A completely inappropriate experiment. Nice white lab coats, anyway

imageBarrie Schwortz is updating his website and Google just spotted a new PDF file, Behind the Scenes of a New Smithsonian Channel Shroud Documentary. It’s by Barrie. Here is a short sample from page 2 of 6:

The first thing we taped that morning was in the outdoor area of the facility where two dead pigs had been placed, partially exposed to the elements, with the linen cloth samples draped over their sides. They were laid on the bare ground in a wood frame shed that was covered with a thin plastic film, but had open sides. It had been raining off and on for several days and the ground was soft and muddy and the humidity was quite high. There was also a steady breeze blowing which would seriously impact any type of gas diffusion and I immediately realized that this test was completely inappropriate for comparison with the Shroud, since the body it had covered had been placed in a dry, sealed tomb. At that moment I had my first doubts that we would get any results at all. (Above: Dr. Anna Williams, her assistant and several crew members prepare to tape the decomposing pig sequences).

It’s important to read the whole paper: Behind the Scenes of a New Smithsonian Channel Shroud Documentary

Now what else is going to pop up at shroud.com? Okay, we got a whole new Late Breaking News page dated June 3, 2013.

97 thoughts on “A completely inappropriate experiment. Nice white lab coats, anyway”

  1. I just want to say thank you to Barrie for this nice summary of the documentary. Now, I understand better what went wrong in the pig experiment and, more importantly, why it went wrong. It’s very unfortunate that the TV producers never thought to ask Barrie more precise and crucial informations about Rogers’ hypothesis. It’s also very sad that they choose to not keep anything that was said by Dr. Williams, a forensic anthropologist… Anyway, with this short paper of Barrie, we now know that she backed-up every conclusion he reached and that’s important.

    1. One last thing: I agree totally with Barrie concerning the fact that, even if the experiment could and should have been set-up much better, there were at least two important conclusions that were reached during the pig experiment that we can trust and judged as truly relevant versus the hypothesis of Rogers and it’s potential implication in the image formation on the Shroud. The second conclusion described by Barrie at the end of his paper is, in my mind, even more important than the first because it strongly support the idea that a Maillard reaction took at least part in the global image formation process that lead to the formation of the body image on the Shroud…

      Of course, many other processes could also have been active inside the Shroud but, personally, I would be very surprise (to say the least) if the image had been formed by a global process that completely exclude any Maillard reaction at all…

  2. Barrie is appropriately cautious in his conclusions-even italicizes the word could. Anything past this is total speculation. There are multiple issues in the experimental set up that were pointed out by Barrie, but the major fatal flaw is the failure to include a Saponaria-treated cloth sans piggie. This is an essential comparison-otherwise it is impossible to distinguish if a Saponaria-treated fabric, in of itself, placed outside under these conditions would show similar results, apart from any contact with a pig.

    1. Mr. Kearse, I understand your prudence, but you must recognize that the simple fact that there was a dead body inside the Shroud for a while makes it very rational to think that some post-mortem gases could have interracted with the impurities found at the surface of the cloth (I don’t talk about saponaria here, I talk about starch residues found by McCrone and confirmed by Rogers) and take at the very least part in the image formation process. The simple fact that, at microscopic level, the pig experiment gave a VERY SIMILAR RESULT concerning the fibers that were colored by the Maillard reaction than what STURP has found in the image area of the Shroud can surely be seen as a strong argument in favor of the idea that a Maillard reaction is at least part of the solution for the body image on the Shroud. This is true of course only at a theoretical level… But nevertheless, the result seen by Barrie and confirmed by a true forensic expert is very encouraging and should push other researchers to redone this kind of experiment with a much better protocol this time. Who knows what we would found?

    2. Little note: I said “This is true of course only at a theoretical level…” because it’s evident that a pig is not a human being and we still unsure of what we would get with a real human corpse. But nevertheless, as they said in the program, the human body is sharing many biological realities with these animals…

  3. I have to say, I thought it was a rather strange experiment for Barrie to be involved with…..

  4. Funny how when a crazy experiment supports one’s argument it is taken seriously, but if it does not then it is considered junk science and dismissed.

    1. Crazy experiment… Not so much as you might think. As Barrie said, it confirms one experiment done by Rogers himself and it also confirm this great statement from Rogers’ book that can well be applied to the image on the Shroud :

      In the end, what if Rogers was right about the image? Would you still consider the pig experiment as being a “crazy” thing?

      Seriously David, would you really be sad and would you have problem to sleep at night if the image would have been caused by a completelly natural process involving, at least for a part, a Maillard reaction? Why would this idea should be seen as being that crazy? Because the image is that of Jesus-Christ? Don’t make me laugh please. At the same time he was God, don’t ever forget that Jesus was a real human being like you and me and that his body was mortal (but not his spirit).

      1. Excuse me, here’s the statement from Rogers’ book: “When amines and reducing sugars come together, they will react. They will produce a color. This is not a hypothesis: this is a fact. A cloth with crude starch on it will ultimately produce a color, if it is left in close
        proximity to a decomposing body.”

        Here, it’s very important to understand that, in Rogers mind
        (and scientifically speaking, he’s right), a dead body is already in the first “decomposition” state way before the appearance of the putrefaction (structural degradation), which generally starts between 36 and 72 hours after death. It is a known fact that a dead body can emit post-mortem gases before the appearance of
        the putrefaction of the body.

        It is also important to note that you can change “crude starch” in Rogers’ statement for “saponaria residues” and that wouldn’t change much to the quote. The truth is that there are a bunch of possible source of reducing sugars that could have been present in the thin layer of carbohydrate impurities on-top of the cloth… Crude starch has been already confirmed, while saponaria residues are still waiting to be found.

      2. You miss my point Yannick. It was a ‘crazy’ (i.e. out of the box) experiment – poorly done too – but it has led to some real insights. So in that sense I think it has great value. You obviously do to. But if the person performing the experiment was Fanti (whom I’m no big fan of) I suspect you’d be dismissing the findings as biased. Like I said in another post, insights can be found in what may seem odd experiments – not just the ones we are predisposed to.

        And for the record, I agree with 90% of your posts. I believe the shroud image was caused by natural, but very extraordinary, processes. I sleep quite well under my Shroud-replica sheets. :)

      3. Fanti would never have done the kind of experiment we saw with a pig since he obviously reject even the possibility that the image could have been caused by a natural process! What I tag as “biased science” is when I see someone who present himself as a scientist and who only focus on supernatural explanations while, at the same time, he completely reject every possible natural explanations while we both know that science is far from having made a deep and complete examination of every possible natural hypotheses under every possible conditions that could have been present at the foot of the cross and inside the tomb 2000 years ago. That’s what I call “biased science” or “pseudo-science” if you will…

  5. Schwortz’s pig experiment is poles apart from state-of-the-art experimental archaeology! What is it Barrie just “thought he saw”? Just ask YC, he will tell you.

  6. Can a technical photographer turn into a biochemist and experimental archaeologist overnight? Just guess.

    1. Max, why must you attack people like that? I don’t believe this was Barrie’s sole experiment. But I, as you, question what was SEEN. Whatever staining or image or whatever you would call, Was it studied? How deep did this staining enter the sheet, for example? The fact that the image on the Shroud only enters the Shroud fabric by 2 microns, and only on the ‘top most surfaces’ is a very telling fact and one reason I am not sure about the milliard hypothesis as being the cause of the image we see, alone, or with some other process.

