Home > Image Theory, Other Blogs > A mysterious work of art?

A mysterious work of art?

May 4, 2013

imageLee Krystek, on his excellent website, The Museum of Unnatural Mystery, after summarizing pretty much everything from STURP to Fanti’s latest, wraps up Visiting the Fake Shroud of Turin:

Probably one of the techniques that got closest to what we see on the Shroud (and by my thinking was probably the method used by the forger, if indeed the Shroud it a forgery) was done by Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, in 2005. He had a bas-relief ( a type of sculpture that stands out from the background ) created that looked like the figure on the Shroud, then draped it with wet linen. He then let it dry so it molded itself to the statue and then dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth. When the cloth was allowed to dry, then pulled off and reversed, the image resembled that of the Shroud. Most importantly the result had no brush strokes. The lack of brush strokes on the Shroud of Turin is often cited as an argument for it not being painted by an artist. [See picture below]

Does it Matter?

So, is the Shroud of Turin real or fake? Just looking at the replica it struck me how much the image on it seemed to be exactly what we might expect to see down to the blood dripping out of a nail wound on the hand. I’ve observed that things in the real world are rarely that neat and tidy. It reminds me of a minister friend of mine that remarks that he doesn’t like pictures of Jesus that make him look too "clean" and unreal. To me, the Shroud looks too perfect to be authentic.

At a certain level, does it really matter if the Shroud is genuine? Even if you can prove that the Shroud was actually used to wrap a victim of crucifixion in Jerusalem in the 1st century A.D., will you ever be able to prove that the person involved was Jesus of Nazareth? The Romans were not shy about nailing people to the cross and it could be one of hundreds of victims.

imageAnd even if you prove that it was Jesus, existence of the Shroud really doesn’t prove or disprove the central tenant of Christianity, which is that Christ rose from the dead. Proponents and skeptics seem to fixate on the Shroud as evidence one way or the other of the Resurrection, but it really isn’t.

And I think the Catholic Church, which has owned the Shroud since it was gifted to them in 1983, understands this. They take no position on the authenticity of the artifact, leaving it up to the individual to decide on their own what they think.

Perhaps we should appreciate the cloth for what we know it to be: a mysterious work of art. Perhaps produced by some unknown force of nature, a cunning forger, or maybe just a clever artist.

Phys.org story on Jacques di Costanzo work.

Categories: Image Theory, Other Blogs
  1. Cazab
    May 4, 2013 at 6:21 am

    Unfortunately for Lee Krystek, Jacques di Costanzo has changed his mind: he is now convinced that the Turin Shroud is not a work of art…

  2. Gabriel
    May 4, 2013 at 8:19 am

    I may be wrong but to me, some of the paragraphs here,seem to be directly inspired by the comments we usually read in Dan’s blog and then reappear as original reflections

  3. May 4, 2013 at 9:03 am

    The whole argument that the Shroud looks “too perfect” is ridiculous. Notice how all the pictures of the Shroud they claim are “too perfect” are all in the photo-negative. Funny how the alleged artist had no clue that such an image even existed but was discovered 600 years later. He would not have purposely created a negative image–and why bother? It is only revealed via photography. So this image described as “too perfect” was just an accidental bi-product of the forger’s technique? That sounds a little too perfect for me.

    • May 4, 2013 at 12:01 pm

      It’s hardly surprising that the images claimed to be “too perfect” are (probably) the light/dark reversed versions because that’s the presentation we are comfortable with, being the way we see people when illuminated. (We’ll ignore the non-directional nature of that illumination for now).

      But that does not make the original positive image any different where its location on the scale of perfection/imperfection is concerned, even if we dislike its tone reversal. It still has an identical information content to that of its reversed image. So if some consider the Shroud image to be too good to be true, then one cannot write that off merely as an artefact of light/dark reversal. One has to methodically list each of the features that looks too perfect, and then proceed to enquire why. The reasons for bloodstains looking too perfect (e.g. scourge marks that are simply too methodical and well-spaced*) may be entirely different from those for hair etc.

      I know what would be on my list, but it’s the nature of objectivity/subjectivity in image appreciation that prompted this comment. I have no wish to go adding further layers of subjectivity.

