Home > Guest Posting, Image Theory, News & Views > A Guest Posting by O.K. on the Allegedly Too-Long Fingers

A Guest Posting by O.K. on the Allegedly Too-Long Fingers

November 7, 2013
  1. Matthias
    November 7, 2013 at 5:23 am

    I disagree. I think the knuckles on the Enrie negative are quite a lot further back towards the wrist than what you suggest.
    I’m 6 feet 2 inches and 90 kgs, 200 lbs. So possibly quite a similar size to the Shroud man (maybe I’ve got a bit more beer belly).
    I measured the length of my longest middle finger to knuckle, about 10.5 cm.
    Maybe you have small hands.
    The SM fingers are not too long. They make pretty much perfect anatomical sense.

  2. Hugh Farey
    November 7, 2013 at 6:06 am

    Although I do not see coins, flowers, teeth or X-Rays, I do see three vertical bars descending downwards from the hand-with-the-bloodstain on it. It has been suggested that these, and the rather peculiar shape of the other hand, whose forefinger appears longer than the others, are due to the shifting of the hands during image formation, and a kind of double exposure.

  3. Matthias
    November 7, 2013 at 6:13 am

    See this:


    It’s not that rare for index fingers to be the longest. Mine is equal longest

  4. November 7, 2013 at 6:39 am

    I shall continue to keep an open mind on the length of those fingers, while seeking the first opportunity to close it when some more clinching evidence comes along.

    In the meantime, I’d just like to point out another feature of the fingers – their skeletal-like boniness – that has been the subject of much speculation, some of it at the wackier end of the scale (let’s not go there right now).

    Personally I think the boniness is prima facie evidence for imprinting by a contact process than one by radiation. With a contact process, it is just those parts of each finger that are approximately in the plane of the linen (i.e parallel) that make best contact, especially if there is applied pressure, and that is the top surface. One has only to go a few mm below that topmost plane, and the curvature of the finger means progressively less contact and pressure. There is also the likelihood of a tenting effect across the fingers that means poor imaging between the fingers. Now look at the Shroud image and you will see precisely the kind of shadowing one would expect.

    Radiation theories, collimated radiation? Why should they produce any shadowing effect between the fingers, given the proposed orthogonal projection of radiation, and given that the cloth-body distance differences are relatively small in the case of fingers, certainly much smaller than the mysterious 4 or 5 cm cut-off that is said to operate in the radiation model?

    A day or two ago I was drawing attention to the deep shadow in the eye sockets, which in the contact model is similarly accounted for in terms of curvature and obliqueness, with a resulting fall-off in contact pressure and imprinting tendency. Obviously there are other issues to be addressed, like tenting with a stretched fabric, or less tenting if there is manual moulding of fabric to the contours of the subject – but at least those possibilities exist and can be advanced by way of excuse/explanation if necessary (albeit at the risk of inviting Occam’s police involvement).

    • Matthias
      November 7, 2013 at 7:41 am

      Colin, I know you are wedded to your scorch theory but….you are a scientist not me (I being a mere architect / urban planner), so you might be placed to answer this – could the pressure inflicted on the hands through the crucifixion and / or the action of removal of nails have torn flesh away from fingers?

      • November 7, 2013 at 8:05 am

        Wedded to scorch theory? Didn’t STURP describe the image as essentially that of a scorch (if not using that precise term)? It would be truer to say that I was attracted to Shroudology not by the contact scorch model, but by profound scepticism as regards Di Lazzaro’s radiation scenario with those uv laser beams. But I still started experimenting with radiation first, using a photosensitizing pigment (charcoal) to trap radiant heat from an incandescent lamp, and producing scorch marks under the charcoal but not elsewhere. It’s only in the last few weeks I’ve realized that the technology is essentially no different in principle from that used by Luigi Garlaschelli (substitute ochre as sensitizer, and warm air/infrared radiation in an oven for my spot lamp, but the end-result is the same – selective scorching under the sensitizer. Methinks contact models have a lot going for them, but one now needs to compare direct contact between hot template and cloth, or indirect via Luigi’s rubbing/frottage procedure followed by secondary thermal cooking. (Incidentally, he had to use a touching -up brush to get the fingers looking right). Luigi’s gives a fuzzier and arguably more authentic look than my relatively sharp imprints, but I would maintain the templates are still relevant and certainly handy for quick modelling of macro-level contact scorch characteristics.

        As regards your other question, I expect you have heard of “degloving”. It’s a horrible injury that folk get when their ring gets trapped in a conveyer belt, or the dog’s lead gets wrapped around a finger, and can strip off the entire flesh with nerves and blood vessels right down to the bone. I personally can’t see why that should happen as a result of crucifixion, but then what do I know? I’m just a scorch-bore through despair with agenda-driven so-called scientists attempting to make up new laws of radiation physics as they go along.