      R

  7. Apparently the experiment did serve to gain some data, yet it is far from the ideal way of gathering material for further study.

  8. Yannick,

    Thank you for appreciating my prudence, and I think that you also “must recognize a simple fact”: It is very transparent when someone is merely repeating the observations and results of others versus someone that is applying scientific reasoning and logic to the analysis & interpretation of data. They are not the same thing. The answer is not always WDRD: What did Rogers do?

    And I would recommend some meditation on Dave Goulet’s comments-your back pocket is not as securely fastened as you would like to believe.

    It is quite remarkable being regularly lectured about how science operates by someone, who himself, is not a scientist. This is compounded by the fact that all too often these viewpoints are projected in what rings of a condescending tone. But, what does that really matter? It speaks for itself, eh? Let’s get back to the business at hand:

    Regarding the pig experiment, YC:

    1. Someone argues that there was a nearby factory that was releasing amines into the air those day. Can you rule that out?

    2. Someone argues that just soaking a cloth in Saponin & placing it outdoors face down in the sun at that latitude & longitude on those days causes the same coloration as was observed. Can you rule that out?

    3. The pig that was used in that particular experiment (pig #245557) was donated to the lab the prior afternoon, having died from overexposure to toxic levels of ammonia-is that a problem?

    4. A security guard working the midnight shift reveals that he accidently tripped on the carcass sometime around 2:15 am that final morning. Being startled, he instinctively reached for his high grade flashlight (a Cobra mega-blaster), and admits that he “might have discharged an intense light beam” onto the cloth, but only for an instant. “I was scared!”, he said, “I didn’t mean to, okay?”

    Seriously, when this experiment was first made public on the blog, while bemoaning the lack of controls in the edited version; and acknowledging in Barrie’s defense that one never knows what ends up on the cutting room floor, I also applauded the effort for moving forward in the direction of original research. The pig experiment wasn’t a great one-it’s somewhere on the scale of a science fair type project, give or take-but as others have acknowledged, even to the points of prudence and overzealousness and all points in between, the effort was there. That is something and that is important.

    Finally, Yannick, can you drop the Mr. Kearse business and just call me Kelly or Kel as most of my friends do?

  9. I’m new here and I’m just wondering if Kelly kearse and Dr Adler thought the shroud as authentic or if it is fake.

  10. Luis,

    My own personal opinion is that the Shroud is probably real. I still leave open the possibility that it could be fake-for me that would be a relatively small one-but I try to remain open minded to both possibilities. I don’t believe that science can conclusively prove that it wrapped the body of Jesus, but in my opinion, the evidence supports the idea that the cloth wrapped the body of a beaten, scourged, crucified man. Those that knew Dr. Adler could speak more directly to his beliefs than me, though my perception is he favored authenticity as well.

  11. In the absence of a clearly controlled experiment, theorising what anyone has to say about vapour reactions with dead bodies and starch residues is just so much hot air and idle speculation. Kelly’s points 1 to 4 are valid criticisms. The draped pig exercise wouldn’t even qualify as a “science fair” experiment, and I’m sure that any of Kelly’s science students would have come up with a better effort with some real experimental design. In the film, there was a marked difference in the degree of control with the two competing attempts to create a Shroud-like image. The plain fact is that with only one significant exception, no-one yet has ever deliberately produced a convincing image, just coloration of a few linen fibres, that’s all! It’s been over 100 years since Vignon and Delage came up with the idea of a vaporgraph. In that time we have seen some amazing developments in technology, including transport, communications and electronics. But no-one can yet get a Shroud-like image that is even persuasive, let alone convincing.

    Blood sacrifices notwithstanding, until someone deliberately sets about a programme of carefully controlled experiments including a range of variable conditions, no-one will become any the wiser. Bring on the rodents and other vermin, and start some real experimentation, even with Cobra mega-blaster flashlights if necessary!

  12. A short comment of mine to read in parallel with Schwortz’s pig experiment and “his” most biased and misleading “draped over” theory:

    The very fact the TS man’s buriers took great care not to disturb the blood is consistent with an ancient Judean/Jewish burial custom in terms of bloody corpse tahara (purification ritual). It has nothing to do with a supernatural event. As a victim of a violent death, his body should be buried with his shed innocent blood. Most likely, the neat haematic cartography resulted from a sticking-gradual-unsticking transfer mechanism implying first the clean long inner burial sheet soaked in a watery solution was compressed widthwise (with shorter dry clean shrouds) while taut lengthwise back and front as all parts of the body should be wrapped-up (Naḥmanides, Torat ha-Adam; Inyan ha-hoẓa’ah) and then the tightly wrapped up bloody corpse was subjected to fumigation (and the long inner burial sheet somehow got taut again back and front through shrinking up). Reminder: To his buriers and (secret) disciples Yeshua was no am ha-arets (“average citizen) but a prominent figure.

  13. You know the “draped over” theory first Jackson then Schwortz and Yannick Clément have been most misleadingly promoting for years…

  14. Jackson, Schwortz & Yannick Clément’s (loosely) “draped over” theory is both bad science and bad archaeology.

    1. My hypothesis: There was a tight configuration of the Shroud before the image formation (probably during the short transportation of the body from the central room of the tomb to the stone tablet carved inside a wall) and the numerous bloodstains everywhere on the cloth (even outside the body image for some) are the proof of this since they all came from a DIRECT CONTACT between the cloth and the body. And then, once the enshrouded body had been laid horizontally on the stone tablet, the Shroud was most probably replaced over it in a pretty loose configuration, which explain why there is no important distortions in the body image on the cloth (even if there really are some slight distortions in some places).

      1. YC, for years you have been telling us/me the TS was loosely “draped over” the body… cannot you remember what you kept
        telling us/me in 2011, 2012 and early in 2013? Shall I refresh your memory?

        Now you’re telling us there was “a tight configuration of the Shroud (…) probably during the short transportation of the body (…)” from the tomb ente-chamber to the tomb chamber and you take up your “pretty loose configuration” pet theory based on Jackson’s totally biased reconstruction and claimed “the Shroud was most probably replaced over it (the bloody body) in a PRETTY LOOSE configuration”.

        Now the true scientific and archaeological fact is a Maillard reaction with a loosely draped burial cloth, that is with no collimation, JUST CANNOT WORK. No air gap back and front for a while is a must.

        Besides you recently advocated Jackson’s pseudo-reconstruction of the TS Man’s wrapping “show(ing) that an untied draping of the Shroud is the most probable configuration at the time of image formation (or else, there would have been serious distortions, especially lateral ones, of the image).” Totally wrong.

        Re the latter remark: most likely, lateral presence of solid objects (fresh medical plants, small “jaw-box” etc) + lateral body-to-cloth ‘bridges’ could account for no serious lateral distortion (panoramicity) since there was no lateral body-to-cloth direct contact (hence no lateral images).

