of the back of the head to the line of the eyebrows. The image of the deltoids roughly matches the image of the pectorals, and the blood trickle across the back is level with the elbows on the front. The big bloodstain (on the instep?) at the end of the ventral legs then appears more or less in the middle of the big footprint at the end of the dorsal legs. If we make a fold in the dorsal image, then either the ‘back of head’ bloodstains end up match up with the moustache, or the ‘instep’ stain now ends up matching the ‘toes’ end of the ‘footprint.’ Lesser distortion but at both ends simultaneously is also possible.
If the man on the shroud had bent legs, then, of course, the front image (the cloth following his contours) should end up significantly longer than the dorsal image (the cloth being flat), but in that case it is difficult to explain how the back of his calves could have left a mark.
Sorry, Chris, I was dragging in various comments from earlier postings for my comment about Dan’s iPad photo.
(a) comes from the Gilberts’ spectroscopy paper which has a diagram of the reflectance spectrum of exactly this bloodstain.
(b) comes from Miller and Pellicori’s UV paper which has a photograph of this bloodstain under UV light with no fluorescent serum rim.
(c) and (d) are apparent just by looking at Dan’s posting.
I dare say I often appear a bit round the bend anyway, but my observations are nearly always based on reports of primary observations. As such, any niggling anomalies really do have to be explained before any indisputable conclusions can be arrived at.
How much do they provide? Could that, what they offer, be used to verify the presence of coins, letters, and flowers? Digital image processing is routine in our times.
Image formation process aside, this can be very promising direction in current Shroud researches. There is no access to the Shroud, but there is an access to the images. That can check the old claims. Push them from “disputed” label into heaven of “established”, or hell of “disproven”.
This can potentially give powerful arguments into the hands of pro-authenticity camp.
IF the inscriptions are confirmed, they may be a very strong proof that the cloth belonged to Jesus.
IF coins are confirmed, it may prove that Shroud dates back to the times of Pilate.
IF Palestinian flowers (claimed by Danin) are confirmed, then we know that the Shroud was present in Palestine, during spring season.
What if they are disproved? No serious problem. Nothing gained, nothing lost…
For clarification, this is directed at Hugh.
Hugh, OK, I can accept that. It looked like you were drawing conclusions based on Dan’s posted photo. I think you can appreciate how that looks.
And about that photo I ordered my oldest to hand over her Ipod so I could run this experiment. I got the app and enlarged the face as much as possible and emailed the image to myself. It was not as large nor anywhere near as high a definition of even the shroudscope. I wonder if I’m not doing something wrong or perhaps the latest generation Ipod isn’t good enough?
Anyway, I suspect your observations are probably easily addressed although I admit I am not versed in the science to do it. But then again they actually be very hard to address, I don’t know. My suspicion is just that though. It comes from that fact that I fall into the same category as Dan – the shroud is probably the real deal.
I don’t know about probably, I keep an open mind, but whether it’s real or not, that spectrum spike was caused by something…
Hugh, true and either way time will tell.
On another note, disregard my comment about the Ipod image. Once I got some bourbon in me and played with it some more I realized I didn’t *buy* the higher res images – which is strange with a *free* app. What also helped was that the message I got while enlarging the pictures (again) changed from something about permissions to something about you need to pony up some cash for this free stuff. A pox on them! I don’t mind giving my fellow man his due but tell my up front the cost of the transaction! Don’t lie to me and tell me it’s free.
Not for the first time, Hugh and I seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet – at least for starters (he may differ on the detail). In other words, there is no discrepancy in body height from head to toe if one factors in all the available information. So if there is missing length/body height immediately below the buttocks, it cannot be due to folding/invagination of the linen leaving a blank non-imaged region when the linen is subsequently later stretched out.
I would go further and state (though Hugh is free to differ) that is the result of linen – at the instant of imaging – failing to conform (i.e. to drape around) every contour, due to a tenting effect, i.e. a short-cutting of taut linen from one extremity/prominence to another, leaving a hollow or air gap across which no imaging is possible by contact and conduction (but with the possibility of weak imaging by convection currents of heated air, steam and other gases).
