Colin, in a comment yesterday (I threw in an inline link to Colin’s image file) wrote:
I wasn’t going to start the microscopy for a few days, Thibault, but you asked, so here’s the first using my revised technique (linen on top of heated template, damp cloth on top of linen, gentle manual pressure).
Let me say first of all that the procedure produces very faint scorches, dare I say Shroud-like, so faint that one can scarcely see them at all under a hand lens. Here’s a picture I have just taken at x40, the lowest magnification on my USB microscope.
I’d say the threads and fibres were a pale yellow, with no obvious “patchiness” or restriction to crowns of threads only, but these are early days.
Thoughts?
In the image you created, there are obvious zones real dark and other zones much more pale. This microscope photo came from which one? And is it possible to have 2 photos side by side to compare the result at fiber level of a very dark zone and a much paler zone? In my mind, it is theoretically impossible for a technique like that, to produce the same very subtle coloration at fiber level in both a dark zone and a pale zone. Remember that on the Shroud, that’s exactly the reality of the coloration at fiber level. No more penetration and the same kind of subtle yellowing of each colored fiber, no matter if this fiber come from a dark zone or a much paler zone.
Note: When I say “In the image you created”, of course I mean the body image of Jesus coming from a crucifix. I did not mean the microscopic image above…
Yes, that’s a good one to try. We’ll make a scientist out of you yet ;-)
Watch this space (for result).
Unlike some persons around here think, someone doesn’t need to have a Phd to make rational reflections and to ask pertinent questions…
By the way, you should tell us from where exactly the photo above came (a pale zone or a dark one)?
Rational reflections and pertinent questions play a vital role in science, I grant you. But there are many more mundane, less intellectual options that can usefully be brought to bear – like ringing the changes on what has been done already, to see if they yield the same or a different answer. Tedious, I know, but that’s research, 90% of which is sheer slog and persistence. But we are getting there, I think, I hope.
I shall try to provide you with an answer within a few hours.
I have put each of Mark Evans’s image pictures, low density, denser and high density, right next to his non-image photo. It is successively apparent that, unless the photographs were not all exposed under exactly similar conditions (in which case what was the point of them) the colour of the image does not reside only on the topmost fibres, but increasingly discolours the entire thread. There is, indeed, a lightly toasted appearance to the topmost fibres, but in the medium and maximum density image the rest of the thread is also discoloured, and there is no sign at all of the bluish-white silky appearance of the non-image area, on any parts of any of the threads. Interesting. Another myth busted?
Thanks Hugh. Very interesting. Myth busted? Am not completely certain yet, but there’s a big question mark hanging over that so-called “half-tone” effect and probably much else besides at the microscopic level.
My gut feeling, as of this moment, is that there is no half-tone effect, merely a non-iconic saturation effect kicking in at middling image intensity, such that no fibres on the TS image look highly scorched – just pale yellow – but below that peak saturation intensity there is a continuum of image intensities. No either/or, no appeals to digital imaging – not so 21st century teccie-sounding eh?
Consider moving along folks – there’s (probably) nothing to see here at the microscopic level, except those pie-in-the-sky stochastic processes that admit naturalistic 1st century imaging. That’s if you are an “expert” nuclear physicist, one who views chemistry as a branch of applied statistics (which I suppose it is in a way, provided one does not allow one’s common sense to desert one).
Are those deeper threads “discoloured” due to a lack of light reaching them perhaps?
I have put the Evans pictures of low, medium and high density image right next to his picture of a non-image piece of the shroud. It is successively apparent that, unless the photos were taken under different conditions, the discolouration of the threads is not, contrary to received wisdom, confined to the topmost fibres of each thread. The topmost fibres do, it is true, carry a lightly toasted appearance, but the rest of each thread, especially those bearing medium and high density image, are also discoloured, and there is no sign at all of the blue-white silky appearance of the non-image area. Interesting. Another myth busted?
Oops.. I thought I’d lost the first one…
And what manner of science did the Holy Mary use when she envisioned Gabriel when he gave her God the Father’s message about her being chosen to be the Earth Mother of The Son of God, Jesus ? Why did she not think that this was an instrument of Satan?
Here’s an attempt to answer your question re dark and light zones. I’ll await your response before addressing the reality or otherwise of the so-called “half-tone” effect.
