Home > Paper Chase > Catching Up: Yannick to Hugh, Anoxie and All of Us

Catching Up: Yannick to Hugh, Anoxie and All of Us

June 18, 2014

imageHere’s a reply by Yannick to one of Hugh’s comments :

Hugh, I think you completely pass over page #4 of our paper in your reading! If you would go there, you will find this pretty good explanation for the questioning you raised in your comment : « In fact, the presence of blood, serum and bile pigments are the result of a direct-contact mechanism between a real wounded human body who died by crucifixion and the linen cloth, which had been used to cover it (see Items xi through xiii). It’s important to understand that some of these biological stains could have been formed on the cloth by temporary contacts during the burial procedure (for example, during the probable moving of the enshrouded body from a central place inside the tomb to his final resting place on a stone bench carved in a wall of the tomb), while others (representing certainly the major part of the bloodstains) are the result of a permanent contact between the corpse and the cloth (e.g. direct-contacts that were maintained after the end of the burial procedure). And it should be noted that the very probable fact that some bloodstains were formed by temporary contacts during the burial procedure could explain why some bloodstains on the Shroud are offregister with respect to the anatomical details of the body images (Item xv). Here, it is necessary to add a comment: in spite of the vast amount of solid data obtained by different experiments and analysis done by blood chemists and medical or forensic experts, there are still self-styled scientists who denied such a fact (personal note : we should have add  a precision here to state that the fact in question is the fact that the bloodstains on the Shroud really comes from a real human being), which is incredible, especially when we consider that this is one of the most unquestionable facts regarding the Shroud! These people should know that science has nothing to do with personal opinions. »

And a reply to Anoxie:

I have decided to write a reply to Anoxie’s claim that it’s impossible for the Shroud image to be related to a stochastic phenomenon. His comments needed a reply and here it is :

Anoxie, on the contrary to what you claimed in the last few days, the characteristics of the body image on the Shroud (especially the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the image area, which is a well-documented FACT) are not at all inconsistent with the idea of a stochastic process of coloration involving the release of a small quantity of energy (most probably biological and happening at normal temperature) from the corpse of the Shroud man.

Why can I be so sure about such a conclusion? Simply because this is EXACTLY the kind of result we must expect from a stochastic event!!! In other words, the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the Shroud’s image area CAN be explained by a stochastic event of coloration because such an event will always produced a uneven, non-homogenuous and unpredictable result, just like we see in the image area!

And by the way, you said that the key to the Shroud’s image is “a varying threshold”… Have you thought about the possibility that the real key could be a second stochastic event instead that would have happened well before the image formation (i.e. an evaporation-concentration phenomenon that would have happened at the time of the drying of the final cloth in open air, after its weaving)? Effectively, when we consider all the available data, along with Ray Rogers’ work and hypotheses, I think there’s a real possibility that the main factor that lead to the kind of image we see on the Shroud (i.e. an extremely thin image composed of yellowed fibrils, which show a discontinuous distribution) could have been the presence on the top-surface of the cloth of a very thin AND UNEVEN layer of carbohydrate impurities (the possible uneven aspect of it can be considered as a stochastic result), which was the only thing that was able to get colored by the image formation process.

And if this is true, then we have to conclude that such a process of image formation must have been very mild, because it would have only been able to produce a visible yellowing in this thin layer of impurities, which is the kind of substance that would be easier to get colored by a chemical process than the structure of the linen fibers itself. And when we consider such a fact, we must assume that the quantity of energy that would have been involved during such a mild process of image formation was most probably low, which is the kind of scenario that is truly consistent with the idea of a stochastic event of coloration.

Considering all this, I don’t think anyone can claim that the image on the Shroud had nothing to do with a stochastic event, while in fact, it is truly possible that it had something to do with not just one but two stochastic event (one being the release of a small amount of energy – still unknown – by the corpse and the other being the evaporation-concentration phenomenon that could have happened at the time of the drying of the final cloth in open air, producing a very thin and uneven layer of carbohydrate impurities on the top-surface of the cloth).