      * some might think there is too little overlapping of scourge marks for them to have been applied with a real flagrum. Many, perhaps most, have a stamped-on look about them…

    • Yannick Clément
      May 4, 2013 at 7:12 pm

      The brownish images of plants and leaves on paper produced by the natural process called the Volckringer pattern are also really “perfect” but, nevertheless, they are produced completely by a natural process involving only the known laws of nature.

      So, the “too perfect to be true” argument (as well as the “too perfect so it must have been caused by a supernatural process” argument by the way) failed miserabily when you understand that nature can truly produce images of biological things that look very good with great details, pretty much like the one we see on the Shroud…

      Of course, those from the ultra-skeptical side (almost always anti-Christian folks by the way), as well as those from the “supernatural fringe” (almost always ultra-religious people) never want to ear about this particular fact that nature can truly produce very defined images of biological things that look pretty much like the one on the Shroud ! This prove how biased these people really are…

  4. May 4, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    Okay, so he did a bust. Now for the whole torso, front and back and a cap, not a medieval crown , of thorns. Oh, and how many minute wounds from a Roman whip was that? And don’t forget the blood with the bilirubin of a tortured man mixed in. And the scraped nose and knee. Musn’t leave them out. Are those cheeks swollen unequally as on the Shroud?

    Give me a break. No forger of medieval, or modern times, could develop the model from which to engage in the process described. The model itself would have been a great work of art if such coulld have been created. But the medical knowledge to even approximate the Shroud detail lay five or six centuries in the future in 1350 CE.

    Thise who are skepitical of the shroud are pseudo-skeptics and the tea pot science they espouse is pseudo-science.

    • May 4, 2013 at 1:37 pm

      Okay, so he did a bust. Now for the whole torso, front and back and a cap, not a medieval crown , of thorns.

      I thought the NT said “crown of thorns”. So the Shroud trumps the NT in the authenticity stakes does it in substituting cap for crown?

      Oh, and how many minute wounds from a Roman whip was that?

      372 according to Fanti, but even he is wary about referring to “wounds”. They are bloodstains, not wounds.

      And don’t forget the blood with the bilirubin of a tortured man mixed in.

      There is not a scrap of evidence for bilirubin , at least not based on direct molecular analysis and characterization, e.g. by mass spectrometry. Red, blue or violet colours with diazo reagents, or peaks in this or that spectrum do not constitute direct evidence for bilirubin (which would have been relatively simple and straightforward to obtain, e.g. by initial chromatography followed by that mass spectrometry).

      And the scraped nose and knee. Musn’t leave them out. Are those cheeks swollen unequally as on the Shroud?

      If a modeller of the Shroud image had felt a compelling need to include a scraped nose or knee, or a swollen cheek, he could have done so. Maybe he considered them non-essential detail that was not obviously central to authenticity.

      Give me a break. No forger of medieval, or modern times, could develop the model from which to engage in the process described. The model itself would have been a great work of art if such could have been created. But the medical knowledge to even approximate the Shroud detail lay five or six centuries in the future in 1350 CE.

      Ho hum…

      Those who are skeptical of the shroud are pseudo-skeptics and the tea pot science they espouse is pseudo-science.

      Please explain what you mean by “tea pot science”. Is that a reference to Bertrand Russell? If so, please note it was made in connection with dogma – notably religious dogma – as distinct from testable, i.e. scientifically-based hypotheses. (Modelling IS hypothesis-testing.)

  5. Robert Siefker
    May 4, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    Colin, your doubts are to be respected. Be careful about Bertrand Russell however. His doubts about dogma are also in play along with the Shroud one might suggest. Sorry. Everything is in play.

    • May 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm

      Robert: Russell’s teapot in space analogy was a reference to dogma – where the owner of that dogma not only refuses to accept the burden of proof (or disproof), but attempts to shift it onto others. If those ‘others’ are experimental scientists whose ideas, while maybe untested, or still waiting to be tested, are testable in principle and potentially falsifiable, then those ideas are scientific hypotheses, not dogma, and thus fall outside the scope of Russell’s strictures.

      So the scientist is unlikely to lose much sleep over any attempt on the part of the dogmatist to shift the burden of proof, since the dogmatist is simply displaying his or her profound ignorance of the methods of science.