        Re Jackson’s reconstruction, shall I remind you of his most striking errors that show how amateurish his alleged ‘reconstruction’ is:
        – the Turin Shroud blood image and body image imply at least TWO (slightly) different configurations of the long burial cloth in close conjunction with the corpse, not just one from beginning to end as far as the bloody body formation process is concerned.
        – the side-strip mistakingly is left on the Shroud for this demonstration. It just means he used TWICE the side-strip i.e. both as part of the main clothe AND as a bandage that would have been cut off from the said cloth!).
        – Jackson totally overlooks or ignores the TS Man’s head was tilted forward and his back was curved.
        – He is also totally unaware of the folding of his burial cloth at the buttock level etc.

        YC, have you ever tried to reconstruct the TS man’s wrapping in
        shrouds? I tried myself twice in 1994 and 1997. First do and then speak.

      2. Max you did not understand concerning Jackson… The drapping hypothesis of Jackson after STURP is not the one I talk. I was referring to the 3D study he did with Ercoline and Jumper of STURP and, for this study, they use a pretty loose configuration of the cloth over volunteers and find out that this kind of configuration was pretty much in agreement with the slight distortions we can see in the image (particularly lateral distortions).

        And concerning the Maillard reaction hypothesis of Rogers, I don’t remember having read anything from him saying that a possible loose configuration of the cloth over the body could not have worked… Note that a “pretty loose configuration” just mean, in my mind, a cloth pulled over a body without the use of straps.

        In truth, while he was working on his hypothesis, Rogers must have been aware that an untight configuration of the cloth over the body was the most rational one to explain the lack of important distortions in the body image, especially lateral distortions. Of course, this is a guess from me but I doubt that he was really thinking of a very tight configuration of the Shroud that would have been strap around the body while working on his gaseous diffusion hypothesis, because such a tight configuration would certainly have caused important lateral distortions during the gaseous diffusion process which would have lead to the image formation. Such important distortions can’t be seen on the Shroud and Rogers was fully aware of this fact…

      3. YC you wrote:”Max you did not understand concerning Jackson… The drapping hypothesis of Jackson after STURP is not the one I talk. I was referring to the 3D study he did with Ercoline and Jumper of STURP and, for this study, they use a pretty loose configuration of the cloth over volunteers and find out that this kind of configuration was pretty much in agreement with the slight distortions we can see in the image (particularly lateral distortions).”

        BTW with such a scenario (cloth loosely draped over bloody body) how do you account for the very faint back PARTIAL blood image found of the head (maybe the hands) ONLY?

        The fact is BOTH reconstructions (in 1984 and late 1990s) are heavily flawed (same non-tilted head, same non-curved back, no folding at buttock level too etc). Besides it does seem you just cannot/do not want to read me: “the true scientific and archaeological fact is a Maillard reaction with a loosely draped burial cloth, that is with no collimation, JUST CANNOT WORK to conclusively account for the TS bloody body HD image. No air gap back and front for a while is a must.

  15. Max, what did they do with the inner burial sheet after the fumigation was completed?

    1. Once the body was all wrapped-up in clean shrouds, purified and dried out, the buriers either took down the body from the two waist-high raised stones and laid it out onto the unction slab or (more likely) to the tomb chamber and laid it out onto the sole arch vaulted bench (kokh in Hebrew, kokhah in Aramaic) on the side-wall to the right on entering.

      1. Addendum: or (more likely) the body was placed in supine position inside the sole funerary vaulted niche on a bed of granulized myrrh to keep it from putrefying and the burial cave entrance sealed by a large stone disc.

      2. The fact is It may be either two waist-high raised stones or two waist-high piles of granulized myrrh bags.

    2. Not at all. Most likely, there was a set of pre-burial pieces of linen (e.g. the Oviedo Sudarium) and a set of burial shrouds (at least one long inner burial sheet aka the Turin Shroud + a face cloth and a skull-cap both used as outer NOT inner shrouds + an outer shorter burial sheet half the length of the TS + a couple of outer long linen strips) as far as the bloody body is concerned.

  16. So, basically there should be TWO sets of sheets – the one wrapped tight closely over the body soaked with solutions and for fumigation and the other over it?

    1. Jesterof, not at all. Most likely, there was a set of pre-burial pieces of linen (e.g. the Oviedo Sudarium) and a set of burial shrouds (at least one long inner burial sheet aka the Turin Shroud + a face cloth and a skull-cap both used as outer NOT inner shrouds + an outer shorter burial sheet half the length of the TS + a couple of outer long linen strips) as far as the bloody body is concerned.

  17. This was not a scientific experiment, it was a JOKE…Seriously! I am no experimental scientist, but one would think, if one wants to test Roger’s milliard hypothesis, one would want to duplicate as closely as possible, all variables. If one does not, as surely shown in this experiment, NOTHING can be accepted.

    Some points; Was the pig tortured physically and mentally, therefore altering it’s blood chemistry before being put to death? Was the pig layed in a dark damp limestone cave? Was the shroud used in the experiment manufactured in the exact manner (as supposed by Rogers) the actual Shroud was? and on and on…

    You would think more commonsense would have been used.

    Ron

  18. Max Patrick Hamon :
    Jesterof, not at all. Most likely, there was a set of pre-burial pieces of linen (e.g. the Oviedo Sudarium) and a set of burial shrouds (at least one long inner burial sheet aka the
    Turin Shroud + a face cloth and a skull-cap both used as outer NOT inner shrouds + an outer shorter burial sheet half the length of the TS + a couple of outer long linen strips) as far as the bloody body is concerned.

    So pre-burial set actually served ( in a way) as a washing set, or, rather absorbing set and the ingredients used to soak those linens and the fumigants served as the mordants you were referring to earlier?
    Makes a lot of sense.

  19. Concerning the pig experiment, all I can say is this :
    1- No matter how good and « scientifically sound » this pig experiment would have been made (note that I was the first to write a critical review of it on this blog many days ago), those from the supernatural fringe (who are very easy to « detect » on this blog and, sadly, among them are some scientists) would have always found some « good » arguments to discredit it!
    2- No matter what the supernatural fanatics can think, this experiment did show that it is possible to colored fibers with a complete natural process that is VERY SIMILAR to what STURP have found in the image area of the Shroud at microscopic level. That don’t necessarily mean that the image on the Shroud is due to the same kind of process, but this good confirmation of Rogers’ claim that every time a must be seen as a pretty good starting point for other experiments done under better conditions.
    3- Those who accuse me of having a bias in favor of this experiment should look at themselves in the mirror because I think it’s faire to assume that you got a bias in disfavor of the same experiment. Again, remember that I was the first one to wrote a critical review of this experiment on this blog).
    4- Those who have a problem with the fact that me, a non-scientist, can sometimes wrote comments in order to remind people of how a scientist is suppose to act, remember that I have read a very good book about the Shroud that talks in length about all the crap that goes on in the Shroud « scientific » world, i.e. A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin, written by Ray Rogers. Most of the time, I don’t say anything else on the subject of scientific integrity versus Shroud research than what Rogers himself have wrote in his book. So, blame it on Rogers! All I know is this : Any scientist who would be totally indepedent of mind on the subject would NEVER open the door to any supernatural explanation for the image and, on the contrary, would keep on searching for a proper natural explanation.