I have submitted this idea to Fazio and he think it’s interesting… It is possible that, in a near future, we write together another scientific paper to describe such a hypothesis of image formation in details… Note that, to my knowledge, no one has ever proposed such a “two stochastic event” hypothesis before in the context of the Shroud’s image formation.

That’s it Dan! Now, I would like you to post this reply under Anoxie’s recent comment that begin with “Actually I think the shroud is consistent with AM screening…” (link to the page: https://shroudstory.com/2014/06/17/photomicrographs-and-stochastic-imaging/#comments). In sum, I would like you to post this reply to him in the same manner than you agreed to post another reply of mine under Hugh’s comment of yesterday concerning the image and bloodstains…

Since I’m blocked from posting personal comments on your blog, you’re my only hope that Anoxie (and everyone else) can read this message!!! As usual, I count on you!!! I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR DOING THIS!!!

And here is a clarification of a clarification:

In the « P.S. » of my long email of yesterday, I was referring to quote #114 of my paper entitled “Raymond N. Rogers’ observations and conclusions concerning the body image that is visible on the Shroud of Turin”. In fact, there is a mistake there and the quote I would like people to read is #115 instead (and especially the personal note I wrote following this quote).

Here it is: “Rogers is referring here to some lab experiments he did to analyze the evaporation concentration phenomenon in the context of the washing and drying of a linen cloth. For that kind of experiment, he used a colored dye to have a better look at the resulting concentration of “impurities” on both surfaces of his samples of cloth. In his book, Rogers give us a good example of that kind of experiment, along with the results he recognized: “The phenomenon can be demonstrated with a simple experiment. Prepare a dilute solution of food coloring, and divide it into two parts. Add a drop of liquid detergent to one part. Cut some squares of white cloth that are about 10 cm on a side. Saturate cloth samples with one or the other of the solutions. Mark the samples for identification. Lay some saturated samples of cloth on smooth, non-absorbent surfaces (e.g., a sheet of plastic). Lay some samples on dry sand in the sun. Hang some samples from a line. Let the liquid evaporate. Different types of cloth will show different degrees of concentration of the dye on the evaporating surfaces, even on different adjoining fibers. It is possible to get dye concentration on both surfaces, while leaving the interior of the cloth white.”

The part I’ve underline and put in bold is the one that proves that the probability is good that there really was an UNEVEN and thin layer of carbohydrate impurities on the top-surface of the Shroud, which could have been the only thing colored by the image formation process, thus offering a pretty good explanation for the observation mentioned by Thibault Heimburger on your blog concerning the fact that, in the image area, there are sometimes bundles of yellowed fibers right next to bundles of uncolored fibers. And as I said, this kind of explanation can fit with Rogers’ Maillard reactions hypothesis, as well as our hypothesis of a stochastic event of coloration.

In sum, the observation reported by Thibault lead me to conclude that the best thing that can explain the image formation on the Shroud is not only a stochastic event that involved a very small amount of energy and which happened probably at normal temperature (or the kind of event described by Rogers), but a stochastic event (or the kind of event described by Rogers) that would have colored only a thin and UNEVEN layer of carbohydrate impurities that was coating a portion of the top-most fibrils (some with a thin coating that was thicker than some others with a very thin coating, while some others had no coating at all) on the top-surface of the Shroud, thus causing the yellowing of only a portion of the top-most fibers that were coated with some carbohydrate impurities while leaving the rest uncolored. And in the end, it’s only the fibrils that were oxydized and/or dehydrated by the stochastic process (or by the kind of event described by Rogers) and that were coated with a minimum amount of impurities (undetermined) that really took part in the formation of the visible image…

In other words, in order for a particular fiber to become visibly yellowed and thus, to take an active part in the formation of the image, it needed probably two things:

1- A stochastic event involving only a small amount of energy (which could have been compose of postmortem gases and/or heat and/or singlet oxygen atoms and/or urea (or ammonia) and/or lactic acid released by the corpse or some other biological substances and/or some volatile burial product(s) that could have been put all over the body) or a non-stochastic event involving the release of postmortem gases in the way described by Rogers. One of these two events would have contributed to oxydized and/or dehydrated the carbohydrate impurities residing on-top of that particular fiber, while leaving the structure of that fiber intact.