  5. Matthias
    November 7, 2013 at 7:38 am

    the hands are really interesting.
    The upper part of the hand wound measures about 15 cm to the tip of the longest finger. If I measure my hand, 15cm from the tip of the longest finger places the upper part of the hand wound fairly centrally on the hand which is where I view it on the photos, contrary to the conventional shroudie wisdom that its on the wrist, which I think is rubbish.
    Getting back to the long (in a relative sense) index finger. Although I said its not all that rare and I have this, its doesn’t seem all that common either, and overall the index finger usually seems somewhat shorter than the middle finger. If the shroud was based on a model, statue or bas relief one would probably expect that the model (including fingers) would be based on conventional anatomy, not a finger length that is not the norm (but is by no means exceptional)

    • O.K.
      November 8, 2013 at 4:55 pm

      The upper part of the hand wound measures about 15 cm to the tip of the longest finger. If I measure my hand, 15cm from the tip of the longest finger places the upper part of the hand wound fairly centrally on the hand which is where I view it on the photos, contrary to the conventional shroudie wisdom that its on the wrist, which I think is rubbish.

      Matthias; the upper part But actually we don’t know where the nail exit is precisely!
      It is possible, though unlikely, that it comes through the palm, if the victim had foot support (which would have prolonged the agony to several days).

      According to L. Coppini (quote via Baima-Bollone’s Sindone, 101 domande e risposte):

      The authors who were interested about the damage caused by the nail visible on the left hand on the Shroud imprint, and who had tried to examine it also using experimental tests can be divided into three groups dependent on voiced ideas:

      -The first group is represented by those who are in favor of a palm injury De Castro (1960) and driven by the various objectives Donnadieu (1903), Eskenazy (1951), Cinquemani (1997)

      -The second group includes those who claim that the wound to be found in the wrist: Barbet (1932), Ricci (1960), Judica-Cordiglia (1959), Baima-Bollone (1978), Sassu (1979), Bocca, Messina and Salvi (1979), Coppini (1986), Zugibe (1995).

      -The third group includes those who believe that the wound of the nail can be found in the distal part of the forearm: Sava (1977), Siliato (1983)

  6. Hugh Farey
    November 7, 2013 at 9:13 am

    I’m quite interested in the photograph of hands. As they show two hands, those hands couldn’t have been used for taking the picture, which nevertheless seems to have been taken from the point of view of the person to whom they belonged. Why not take them in the same orientation as the shroud hands, so that we could compare them more directly? There’s a bit of foreshortening to deal with here…

  7. November 7, 2013 at 10:46 am

    It’s interesting to see the detail in the shadowing in the cleft of where the top hand meets the bottom hand. And between the fingers. You have three levels actually: top hand, lower hand, body trunk underneath. How would one accomplish such nuanced detail with a bas relief scorch? If I was going to attempt such a thing I’d have made it easier on myself and placed the two hands side by side at least. But I’m no master scorch artist.

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      November 8, 2013 at 4:26 pm

      Very good remark/question David

    • Anonymous
      November 8, 2013 at 4:36 pm

      And here’s another one: How can a forger could have done a masterpiece like the one on the body image on the Shroud while starting from the real bloodstained burial cloth of a real cucified victim who was showing the same bloody stigmata as Jesus of the Gospel? This is a complete ludicrous idea… There are no other words. But nevertheless, if someone still wants to defend such a ludicrous idea, that the kind of scenario he must propose in light of the known data coming from the Shroud. Can we start looking for some natural processes of image formation please instead of wasting our time on ludicrous scenarios?

  8. Mike Morcous
    November 7, 2013 at 10:52 pm

    Thanks O.K., Excellent posting. The position of the knuckles in the first set of pictures clears the confusion over the elongated fingers claim. The appearance of bones, especially on the hands, is consistent with the bible. There are several indications that Jesus was severely dehydrated

    “My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones.” (Psalms 22:15-17 NASB)

  9. Jeff Liss
    November 8, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    Isn’t the golden mean (phi) an intrinsic metric for bone length in the hands? If so, isn’t the real question not the length of each finger, but the ratio of the bone lengths?

  10. Dan
    November 8, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    Test comment.

    • O.K.
      November 8, 2013 at 4:58 pm

      Seems the problem concerns only the post about Tunic of Argenteuil. So here I would like to place my response to Hugh:

      Hugh Farey :
      Thanks OK. I don’t think the “exact match” is as convincing as the authors seem to think, but I do understand their comparison. Can I ask if these pictures are from (the Polish version of) “Le Linceul de Turin et la Tunique d’Argenteuil : Le point sur l’enquete” by André Marion and Gérard Lucotte? I may have to get a copy to understand their ideas fully.


      Hugh Farey :
      And has anyone read “Une si Humble et si Sainte Tunique” by the man who commissioned some of the investigation? Does it contain anything the Lucotte book doesn’t? (I’m too mean to buy both books if one will do!)

      Unfortunately I don’t have it. Almost all of my knowledge comes from Le Linceul de Turin et la Tunique d’Argenteuil, other sources are either older and before 1997-2005 investigations (but can be useful for historical research), or are simply derived from “Le Linceul…” like Górny& Rosikoń. I have also La Tunica di Gesu. Tirata a sorte dai soldati romani a piedi dalla croce by Father Jean-Charles Leroy, which is mainly repetition from “Le Linceul…”, but has also some supplemetary information.

      What I can highly recommend is this documentary series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8QslQbZY5U The 10th episode is about the cloths of Christ, including Trier, Argenteuil and Cahors.

      And it seems to me that Marion & Lucotte and Jean Pierre Maurice (using pen name Jean-Maurice Devals) do not like each other.

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