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/glad-to-be-of-service-anonymous/
Are you intimating that the darker threads are not really scorched, and only appear dark as a result of poor illumination?
Not so. One chooses threads that are visibly coloured with the naked eye, and then seeks out that colour under the microscope. There are plenty of unscorched threads nearby to be certain that one is not mistaking unscorched for scorched fibres through being poorly illuminated.
The point needs reiterating that when one has hit on a means of producing a faint and subtle scorch that matches the macroscopic aspects of the Shroud, it then becomes more difficult to study at the microscopic level, simply because of the lower density of pigmentation. But in modelling terms, that’s a small price to pay for macroscopic authenticity!
Sorry. The above comment was intended for ChrisB. Here is is again:
ChrisB: “Are those deeper threads “discoloured” due to a lack of light reaching them perhaps?”
Are you intimating that the darker threads are not really scorched, and only appear dark as a result of poor illumination?
Not so. One chooses threads that are visibly coloured with the naked eye, and then seeks out that colour under the microscope. There are plenty of unscorched threads nearby to be certain that one is not mistaking unscorched for scorched fibres through being poorly illuminated. I’m also working with double illumination (light from above and below the microscope stage).
The point needs reiterating that when one has hit on a means of producing a faint and subtle scorch that matches the macroscopic aspects of the Shroud, it then becomes more difficult to study at the microscopic level, simply because of the lower density of pigmentation. But in modelling terms, that’s a small price to pay for macroscopic authenticity!
Sorry, it was a comment for Hugh’s posting re: ‘Myth busted’
The depth of field issues in the micrograph make it such that one couldn’t make any decisive comment on what level the scorch marks appear, other than to say that they look less like scorch marks than they do natural colour differentials in the fabric – replete with bits of unexplained “dirt” on the specimen further muddying the waters.
This isn’t really good science, is it?
Natural colour differentials? Dirt? Do you seriously imagine, Anders, that this retired science bod has nowt better to do with his time than hoodwink himself and others? A little more charity might not come amiss.There has to be an element of trust.
Like I say Colin, “this isn’t really good science, is it?”
What is the motto of the Royal Society? A decent translation goes something like this: take nobody’s word for it.
Thank you for your comments.
There are so many things to think about….
Thank you Colin for the photo and congratulations for your new method.
The photo looks like the very Light Scorch (VLS) I got, but it is blurred.
I understand that it is only a preliminary photo.
Just a suggestion: don’t use the USB microscope.
Try to use your camera through your microscope.
Thanks Thibault. I’m not sure why the initial photo was blurred – I did try focusing. Anyway, I took a whole lot more pictures yesterday and will post them as an archive without comment. The general “smeared-out ” yellow effect seems to be real, with only occasional instances of burnt fibres. Maybe the new geometry works more by blasting with superheated steam – forced convection in other words – as distinct from highly localised conduction and attendant over-heating.
There is in fact some debris in the sealed USB sender unit that has put a disfiguring blue “fibre” in every field of view, so I may end up doing as you suggest.
Thanks Colin.
I have seen your new pictures on your blog. Much better.
Try again to use your camera (at the beginning, it’s difficult) but it is the only way to obtain HD pictures of a larger area (low magnification).
This is the only way to see the color pattern at thread level on some adjacent (weft and warp) threads.
In your new experiment, I see that some areas (like the torso) are more colored (brownish) than other areas (the arm);
It would be very interesting to compare them this way.
And to compare with the ME pictures.
And to look at the superficiality in you new model.
And …
If you can’t obtain those pictures, ‘ll try to do that, following your new technique.
In the end, even if by whatever miracle Colin would come up with a scorched image presenting all the characteristics of the Shroud image, I would still believe 100% that this is not how the Shroud image was produced. Again, what make me so confident about that is the evidence coming from the blood and serum stains. I just can’t see a forger taking a real bloodstained burial cloth and making a perfect body image (forensically speaking) around those stains without disturbing or damaging them and which would look in perfect sync with those biological stains. This kind of scenario is far beyond what my rational brain can take.
Complement: I would summarize my thoughts like this: The Shroud image can look like a light scorch but I’m certain that it is not.
Lord Kelvin would be proud of you. He was certain too, that:
“no aeroplane will ever be practically successful.”