2- A minimum amount of carbohydrate impurities (undetermined) on-top of that particular fiber in order to produce enough yellowing to become visible on the surface of the cloth through the stochastic event or the non-stochastic event that are described above. Note: such a minimum amount of impurities would only have been present on an undetermined percentage of the top-most fibers of the cloth (and probably also only present over just a section or some sections of those coated fibers, instead of being present over the entire length of those fibers; to be convinced of this, please that a good look at the great microphotograph of a PARTIALLY colored fiber that was taken by Rogers and that is available on the STERA bank of images).

To me, this would offer a good explanation for the observation reported by Thibault.

Again, I think you should post this present email as a complementary comment to the one you already posted on your blog.

I wrote all these comments for one single reason: to offer people interested by our paper some more precisions concerning the way me, Fazio and Mandaglio are understanding the nature of the Shroud image and the most probable way it got on the cloth.

Thanks for posting this email, along with the comment of mine your already posted (in the same topic)…  I really think this is an important addition to make…  I count on you for this since I know you always help me with such a clarification thing.  In order to help you, I give you the same email in a Word document in attach…

And you can be sure that this will be my last addition.  I think I’ve said it all!!!  Just let me know when this additional comment will be added on your blog.  THANKS!

  1. Kelly Kearse
    June 18, 2014 at 9:02 am

    “(personal note : we should have add a precision here to state that the fact in question is the fact that the bloodstains on the Shroud really comes from a real human being), which is incredible, especially when we consider that this is one of the most unquestionable facts regarding the Shroud!”

    One of the most unquestionable facts: reread Adler’s findings carefully-he was correctly cautious in concluding that the data shows the blood is of primate origin. Regarding other studies, the subsequent connection of MNS antigen expression related to non-human primates was unknown at the time the studies were performed by BB’s group, and their significance unrealized afterwards until relatively recently. It’s indicative, but it is important to bear in mind that this is only a single, brief report, not published in a typical peer-reviewed scientific journal). It is important not to overextend what the data do and do not show.
    In the analysis of the blood data involving species of origin, one has to disconnect the fact that the fibers came from a cloth containing an image.

    BTW, the description of the immunological tests in part xiv) of the Stochastic paper is inaccurate. The results do not suggest that it is human blood on the basis of positive results involving human antiglobulin. As written, this would involve antibodies raised in humans, which would most certainly not react in this case! Similarly with human anti-albumin-this is not not merely semantics or trying to be picky-it’s analogous to discussing a particular chemical reaction and confusing the reactants with the products.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 19, 2014 at 8:31 am

      No one of us is a blood specialist like you, so thanks for the precisions but the fact remains: it is human blood on the Shroud at 99% of certainty… Adler was totally convinced of this (and this is EVIDENT when you read his book about the Shroud), just like Baima Bollone and almost every single forensic and medical expert who analysed the images of blood and serum stains. That’s good enough for me. You can still personally think that there is some missing data to collect before claiming the blood is surely human blood, but I don’t need to wait for this, since I got two experts who analyzed real blood samples from the Shroud and, completely independent of each other, came out with the conclusion that it is real human blood. Again, personally, that’s good enough for me and I don’t need more proof.

      • Paulette
        June 19, 2014 at 8:53 am

        Good enough for me means you can only prove something to someone who agrees with you in the first place. In other words your comment to Colin is pointless so why even say it.

      • Kelly Kearse
        June 19, 2014 at 9:14 am

        “No one of us is a blood specialist like you, so thanks for the precisions but the fact remains: it is human blood on the Shroud at 99% of certainty… Adler was totally convinced of this (and this is EVIDENT when you read his book about the Shroud), just like Baima Bollone and almost every single forensic and medical expert who analysed the images of blood and serum stains. That’s good enough for me. You can still personally think that there is some missing data to collect before claiming the blood is surely human blood, but I don’t need to wait for this, since I got two experts who analyzed real blood samples from the Shroud and, completely independent of each other, came out with the conclusion that it is real human blood. Again, personally, that’s good enough for me and I don’t need more proof.”