  20. Tightly bound sheet and Maillard alone will not do it, without major geometry distortions in the image – there’s very little distortion, and neither will shrinkage of the sheet restore required improvement in geometry. Loosely draped sheet and Maillard alone will not do it, because of gaseous dispersion, whereas resolution is reasonably good. There has to be some collimating influence to bring about the orthogonal projection evident in the image. Fanti’s “corona discharge” might do it but requires energies with no apparent cause. Radon anyone? Supernatural causes cannot be scientifically eliminated. Dogmatic assertions in absence of adequate experimental evidence equals hot air, ignorance, idle speculations. Over 100 years since Delage’s & Vignon’s vapourgraph hypothesis. We are no closer to the the true solution.

    1. Do you really think someone like Rogers never considered the question of the configuration of the Shroud while working on his hypothesis? And do you really think that he would have keep pushing for his hypothesis if he wasn’t convinced that the most probable configuration of the Shroud over the body of the Shroud man (an untight configuration) was theoretically compatible with a gaseous diffusion that would produce an image like the one on the Shroud? Seriously, you believe Rogers would have keep pushing his hypothesis until his death if he would have been convinced, like you seem to be, that a Maillard reaction “would not do it” in any possible kind of configuration of a burial cloth over a dead body? Why would he do that? If what you say is true Dave, then you can be sure that someone like Rogers would have drop his hypothesis and start looking for something else.

    2. You’ve got it wrong yet again. I said “Maillard alone” will not do it, and this also seems to have been Rogers’ position as well. Loosely draped sheet = too much dispersion; tightly draped sheet = geometric distortion. There has to have been some other collimating influence as well. We have a near orthogonal projection; if gaseous particles caused the image, they had to be collimated by some means as yet unknown. Even laminar flow will still be subject to at least Brownian movement and convection. Also check out flow-net theory (hydro/aero-dynamics).

      1. That’s not at all the official position of Rogers in all his writings Dave… Rogers never said publicly that he thought a Maillard reaction alone would not do it. I have send a guess posting to Dan on that subject, which I hope he can post very soon and I think this could set the record straight concerning what Barrie said to us the other about a private chat he had with Rogers…

    3. Dave, most obviously you did not quite get the bloody body image transfer mechanism as far as my reconstruction is concerned. The inner burial sheet is FIRST compressed and THEN got somehow taut again with a resulting body-to-long-inner-burial-cloth pressure release front and back; Your inability to figure things in 3D via thought experiment reminds me of your inability to correctly figure out a cat hidden in full view in a picture (within a reasonable time). I don’t think either you really understood how “opaques” (present in desert storm dust) adhering to the body and/or cloth, can act as image collimator.

    4. Max, I share the special competence of most professionally trained and qualified engineers to think 3-dimensionally, an ability otherwise rare among other academics. We have at least three years of training in technical drawing and design including orthographic projections, structural and mechanical engineering design, as well as its associated theoretical mathematics, together with whatever subsequent professional experience in various design offices our careers might bring us. The abioity to think 3-dimensionally then comes as second nature. As an aside, I mentally conjure up the properties of various complex polyhedra to help me falling asleep at night. It is precisely this ability which prompts my reservations concerning stated speculations on image formation mechanisms.

      I would have to agree with you that I do fail to see how external atmospheric dust storm particles, might have some kind of collimating effect on the gaseous molecules, inside a wrapped cloth, moist or otherwise, enclosing a dead body inside a closed tomb, with a boulder sealing off the entrance. Those are unusually penetrating dust particles! However some form of radiation, such as that from a seismic event just might do it.

      1. Dave, most obviously THE TRUE FACT is you are not trained at all to think 4D (BOTH SPACE+ archaeological TIME) or 5D (+ MATTER in terms of 3:1 twill linen mechanical return force) or 6D ( + internal /external source(s) of ENERGY) etc.

        Re “opaques” (in terms of iron oxide and silica particles adhering to blood and in-soaked long inner burial cloth), I just guess you might have found it really hard to figure them out (judging the way you most lamentably flunked the very simple test consisting in figuring out a cat hidden in plain view).

        Besides, most obviously you have never experienced a desert dust storm (I did twice). Had you, you would have known ‘for sure’ how dust particles are “unusually penetrating”!

        Reminder: Jerusalem malky stone and Judea storm dust do contain “opaques”. In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s long inner burial cloth, this is totally consistent with my image formation process reconstruction in terms of collimation (+ alkaline watery solution). Shall I also repeat the Sharaf (or dust storm also called the Black Breath of the Judea desert) can blow 40-50 times per year through Jerusalem?

        You also wrote: “I do fail to see how external atmospheric dust storm particles, might have some kind of collimating effect”. Why don’t you ask a chemist or a physicist worth his salt or ‘silicate’ instead of just relying on your Britannica Encyc.?

  21. YC;”2- No matter what the supernatural fanatics can think, this experiment did show that it is possible to colored fibers with a complete natural process that is VERY SIMILAR to what STURP have found in the image area of the Shroud at microscopic level. That don’t necessarily mean that the image on the Shroud is due to the same kind of process, but this good confirmation of Rogers’ claim that every time a must be seen as a pretty good starting point for other experiments done under better conditions.”

    “Very Similar” is not anywhere close to being the SAME! What expert concluded they were similar and how? Similar by colour alone? The experiment showed absolutely nothing that would not already be commonsense. It is easy to assume a cloth wrapping a corpse would sustain staining of some sort. Now whether that staining can be restricted to 2 microns depth, EVENLY across the whole body surface, front and back surface no less (VERY IMPORTANT), and have pseudo 3 dimensional height -depth encoded information is another thing…The experiment performed was a complete DUD, period. You can argue it anyway you want, but you would be wrong.

    R

    1. I agree that more testing should be performed on the colored fibers to know their level of similarity with the Shroud’s fibers. But, at a microscopic level, the forensic expert who worked with Barrie was categorical: these fibers looked very much like the high close-up photos taken by STURP. This is far from being banal because it support the idea that a Maillard reaction can be (I repeat : CAN BE) at least part of the solution for the image…

      Ron, question for you: Could you, at least, stay open about the possibility that a Maillard reaction could be PART (I repeat: PART) of the solution for the image? That would still leave the door open for your idea of a miraculous process that could have complete the job! ;-)

  22. In my opinion, in your experiments, you have to measure the
    so called surface energy using the IGC (Inverse Gas Chromatography)
    because in this manner you can understand what are the differences
    when you use the natural unbleached linen samples or when you
    use the linen treated that has a different level of waxes (but see also the
    linen samples treated with starch), etc.

    The IGC is a gas phase technique, first developed over 40 years ago,
    to study the surface and bulk properties of particulate and fibrous materials.