I don’t care what you believe Hugh. I don’t care at all. You can believe that an elephant can fly. I don’t.
Maybe your rational brain needs to re-examine your description of Shroud as a “real bloodstained burial cloth”. Since when has an alleged serum exudate of blood clots with an unexpected longevity-defying degree of red colour (according to Barrie Schwortz no less) ever fitted the description “real blood”?
Ill-chosen and/or self-serving words can be used to paint oneself into a corner. What a waste of a rational brain, to be thus cut off…
To answer your question: Since Adler, Baima and a bunch of forensic and medical experts all agreed to conclude that the blood and serum stains on the Shroud came from a highly traumatized person (most certainly the Shroud man itself).
Sorry for you Colin, nice try! But you just cannot throw all these positive conclusions on the garbage. You just have no right to do so… Unless you could give us a sure proof that all those experts were wrong in their analyses (visual, chemical, spectral, etc.). I know you can’t. Maybe a future series of direct tests on the Shroud could do this, but I just don’t see this happening.
By the way, I still wait for you to show me side-by-side 2 microscopic images from a very dark and a very pale area.
You are missing the point, anonymous. It is not the findings of those ‘experts’ I dispute. It is the manner in which those findings of an atypical blood picture were used to support a chronologically-correct biblical narrative of events between crucifixion and resurrection.
A red stain that has no observable red blood cells cannot truthfully be described as real blood (though you are undeterred). It’s at best a fraction of blood, and even that description is not secure, based on the findings of an atypical porphyrin spectrum, absence of potassium etc.
So why do you continue to proselytise that “real blood” mantra, knowing as you do that the experts failed to find ‘real blood’ and resorted to the chemical/physiological equivalent of creative accounting to explain away the incomplete/atypical blood as a “serum exudate of retracted blood clots”.
That was an ingenious bit of footwork, granted, but without further rounds of predictive hypothesis testing it remains a fanciful and some would say unseemly departure from strict scientific objectivity (an act of moral sturpitude? ;-). I’m no longer allowed to call it pseudo-science here, so I hesitate to call it pseudo-science. By the same token I’m presumably not permitted to accuse you of shamelessly proselytising pseudo-science so shall not raise hackles any further than I have already by laying the charge of proselytising pseudo-science at your door.
It’s beyond anyone’s rational brain. This is why Colin, Hugh, etc believe the ‘blood’ stains were applied after the image was created.
The more we explore the various theories I can say this: if the Shroud is not authentic then the Templars theory is the only one that could even be remotely possible to be true. In other words, in my opinion, the available evidence leaves no other logical conclusion. It would have taken a secret order, with conspiratorial motivations and the many necessary resources, to have produced the Shroud. They would have had to employ the services of at least one master artisan (i..e. a metal worker) with a team of helpers. They would have had to obtain a crucifix from some plundered or ruined church from somewhere in Chistendom. Or forged the finished corpus. All evidence of the enveavour would have had to been kept secret – likely under a vow of eternal perdition if anyone broke that secret pact. The artisan would have had to be something of a perfectionist — not stopping at a scorch that was ‘pretty darn good’ but one that was exceptionally evenly scorched. Then someone with a superior knowledge of the wounds of Christ had to use leeches to dab blood on the shroud to approximate those wounds.
If the Shroud is medieval this is the only theory that matches the requirements of the available evidence.
Quote: “It’s beyond anyone’s rational brain. This is why Colin, Hugh, etc believe the ‘blood’ stains were applied after the image was created.”
EXACTLY RIGHT DAVID! And guess what? To do just that, Colin, Hugh, etc., while constantly saying they are real scientists, have to go AGAINST THE ACCEPTED FACT THAT THERE IS NO COLORATION UNDER THE BLOOD AND EVEN UNDER THE SERUM STAINS. Not great for supposed scientists… If there would be some conflicting evidence about this topic, they would have the right to disagree with Adler’s conclusion, but right now, no one who analyzed the Shroud up, close and personal has ever found coloration under a blood or a serum stain. Because of this, we have no good reason (except if you really want to defend a man made forgery hypothesis at all cost) to doubt such a conclusion that the blood was on the cloth first, then the body image was formed.