        You can’t make conclusions about the species of origin of blood by merely analyzing the images of blood and serum stains. Takes immunology or molecular biology techniques. Adler was appropriately cautious in his conclusions. So was Garza-Valdes regarding his serological studies concerning species of origin. 99% certainty in a blog rant is not. Try asking other scientists with a background in immunology/serology, get their opinion. Especially those who are non-Shroud related. See what they say. Key word: cross-reactivity. It is not appropriate to claim it is human blood without clarifying it. Sorry, but it is by no means a slam dunk-to think so is a misunderstanding.

      • Yannick Clément
        June 19, 2014 at 10:42 am

        Good enough for me means simply that I agree to consider something as a fact when two experts gets to the same conclusion while working independently of each other. One confirms the other in sum and that’s when we can take something for granted in science. Not before. In the case of the bloodstains on the Shroud, we can.

        Just read the books published by Adler and Baima Bollone and you’ll see that the results of their analyses of the blood and serum stains (which was done with different tests, but which gave very similar results) was strong enough for both of them to claim that these stains are not made of something else than human blood and serum and even more, that these stains comes from a highly traumatized person, which is in total sync with the body image.

        If that’s not good enough for some people, that’s good enough for me.

      • Yannick Clément
        June 19, 2014 at 10:46 am

        Mr. Kearse, I know that, scientifically speaking, Adler was not in a position to write that the stains were surely made of human blood, while he left room in his scientific papers to the very weak possibility of a blood coming from an ape, but at the same time, in his book about the Shroud, Adler ridiculed this possibility by saying that it was completely ludicrous to think a forger could have applied blood material on the Shroud coming from the humid blood clots of a baboon!!! In sum, the FACT that most of these stains comes not from liquid blood but from moistened blood clots is the most compelling piece of evidence to understand that these stains comes from the man which we see the body image on the cloth!

  2. Hugh Farey
    June 18, 2014 at 9:55 am

    The answer to my query is not convincing. Yannick’s paper explicitly claims that “the major part of the bloodstains are the result of a permanent contact between the corpse and the cloth,” so (although there may be a difference between the ventral and dorsal maxima), the major part of the bloodstains should be surrounded by areas of equal, and maximum, discolouration. This is not true. A glance at just the bloodstains above the eyes, or across the back, shows a wide variation of image intensity around them.

    Furthermore, the major part of those bloodstains which could have resulted from body- contact which was later removed would be, in a body being carried in a sheet, around the sides of the legs and sides, where we know there ought to be plenty of whip marks, as these are found on the front of the legs too. So there ought to be a large number of off-register scourge-marks down the sides of the dorsal legs, which there aren’t. In fact the only obvious off register stains are clearly “flows” such as the drip off the elbow, the rivulets under the back, and the dribble off the foot. These are not contacts with wounds.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 19, 2014 at 8:34 am

      So there ought to be a large number of off-register scourge-marks down the sides of the dorsal legs, which there aren’t.” You should read again the UV fluorescent report of Pellicori and Miller as they clearly mention that there are many scourge-marks off-registered precisely behind the legs and particularly behind the calves! Note that my personal explanation for the fact that there are some off-register bloodstains on the Shroud versus the body image that you can find in our paper can also explain quite well the bloodstain that is off the elbow of the frontal image… Effectively, if there was a transfer of the enshrouded corpse from a central place Inside the tomb to a stone bench carved in one of the walls, it would be natural for those who did this transfer to have touched the elbows of the Shroud man.

      • Hugh Farey
        June 19, 2014 at 6:42 pm

        The marks you refer to are not off-register spacially, they are within the outline of the body. A more wrapped cloth would include marks well outside the outline of the body. These we do not see.

      • Yannick Clément
        June 20, 2014 at 3:14 pm

        Hugh, as a proof of what I mentioned yesterday, here’s two quotes from the paper written by Miller and Pellicori of STURP concerning their analysis of the dorsal – calf areas of right and left leg :

        1- “On the right leg, the scourges appear to be off the body image area.”
        2- “At the expected knee joint, there is no body image apparent and limited scourging.”