    Bibliographic reference :
    Comparison of surfaces properties of different types of cotton fibers by inverse gas chromatography
    Narjès Rjiba, Michel Nardin, Jean-Yves Drean, Richard Frydrych

    Journal of Polymer Research
    January 2010, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 25-32

    source :
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10965-009-9286-7

    Abstract
    >Three types of cotton fibers of different varieties and exhibiting different maturities and wax contents were examined by inverse gas chromatography (IGC), at infinite dilution. In this study, the potential relationships between the microstructure and the surface properties of different cotton fibers are analyzed. This method is based on the analysis of adsorption of gaseous probes on solid surfaces. By measuring the retention time of probes into a column containing the fibers, thermodynamic surface characteristics of these fibers, in particular the dispersive component of their surface energy, and their surface morphological aspects, are determined. The IGC data are correlated with a surface physico-chemical analysis performed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and scanning electron microscopy.

    and also :

    The characterisation of cotton fabrics and the interaction with perfume molecules by inverse gas chromatography (IGC)
    S. Reutenauer, F. Thielmann

    Journal of Materials Science
    20030515, Volume 38, Issue 10, pp 2205-2208

    Source :
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1023788400431
    — — —
    The surface energy of linen samples (before and after the
    BIF simulation experiments) is an interesting parameter to test
    (independently from the BIF theory chosen).
    What is your remark or answer ?
    — —
    PI

  23. Here’s a comment I wrote principally for Max and Dave on the issue of the most probable configuration of the Shroud versus Rogers’ Maillard hypothesis:

    Here’s probably the most relevant quote from Rogers book related to the probable draping configuration of the cloth over the body : « The image seems to show the body of a man, and IT IS DARKEST IN AREAS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSEST TO THE BODY’S SURFACE. »

    Note the prudence in Rogers’ statement. But anyway, if is assumption is correct (and the 3D study performed by Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline of STURP strongly support this), then we must assume that the cloth was not tightly wrapped around the body when the image formation process was active, because if that would have been the case, the resulting image would have been dramatically distorted laterally, especially in rounded zones like the face, the arms and the thighs. In other words, there would have been much more dark zones in the image as the ones present today, because the cloth would have been in direct contact with a very good portion of the body, thus producing dark zones almost everywhere that would have certainly distorted the resulting image very much. No doubt that, in such a tight configuration context, the final images of the face, the arms and the thighs would have been much larger than the ones we see on the Shroud… This is pure logical thinking based on the statement of Rogers I gave you at the beginning.

    In sum, this statement of Rogers, when you link it with the 3D study done by Jackson et al. of STURP (see for example figure 10 of their paper which show a possible draping configuration over the body), really seems to suggest that he was aware that the most probable configuration of the cloth was somehow loosely draped over the body without being firmly hold by strips of cloths or something similar. And in such context, Rogers was confident enough in his hypothesis to publish it and defend it until his death.

    Because of all this, I really don’t think it’s fair to conclude that a possible loose configuration of the Shroud over the body would be enough to discard Rogers’ hypothesis as being unable to produce a high-resolution and undistorted body image (except for some slight distortions) like the one we see on the Shroud. I really don’t think such a configuration was problematic at all in the mind of Rogers versus his Maillard hypothesis…

    Note that the conclusion of a pretty loose configuration of the Shroud over the body when the image formation occurred is also supported by the configuration study done by Mario Latendresse that he published in 2005. In this paper, Latendresse concluded that the Shroud was probably not flattened over the body when the image formation was active, in the way described by Lavoie and others. This was the primary conclusion of this study but when you read it, it’s pretty easy to note that Latendresse did not support also the idea of the very tight configuration of the Shroud, which would have been hold closely around the body by linen strips in the way it is often shown on TV (even in the program showing Jackson making a “reproduction” of the Shroud’s draping over the corpse)… Figures 4 and 6 of his paper are showing a model of cloth configuration that is pretty loose over the body and which is not hold firmly around the body with straps or something similar, which imply that the most probable configuration of the Shroud for him was also a pretty loose one (i.e. a kind of normal draping configuration when a cloth is loosely draped over a body without any packing of the cloth on the sides or any strapping to hold it closer to the body).

  24. YC, shall I repeat (most obviously either you missed my post or you just cannot read me):
    June 4, 2013 at 5:05 pm (#29) re the scenario of Jackson et al (cloth loosely draped over bloody body):

    “(…) how do you account for the very faint back PARTIAL blood image found of the head (maybe the hands) ONLY?
    The fact is BOTH reconstructions (in 1984 and late 1990s) are heavily flawed (same non-tilted head, same non-curved back, no folding at buttock level too etc). Besides it does seem you just cannot/do not want to read me: “the true scientific and archaeological fact is a Maillard reaction with a loosely draped burial cloth, that is with no collimation, JUST CANNOT WORK to conclusively account for the TS bloody body HD image. No air gap back and front for a while is a must.”

  25. Can yo read me when I wrote: Re the 3D reconstruction of Jackson et al:
    “(…) shall I remind you of their most striking errors that show how amateurish their alleged ‘reconstruction’ is:
    – the Turin Shroud bloody body image implies at least TWO (slightly) different configurations of the long burial cloth in close conjunction with the corpse (from beginning to end via cloth-to-body sticking-gradually-unsticking process), not just one.”

  26. Opinions, opinions, opinions and what somebody said!!?? One well-designed experiment is worth any amount of theorising and idle speculations. Unfortunately we have yet to see one well-designed experiment coming to the light of day. Show me one persuasive imaging experiment that even comes close to matching Giovanna Deliso’s work, and you’ll capture my attention. Otherwise, just so much hot air!

    1. Dave, first DO your homework about image collimation via “opaques” (iron oxide and silica particles) and DO TRAIN yourself to thinking in 4D (+ archaeological time), 5D (archaeological matter), 6D (archaeological thermal energy) before blindly focusing on ONE opinion (Deliso’s) and discarding mine as just an “idle speculation”.

      My opinion is not just “idle speculation” as you most depisingly inferred, it is based on biblical and rabbinic literature, archaeoastronomy, Late antique Hebrew and koine Greek (time marker personal comparative study), technology of ancient textiles, Second Temple period archaeology etc etc NOT on “Encyclopedia Brit. for intellectually idle old men on pension”.

      State-of-the-art experimental archaeology has nothing to do with Schwortz’s pig experiment, Jackson et al’s 3D reconstruction or even Deliso’s experiment as far as the TM man’s burial is concerned.

      BTW Deliso’s has its shortcomings and flaws (just in case you did not notice, I give you a clue: they are “hidden in plain reading”).

      Dave, have you ever tried to reconstruct the TS man’s wrapping in
      shrouds? I tried myself twice in 1994 and 1997. First DO and then speak/criticize. I always PUT TO THE TEST others’s opinions (either via enlightened thought experiment and/or experimental archaeology or both). What about you?

      In order to REALLY have a FAIR opinion on my TS image formation process thesis, first try to REALLY understand the later and THEN put it to the test of experimental archaeology before making a most hasty unqualified opinion while focusing on your pet theory (Deliso’s)… for a change.

  27. Max and YC, you keep mentioning Jackson’s “loose configuration” hypothesis, when in actuality he has obviously done a 180 in the past years and I believe he now suggests a “relatively” tightly bound shroud, whereas the Shroud was wrapped, tucked and bound by the side strip, possibly, or possibly something else. He demonstrates this hypothesis quite well in a video called The Shroud of Turin [BBC] and can be viewed on youtube.

    R

  28. Jackson’s reconstruction is totally flawed and biased (see my previous posts). He totally keeps overlooking many a parameters: e.g. the collimation issue (and the role of “opaques” present in Jerusalem malky stone + judean desert storm dusts).Besides, he totally ignores the case of a shortened taharah in terms of wrapping in shrouds (more than two), purifying & drying (via alkaline solution and fumigation). He also totally missed the long burial sheet could have been first taut lengthwise (the body resting in extra height on his right side) etc etc.