The radiationista would say there can be imaging across air gaps, conforming in their narrow vision to an inverse square law (but with a strange cut-off at 4cm!). The facts speak otherwise – when one looks closely at a number of areas of the Shroud image (e.g. the region around crossed hands especially). Any weak imaging that may occur across air gaps where there are tented regions between extremities, is confined to very small distances, and is almost certainly due to convected current of hot air and pyrolysis gases.
Look if you will in vain for any references by the radiationista to the phenomenon of heat transfer/temperature increase arising from convection . All they see is their supernatural radiation, and they then try to dismiss what they see as the exclusive alternative – namely direct physical contact between subject and linen with atom-to-atom conduction- with simplistic, nay crass arguments, with no recognition whatsoever of close heat encounters of the third kind – i.e. convection – moving currents of heated gas and vapour that can scorch at a distance -like the reverse side of the linen, where gas meets a solid underlay, admittedly conjectural, creating a second interface for pyrolysis via contact/conduction.
I should have stated more clearly that length measurements does not support the hypothesis of Thierry Castex. The analysis of the image first gives the impression that this hypothesis of the folding of the Shroud below the buttocks is very plausible but length measurements of the tibia/femur lengths (an approximation of them) shows that the lengths are normal. So such an hypothesis is not supported by simple length measurements.
Hugh,
Posting over here in this thread-thanks for your previous comments on the spectra discussion in the related thread-
A few questions I wanted to ask-
1. Could aggregation of proteins affect their transmittance/absorbance properties or is this oversimplifying things, i.e. no shift to a different region would occur-I don’t have any candidate proteins in mind, just asking in general.
2. Best guess as what the “spike” might represent?
3. To what degree might the newer (lighter?) backing cloth affect our perception of the bloodstain color? Or is this a nonfactor?
Interesting questions, and way out my area of expertise.
I don’t think any particular wavelength of light is shifted by changing the intensity of the material it passes through or reflects off. However, shorter wavelengths may get scattered, so that there are fewer to detect, which is why the sun looks redder in the evening. Reflectance spectra would not be affected. A whiter backing cloth would reflect more of all wavelengths, but the overall shape of the spectrum would not be affected, I think.
As to the red spike, it puzzles me enormously. From the spectra I have found on the internet, it seems that ‘red’ minerals reflect little visible light from roughly 400-500nm, and lots from 600-700nm. The shape of their spectra is basically a step. ‘Brown’ things have a spectrum which slopes gradually from little at low wavelengths to lots at high wavelengths. Green and blue minerals have reflectance spectra that look like hills at around about their appropriate frequencies, but nothing is typified by a spike.
Spikes do appear in the spectra of biological material, such as various algae, but I imagine that that sort of material would degrade quite quickly, and cannot think of anything (a lichen perhaps?) with a stable red colour.
It beats me, then. Maybe others have good ideas about it?
I’ve seen two fields from Shroud 2.0 App now – the one here, and another on Mario’s site of the forearm. In both it would seem that one has to make a mental effort to ‘filter out’ everything except those 1-over-3 threads that form the highest part of the weave. If one does that then it seems likely, but not totally certain, that the furrows between the ribs are not the main site for blood retention and/or entrapment, contrary perhaps to one’s first impressions.
It’s easy to make a similar error where body image is concerned, and imagine it to be mainly in the furrows, when in fact it is probably a very faint coating on the same 1-over-3 threads comprising the raised but flat ribs of the herringbone weave, easy to miss on account of the prominent furrows.
What would be interesting would be to see a view where there is both discernible body image and blood stain in the same field – at the same high magnification as the picture above. Will one see faint pink change to faint sepia along the same ribs? I say yes, but without a smartphone, and no desire anyway to get into apps, I am totally dependent on others (thank you Dan, thank you Mario) until such a time as these latest images are downloadable to a standard PC or Apple Mac.
Hugh,
A follow up Q., if okay, how agreeable, in general, are the spectral methods used by Gilbert & Gilbert, Pellicori, & Adler, i.e. examination of the whole cloth versus analysis of individual, solubilized fibers? Most of the major species should, in general, match up, or is this somewhat apples & oranges technique-wise? In no way phrased as a challenge, etc., I don’t know so I wanted to ask, are they both fruit & the same type?