        Considering these two important observations, along with the presence of some more bloodstains that are off the body image (like the one that is off the right elbow), I think it’s impossible for anyone here to completely discard my hypothesis of some very temporary contacts that could have happened between the moistened blood clots of the Shroud man’s corpse and the cloth during a possible transfer of the enshrouded body from a central place inside the tomb to a stone bench carved in one of the walls of the tomb. Note that when we consider the fact that most of these off-registered bloodstains are located on the right part of the body image, we can even guess that there was more manual compression applied on that side of the body during this possible transfer than on the left side…

  3. anoxie
    June 18, 2014 at 10:21 am

    I was commenting the article :

    “Today, we know the characteristics of the stochastic processes, which are triggered by a little quantity of energy that produce noticeable effects only after a time of latency of the order of many years. It should be noted that such an effect doesn’t need a minimum threshold to appear”

    And I’m telling you it is the opposite on the shroud, coloration needs a minimum threshold to appear, the distribution depends on the varying threshold between fibers.

    Just read your article, you simply don’t mention heterogeneity of fibers but the source of energy as the origin of the “stochastic process”.

    I won’t comment comments, or comments trying to explain my comments, i usually agree with myself.

    No, the source of energy is not responsible for a stochastic process.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 19, 2014 at 8:31 am

      And I’m telling you it is the opposite on the shroud, coloration needs a minimum threshold to appear, the distribution depends on the varying threshold between fibers.” How can you be so sure about that as the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the image area is consistent with the usual result of a stochastic process? As I said in my message to you: “the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the Shroud’s image area CAN be explained by a stochastic event of coloration because such an event will always produced a uneven, non-homogenuous and unpredictable result, just like we see in the image area!” And remember that if the image’s origin comes from a stochastic event of coloration, such an event would have been very mild with a weak release of energy and probably happening at normal temperature, which are things that are truly consistent with the known data from the Shroud…

      You also said: “Just read your article, you simply don’t mention heterogeneity of fibers but the source of energy as the origin of the “stochastic process”.” I know this and that’s why I wrote all the recent comments, which are trying to explain in some details what I call “an extended version” of the image formation hypothesis we described in our MAA paper. Note also that I clearly mentioned that I am planning to write a new paper with Fazio and Mandaglio (if they agree to do that) in which we would describe this new “extended” version of our hypothesis in more details… Final note: This extended scenario is something I had in mind since last summer but it’s only when I read the recent comment made by Thibault that I thought it was time I talk about it publicly. It was even the first time I was talking about it with Fazio and he thought this was a very interesting idea, so that encourage me to described it in length here on the blog (just for you and all the others interested by the subject) as I thought it would be good to maybe push your reflection further.

    • anoxie
      June 19, 2014 at 10:53 am

      “This extended scenario is something I had in mind since last summer but it’s only when I read the recent comment made by Thibault that I thought it was time I talk about it publicly. It was even the first time I was talking about it with Fazio”

      So you’ve write with Fazio “a natural stochastic process….” but never told him about what you think is the best explanation of the uneven coloration ?

      This is absurd.

      • Yannick Clément
        June 19, 2014 at 11:21 am

        You don’t know nothing about the way this association with Fazio came to be, so calm down with your « absurd » term! He reached me because he liked very much my paper about the evidence of the bloodstains (http://shroud.com/pdfs/n76part5.pdf) and needed someone to « complete » a paper that HE AND MANDAGLIO HAD ALREADY WRITTEN! So, I was not in a position to change drastically such a paper that was already written. All I did is I tried to ameliorate some aspects of his paper, especially concerning the issue of the bloodstains and a bit also concerning some other things, but that’s all.
        Note : Me, Fazio and Mandaglio, we are currently writing a new paper about the image formation and, in this one, be sure that I brought in much more of my ideas this time (including the one concerning a possible thin and uneven layer of impurities as the sole chromophore of the image) and almost every one of them where accepted by the other two because they agreed that they were good possibilities that deserved to be publicly proposed in a scientific article about the Shroud. I hope you understand the situation better now…

      • Yannick Clément
        June 19, 2014 at 12:01 pm

        Complement : I see the paper I am currently writing with Fazio and Mandaglio as a « work-in-progress » versus our MAA paper… And as I said on the blog, I am planing right now to write another paper with them in a near future that would be centered on my « extended » hypothesis in order to describe it in much more details than what we talked about in the paper we are currently working on.