  6. Louis
    May 4, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Lee Krystek at least understood that the question of Jesus’ resurrection is involved, at least for some, on both sides of the camp, and that is the big mistake.

  7. Robert Siefker
    May 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Colin, if a see a chair in a classroom today and return tomorrow and it is gone am I justified in my belief that it was there yesterday? It is not scientifically testable or demonstrable but I can know, with justification, that the chair was there yesterday. I can share that experience with you and you may not be convinced, and you are free not to be, but in the process you have failed to know the truth. The issue of the Shroud’s authenticity indeed puts a lot of dogma (truth claims) in play. That was my point.

    • May 4, 2013 at 5:50 pm

      If I’m correct in assuming you are Robert Siefker, co-author of the Critical Summary from the Shroud Center of Colorado, then you will not need me to tell you that the analogy you cite is what is known as anecdotal evidence. One may choose to accept or reject anecdotal evidence, but if it’s not testable, then, right or wrong, it is NOT scientific evidence. That is not necessarily pejorative.

      There are lots of things in life we accept or reject without having scientific evidence to back up our assumptions or beliefs. I occasionally eat canned food without having it checked for botulinum toxin.

      The important thing is to be on one’s guard against attempts to dress up anecdotal evidence as being “scientific” if in reality someone has merely selected data that support their preconceptions, deliberately excluding that which does not.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      May 5, 2013 at 3:57 pm

      CSB: “So the scientist is unlikely to lose much sleep over any attempt on the part of the dogmatist to shift the burden of proof, since the dogmatist is simply displaying his or her profound ignorance of the methods of science.”

      As Aristotle might have said had he survived to the present: “It bothers me how a scientist can be so dogmatic about the ‘methods of science’ and yet apparently claim not to be a dogmatist.”

      • May 5, 2013 at 4:40 pm

        Scientists – real ones – not the publicity-hungry operators who dominate Shroudology with their pretentious pseudo-scientific PDFs and premature press-releases – are every bit as entitled to be dogmatic about the methods of science as a trial judge is about the rules of evidence – deeming this or that testimony inadmissible. Do rigid methods lead to faulty outcomes? No, because reliable outcomes depend crucially on those rigid methods. It’s about self-discipline (a shortage of which was painfully obvious in STURP’s final report – cue that absurd hypothesis re bilirubin and “permanently red blood” that Barrie Schwortz shamelessly continues to proselytize)..

        In my entire career I never once heard a fellow scientist protesting about the methods of science. It’s only on sites such as this one that the methods of science come in for a drubbing – for having the temerity to produce the “wrong” answer. Why wrong? Because it conflicts with preconceptions, wishful thinking, a yearning for ‘mystery’ and where ‘academic’ Shroudology is concerned with the highly coloured, subjective interpretations of Shroud ‘historians’ etc, with no hard evidence, indeed any kind of evidence, that the fabric and its image we see today was ever in existence pre-Lirey at the variously imputed dates or locations.

        Imagine the radiocarbon dating has returned an answer consistent with Shroud authenticity, and that I or someone else had come along claiming that the methodology was all fatally flawed – that scientists had committed some gross oversights. Would we not be hearing an entirely different response from the authenticists – along the lines of “Just who do you think you are to be questioning the methods of high-quality science, of highly experienced specialists and experts, with no less than three labs all independently delivering much the same answer?”

  8. daveb of wellington nz
    May 4, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    As far as it goes, I thought it a reasonably well-written article, as responsible as a writer with Lee Krystek’s particular perspective was able to make it with the limtations of the knowledge he has to hand. I’m inclined to take Gabriel’s point that he may well have been surfing this site picking up various stray blog comments.

    1) He trots out the Bishop D’Arcis memo yet again, which I feel has now been adequately discredited. The common faulty understanding that this alleged memo was actually completed and delivered to the Avignon Pope now seems to have arisen from a liberal faction within the Church about 1905 partly as a reaction to Secondo Pio’s first negatives which many felt demonstrated the reality of the Resurrection. The faction preferred a more liberal or psychological interpretation of that reality, and I’ve previously mentioned Jack Markwardt’s claims that those involved set out to defraud by attributing the D’Arcis memo with more significance than it warranted. It’s doubtful that it ever went beyond the draft stage, and likely there were improper motives behind it, or else was based on incorrect information referring to an actual copy made to replace the orginal previously kept at Besancon.