Also, not sure how to ask this exactly, but are there more current spectral methods that have been developed that could scan a particular point of a bloodstained area (on the cloth) vertically (by depth) at a much greater sensitivity, which allow the data to be reassembled to create a slice-by slice type reconstruction of the spectra? By slice by slice I mean to go progressively through like,
TOP: blood-blood-blood, etc. until you got down to where the image would be underneath, if it were there. Anyway to do this without relying on digestion of the blood to reveal what may be underneath? Hope this makes sense.
… until you got down to where the image would be underneath, if it were there…
I was asking earlier for a Shroud 2.0 App field that had not just blood but some discernible body image as well. Later I realized there is body image in the one chosen by Dan for this post – it’s the slightly darker area of linen that lies between the centre of the epsilon and the Navigator key on the right.
Something quite interesting happens when one puts the image into MS Office’s photoediting program, and gradually raises the contrast. In going from 0 to setting 33, the pink colour of the 1-over-3 threads intensifies. Two things happen when one increases to maximum value (100). Firstly the body image fibres become increasingly yellow. But here’s the weird thing – that may or may not be related to Kelly’s quote above, The pink colour of the bloodstained threads diminishes to white, and those fibres then become progressively more yellow, almost as if there were a cryptic underlay of body image. (Yup, I know we’re not supposed to think that, but if Kelly is prepared to think the unthinkable, then there is some circumstantial evidence of sorts).
Could somebody with the App (Dan?) try the effect of increasing the contrast control that comes with it, and see whether they see the same effect?
Well, the good thing about those early papers is that they are quite easily understandable. When we look at a patch of cloth and say it’s green, and then look at its spectrum and see a big reflectance hill around 543nm, that’s easy to understand. That’s why I like reflectance spectra better than absorbance. However, we could see its spectrum and see nothing in the ‘green’ range, but twin spikes in the blue and yellow. A patch of cloth made of alternating blue and yellow threads looks green, but if we examined individual threads, we wouldn’t see green at all, but blue or yellow. (I actually know this because our school uniform skirts are made of a blue and yellow tartan, which looks green at a distance).
Now if, for example, the shroud linen threads consisted of, say, 90% yellow fibres and 10% bright red ones, then we might see that anomalous spike in the spectrum, and be able to resolve it by looking more closely at the individual fibres. However, when we found these bright red fibres (or paint flakes, or whatever they might be) they would still have to be made of a material with a distinctly ‘spiky’ spectrum, which so far I can’t identify.
As for identifying individual spectra of layers of different colours, that would be a bit of a poser. However, by overlaying a transmission spectrum (light shining from behind) and a reflectance spectrum (from above), you might be able to identify wavelengths of light absorbed by the material underneath, and thus deduce something about its colour. So a twin layer of red and green would look red by reflected light, but black if you tried to shine a light through it, showing that there was an absorption of the red by the layer beneath it. If the spectra of the two layers were individually quite irregular patterns (such as those of blood and cloth), then subtracting the one from the other might enable you to derive the colour of the hidden material. Maybe an expert in authenticating paintings would have some ideas along those lines?
Further to my previous comment, there’s a region of the Shroud image that is of prime interest. It’s the dorsal view of the feet. There we not only have blood stains that are superimposed on the body image, but which have also spread laterally to adjacent linen outwith the body image. Could someone with access to Shroud 2.0 App please assist with going boldly where no man (or woman) has gone before. Compare the effect of increasing contrast on blood stained linen with versus without body image? Does the blood stain outside of the body image area come up yellow or not when you increase the contrast?
I am prepared to think the unthinkable-to stay as objective as possible-I was even willing to give hirudoscience a fair shake (I can’t help it if it rhymes, it’s not my fault).
This is an interesting idea regarding the dorsal view of the feet-if someone does this, consider including the off elbow stain as well.
-and if available, the same bloodstain areas (the epsilon/3, dorsal feet, & off elbow) on the reverse side of the cloth-These are not accessible via the Shroud App, but maybe just a photo in the editing program with a zoom, might work? The yellow “image” area should be absent/much fainter here.
I have the Shroud 2.0 App for the iPad-I’ve turned the contrast up to 100%, but I can’t really get the bloodstain on the feet to yellow out-this is just the App on its own, without the microsoft photoshop editing program (I don’t have this).