      • anoxie
        June 19, 2014 at 5:33 pm

        September 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm
        https://shroudstory.com/2013/09/04/thoughts-on-the-newly-published-paper-by-ray-rogers/#comments

        ““Nowadays, we know that a slight transfer of energy triggered a stochastic process.” Note: this is a kind of process that can cause an image that is discontinuous and very superficial like the one on the Shroud and that can only be natural in nature (in a paper entitled “Stochastic distribution of the fibrils that yielded the Shroud of Turin body image”, these 2 Italian scientists were very clear on this question and there’s no doubt that Ray Rogers would have agreed with them about that).”

        And you had this scenario in mind since this summer ?

        No, Ray Rogers would not have agreed with them about that.

        No, the source of energy is not responsible for a stochastic process.

        Have another try.

      • Yannick Clément
        June 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm

        Rogers would not have agreed with them about that? How do you know? All we know is that Rogers was not thinking about a stochastic process of image formation at all when he built his own hypothesis. If he could have come accross the work of Fazio and Mandaglio, how do you know if he could not have come to the conclusion that a weak release of postmortem gases could not have produced a stochastic result of yellowed fibers on the Shroud’s surface instead of the kind of result he proposed (where each coated fiber that would come in contact with these gases would get colored)? How do you know this Mr. Anoxie?

        The quote you refer to is a quote that comes directly from one of Fazio and Mandaglio’s paper and when I wrote it on the blog, I was only trying to back up my own conclusion that the image formation was very mild (which is a conclusion that fits with Fazio and Mandaglio’s original proposal as well as it fits with my “alternative” hypothesis involving a thin and uneven layer of impurities that would have taken a huge role in the image formation… At that moment, it was easier for me to take such a quote from authentic experts in radiation like Fazio and Mandaglio in order to back-up my idea that the image formation process was surely very mild than trying to describe the alternative scenario I recently proposed on this blog and which I was only starting to build up in my head back then! Such an alternative hypothesis is not something that you can describe easily in one or two days… I takes time to evaluate all the possibilities. At that moment (september of last year), my alternative scenario was just in a embryonic state.

        Last thing: You wrote: “No, the source of energy is not responsible for a stochastic process.”

        Again, how can you know this? If the source of energy was really mild and weak, how can you be sure that such a low energy release would not have started a stochastic event of coloration in the PCW or, more likely, in a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities that would have been coating most of the top-most fibers of the cloth (most probably in a non-homogeneous and uneven manner)?

      • anoxie
        June 21, 2014 at 5:50 am

        “How do you know this Mr. Anoxie?”

        Because I know physics, not just in an embryonic state.

        It is really ironical to see you, Yannick Clément, who has for months written endless posts and comments on (your interpretation of) Rogers’ theory, coauthor of a paper on image formation (“A Natural Stochastic Process May Explain the Coexistence of Bloodstains and an Image on the Shroud of Turin”) not consistent with Rogers’ theory…

      • Yannick Clément
        June 22, 2014 at 6:52 pm

        I never denied the possibility that Rogers’ hypothesis couldn’t be the closest thing we have to explain the image. I’m still not ready to throw his hypothesis, in the form he described it, to the garbage. It’s just that I think a stochastic event of coloration is something that, in regard of all the known data, is truly possible (and which could have involved the same postmortem gases than Rogers thought). I also think Rogers should have been more precise concerning the thin layer of carbohydrate impurities as the sole image chromophore by insisting on the probable fact that such a thin layer could have been uneven on the surface of the cloth’s top-most fibers and that such a probable fact could have played a huge role in the formation of the body image and its particular characteristics, especially when it comes to the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the image area. Note that this is the kind of precision that is not particularly clear in Rogers’ writings.