    1. Max, with all due respect have you actually viewed the video and Jackson’s proposed wrapping? Is not your shortened taharah, more then two shrouds, purifying and drying, body raised extra height not just speculation? We have agreed in the past that the burial was simply not as hurried has some propose, but seriously would they have the time to do all you state? Although I believe there to have been several cloths present in the tomb along with the Shroud and Sudarium, I have a problem with the idea of using two seperate sheets to wrap the body. Scriptures do not state that more then one shroud was purchased, but just one.

      R

  29. Ron, the word othonia (diminutive PLURAL Greek) simply means “shorter shroudS”. The TS as sindon is definitely NOT a short shroud but but a large one. This is a linguistic and material FACT.

    We already discussed Jackson’s reconstruction video.

    Most obviously you missed one of my previous posts on this very thread.

    “(…) the true scientific and archaeological fact is a Maillard reaction with a loosely draped burial cloth, that is with no collimation, JUST CANNOT WORK. No air gap back and front for a while is a must. (…) Re Jackson’s reconstruction, shall I remind you of his most striking errors that show how amateurish his alleged ‘reconstruction’ is:
    – the Turin Shroud blood image and body image imply at least TWO (slightly) different configurations of the long burial cloth in close conjunction with the corpse, not just one from beginning to end as far as the bloody body formation process is concerned.
    – the side-strip mistakingly is left on the Shroud for this demonstration. It just means he used TWICE the side-strip i.e. both as part of the main clothe AND as a bandage that would have been cut off from the said cloth!).
    – Jackson totally overlooks or ignores the TS Man’s head was tilted forward and his back was curved.
    – He is also totally unaware of the folding of his burial cloth at the buttock level etc.”

    Ron, “have you ever tried to reconstruct the TS man’s wrapping in
    shrouds? I tried myself twice in 1994 and 1997.”

    “BTW with such a scenario (cloth loosely draped over bloody body) how do you account for the very faint back PARTIAL blood image found of the face (maybe the hands) ONLY?”

    Waiting for you reply.

  30. At least two of Yeshua’s shorter burial shrouds are still extant today. They are known as the Headdress of Cahors and the Holy Veil of Manoppello (reduced size).

    1. Max, your drawing attention to these two other cloths is appreciated, however I am sure you will agree that a lot more research is needed and that this is bound to produce results sooner or later. You also know that access to relics is extremely difficult and hinders research and our generation at least has to work on data available at present. See the recently posted interview-article with Fr. Heinrich Pfeiffer on the HSG website.

      1. Louis, I do agree. However, the fact remains, in 1997, I spent more than an hour studying “face to face” the Holy Face of the Veil of Manoppello (both in naturally transmitted light outside the church and at macrographic level). I studied the Headdress of Cahors too.

  31. Most likely the two smaller shrouds (face cloth aka Veil of Manoppello + skull cap aka Headdress of Cahors) were (respectively) placed and fastened over the main burial sheet to shut it at head level and keep fastened an improvised head apparatus or small “jaw-box” to keep the TS man’s mouth shut. This I deduced both from a close examination of the front and back head images, from the three shrouds and from my two attempts at reconstructing the wrapping in shrouds of the TS man’s body.

  32. To Dave, these are not “idle speculations” but shroud research work!

  33. Shall I endlessly repeat: the bloodstains on the TS are ‘ lightly mordanted aged re-dried re-moistened freshly dried blood’ implying the linen cloth was in-soaked with an alkaline solution and subjected to fumigation in terms of purifying and drying burial procedure. The haematic cartography as recorded on the Turin Shroud is totally consistent with a ‘first tightly’ and ‘then slightly less tightly’ wrapped up stiff rigid body having been handled before and after having been compressed in shrouds (with the in-soaked long inner shroud having been first taut then compressed then gotten somehow taut again through shrinking).

  34. I intend this to be the last comment I shall make on this particular thread.

    I consider that Yannick Clement makes a valid comment (chalk it up Yannick) when he says at #51: “we must assume that the cloth was not tightly wrapped around the body when the image formation process was active, because if that would have been the case, the resulting image would have been dramatically distorted laterally, especially in rounded zones like the face, the arms and the thighs. (Etc)” Cartographer that he is, this is the way that the projection would work. Any senior high school student in Technical Drawing would immediately know this without even touching his Tee-square. Max Patrick Hamon does not know this, so he clearly does not have the competence of a Technical Drawing High School student when it comes to 3-dimensional geometry.

    The only way that a tightly wrapped shroud could produce the orthogonal image as seen is if the sides of the body had been packed (possibly with some of the 100 lb package brought by Nicodemus), hiding the sides, so that the shrouded corpse appears as an approximation to a distorted cuboid, with the frontal and dorsal surfaces of the sheet, following the lines of the body probably mis-shapen in rigor mortis. Transverse sections of the sheet, would need to be almost linear, for an orthogonal image to have any possibility of forming, otherwise the distortion mentioned by YC occurs. However, this is not the configuration claimed by Max Patrick Hamon, and therefore his hypothesis will result in distortion, which is not what we see!

    I concede that that the various rituals which MPH persistently refers to may have a role in the image formation process, however there is very little experimental evidence he can present to demonstrate that they do so. Hence this is not formal research in the strict sense at all, but merely his hypothesis. If it were research, where is his published paper, and when was it peer reviewed?

    I do not intend to respond to his arrogant presumptions as to what competences I may or may not possess, as he is ill-suited to judge them, and others can draw their own conclusions as to what little value his derogatory comments might have!

  35. Re Mr Belz’s Dave-ilish bad mouthing of my research work (AGAIN!):

    “Max Patrick Hamon does not know this (the way that the projection would work) so he clearly does not have the competence of a Technical Drawing High School student when it comes to 3-dimensional geometry.”!

    The fact is I DID study Technical Drawing for two years (in high school) in France + soft and hard stone carving/sculpting for one year at the CFC des Compagnons du Tour de France, Nantes, France. I DO know ‘the way that the projection would work’! I can think in 3D, thank you.

    I can even think in 4D (+ archaeological TIME), in 5D (+ MATTER in terms of 3:1 twill linen return force) and 6D (+ archaeological thermal source(s) of ENERGY)… Besides I attempted twice to reconstruct as accurately as possible the TS man’s “wrapping in shrouds” in 1994 and 1997 (I even got two sets of photographs). If much further experimental work is something that is sadly lacking, in ALL of the various theories of image formation, shall I endlessly repeat my research work is still in progress. I STILL need a full body silicone medical mannequin realistic replica of the Sindon Man with water chamber (to be filled with heated water to simulate body and body hyperthermia temperatures) and fully jointed neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knees, and ankles (to provide a deathlike range of similar rigor mortis positions) + 3-4 sets of ad hoc linen cloths (both medieval and late antique replicas) so that I could reconstruct the Sindon’s Man specific burial in state-of-the-art experimental archaeology. This is not as easy as just looking up the Encyc. Brit. to get the answer (as you most wrongly think an old idle All Black man on pension named Dave Belz, Wellington, NZ).

    Mr all-black-belz, have you ever attempted to reconstruct the TS man’s wrapping in shrouds to be so assertive and so critic of my research work? Most obviously you haven’t. Had you, you should have been aware the image formation process is NO mere 3D geometry problem. G.od forgive the all-black old idle man to be so discorteously arrognorant!