Thanks for your interest. I have just this minute added the contrast enhancements to the tail end of a posting I did back in July last year.
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/why-there-is-a-pressing-need-for-higher-definition-shroud-images-to-be-placed-in-the-public-domain-barrie-schwortzs-stera-please-note/
There you can see the way that yellowing has occurred progressively through 3 levels of added contrast not just in the body image but the epsilon bloodstain too.
I now need to sit down and have a long think about everything in that comment of yours. Incidentally, a snapshot from my archive of some fresh blood I had dabbed onto linen did not go yellow under added contrast, so if it’s an artefact, it’s not a simple straightforward one to do with the behaviour of red pigment under added contrast. Shroud blood seems to be atypical – yet again.
The extra-corporeal bloodstain shows a hint of the effect too, yet to be posted, but perhaps not as clearcut as one would have liked. But that was a Shroud Scope image. If the App fails to show the effect at all, as you report, then it may not be the unmasking effect that I had rather hoped for. Such is life – and sciencebizz… You win some, you lose far more…
An additional comment on the bloodstains-one of the main difficulties I have with a Brother Hirudo type-scenario is someone being able to apply such stains to mimic what many would argue is the equivalent detail as though the cloth had wrapped a body. Yes, it’s a subjective opinion if someone could be so talented to really pull this off etc., but apart from the bloodstains on the contact side, what about those on the reverse?
If applied, are these simply soak-throughs with the cloth resting on a flat surface when the blood was painted on? Would one expect such a good match on the reverse, with such fidelity/symmetry maintained-if resting on a surface, is it reasonable that at least some marring/spreading/sticking/blurring of edges might occur? Or during the application was the cloth suspended in air, held taut by co-conspirators or perhaps just some sturdy, inanimate wooden clothespins? If any future studies are performed, the bloodstains on the reverse side might be especially useful, as sampling may be possible without disruption to the main viewing side of the cloth.
Well, there you have the advantage over me, since I don’ t recall having seen an image of reverse side bloodstains. But if one assumes that the general shape of bloodstains on the Shroud is similar on both sides, I see no difficulty. (See the photograph of frontal v reverse side “modern” bloodstains I have just posted – added to end of previous link).
I don’t see that the geometry of the linen – horizontal v upright etc – would be terribly important, since the main force at work would be capillarity, which we know is many times more powerful than gravity – think ascending chromatography. By the same token, the presence of a solid underlay ought not to affect the outcome greatly, the capillary forces keeping reverse side blood strongly absorbed and retained within the fibres of the weave, with little tendency to smudge. After all, one uses bandages to soak up blood – not to spread it around..
Not to get carried away with this, or maybe so, but what if you also look at the head wounds on the dorsal side-does the “hair underneath” show a different appearance (mottled/striated/thicker/darker?) compared to the smoothness of “skin underneath”? Maybe this is beyond the sensitivity of contrast adjustment/enhancement, but just throwing that out there.
Again, you have the advantage over me, being unable to spot the features you mention. All I see in the region of head hair is sepia discoloration that is indistinguishable from any other body image, lacking as it does any hint of strands) and naturally of course blood (but with no sign of wounds). But I shall keep trying…
“If the App fails to show the effect at all, as you report, then it may not be the unmasking effect that I had rather hoped for.”
On the App by itself, on the iPad, I can’t really get the contrast as high as what you show here
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/why-there-is-a-pressing-need-for-higher-definition-shroud-images-to-be-placed-in-the-public-domain-barrie-schwortzs-stera-please-note/
Maybe someone more proficient in the App with a smartphone +/- photoshop, can also give it a try (Dan)? I do hope they also make this available for a regular computer in the near future, would like to see this on the big screen.
the stain on your experimental cloth is clearly unwashed whole blood stain, and looks like one, where the Shroud stain does not appear to be a whole blood stain at all.
You are comparing apples and oranges
“…where the Shroud stain does not appear to be a whole blood stain at all.”
Appearances can be deceptive. Just because it looks like pigment-depleted blood now, doesn’t mean that was always so, centuries ago.
