Home > Image Theory, Other Blogs, Paper Chase > Another Paper by Yannick Clément

Another Paper by Yannick Clément

July 27, 2014

imageOn July 20th, I posted a lead to a new essay by Yannick Clément. At the time I mentioned that I would mention another paper soon.  Today, I noticed a link to it on The Holy Shroud Guild Facebook page. That prompted me to get going and mention it here. It is called My thoughts on a recently published paper by Raymond N. Rogers by Yannick Clément dated July 9, 2014.

Yannick begins:

I would like to express some thoughts about the « new » paper of Rogers that was recently published on the website Shroud.com, which is entitled “An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color”1 . This article was written by Rogers in 2001 but was never published anywhere before.

By-the-way, here is a link to the paper at shroud.com. An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color

After several pages of discussion, Yannick begins his several paragraphs of conclusion:

There is no doubt in my mind that this “new” paper of Rogers constitutes a real historical finding, which can help us to understand all the different steps that were taken by Rogers in his study of the Shroud image. These steps indicate the high level of scientific professionalism with which he did his work in order to discover the best rational hypothesis to explain this image without underestimating or leaving out any important data and observations. In consequence, this paper can also help us to realize the poor scientific value of the work done by some other “scientists” on the Shroud image, especially when we consider the fact that those researchers have not at all followed the same scientific “path” of Rogers. In the end, I think we can really see in this particular paper, which was the first attempt of Rogers at describing his impurity hypothesis for the image chromophore, as being the genesis of the Maillard reaction hypothesis he proposed the year later (in 2002)45 and which he never stopped refining until his death, two years later.

FYI:  Apparently, the two recent papers by Yannick have also be published on The Holy Shroud Guild site:

  1. July 27, 2014 at 10:08 am

    “In consequence, this paper can also help us to realize the poor scientific value of the work done by some other “scientists” on the Shroud image, especially when we consider the fact that those researchers have not at all followed the same scientific “path” of Rogers.”

    It’s high time that “scientific path” was properly signposted. How are we “scientists” supposed to know which direction to take without proper signposting?

  2. anoxie
    July 27, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    The “path” of Rogers according to Yannick :


    Eventually consistent with a stochastic phenomenon.

  3. piero
    July 29, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    Thank you, Yannick.
    Although the particular questions connected with Textile Chemistry
    are not yet well explained (*) in your paper, however I agree with you
    about the importance of the studies by Rogers.

    *) See f.e. :
    – Rogers indicated the question of “erythrostarch” (= starch that turns red).
    – Pectin is a substance composed by pectic acid, that is (mainly) galacturonic acid,
    partly or completely esterified with methyl alcohol
    – etc.
    —- —
    The presumed fact that “no references to the use of starch
    in antiquity have been found” (paper by Fanti, Heimburger and others)
    seems to be a bit strange and incredible …

    McCrone actually observed wheat-starch granules.
    Yes, he was able to work and, in that case, I believe him.
    He studied starch granules, and he reported the inherent properties
    in his Particle Atlas. (B.T.W.: Do you know these granules ?)