    2) Yes, thousands were crucified by the Romans and various other regimes in ancient times but, assuming the Shroud’s authenticity as a burial cloth for a crucifixion victim, there is I think too much evidence that this particular victim was indeed Jesus Christ. Even the arch-sceptic Herbert Thurston had to agree that if it was not actually Jesus Christ, then it was clearly intended to represent no other. The long hair and beard point to a Jewish victim; the injuries – the scourging, the spear thrust etc are in broad accord with the NT accounts; the cap of thorns seems to have been an impulsive soldier’s action mocking the claim to being “King of the Jews” (the official fundamental charge) – it was never a standard crucifixion punishment. Most persuasive for me is that here we have a burial cloth showing the image of an uncorrupted body, and yet there is in fact no body to go with the cloth.

    3) Concerning the forensics: As Pierre Barbet has convincingly demonstrated, all of the blood flows (including those on the arms) are in full accord with those of a crucifixion victim, well beyond the competence and understanding of any medieval forger. A “Ho hum” comment is an inadequate response to such evidence.

    4) Too perfect an image: Not strictly correct! The wrist-nailing is at variance with medieval understanding of how Christ was nailed to the cross, but is in fact more rational. There are slight deformities in the image from various causes such as wrinkling of the cloth, and although the image appears to be an orthogonal projection, there are slight variations from this, possibly because of how the cloth was draped or wrapped over/around the body, or perhaps arising from the actual imaging process.

  9. jesterof
    May 4, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    “too perfect to be true” as an argument is usually a sign of incompetence on the subject…

    • Yannick Clément
      May 4, 2013 at 8:36 pm

      Right. And don’t forget that the image on the Shroud, as bizarre as it seems, is NOT TOTALLY COMPLETE. There are some missing parts like the back of the knees for example (or most of the feet area on the front and on the back), which is one small detail (and I’m not even talking about the whole evidence of the bloodstains) that completely goes against any artistic forgery hypothesis. All this as a great “ring of truth” that surround it and fits very well with the idea that the image come from a natural process (just like the bloodstains come also from a natural process that has been pretty well defined by experts like Barbet, Baima Bollone, Lavoie, Adler, etc.). The only difference between the image formation process and the bloodstains formation process is this : in the first case, the still unknown phenomenon acted both by direct contact and at a very short distance, while in the second case, the well-known phenomenon called “exudates of humid blood clots” acted only by direct contact…

  10. jesterof
    May 5, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    colinsberry :

    Scientists – real ones – not the publicity-hungry operators who dominate Shroudology with their pretentious pseudo-scientific PDFs and premature press-releases – are every bit as entitled to be dogmatic about the methods of science as a trial judge is about the rules of evidence – deeming this or that testimony inadmissible. Do rigid methods lead to faulty outcomes? No, because reliable outcomes depend crucially on those rigid methods. It’s about self-discipline (a shortage of which was painfully obvious in STURP’s final report – cue that absurd hypothesis re bilirubin and “permanently red blood” that Barrie Schwortz shamelessly continues to proselytize)..
    In my entire career I never once heard a fellow scientist protesting about the methods of science. It’s only on sites such as this one that the methods of science come in for a drubbing – for having the temerity to produce the “wrong” answer. Why wrong? Because it conflicts with preconceptions, wishful thinking, a yearning for ‘mystery’ and where ‘academic’

    wow this is one bold and utterly unscientific statement from a self-proclaimed life-long scientist :LOL:

    life-long scientist had never ever heard of research validity and realability directly connected to the methods used and about study designs, categories and levels of evidence?

    WOW

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/levels-evidence-supportive-care/HealthProfessional/page2

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

    • May 5, 2013 at 6:46 pm

      I cannot comment on the latter half of your comment, because I don’t understand what you are saying or trying to say (inserting links to medical science articles on study design etc. that I may or may not get round to reading is in my opinion just plain laziness and/or second-hand opinion touting).