How can the “blood-first-image-second” mantra be “accepted fact” when few scientists are probably unaware of the experimental evidence on which it is based, and who, if they did, would be pressing for independent confirmation by others workers, deploying a range of other techniques.
Independent confirmation/corroboration is the name of the game in science. That has to be especially true at the interface of science and religion, where nobody’s objectivity, my own included, can be taken for granted. Adler’s embrace of the “serum exudate of retracted blood clots” theory and that handy pat answers on the “bilirubin” must certainly place a question mark over his objectivity. I’d have expected mine to be questioned and indeed closely scrutinized had it been me making those claims.
It’s far too crucial a question to be settled “conclusively” by a enzymic/colorimetric spot test on a microscope slide based purely on colour with no hard recorded data.
As I say, it’s a crucial test, since image-first, blood-second would be disastrous for authenticity, would it not?
Yes, David, the non-authentic theory still seems far fetched, as you seem to be implying, for the reasons you outline and more..
If there is any potential in this scorch theory, I think it lies in the idea that a statue or bas relief was custom designed. I just don’t find the whole ‘reworking the arms’ theory compelling. Nor do I find the notion that the loin cloth was somehow worked out of the statue convincing either.
I congratulate Colin on his theories, and for coming up arguably with the best non-authentic arguments I have heard. The fact though that there are still a number of big questions about his theory though is telling.
I still think we don’t need t be so black and white. I stand by my theory that the image and SOME of the blood stains are authentic, but SOME of the blood stains are medieval touch ups made with the motivation of making the relic appear ‘more authentic’.
Your blood theory is a good reason why we must be very careful when studying the blood stains – because some may indeed have been touch-ups. Indeed, whose to say that all the blood stains aren’t additions. I hesitate to suggest that because if the bloodstains were proven to be on top of the image then the fallback position for an authentist would be to say the image is authentic – the blood was added. That would look like a real dodge to the skeptics, even though it could be the reality.
So much we simply don’t know.
Quote: “…SOME of the blood stains are medieval touch ups made with the motivation of making the relic appear ‘more authentic’.”
If that would be true, STURP would have easily found strong evidence to support this hypothesis. The truth is precisely the opposite. In the present state of our knowledge, I don’t see any good reason to agree with such a scenario. For example, the only red ochre that was found was in microscopic quantity and scattered everywhere and not particularly more in the bloodstains regions. And the most logical hypothesis to explain these minute traces of red ochre on the Shroud is the historical fact that various medieval copies of the Shroud were made and artists were then allowed to put their painting in direct contact with the Shroud to sanctify their “replica”…
I think we can forget any idea of a “touch up” that could have been made during Medieval time for the body image as well as for the bloodstains.
It sounds an easy question to pose in principle, but is actually quite difficult to check in practice, given the resistance of linen to taking intense scorches (cotton scorches more quickly and intensely), and the fact that my new geometry with linen on top makes it even harder to produce a deep scorch on linen. But I’ve been trying, and in fact posted yesterday under the title “Glad to be of service, anonymous”, and have today added follow-up postings on deliberate attempts to “over-scorch” (in an attempt to test the model to possible destruction)
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/glad-to-be-of-service-anonymous/
I’ll say no more until hearing your response. Be as constructive or destructive as you wish. Just keep in mind that I am model-building, employing a mix of a priori theorizing and experimentation, not attempting to impose a dogma that just happens to fit preconceptions (the latter ain’t science, but I’m not allowed to tell you what it is called).
Do those creases come out with time? Any thoughts also on how the forger managed to handle a full size heated statue.
Creases? Did you mean to say scorches?
Since one is imprinting off one side at a time, the cold bronze could be manhandled down onto a bed of glowing charcoal, and when judged hot enough (test with lint), scoop the embers away, and imprint in situ, i.e. spread linen on top followed immediately by the damp overlay, then pat the two fabrics into place around the relief and its contours. It takes a minute or two in my scaled down model for heat to come up through the layers. After another two minutes it may be too hot to pat. That’s the time to check on progress (lift up a corner for a peek) and maybe decide the imprint is the right shade of sepia to entrance one’s contemporaries, to say nothing of holding successive generations in thrall.
The best question Chris is this: Why a medieval or more ancient forger would take such a complicated technique to forge a very faint body image, while a painting would have done the job and why there is no other image like that from the same period in the history of art? Just asking the question show you how crazy this scenario really is.