    In any case my name is not connected with Fanti, Botella, Di Lazzaro,
    Heimburger and Svensson. Yes, the study “Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality” was an interesting attempt,
    but that work was not careful (speaking from the point of view of Textile Chemistry and Applied Microscopy …). So, I remained aloof from that “inconsistent work” (Sorry…
    Here no offence or personal affront !) claiming something without the required proofs (because they don’t used the advanced Microscopies = AFM, CFM …).
    Have you read the book : “Uncle Tungsten: Memories of a Chemical Boyhood”
    (2001) by Oliver Sacks ?
    It is an autobiographical account of his early life in a family where curiosity and inquisitiveness were encouraged.
    Reading a page of this book we found the interesting comment about
    the discovery of the vision for the true atoms with
    the (Tungsten) tip of an Atomic Force Microscopy.
    Why I have cited Oliver Sacks ?
    In 1998 I wrote about AFM (as a method to control the truth about the samples from the Shroud, see also : the 14C tests of 1988)
    without the support of true controls, a forewarning with a vague image from the University of Pisa.
    Instead Ray Rogers indicated another kind of approach : ESCA (= Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis), in the paper “An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color”.
    But he pretty convincingly established the fact of a thin layer of starch impurities on the surface of the fibers.
    So… We have to show that presence (of starch) using the modern tools and
    that (perhaps) was not well appreciated by Fanti & other researchers.
    Theses guys (with all due respect to their academic qualifications)
    pointed the finger mainly toward the primary cell wall…
    Perhaps they are not familiar with the different properties of
    the different fractions of starch.
    So… What is your opinion ?
    When tested with iodine, normal soluble starch turns blue.
    Starch that is soluble only in hot water turns red.
    Do you agree on that information ?
    For example:
    I have read that erythrodextrin can be distinguished from
    other carbohydrates by its red color reaction with iodine.
    And I have found another information:
    >Starch is converted to erythro-dextrin and dextrose by
    boiling with dilute mineral acids.
    If the boiling is prolonged the erythro-dextrin is converted to dextrose…
    [Exercises in Practical Physiological Chemistry by Sydney William Cole, 1927]

    There are three kinds of dextrins :
    amylo-, erythro- and achro-;
    the amylo- and erythro-dextrins giving a red or brownish colour
    with iodine solution, the achro-dextrin being unaffected by this reagent.

    From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextrin )
    we know that :
    >Dextrins are a group of low-molecular-weight carbohydrates
    produced by the hydrolysis of starch …

    In any case Rogers indicated us that higher-molecular-weight,
    hot-water-soluble starch is the last to wash out of a cloth
    and the reaction with iodine produces a red color…
    Where are the colored photomicrograph of red fibers ?
    Have you seen the interesting images ?
    Have you found the useful chemical proofs?
    Are you able to send us inherent pictures ?
    In your study there are no images…
    Why ?
    I believe that Colin Berry is able to show us the red fibers…
    Am I wrong in my idea ?
    How to estimate the exact composition of thin layers on linen fibrils ?
    Is it possible to control the famous “ghosts” using non-destructive analyses ?
    — —
    Now I want to speak about my doubts about the quantity
    (and distribution) of cadaveric gases involved into
    the scenario proposed by Arnoldi and Rogers …
    IMO Rogers was an able thermochemist but (although he
    claimed the Maillard reaction as solution for
    the problem) he was not able to solve the Enigma
    with a incontrovertible and credible experiment
    (B.T.W. : DETA is not a natural amine !).
    — —
    Yesterday I have read the acronym DC-STE
    (DC= Direct Contact, STE = Sorptive Tape Extraction ).
    If you try with Google using that acronym probably you will find few or nothing…
    But there is a method based on direct contact sorptive tape extraction followed by on-line thermal desorption gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (DC-STE–GC–MS) to detect and quantify a group of suspected volatile allergens …
    So, the exact acronym is not DC-STE, but DC-STE–GC–MS…
    Where are the useful works?
    I have read something, but they were far from the resolution of the Shroud …
    — — —
    Putrescine and Cadaverine.
    Related compounds that are both produced
    by the breakdown of amino acids in living
    and dead organisms.
    The two compounds are largely responsible
    for the foul odor of putrefying flesh.
    But …
    Where are the measurements (= measurements about
    the exact amount of cadaveric emissions from the corpses) ?
    Until now we have no exact data …
    So (IMO), you have to dye your new red banner…

    • Piero
      July 31, 2014 at 8:50 am

      Unfortunately I have not yet bought the book by Rogers
      (so, I don’t know the exact description of the problems written by RR)
      and probably the unsolved question of erythrostarch caused a trouble writing my remark.
      So …
      I beg your pardon about my previously confusing exhibition of the problems.
      In other words : I was not able (few time at disposal) to separate two different kind of problems.
      Here two points from where […]
      I started for my previous message :

      1) the word “erythrostarch” was indicated by Dr. Ray Rogers in a private communication
      (it’s the high molecular weight compound and I had some doubts about that erythrostarch)…
      I was acquainted with a story about erythrostarch as a fraction of crude starch
      that has a range of molecular weights such that iodine
      causes it to give a red color…

      2) erythrodextrins solutions (substances with low molecular weight), that clearly turned red with iodine ..