      What I do object to is your label “self-proclaimed life-long scientist”. I am a retired scientist, or as I sometimes say, tongue in cheek, a retired science bod, What’s so special about that? Why use those words “self-proclaimed life-long scientist LOL”. Do you perceive a reference to one having previously worked as a scientist as in some way self-aggrandizing, and if so why? A scientist is merely someone who adopts a certain systematic, well-defined approach when reporting and attempting to understand poorly or incompletely understood phenomena – no more, no less – which just happens to be the current topic under discussion, or at any rate has turned into that.

      Again, I ask, what do you find so amiss or mirth-provoking about someone describing themselves as a retired scientist? Would you rather I described myself as a retired non-scientist? Why would I need or feel obliged to do that?

  11. daveb of wellington nz
    May 5, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    Colin: I can only agree with you that specific failures to apply the rigour of the scientific method in specific cases of assertions based on alleged scientific claims from whatever quarter are fit and proper and should be addressed. This is properly “ad argumentum” which is good. However too frequently we see verbal attacks on persons who with the best will in the world have proferred arguments for their own particular views, whether pro- or anti-authenticity. This is obviously “ad hominem”, which adds nothing to knowledge or understanding. You yourself have frequently attacked the persons of STURP and other pro-authenticists; With the freedom of the Internet, you are able to do this, but it is clearly “ad hominem”, adding nothing whatever of value, except perhaps giving you some self-satisfaction.

    You are evidently uncomfortable with the comment of some of us who sometimes call the shroud a “mystery”. I am quite happy to call it an “enigma” if that is your preference and it has less subjective connotation and I think more properly describes it.

    You postulate that if the C-14 results had supported a pro-authenticist finding, then pro-authenticists would be playing a different tune. Nevertheless, you and others of like mind would still be equally free and within your rights to point out the failure to follow proper scientific sampling protocols in yielding such a notional result. Likewise those dissatisfied with what was actually done, are also free to criticise the failure to follow a proper protocol.

    • May 6, 2013 at 2:50 am

      “You yourself have frequently attacked the persons of STURP and other pro-authenticists; With the freedom of the Internet, you are able to do this, but it is clearly “ad hominem”, adding nothing whatever of value, except perhaps giving you some self-satisfaction. ”

      I have consistently attacked some of the appalling so-called “science” that emanated from certain STURP members, pseudo-science which non-scientists like Barrie Schwortz on their endless lecture circuits continue to proselytize to this day.

      I emphatically do not make ad hominen attacks on the individuals themselves. How can I, never having met them, and knowing little or nothing about their personal qualities.

      For you to charge me with making ad hominem attacks when I don’t, and when I have gone to some trouble to explain why the science is faulty, is in fact a kind of ad hominem attack. You might do better in asking Dan to find a ‘neutral’ bilirubin expert who is willing to adjudicate on Adler’s explanation for the “permanent red colour” of Shroud blood and my rejection of that view based on the flimsy or non-existent evidence – and amazement that it was ever allowed to appear in STURP’s literature. Yet that bilirubin myth continues to be promoted as if established fact, appearing on this site on a regular basis, most recently by John Klotz and Barrie Schwortz, the latter appearing to say that he only slips it into lectures for its historical significance re his own personal religious odyssey (ho ho, what a consummate performer that man is at the podium, still describing Adler as the then “foremost blood expert in the world”).

  12. jesterof
    May 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm

    colinsberry :
    I cannot comment on the latter half of your comment, because I don’t understand what you are saying or trying to say (inserting links to medical science articles on study design

    etc. that I may or may not get round to reading is in my opinion just plain laziness and/or second-hand opinion touting).
    What I do object to is your label “self-proclaimed life-long scientist”. I am a retired scientist, or as I sometimes say, tongue in cheek, a retired science bod, What’s so special about that? Why use those words “self-proclaimed life-long scientist LOL”. Do you perceive a reference to one having previously worked as a scientist as in some way self-aggrandizing, and if so why? A scientist is merely someone who adopts a certain systematic, well-defined approach when reporting and attempting to understand poorly or incompletely understood phenomena – no more, no less – which just happens to be the current topic under discussion, or at any rate has turned into that.
    Again, I ask, what do you find so amiss or mirth-provoking about someone describing themselves as a retired scientist? Would you rather I described myself as a retired non-scientist? Why would I need or feel obliged to do that?

    self-proclaimed life-long scientist does not know that medicine is a part of scientific research as well? and so the methodology and rules of the scientific methods applies there as well?