Or simply using scanner with high DPI settings.
Thank you for the appreciative comment, Thibault.
Yes. superficiality is probably the next big test. Curiously, one could probably learn more in a day or two of well-provisioned research on thermal scorches than the sum total of hard information about the Shroud’s superficial image, based as it is mainly on that one sticky tape pull-est.
An obvious first experiment would be to take serial imprints of a hot template as it cools down, and monitor the surface changes physically and chemically to the point where the image is no longer visible. My guess is that superficiality, whether restricted to the PCW or with some involvement of the SCW too (with its matrix of hemicelluloses around the resistant cellulose fibres) is not an exotic issue at all. It probably takes relatively little browning of carbohydrates by chemical dehydration to become quickly apparent as a surface yellowing or browning, possibly at the tens or low hundreds of nm level.
If nothing else, model studies with hot templates etc could help to develop specialized know-how for characterizing the Shroud image (though I’m naturally more interested in ticking all the boxes on the scientific characteristics of the TS image – a credible explanation – not necessarily a complete facsimile.Then I can go back to studying Stonehenge and Silbury Hill. ;-)
I’ll persevere a bit longer with the microscopy, but it’s not really my forte, especially as the hobbyist’s microscope is too powerful, at least when linked up to the laptop. I look forward to hearing in due course your experience with the LOTTO method (Linen-On-Top-Then-Overlaid)
“Colin, Hugh, etc., while constantly saying they are real scientists, have to go AGAINST THE ACCEPTED FACT THAT THERE IS NO COLORATION UNDER THE BLOOD AND EVEN UNDER THE SERUM STAINS. Not great for supposed scientists…”
What an extraordinary statement. There is no “accepted fact” about the bloodstains. Some good scientists, it is true, have carried out observations that suggest to them that there is no image under the bloodstains, and others have carried out observations that suggest the opposite. That’s fine; that’s what real science is.
“No one who analyzed the Shroud up, close and personal has ever found coloration under a blood or a serum stain.”
This statement is absurd. Only Adler carried out any such study, and this is what he said: “Interestingly, fibrils freed of their coatings using this technique [protease to dissolve away any protein] closely resemble the non-image fibrils of the Shroud.” I cannot take this as a general truth. All the Mark Evans photos showing bloodstains clearly show that most of the red particles have been rubbed off the upper surfaces of the threads, and are mostly confined to the cracks and crevices where one thread crosses another. The surfaces from which the blood has been rubbed off are as yellow as the rest of the image fibres, and do not carry the distinctive silky white appearance of the non-image threads.
“Because of this, we have no good reason (except if you really want to defend a man made forgery hypothesis at all cost) to doubt such a conclusion that the blood was on the cloth first, then the body image was formed.”
On the contrary, as I have described above, there is good reason not to be dogmatic about whether the bloodstains or the image appeared first on the shroud.
By all means, let non-scientists believe whatever they like, rational or otherwise, but it ill behoves them to make unsubstantiated claims about a discipline they do not really understand…
Quote : “and others have carried out observations that suggest the opposite.”
Who? Where can I read what they wrote about this topic?
“…..All the Mark Evans photos showing bloodstains clearly show that most of the red particles have been rubbed off the upper surfaces of the threads, and are mostly confined to the cracks and crevices where one thread crosses another. The surfaces from which the blood has been rubbed off are as yellow as the rest of the image fibres, and do not carry the distinctive silky white appearance of the non-image threads…..”
Anonymous
Please advise why you think the “touch up” theory can be so easily dismissed?
You have previously referred to lack of image under blood. Which blood mark/s was this established for? I would be surprised if it was more than one, in which case the lack of image under one blood mark doesn’t necessarily apply to all blood marks.
Tomorrow never dies is the title of one of James Bond movies, and it seems this title can be applied to some of Shroud Image Formation Theories,
Why scorch theory never dies?
Why you guys don’t accept as serious from a scientific stand point the excellent experimental works on this matter done by Professor John Jackson and more recently published by Dr. Thibault Heimburger?
Let’s finish worthless discussion on this subject l
Let’s bury once and for all this ludicrous theory, scorch theory is bogus so rest in peace for all eternity!