    Methinks, Mr Belz Dave should do his homework in complex variable projective geometry as far as the bloody body image formation process is concerned!

    A MATTER OF “COMPLEX VARIABLE PROJECTIVE GEOMETY”

    Re distortions:
    The Sindon image is affected by several distortions strongly suggestive of rigor mortis such as head slightly bent forward, back curved and legs bent with raised knees. The unusually long arms and seemingly long fingers on the right hand imply both dislocation and uneven stretching at the arm level. The latter distortions are a matter of “complex variable projective geometry” as the long inner burial cloth shrank up and got somehow taut again – during the Sindon image formation process – in conjunction with abducted-adducted arms counteracted rigor mortis.

    During the image formation process, the tightly pulled sovev (long inner burial sheet) didn’t quite return to its natural size and shape as it got sort of taut again lengthwise through shrinking. The uneven recording of the two arms imprint on the inner side of the burial cloth is due to the fact the deceased’s arms had been forced in rigor mortis from abduction to adduction thus creating sort of a counter-pressure to wrapping-up pressure. Through drying out and slight cloth-to-body pressure release, the arms mechanically tended to slightly raised again, this resulted in a specific image distortion not to be extended to the whole body imprint.

    Addition to my #63 as reminder: A stiff rigid body does behave like a wooden board and the TS man’s corpse was all in freshly dried blood covered with dust, which explains the absence of any smearing on the cloth. The horizontal S-fold (at the buttock level see Thierry Castex 3D reconstruction) is an ease fold to help correctly handle/wrap the body placed in extra height to be subjected to a (myrrhic-)aloetic fumigation thus creating sort of a tight protective seal (much akin to shrink-wrap back and front) over the stiff rigid corpse after the canes are removed. Once the corpse is tightly wrapped up, the pair of canes tranversally inserted through the S-fold at buttock level (in the bottom half of the long inner burial cloth) could also have helped carry the body down to the tomb chamber and place it on the tomb bench on granulized myrrh bags.

  36. Last remark to Mr Belz Dave; first try to REALLY undertand a thesis (in terms of collimation, anaerobics, complex variable projective geometry, Second Temple period specific burial ritual etc) BEFORE blindingly criticizing it.

  37. Very last remarks:
    1/Archaeologically speaking, can Mr Belz account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal?

    I can in the light of my bloody body image formation process thesis. In the darkness of his oversimplistic “3D projective geometry”, Mr Belz just cannot .

    2/Archaeologically speaking, can Mr Belz account for the off-elbow bloodstain? I can in the light of my bloody body image formation process thesis. In the darkness of his oversimplistic “3D projective geometry”, Mr Belz just cannot.

    Final reminder for Mr Belz: my TS man’s blood body image formation process thesis implies TWO slightly different configurations one for the blood image another for the body image (just in case he hadn’t noticed yet).

  38. Max, thanks for the comments. What was your impression about the kind of cloth in Manoppello and general impression about the Cahors headdress?

  39. Most obviously, Mr Belz relies too much on his High School 3D geometry lessons and is definitely not trained for thinking in 4D, 5D or 6D. As such, he is totally unreliable as an amateurish archaeological image analyst.

  40. In view of Mr Hamon’s expressed interest in the sport of Rugby, he may be interested in the results of the present French tour of New Zealand. This evening Saturday June 8, (NZST), at Eden Park Auckland, in the first Test of the present series, All Blacks won against France 23-13. For the French, this was thier first visit to NZ since their defeat by the All Blacks in the final of the World Rugby Cup in 2011. Text of a full commentary of the game oan be found at http://www.3news.co.nz . A video of the game should also be available. I am unable to say whether the broadcast was televised in Complex Variable Projective Geometry, in which I happen to be quite well-informed. I trust this continuing unfortunate rout of the French team does not prompt a diagnosis of increasing choleric venom from the correspondent. Perhaps they might do better in the second Test at Christchurch.

  41. Mr Belz’s Davilish reply says it all about his consumed art in AVOIDING QUESTION (l’art de ‘botter en touche’) whenever he cannot find the answer in his 2006 Encyc. Brit.! The man is not unlike snakes: he spits out his poison on the house and then disappears like a coward (taking an all-black-minded man’s leave?).

    The true fact is the venomous old idle all black man on pension has NOT the foggiest notion when it comes to the COMBINATION of complex variable factors such as archaeological time, image collimation via “opaques”, shrink-wrapping, bloody body-to-cloth anaerobic condition back and front followed by slight configuration changes, moistened and dry stretched ancient linen fabric response in terms of mechanical return force etc. He is just an arrognorant old idle man watching rugby matches on TV while thinking he is well informed as image analyst.

    Reminder for Mr BelzDave: YOU CANNOT EVEN CORRECTLY figure out a 2D hidden cat in plain view in a photograph! That also says it all how reliable you are is when it comes to understand the TS image!

    1. I can assure the correspondent that I am not an idle person at all, nor do I disappear from the scene. I have rather more active interests in my life than prolonging pointless discussions that are going nowhere. Any rewards that I enjoy, I have certainly earned from an active working life, rather than being locked in an ivory tower of my own devising. Complex Variable Projective Geometry is merely another mathematical tool, which is barely relevant to the orthognal properties of the TS image. I dare say that the correspondent could not even prove that i^2 = -1, whereas I certainly can, merely by considering complex numbers of unit modulus. It so happens that Rugby does not hold the same interest for me as it apparently does for the correspondent. I merely thought he might have been interested in the result. I didn’t even bother to watch the game. I was otherwise employed. However I did find his comments on the subsequent posting on the Veil of Manopello under the Guadalupe heading particularly informative and fascinating. It is amazing what can come to light when personal invective is set aside.

      1. Reminder for a venomous amnesic idle old man (Mr Belz): You DO have BLIND SPOTS in your sight-and-brain coordination system,THAT’S A PROVEN FACT (of which you are just in denial) and THAT says it all.

      2. I offer you an olive branch, and you spit on it. What a truly nasty person you are, Max.

      3. Most sadly, you are still oozing your venomous prose (in ad hom attacks) while thinking you are a ‘dove’. Most obviously you DO have both perceptive, intellectual and moral BLIND SPOTS!

      4. BTW there is more than mere orthogonal properties involved in theTS image. There are also slight shifts and displacements recorded:

        – at face level (most likely due to the presence of a small ‘jawbox’ consisting in two wooden pieces placed underneath on each side of the head and a shorter one on top under the chin and used in conjunction with a small face cloth (now kept in Manppello) and a skull cap (now kept in Cahors) on top of the TS so as to tightly shut the long burial sheet at head level). Most likely the three wooden pieces were sawn off the titulus damnationis).

        Reminder: As early as the 4th centry, the TD is described as a relic divided into three pieces (one in Rome, one in Jerusalem and one in Constantinople).

        – at buttock level (most likely two canes were inserted widthwise through the double-tubed S-like shaped fold purposefully made midway in the part of the cloth held taut i.e. at the buttock level (see Thierry Castex’s figure 4 – 3D Dorsal View of the Front Side). The horizontal S-fold was an ease fold to help correctly handle, wrap and bind the the stiff rigid body placed in extra height to be subjected to a (myrrhic-)aloetic fumigation thus creating sort of a tight protective seal (much akin to shrink-wrap back and front) over the stiff rigid corpse. Most likely, once the corpse was tightly wrapped up, the pair of canes tranversally inserted through the S-fold at buttock level (in the bottom half of the long inner burial cloth) could also have helped carry the wrapped-up body down to the tomb chamber and place it on the tomb bench on granulized myrrh bags. Then the canes were removed).