    For anybody even vaguely related to the scientific research is obvious that this statement

    “Do rigid methods lead to faulty outcomes? No, because reliable outcomes depend crucially on those rigid methods. ”

    is an absolute nonsense.

    why – i provided the links to explain. one of them is in a general magazine so anybody can understand the text.

    • May 6, 2013 at 3:24 am

      The issue is the scientific method, and whether or not scientists can be dogmatic in their insistence that the method must be rigorously applied without their science being tarred with a “dogma” brush. I say there is no contradiction – one can be dogmatic about what constitutes correct procedure, without being dogmatic about the science itself. I provided a court-of-law analogy, but that has done nothing to stop you riding some kind of hobby horse re medicine, with a growing suspicion in my mind that you have some kind of hang-up re non-medically qualified scientists whose interests interface with medicine (as my own did for most of my research career, notably in phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, liver metabolism and dietary fibre research).

      Having said that, I’m not sure why you have tried to bring medicine into the discussion, with external links that I’m supposed to read, without bothering to state or argue the particular relevance of medicine – or medical science. Repeat – it’s the scientific method that is in the frame here – a method that can be applied to any area of interest – medicine, the Shroud etc etc, provided questions are properly framed, variables properly controlled and findings interpreted and reported with care and scrupulous objectivity.

      Any Tom, Dick or Harry can do, or claim to do, science, but if they start to play fast and loose with the scientific method, then they must not be surprised to find themselves accused of promulgating pseudo-science (which incidentally is not a personal attack, being a criticism of their defective modus operandi – not their characters).

      • jesterof
        May 6, 2013 at 1:02 pm

        *** rolling eyes smiley***

        if you do not understand that scientific methods are not an absolute and even rigorous methods applied may lead to invalid conclusions I can’t teach you that. even the person vaguely connected to any area of science knows that to admit that “rigid methods never lead to invalid outcomes” is total nonsense.
        If you can’t – that is a proof of your validity and reliability as a scientist. Even on food :-)

  13. jesterof
    May 5, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    “Again, I ask, what do you find so amiss or mirth-provoking about someone describing themselves as a retired scientist? Would you rather I described myself as a retired non-scientist? Why would I need or feel obliged to do that? ”

    Maybe because you are calling for this type of sarcasm, using this type of language against the others:

    “Scientists – real ones – not the publicity-hungry operators who dominate Shroudology with their pretentious pseudo-scientific PDFs and premature press-releases”
    “preconceptions, wishful thinking, a yearning for ‘mystery’ and where ‘academic’ Shroudology is concerned with the highly coloured, subjective interpretations of Shroud ‘historians’ etc,”

  14. daveb of wellington nz
    May 6, 2013 at 6:29 am

    CSB: “I emphatically do not make ad hominen attacks on the individuals themselves. How can I, never having met them, and knowing little or nothing about their personal qualities.”

    The Jesterof quoted extracts at #24 are clearly ‘ad hominem’ attacks, in that they demean the individuals concerned:

    “Scientists – real ones – not the publicity-hungry operators who dominate Shroudology with their pretentious pseudo-scientific PDFs and premature press-releases”
    “preconceptions, wishful thinking, a yearning for ‘mystery’ and where ‘academic’ Shroudology is concerned with the highly coloured, subjective interpretations of Shroud ‘historians’ etc,”

    These do not address any issue these people have raised, but are clearly intended to demean their general character as a class. It is so loose, it’s not even specific. Perhaps not ‘ad hominem’ so much as a general ‘ad homines’.

    • May 6, 2013 at 6:37 am

      No, they do not demean character. They deplore a transparent partiality with little or no attempt at objectivity, which is anathema to science… And you are attempting (yet again) to demean my character, so consider this conversation closed.

  15. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 7:15 am

    Almost from the very start (from #4), this conversation was actually doomed . . . (Edited to remove unhelpful personal characterization). Enough already!!!