Most of the original blood has probably flaked off, leaving just a pinkish coloration. There is more than a hint of hang-up of original denser blood in pits and furrows of the weave.
Trying to be honest here-to me, the arrow on the reverse side doesn’t look quite as sharp as the one on the front, looks slightly more spread out-also, the notch(es)/indentation in the circular one doesn’t look as distinct-so, you’re not type AB, are you?
These are my thoughts, but I’m just one person, I’m sure there are additional opinions, that might agree or disagree-this is just what it looks like to me
Regarding the application of blood, unless the cloth is suspended in air, working top to bottom, once the cloth is saturated at the base and the fluid encounters a relatively less nonabsorbent material, such as a wooden or stone table, it will begin to spread out at the edges-with bandages I don’t know if it’s quite the same-though if the bandage saturates, as in a compress being applied, it would spread out once it soaked through (upwards) to the hand.
I don’t wish to have an advantage-it’s not a competition
The images I use to contrast ventral/dorsal images and front/back sides of the cloth are at http://shroud.wikispaces.com/PROPERTIES. The bloodstains are sufficiently clearly delineated on the back side to make a precise overlay quite easy. They do look fainter than their front side equivalents, but the photos are not good enough to say much more than that. There is, as far as I can see, no image at all on the back side, although this is in direct contradiction to Fr Rinaldi’s 1934 observation that there was. Perhaps he was only referring to the bloodstains.
I’m interested in Colin’s (and my) observation that “Most of the original blood has probably flaked off, leaving just a pinkish coloration.” Looking at individual ribs of thread, it seems to me that while some of them have indeed retained a ‘pinkish colouration,’ some of them seem to be the same colour as the off-bloodstain threads. None of them seem to be lighter than the off-bloodstain threads. Since all the off-bloodstain threads are image threads, and not only that, but particularly dark image threads (being on the prominent brow), this suggests that the base colour of the shroud under the bloodstains is the same as the un-bloodstained image areas – in other words that the darkening of the shroud due to image-formation occurred before the application of the bloodstains.
No image on the back (obverse) side of the cloth? Surely there’s head hair at least Hugh? With that one point of difference, thanks for providing the link (one I had managed to miss all these months!).
or was washed out. or was not there at all.
it is all speculation, and as such might be deceptive as well
Leaving aside matters of credibility, those three are all possibilities that can be listed on one’s initial checklist, and then addressed systematically as one works one’s way through all the bloodstains on the Shroud.
I did a series of some dozen or so postings last year, based on Shroud Scope, doing just that, so feel entitled to “speculate”, on the grounds that if it is to be written off here by the knocking brigade as mere speculation, then it is at least informed speculation.
Example – here’s a link to one of those many postings that noted evidence for flaking off, but with partial retention (“hang-up”) – an entirely different signature from your “washing out” or never having been there in the first place.
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/lets-take-a-closer-look-at-one-of-the-peculiar-blood-stains-on-the-shroud-the-one-in-the-hair-shaped-like-a-question-mark/
I say it’s interpretation – the sort that is used routinely by those who employ microscopes in pathology and botany labs. To describe it as “speculation” when you probably haven’t taken the trouble to read any of my postings is just idle and gratuitous sniping. So what else is new?
“I’m interested in Colin’s (and my) observation that “Most of the original blood has probably flaked off, leaving just a pinkish coloration.”
Without knowing exactly what the original looked like, how does one really know that most has flaked off? The Shroud has been rolled & unrolled for at least part of its history, this certainly makes sense that some would flake off, but would it be so uniform? Maybe, maybe not? I don’t know-also, as the image is only on the very top surface on the microfibers, what’s to prevent the image, at least in spots, from going off together with the topmost blood during the flaking?
The App is useful, this is an interesting idea, and there seem to be several areas that appear useful to see how things might be different. An interesting idea, yes, but I guess I’m just not that sure, myself, about comparing coloration of photographs with increased contrast/enhancement-there seem to be too many variables, the image rests on the very surface of the fibers, the blood soaks through; what about serum that’s dried/soaked onto the fibers-underneath the blood that’s flaked-does this affect the reflectance/coloring, how does one control for that?