        Reminder: A stiff rigid body does behave like a wooden board and the TS man’s corpse was all in freshly dry blood covered with dust, which explains the absence of any smearing on the cloth.

        – at hand level (most likely, the unusually long arms and seemingly long fingers on the right hand imply both dislocation and uneven stretching at the arm level. The latter distortions resulted in the long inner burial cloth gradually shrinking up and getting somehow taut again – during the Sindon image formation process – in conjunction with abducted-adducted arms counteracted rigor mortis. Most likely, during the image formation process, the tightly pulled and compressed long inner burial sheet didn’t quite return to its natural size and shape as it got sort of taut again lengthwise through shrinking. The uneven recording of the two arms imprint on the inner side of the burial cloth is due to the fact the deceased’s arms had been forced in rigor mortis from abduction to adduction thus creating sort of a counter-pressure to wrapping-up pressure. Through drying out and slight cloth-to-body pressure release, the arms mechanically tended to slightly raised again, this resulted in a specific image distortion (elongated fingers) not to be extended to the whole body imprint).

        Etc etc.

      5. Reminder 2: Reminder: Read in the light of the Turin Sindon, the Gospels implies the lengthy linen cloth (Heb. sadin, sovev), was first tautly wrapped (Gr. enetulixen, Matthew 27,59) lengthwise around the stiff rigid body in dried blood and the latter thus wrapped to be then compressed (Gr. eneilesen, Mark 15,46) and fastened (Gr. edesan, John 19,40) width wise with spices (Gr. aromaton).

      6. Additionr: The visual fact is, anyone observing the TS man’s face will (at first and maybe even second and third sight) see an ‘almost’ normal nose.
        However a very close examination of the face in terms of geometrical projection made from a life-size photograph tells us ‘a quite different story’:
        To the sole exception of the bony areas of the eye-sockets and nasal septum, all the rest of the face shows irregular features and displacements.
        Reminder: Once carefully overlaid (at scale 1 :1), the two holy faces (Manoppello Veil and Turin Shroud) do reveal the face of a man with a ‘skewed nose’. This is confirmed by Byzantine numismatics in nearly a dozen of extant gold coin obverses featuring a ‘Shroud-Veil-like’ Christ Pantocrator.

  42. Max Patrick Hamon :

    Very last remarks:
    1/Archaeologically speaking, can Mr Belz account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal?
    I can in the light of my bloody body image formation process thesis. In the darkness of his oversimplistic “3D projective geometry”, Mr Belz just cannot .

    Max, can you, please, answer the question – what is the perceived relationship between the hydroxiproline and potassium?
    because I can’t ether remember on physiologically or find anything for that matter.
    But you keep repeating that, so there should be some connection
    thanks

  43. Dear Max P H .Dave does have many interests,and hasn’t a vindictive bone in his body.Unfortunately you can-not recognize when some-one is pulling your chain .How-ever he is far more educated than you realize and has very high standards when it comes to experimentation or persons who put forward theories without peer evaluation.
    I have laughed over your personal efforts to degrade him and been most amused by his sound replies over the last half hour.
    How do I know Dave.? I’ve had to put up with him as my teasing brother for 71 years. I love him.
    Rob B Auckland

  44. My dear Max P.H. I’ll remember to pray for you next time I attend Mass.Name calling should be left to five year olds when they can’t think of any-thing else…You accuse Dave in one of your rantings of being a coward.This is far from the case.I suggest you look up details on railway via ducts in NZ. One of Dave’s many jobs was to clamber all over them inspecting the trestles for fatigue and check every nut ,bolt stay and any thing else the bridge was constructed of.
    He has probably inspected in his time every bridge in the North Island and possibly the South.One in particularly the Mohaka 95 m in height 276 m long Highest in Australasia when built and fourth highest in the world. This he has photographic evidence of him being 1/2 way up clinging on the outside. If you don’t know the man ,and you don’t ,Don’t lower your self to name calling. May God bless you and your studies. Rob b.

  45. The true fact is Mr Dave Belz does have perceptive and intellectual deaf & blind spots.

    It’s OK as long as he doesn’t enjoy them at the expense of my thesis (a thesis he currently keeps to caricature as he just canot think in 4D in terms of “archaeological time (with AT LEAST TWO different cloth-to-body configurations + use of a head apparatus and two canes etc), in 5D in terms of “archaeological matter state” (in-soaked and drying out 3/1 twill weave fabric getting taut again while compressed + presence of “opaques” such as iron oxide and silica particles adhering to blood and in-soaked long inner burial cloth both acting as image collimating agents), in 6D in terms of “archaeological energy source” (fumigation ritual etc) etc etc.
    Reminder for Robin Belz: Mr Belz (your father/brother?) opened fire at me with the following most ‘ignorrogant’ venomous comment: “Any senior high school student in Technical Drawing would immediately know this without even touching his Tee-square. Max Patrick Hamon does not know this, so he clearly does not have the competence of a Technical Drawing High School student when it comes to 3-dimensional geometry.”
    Shall I endlessly repeat that the TRUE FACT is I have a 3-year experience in 3D projective geometry and can even think in 4D, 5D, 6D etc? Skills most obviously Mr Belz just has not as he just cannot even correctly figure out a very familiar 2D image hidden in plain view in a photograph within a reasonable time (15-30 seconds).

      1. Dan, NO wonder if you cannot get ‘the other dimensions’ as long as you cannot discriminate between falsely positive perception, falsely negative perception, misreading and the real thing when it comes e.g. to solid objects latent images.

    1. “Shall I endlessly repeat that the TRUE FACT is I have a 3-year experience in 3D projective geometry and can even think in 4D, 5D, 6D etc?”

      Walter Mitty was able to think in 7 dimensions…

      I can think in terms of 8, but 4 of those are somewhat compressed, ‘squashed’ in common parlance… That’s string theory for you…

      1. CB, Just mind your own mummy-baking and leech-felt-tipped painting pseudo-Templar archaeological business!

      2. Mr Colin Berry, before passing comments on my archaeoperceptive skills, first do your HOMEWORK and train to CORRECTLY discriminate between falsely positive perception, falsely negative perception, misreading and the real thing as far as an archaeological image such as that of the TS is concerned .

  46. Dear Max get a life.You are far too sensitive.Go fishing ,Play golf or do some ironing and oh yes, on the week-end the All Blacks thrashed the Frogs 30-0 ho!ho! Ho! I didn’t watch it live but saw the hi-lites at the gym.Perhaps the gym may help your liver. May God bless you.
    Rob.

  47. Dear Rob, as far as your ‘real’ life is concerned, I don’t watch TV, I don’t go fishing, I don’t play golf (just do some ironing when really needed) and I do think you are far too sensitive about your brother being criticized on this blog. I am a 60 year-old former all-around athlete and still look 45-48 when in good shape and my liver is in great shape too. Thank you.

Comments are closed.