  16. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 8:34 am

    Dan, I’d wish your censorship could have worked both ways and not only one way (CB is allowed to qualify people e.g. as “self-professed” specialists, “manic(s)’ and the like without you intervening at all. Do you really think a former Head of Nutrition/Food Safety’s ad homs can be helpful characterization at others’ expense when it comes to the Turin Shroud? I do suspect you to be “a little bit” partial on that…

    • Dan
      May 6, 2013 at 8:50 am

      It will work both ways. I promise you that. It was just a matter of timing.

  17. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 9:03 am

    The truth remains CB is a former Head of Nutrition/Food Safety self-claimed Turin Shroud specialist and has no lessons to teach as such.

    • jesterof
      May 6, 2013 at 12:55 pm

      Max Patrick Hamon :
      The truth remains CB is a former Head of Nutrition/Food Safety self-claimed Turin Shroud specialist and has no lessons to teach as such.

      no wonder he does not understand that the principles of scientific methods do nod differ that much be it medicine or physics.:-)

  18. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 9:33 am

    Correction: As such he has not to lecture on objectivity/subjectivity.

  19. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 10:47 am

    Mentioning “mysterious work of art”, “objectivity/subjectivity”, “food” (with CB) and the Turin Shroud blood and body as spiritual wine and bread, mark the name of Queen Guinevere comes from the Welsh form Gwenhwyfar and can be translated as “The Bright/Fair/White/Holy Ghostly Image” and also wordplays with the old Breton gwin vara, “wine and bread”… Reminder: in 12th C. CE Chrétien de Troyes’ Perceval, the whole quest for the Grail starts with the Red Knight stealing King Arthur’s cup/calice and spilling its contents (wine) on Guinevere.

    Now on December 30, 2011 at 9:39 pm | #31
    I wrote: ” (…) you can see the Grail Chalice of Christ Blood like shape… right in the Shroud positive bust image vertical axis seen UPSIDE DOWN. This is just one of the archaeoperceptive shapes that can take up the Grail as positive optical illusion… The likeness is not unlike a primary vision as the Shroud image does “behave” like an oversized Rorschach.” Now the side-wound bloodstain can “be read” in conjunction with the semblance of the upside-down calice as spilled wine…

    On April 19, 2012 at 7:26 am | #10, I also wrote:
    “there is both a strong & very subtle (“optical”) connection between the Shroud and the Holy Grail to the point that they could have been the same object. My own research (1994-1999) on the topic led me to identify on the Shroud most if not all the Grail medieval “semblances et avisions”. Now the old French word Grail translates “(diamond-shaped) metalic treillis”. In Hebrew “Gar El” means “Deus Habitet” = Tabernacle, “Gar Ael” means “The Messenger Shines (on it)” and gaal “to ransom, redeem”. Ring a bell?

    • May 6, 2013 at 11:08 am

      Ring a bell, you ask? Yup. Like that one in the City of Brotherly Love… ;-)

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 6, 2013 at 11:25 am

        I am not talking to a blind deaf.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 6, 2013 at 11:36 am

        “‘They may look and look but not see, and listen and listen but not hear” (Mark 4:12)

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 6, 2013 at 11:40 am

        Additional wordimage play: Perceval/Par ce voile (by this veil)/voile percé (pierced veil)

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 6, 2013 at 11:50 am

        The very name Arthur, as Old French Artu, word plays with Latin Arcturus, one of the brightest stars in the sky. Now the Latin for “bright star” is stella candida, which word plays with tela candida, “bright piece of cloth”. Etc.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 6, 2013 at 11:54 am

        For sure Chrétien de Troyes has not CB’s frame of mind as far as objectivity/subjectivity is concerned.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 6, 2013 at 11:57 am

        The book Perceval by Chrétien is coded (scenic imagery) and its key is the linen burial sheet once kept in Constantinople and now kept in Turin.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 6, 2013 at 12:00 pm

        Perceval was probably written between 1181 and 1191, it is dedicated to Chrétien’s patron Philip, Count of Flanders who went (guess where)… to Constantinople.