        In sum, here’s my opinion on this subject: We got a stochastic kind of result in the image area when it comes to the colored fibers distribution. What can explain this very particular and important observation? For me, there are 3 possibilities:

        1- The nature of the chromophore. In this case, I tend to highly favored the hypothesis of a thin and uneven layer of carbohydrate impurities well over the PCW hypothesis because I believe it can offer, on the contrary to the PCW hypothesis, a possible and rational explanation for both the very tiny thickness of the image and its discontinuous distribution.
        2- The nature of the image formation process. In this case, I tend to favored the hypothesis of Fazio and Mandaglio over the one of Rogers, as both Italians proposed that the image is the result of an event that involved a so tiny amount of energy that it wasn’t able to colored all the fibers that became in contact with this weak energy.
        3- A combination of the first two possibilities, which is something that, to my knowledge, I’m the very first to propose… In other words, in order to explain the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the image area, Rogers proposed (not very clearly) that a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities was more or less coating the top-most fibers of the cloth (in a uneven and non-homogeneous way) and that such a thin and uneven layer of impurities was the only thing that became colored in order to form the body image. Fazio and Mandaglio, on the other hand, proposed that such a discontinuous distribution could be explained, not because of the particular nature of the chromophore, but because of the particularly weak nature of the energy that was at the origin of the formation of the body image. And after a long reflection about this complicated issue, I personally came to the conclusion that we must consider the possibility that not only the particular nature of the chromophore could have played a huge role in the image formation and in the resulting characteristics of this image (especially when it comes to the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the image area) BUT ALSO that the particular nature of the image formation event (namely a very weak release of biological energy, which was not strong enough to be able to color all the coated fibers on the cloth’s surface) could have played a complementary role in the image formation and in the resulting characteristics of this image.

        But I repeat that even if I propose a third hypothesis in an effort to explain the image formation and its very particular characteristics, I’m not ready yet to totally reject the other two proposal I mentioned above, in the form they were described by Rogers and the Fazio-Mandaglio tandem, which is different than you when it comes to Fazio and Mandaglio’s hypothesis…

  4. June 18, 2014 at 11:14 am

    Great image Dan, I fully understand how you must feel now, being bombarded by mails from Yannick and me!

    • June 18, 2014 at 1:42 pm

      Yup. Just love the graphic. One picture is worth a thousand words. Or, there again, maybe two thousand …

      The essence of science is to narrow down the problem, not to infinitely expand it…

      • Yannick Clément
        June 19, 2014 at 8:36 am

        I thought one of the most important principle in science was to explore all the RATIONAL possibilities (even those that doesn’t fit with your idea) in order to find the most probable answer to a problem… Note: in order to consider a possibility to be rational, a person need to consider ALL the pertinent data and, in the case of the Shroud, that include the strong evidence of the blood and serum stains!

  5. piero
    June 19, 2014 at 9:19 am

    Three stochastic events ? Is credible that strange perspective ?

    Is the process indicated by Robert Villareal a stochastic process ?
    Yes (or … Am I wrong ?).
    But this process seems to be very different with respect the stochastic event
    indicated by Yannick, Fazio and Mandaglio…
    Then we have (at least…) three different kinds of stochastic event …
    … … …
    At the end (IMO): only a careful analysis of linen samples
    (= material involved in BIF or not changed because not touched)
    can solve the enigma.
    Do you agree on that very simple conclusion ?
    So …
    Why you don’t focuse your minds on that “solving approach” instead
    of only writing interesting but debatable conjectures ?

    I am curious about the results from the microscopical controls on treated samples
    obtained using Alpha particles having a certain kinetic energy (then, see also:
    the use of SSNDT as calibration tools) that are fired toward a linen fibril…
    What is your opinion about this kind of work ?

    • Yannick Clément
      June 19, 2014 at 10:37 am

      Who talks about 3 stochastic events? I’m talking about the good possibility of two stochastic events leading to the image formation: 1- The release of a tiny amount of energy (probably biological in origin) leading to a stochastic event of coloration and 2- The presence of an uneven and very thin layer of carbohydrate impurities that was the only thing that could have been colored by the very mild and weak process of coloration.