      So … What is erythrostarch ?
      Where is the truth ?
      B.T.W. : Now I am inclined toward the second choice… (erythrodextrins generated from starch hydrolization)
      …and you ?
      In any case I remember that (ten years ago : in 2004 !) I tried to indicate a possible way
      to solve the problem of “erythrostarch” pointing the finger toward a study :
      “Fingerprinting polysaccharides with single molecule atomic force microscopy”
      by Marszalek, Hongbin and Fernandez (in my opinion that rough approach [to develop with
      adequate experiments] seemed to be useful).

      AFM does not see internal structures, yes.
      But we can use in a clever way the AFM technique…
      I can’t afford to go abroad, because I am poor.
      But I can write something…
      Is it possible to write (with the benefit of hindsight) that
      I was right with a simple suggestion ?
      Am I wrong ?

      • piero
        July 31, 2014 at 10:00 am

        I do not believe that silence is the best answer to my notes
        and also I don’t like what I wrote about Fanti and Heimburger, etc. I don’t like my previous words about the “academic guys” because they worked and they tried to show something of interest …
        But they don’t applied the Advanced Microscopies
        and then they obtained only “a limited control”…
        — —
        In any case I hope you could understand my thinking, despite the long discourse on that particular issue of “erythrostarch” (indicated by Rogers ten years ago !)…
        — —
        In order to verify the knowleges you can try
        to do something using the comparisons about starch and erythrodextrins solutions (see also the problem :
        Where are the ancient samples of wheat stach paste ?).
        We have to see what is the truth about the compostion of thin layers on linen fibrils.
        — —
        Heat and water content affect starch grains when different cooking methods are used. Boiling and steaming results in the collapse of wheat starch grains accompanied by extreme swelling, curved granules, pasting, almost full gelatinization, a distinct extinction cross and vague granule outlines…

        “Changes in wheat starch grains using different cooking methods:Insights into ancient food processing techniques”


        • piero
          August 1, 2014 at 11:38 am

          Errata corrige:
          “wheat starch”
          instead of
          “wheat stach”
          — — —
          Dear Knowledge workers,
          I have read that :
          >a procedure for starch production was given in some detail in a Roman treatise by Cato in 184 BCE …
          Do you know that procedure ?

          Here the inherent explantion:
          >Grain was steeped in water for ten days and the pressed. Fresh water was added. Mixing and filtration through linen cloth gave a slurry from which the starch was allowed to settle. …

          Another source wrote something about Cato and
          the Roman treatise on Agriculture :
          >According to his method, a cereal grain was steeped in water for 10 days.
          >The water was removed and the grain was
          pressed and stirred with fresh water.
          >The mixture was allowed to stand, and the
          precipitated material was pressed in a linen cloth,
          creamy liquid filtrate was collected in a clean
          vessel and then washed once more with fresh
          > Finally, the material was allowed to dry in
          the sun.

          So I believe this ancient source (= Marcus Cato) was used by Plinius.
          Do you agree with me ?
          — —
          Do you know Marcus Cato the Elder ?
          He was a Roman statesman, commonly referred to as
          Censorius (the Censor).
          His personal motto became: “Ceterum(autem) censeo Carthaginem esse delendam“ – Carthage must be destroyed …

          — — —
          Cato is famous not only as statesman or soldier, but also as author. His manual on running a farm (De AgriCultura or “On Farming”) is his only work that survives completely.
          — — — —
          The ancient use of starch is also chronicled in records of the early Egyptians, who manufactured papyrus using a starch coating.

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