FACT: SCIENCE HAS NOT YET PROVIDED A WAY TO EXACTLY REPRODUCE THE SHROUD IMAGE WITH ALL IT’S CHARACTERISTICS
As far as I know Shroud image is still unique
regards
Antero de Frias Moreira
Centro Português de Sindonologia
I wonder if I might make an inquiry? There are a lot of readers of the blog who appear genuinely upset at the idea that investigation of the history and manufacture of the shroud is not a closed book. Some think that everything that could possibly be discovered has already been discovered, and there is nothing more to discover; and others think that although the shroud is still a mystery, it is preordained that nothing can be discovered, so it is a waste of time attempting it. I find that strange. I wonder what the various Centres for Shroud Studies whose members have these beliefs, actually do.
Senhor de Frias Moreira (above), for example, may I ask what your Centro Sindonologia actually does? Is it merely devoted to making the Portuguese nation aware of the shroud – just a publicity machine, in fact? There’s nothing wrong with that; the more people get to experience the religious power of the shroud the better in my view, but that’s not what Sindonology is. Sindonology is the Study of the Shroud, not the Advertising of the Shroud, or the Appreciation of the Shroud, but the Study of it.
Senhor, you are correct in that “Science” (whoever he is) does not know how the shroud was made. But I ask you, and those who think like you, so what? What would you have me, a scientist, do with this FACT? Leave the subject and go on to something else? Accept that all the contradictory data so far assembled is as far as the human mind can go down this line? What? Please advise…
There appears to be an outline crease where the heated object has come into contact with the linen. It’s perhaps a marker for a recent scorch. It probably falls out with time but may leave some tell tale sign enough to be measured?
Yes, a fresh impression scorch creates a kind of indentation, and there’s a corresponding protuberance on the reverse. Both tend to disappear after one has patted flat for photography, so those temporary effects should not play havoc with subsequent enhancement in ImageJ etc.
Please understand that battle-hardened experimentalists do not blunder into a minefield of artefacts. It becomes second nature to spot the lie of the land first, and suss out the minefields.
Dear Dr. Hugh Farey
I apologize the readers of this wonderful blog because part of my comment is a personal response to a kind of reply on my own comment, which deserves to be answered.
I know you are a scientist although I don’t know your field of expertise, but I have also a science background on anatomy physics and chemistry because I’m a Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine doctor.
I’m surprised you know portuguese language because calling me «senhor» is evidence you know the polite way to adress a portuguese adult male and that’s good indeed.
I’ve studied with much attention most of scientific papers on the Shroud and it puzzles my mind how «kitchen lab» experiments can hastily cast doubts on established facts, backed by studying samples from the Shroud with sophisticated technical tools.
I mean for exemple the Shroud image not being a scorch was a conclusion Dr. Thibault Heimburger got from several linen scorch experiments and microscopical observation and even light scorch produces effects on linen fibers with microscopical characteristics different from Shroud image fibers..
Dr John Jackson, Dr. Adler Dr. Heller, Professor Raymond Rogers and other scientists OBSERVED THE SHROUD IN SITU AND GOT SAMPLES FROM IT for off-site study.
Photographs, fibers dusts particles have been thoroughly studied and characterized.
Are these scientists dishonest or are they trying to fool people because they have an hidden agenda?
I don’t think so.
If Dr Thibault Heimburger states the Shroud image cannot be a scorch (and he is not the only scientist to conclude that…) it turns out it’s worthless to try to demontrate the opposite.
As a science man I sicerely hope Vatican releases data gathered on material collected in 2002 restoration.
Professor Bruno Barberis spoke an interesting lecture at 2012 Valencia Shroud Congress presenting a list of new physical and chemical tests to be done on the Shroud.
Having been asked when, he said he hoped the Pope granted permission in a near future, I also hope so.
May be questions skeptics are making can be answered in a definitive way,, namely the recent one of the possibility of colored image fibers under bloodstains.
I’m pretty sure if protéases will be applied on such blood fibers the same result as Professor Adler will show up.
Centro Português de Sindonologia is a modest non profit association, not a «publicity machine», and we can’t afford doing scientific investigation on the Shroud, and our presentations don’t have a religious agenda.
Our presentations are backed on reliable historical and scientific works to make people aware of this awesome Christian relic.in a rational way.
regards
Antero de Frias Moreira