  6. piero
    June 19, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    So…
    You don’t believe that alpha particles (and Radon into the tomb) are the “third stochastic event”…
    Perhaps (…or probably) you are right…
    But :
    Where are your scientific proofs (obtained from the analyses) ?
    I prefer to see what are the results (on linen samples) from the comparisons…
    Am I wrong in my behaviour ?

    • Yannick Clément
      June 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm

      No I don’t because of what Fazio told me about that! Here’s what he told me by email:

      We have already studied the interaction between alpha particles and linen and I send you the article that has been published in Italian language.

      In this article,, we have deduced the I(z) correlation when alpha particles of about 6 MeV energy emitted by human body collide with a linen that envelopes his corpse. The above kinetic energy is sufficient to penetrate the cloth for 20-30 µm. This result is visible in Fig. 2 (full line: Jackson fit; dotted line: alpha particle fit).

      As you can see, the fit of the known experimental intensity of the image data (13 values) in the alpha case was compared with the Jackson one, by using both the correlation coefficient squared r2 and reduced χ2. Our estimations of reduced χ2 and r2 were 0.55 and 0.49, respectively; while the Jackson’s ones were 0.53 and 0.58, respectively (see Table 1). Consequently, the I(z) correlation obtained for alpha particles (see Fig. 2) was very good. However, we have rejected this hypothesis because the alpha can not distinguish the fibril that must be yellowed from the other that must retain the background color. Indeed, the agreement with the characteristics of the body image is only on the macroscopic level because the above particles would strike and to yellow all the fibrils.

      So, we will have a continue distribution of optical density value, while on the Shroud this parameter has ONLY TWO VALUES. This occurs also if we consider proton, deuteron , 3H and 3He.

      Finally, A HUMAN BODY DOES NOT EMIT ALPHA PARTICLES OR PROTON OR DEUTERON…

      Note: I agree 100% with Fazio about that!

      • Hugh Farey
        June 19, 2014 at 6:44 pm

        So what, precisely is the nature of the ‘energy’ that emanated fro the body. If not particulate, then electromagnetic? In what sort of frequency range?

      • Yannick Clément
        June 20, 2014 at 3:51 pm

        In the present paper that I write with Fazio and Mandaglio, we mention 4 potentially good sources for the weak energy that must have been at the origin of the image formation:

        1- A weak release of heat from the fresh and tortured corpse.
        2- A weak release of postmortem gases from the fresh and tortured corpse.
        3- A weak release of singlet oxygen atoms from the fresh and tortured corpse.
        4- A weak release of lactic acid molecules from the surface of the skin and hair of the fresh and tortured corpse (left there by the most probable abundant sweat of the Shroud man).

        Personally, I tend to favored the 4th scenario (which was first proposed by John DeSalvo during the 80s), while I am not willing to close the door to any of the other 3 possible scenarios, no more than I am not willing to close the door to the possibility that more than one of these scenarios could have been active together at the time of the image formation.

        And as we state in our conclusion: “Knowing the nature of the stochastic effects, we cannot discriminate with certainty the process (or the processes) that has (or have) triggered the formation of a body image on the Shroud. Indeed, the four mechanisms described above (including the one described by Rogers and Arnoldi, which do not propose that a stochastic event happened during the image formation) could be, in theory, able to gradually yellow a number of fibrils proportional to the absorbed energy over a few years or decades.”

        Taking this fact into account, you will understand that the answer to your question is not easy at all and would definately need a lot of testing on old linen samples under proper lab control…

        We also mention this: “Finally, it is still possible to think that other natural mechanisms that have never been proposed yet could be able to yield the kind of stochastic distribution of yellowed fibrils we see in the image area on the Shroud. If someone proposes a natural mechanism of this nature in the future, this could be added in the list of potential sources for the Shroud body image formation. For this reason, this paper does not solve the question. On the contrary, it offers to the Scientific Community, involved in the study of the Shroud of Turin a good reason to pursue further investigations, which could include coloring tests on linen samples that would be made with a known ancient method of manufacturing linen cloths.”

        If this is not an honest and scientific way to see the reality of the image formation issue, I don’t know what it is…

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