When I look at back & forth at the image on the Shroud, before & after restoration, the post-restoration image looks much lighter to me-is this just my perception based on the differences in the lighting/contrast/enhancement of the photos, or due to the influence of a different backing cloth, etc. I don’t know, but I believe that a spectral tracing of the isolated image fibers before & after the restoration would be the same. Not saying that this isn’t a useful exercise, etc., but I think it’s important to keep in mind the differences between manipulation of photographs and data interpretation by machine. BTW, have you ever taken any of the microscopic photographs of STURP and run them through the same process-there you’re starting at a much higher magnification to begin with.
From Gabriel’s quote on the post about the making of the HD image for the Shroud 2.0 App,
” I understand that topography-like info has been used to store the images so applying state-of-the-art and already fully validated techniques are likely to yield an enormous amount of useful results, regarding image formation mechanisms, letters, coins and so on.
They do not mention whether they have images only in the visible spectrum but if UV and IR images had also been taken, a very promising material would be available.”
“If they had also been taken”, this would be the way to go-there is definitely an “if” component here-but relatively speaking, by comparison, basing conclusions on the enhancement/contrast of a photo of the cloth, IMO, seems a little like shaking the hand of someone who shook the hand, who shook the hand of Sir Paul McCartney
What if the Shroud image itself is an accidental enhancement/contrast of a 3D subject, with the possibility of some artefacts creeping in? Would that not be a reason to employ further enhancement/contrasts/experimental reversals that assist in understanding what was there originally, and maybe what was not? Secondo Pia’s inversion of tonal contrasts, aka “producing a negative” resulted in a striking transformation, the image being more, not less life-like, though still non-directional, shadow-free and thus ‘suspect’, but the same could be said for pseudo-negative images in general – produced, say, by fairly simple pyrography as Irene Corgiat has demonstrated.
Pyrography is – or can be – an art form, at least when done freehand, but has humbler origins that go back millennia – as with the branding of livestock, as practiced by the ancient Egyptians…
setting aside your pompous tone I will go through your blog ( which is not equal to the postings on theis one, since you do not post any objections, just your views).
Well, let’s start – this one is already a bogus remark:
Yes, one might ask how blood could trickle down hair as if the latter were a smooth surface like skin, crossing effortlessly from strand to strand
The answer is – very simple – if there is a vessel damaged, which is a very easy option on the head, as it is highly vascularized, the blood can trickle down hair as if the latter were smooth surface, like skin – anybody who have seen the cutting of the skin in the head have seen how quickly and to any direction blood trickles through the hair.
Ok, reading further, one can easily see that you are interpreting what you see not as what you see, but what you WANT to see – mainly to fit it your theory of the Shroud being a painting forgery. So-called gap could not be flaking off at all – flaking off at one spot is not flaking off, but purposeful scraping off ( which is possible), but rather than being scraped off it looks much more like a stain of some liquid over the blood, which just dilutes it.
The other part – if the body image is not a whole blood stain – why do you expect it to flake off? nobody knows how the image appeared on the cloth, but there is absolutely no reason to expect it to flake off, or wash off, or watever, so it being there does not prove ANYTHING in the domain what is been on the Shroud first – and you clearly want the image to be first .
Same is pertinent to your description of the “wishbone” – those spots, or gaps which you want to be flaking off look more like diluted by other liquid spots, not even scraping of the dry blood, but clearly wet dilution.Change of color clearly proves that – flaking or just dry scraping off won’t make such a change in the coloring, wet dilution or washing out – will.
Overall, from your block it is clear that you WISH to prove that image was painted ( though you do not have any idea how) first, and then blood stains were forged over it.
But your arguments have no validity in proving that, because you can not prove it experimentally – not knowing HOW the image appeared. There is also no proof that the image can not be superimposed over the stains, without interfering with them – all these speculations about flaking, scraping off ( which do not look like ones at all) are not proof to what was there first.
The image might have appeared together with the blood – did you ever thought about that?
I’ll gladly allow you the last word on this one – since there is no arguing with people who write “clearly wet dilution”. Oh, and the constant references to “what I want” don’t help either, it being a facile charge to level at any serious investigator (ad hom if the truth be told).
***yawning***
yeah, I see, the last word of yours going down the path of linguistics, since there is nothing left.