  20. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Qe’ara (קערה) is the Passover Seder Plate in Hebrew. Now Qe’ara-El word plays with French Graal. Yehsua’s Burial sheet (like the Mandylion and Keramion) was kept within a diamond-shaped treillised reliquary-table…

  21. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    Scientific etymology: grasal, grasaus in medieval French and Provencal > graal = Hebrew, qe’ara, Passover Seder plate.

  22. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Reminder: the Christian Passover spiritual food is Yeshua’s blood and body (like we can see on the Turin Shroud)

  23. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    The Hebrew word seder means “order”. In Sankrit the word arta (that word plays with the medieval French name Artu), means “order”.

  24. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    …Arta is the feminine of Artus (= Guenivere/old Breton Gwin-vara/Blood-body)…

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      May 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm

      Artur/Artus plays with the term Artos (Greek: Áρτος, “leavened loaf”) refers to a loaf of leavened bread that is blessed during services in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic… Still ring any bell?

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      May 6, 2013 at 4:54 pm

      Old breton gwin Vara, “wine & bread” = Guenivere//Greek artos, “(round) leavened loaf” = Arthur/Artu(ru)s

  25. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 6, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Both the Graalic semblances of Passover Chalice and Plate (the circular nimbus around the Turin Shroud man’s head that used to be kept within a metalically trellised reliquary-table/monstrance with a vast central opening in semblance of a salver containing a man’s severed head) are still detectable on the linen cloth on the face area.

  26. May 6, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    jesterof :
    *** rolling eyes smiley***
    if you do not understand that scientific methods are not an absolute and even rigorous methods applied may lead to invalid conclusions I can’t teach you that. even the person vaguely connected to any area of science knows that to admit that “rigid methods never lead to invalid outcomes” is total nonsense.
    If you can’t – that is a proof of your validity and reliability as a scientist. Even on food :-)

    There is a oft-cited principle, perhaps not entirely scientific, that links nutrition with the internet: never feed a troll. Goodbye and good riddance.

    • jesterof
      May 6, 2013 at 1:59 pm

      bye, foodie. rigorous methods CAN lead to invalid results, so you are wrong. AGAIN

  27. david
    May 8, 2013 at 5:11 am

    my idea after having seen “the real face of jesus” is this:
    As it was said in the film, focused beams coming upright or expandingly from the body would make the reflection fuzzy. Beam of light coming horizontally (like in scanner) is the only one which can make the image in 3D
    assuming that
    1. the negative of the shroud is the original image which could have been seen from the angle of THE SHROUD
    2. brightness of an scanned object depends on the distance (closeness) between an object and a scanner light, the further an object stays the darker the image is because of the dispersion of the light.
    I would like you to imagine the shroud as a huge scanner which did a scan of the body ITSELF and “saved the image down” on its own surface by the heat. Places which had better contact to the shroud (nose, forehead, cheeks, hair, beard, mustache) are lighter on the negative – darker on the shroud. Darker places on the negative (eyeholes) were not scorched on the shroud. The face is long and its sides are “cut” – there must have been gaps between hair and the face and the light didn’t get there or got there but the heat didn’t reflect.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      May 8, 2013 at 6:09 am

      Is not a true 3-D image! Variations in brightness of the image appear to correspond to the body contours w.r.t. the cloth, that’s all! Is not a stereoscopic image as in binoculars or a stereoscope. Whatever caused the image apparently attenuates more or less proportionately with body-cloth distance.

      Image is very superficial, maybe only 200nm, and perhaps is confined to the impurity layer on the linen fibres, rather than being on the fibres themselves.

      Most often cited naturalistic explanation is Maillard reaction, body vapours acting on the cloth surface, but no-one appears to have been successful in producing a convincing image this way. It may be that very specific environmental factors are needed, such as humidity, temperature, atmospheric pressure etc. The most successful experiments at producing a convincing image to date have been by Giovanna De Liso working for 12 years in the seismic Piedmont area. Earthquake events frequently release radon, a heavy radioactive inert gas contained within the earth. Recall that the gospel accounts of the crucifixion specifically mention an earthquake at the time.

      The specific extraction process of the linen from the flax and its subsequent treatment also seem to be critical factors.

      The radiation proposals from some certain quarters would have released so much energy, they would have destroyed Jerusalem if not most of Palestine. Reality checks on such proposals need to be kept in mind.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: