Addressing himself to Charles Freeman, Dave Hines writes in a comment, “You inspired to make a video. I wanted you to see it. This happened because of our conversation on this blog site. thanks.”
You might want to check out, More on the ISA Tile and the “Prince of Peace”, a posting in this blog last April, and an article in Wikipedia, Facial recognition system. I keep hearing about points of congruence but have not seen any documentation or explanation as to why it is valid method. Anyone? And is it valid for different media?
Video is nicely done.
This is an interesting video but these kind of morphing/overlay effects can be deceptive. Try repeating this experiment but use three different portraits in place of the fresco: the Mona Lisa, Abraham Lincoln and John Lennon. I’d be willing to bet the transmorph will be just as stunning.
I’m not saying the fresco connection isn’t an intriguing one though.
Hello Mr. David Goulet:
I will put all 3 of those images into the negative image of the The Shroud. All 3, Mona Lisa, “Honest Abe” and John Lennon. It is fairly easy to do this on Sony Vegas Video Editing Software. It is important to note that the aspect ratio of both the Fresco and the Shroud were not altered in any way. I will do the same with the other photos neither taking anything away or adding anything to them. Fair and honest.
Give me a link to which images you would like, I will place them inside exactly how the fresco was done. Exact same procedure. I will upload them and use the same time sequence to fade in the images.
I am a artist and have done over 100 portraits, if I was asked to do a reproduction of The Shroud I would not change the dimensions, but do it the exact same size as original image.
I would like to know the dimensions of the fresco in Rome. It should be a dead on match to The Shroud of Turin face. It is not likely an artist would change the dimensions, possible but not likely. Sometimes I will do a portrait X 2 if it needs to be bigger. But any deviation from the original, even a few millimeters will change the face and it will not come out right.
The biggest challenge a artist would have with The Shroud, would be where to place the eyes exactly since the resurrection image has no eyes illustrated. That in itself is extremely out of place if this was the work of a man. A resurrection image with no eyes?!
It’s not a resurrection image though, it’s an image of a dead man. If an artist was going to show this was Jesus rising, he likely wouldn’t have put Jesus in an obvious death pose.
I think what makes your theory of the fresco interesting isn’t so much the points of congruence angle but the very fact that there is a fresco that may be 2nd century and does look like the Jesus of the Shroud. If this fresco can be identified and provenance proven it would be highly significant because, as you pointed out, where did the inspiration come from.
Is it really the image of a dead person? It looks more like a person at the moment of resurrection to me, in between life and death, between light and shadow, in between science and superstition. Next stop ahead. … The Twilight Zone,
(That was actually meant as a bit of humor)
If you had to line up the suspects responsible for image you have
1. Mr. Paint
2. Mr. Imprint
3. Mr. Ammonia
4. Mr. Light
Which of the 4 suspects is most likely responsible for the image?
To get the distance information on the Shroud he’s got to be fast and smart.
Which of the 4 suspects is the smartest and the fastest?
Which of the 4 suspects can be eliminated beyond any reasonable doubt?
Which of the 4 suspects is capable of coloring a micro thin layer of carbs on a piece of linen in a very specific hue that represents a measure of distance without leaving behind any trace of paint or pigment?
Which of the 4 suspects in the most cunning, baffling and powerful?
Who is the last person standing after the process of elimination is done?
CLUE: A Paul of Tarsus letter refers to a Shining Wrap, A Illuminated Garment that he wants brought to Rome, Italy.
Hello Mr. David Goulet:
For the last few hours I have been working diligently to get these other faces to fit into The Shroud, but they simply do no work. I will keep trying to get the best possible match of another face that I can.
1. Mona Lisa Not enough close, it is a completely different face. If one needs to see what it looks like I will put it together the best it can be and upload it. It is stunning, stunningly bad looking.
2. John Lennon: Some points of congruence. But again it is a different type of face altogether. I can get the beard and nose to line up, then another part of the face goes out of whack. eyes in wrong place, ect.
3. Abraham Lincoln: I can get the nose and lips to line up, and the beard but then the forehead goes way out place. Eyes are to small. I will put it together in the best way it can be done, but it is not even a close match to what the fresco is.
4. Johnny Depp: A completely different face, eyes are completely in the wrong place. There is no way to get it to match. At first glance it looks like it will work, then when placed over Shroud it is completely different.
I am going to collect more photos and get the best straight on shot that looks like the Shroud face and I can do everything to debunk this “new evidence” as not being significant.
It seems the more I try to debunk it, the more convincing it gets.
See my comment when this video was first posted:
“In fact, of course, exactly the same effect can be achieved using almost any two full face portraits of anybody at all, so is useless as a diagnostic identification tool.
However, it provokes a thought. I have recently returned to my country through an ePassport facial recognition machine, which is able to make fairly reliable identifications of people using only their passport photos and their actual appearance at the booth. Their skin-tone, hair-length, clothes and other variables do not seem to matter. It would be interesting to try to ‘smuggle’ portraits of Christ, Depp, O’Toole, da Vinci, Durer and various others past such a machine, using the Shroud as their passport photo. I wonder how they’d get on.”
I like that idea! Anyone got a friend in the CIA or Interpol?
Here is an interesting article, How Facial Recognition Systems Work Read all the pages.
Thanks Dan. I also notice (from the wikipedia article on facial recognition) that things like iPhoto, Photoshop Elements and so on have some kind of program which attempts to identify faces on newly uploaded photos on the basis of previously identified ones. I’ll be experimenting…
See my two papers how to match two faces and find congruences:
Hi OK. Really fascinating information. Illuminating. Great work on those papers. Extremely helpful information.
I commend your ingenuity, OK, but I think I could do much the same with Rasputin. I just don’t think the Manoppello veil face looks anything like the Shroud face, and apparent congruences of one sort or another (abeit not the same ones) can be found on almost any pair of faces. I was hoping that by using facial recognition software rather than an overlay technique, it might be possible to get a more objective comparison.
I commend your ingenuity, OK, but I think I could do much the same with Rasputin. I just don’t think the Manoppello veil face looks anything like the Shroud face, and apparent congruences of one sort or another (abeit not the same ones) can be found on almost any pair of faces.
I was hoping that by using facial recognition software rather than an overlay technique, it might be possible to get a more objective comparison.
I forgot to mention: it would only as much objective, as algorithm used.
The video says this is a second century icon image. Is there any information on where this is found? I do find the frontal facing image with long hair and beard interesting if indeed it is from second century.
Hello Mr. Russ Breault: I really enjoyed The Shroud Encounter videos on you tube, the series of 7. I game them all thumbs up. Outstanding presentation.
There were 2 sources I found that presented this fresco, both claimed it was 1st Century, not 2nd Century. I believe it comes from the 1st or 3rd century, so I chose the number in between so it would not look like I am tilting the scale in favor of authenticity. To be fair on both sides, convinced and not convinced.
The aspect ratio of both images in this video are NOT altered, it was easy to put them together because I did not have to do much of anything, just place one over the other.
I can do the same with any image anyone would like to see. Using the same time sequence for fade in, exact same procedure. It is not difficult. I am in the process of doing a Mona Lisa, | Abe Lincoln and John Lennon. I can even do a Johnny Depp for Hugh.
Here are some links and quotes from them.
“It is believed to be of the first century as Pope Urban II is shown in the painting looking intently at the face of the Christ. Pope Urban II reigned from 222-230 AD”
This is one of the links http://jesusandhischristines.org/pic2.htm
This is the second one I found which had this caption under the Fresco
“Callistus Fresco of Jesus from the First Century found in the Roman Catacombs”
The most important thing to know is that the aspect ratio of neither image has been changed in the video “to make them fit” No trickery or B.S going on, very straightforward.
I would like to have some more info on this fresco, especially the dimensions of the fresco.
I am having trouble locating it. The date of the fresco still needs to be confirmed.
What is noteworthy it that it seems the artist is copying what would be called in forensic science as “accidental characteristics” I need to look at more closely to be sure.
Thanks for your nice comments regarding Shroud Encounter. The info you provided is helpful.
It is claimed to be from the Catacomb of San Callisto (or Callixtus) which was built after 150AD, but I can’t find any corroboration of that. It looks like Johnny Depp to me…
Good Evening Mr. Hugh Farey: I was a portrait painter, using photos of real people as the role model and I did several reproductions of famous paintings, Da Vinci (Mona Lisa & The Virgin on the Rocks, Caravaggio, Thomas Gainsborough, Van Gogh and others.
I do have personal experience doing reproduction paintings that involve detailed face painting and landscape. I learned the hard way, you cannot make a mistake or be off even a few millimeters if you want a face to look right. To do a accurate face reproduction is difficult, detailed work that requires very specific and unique measurements to be replicated.
No 2 faces are the same, in the same way no 2 snow flakes are the same when viewed under a microscope.
I did go on google and got the best straight on shot of Johnny Depp I could find that looked like it could work. I will attempt with others of him.
The problem is when I drop his face image into The Shroud it is not the same. I enlarged the image correctly and matched up the nose as perfectly as possible, then placed image over The Shroud and then the eyes are way below the place they need to be, and numerous other points will not line up. Some match some don’t. It is awkward looking.
The same challenge occurred with every image I have tried so far,
John Lennon (3 different photos)
Mona LIsa and Abe Lincoln.
What is noteworthy in the case of the fresco is that it just falls into place. I enlarged the image maintaining aspect ratio matched up the nose and that was it. It worked. No struggle, not fighting with the image to fit. The forehead lines up, the eyebrows line up, the eyes are in the right place, the gap between the eyes is correct, the space between eyes and nose is correct, Space between nose and mouth is correct. Beard lines up. The whole thing lines up. It took me less than 15 minutes to put the images together.
No other image is lining up like this fresco does. It not only looks right, “it feels right”
Nonetheless, I am going to play the role of a hard core serious skeptic on this and not just wave a white flag because I spent a few hours with 6 different images, if you have a image you think will fit, let me know and I will drop it in and see if it works.
I think David Hines can clear the mystery. For the time being all that can be said is that the “Good Shepherd” in the Catacomb of San Callisto looks like Apollo, not the usual bearded, long-haired Jesus.
The Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana in Rome, whose chancellor is Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, publishes a scholarly journal, and may have additional information. One contact is Dr. Olof Brandt, who teaches there.
It is very likely that they, too, will be surprised with the claim, so it is better to wait and see what David will have to say.
Hi Louis, this fresco was apparently discovered in 2010 in the Callistus Catacombs. They go on for about 12 miles with 4 to 5 different levels. A underground city.
Here are some links and quotes about the fresco.
“It is believed to be of the first century as Pope Urban II is shown in the painting looking intently at the face of the Christ. Pope Urban II reigned from 222-230 AD”
This is the second one I found which had this caption under the Fresco
“Callistus Fresco of Jesus from the First Century found in the Roman Catacombs”
Bottom Line: We need more info regarding this fresco.
David (Hines), thanks for the comments. On my part I appreciate your efforts, but, as you know, and have acknowledged, more information regarding this fresco is needed. It is only then that it can be “authenticated”. If you can reach this point then your work will be rewarded.
‘ looks like Apollo’ . Well Zanker’s point was that pagan models were used for the bearded Christ.
Unfortunately,just the fresco is reproduced, we are not told its exact location nor is any background of the find given. In archaeology this is like authenticating unprovenanced artefacts.
Very dramatic music. The face reminds me of the ancient icon of Jesus the good shepherd, yet it has a beard and long hair. I wonder where it is from? Most of the early icons/depictions (before the 500s) lack the beard and make Jesus look like a philosopher.
Music is from Lawrence of Arabia I believe. Amazing score.
I’m afraid I think that all this matching up of pictures is too subjective to be valuable. Here are various Fresco/Shroud/Lennon/Depp combinations which all work satisfactorily for me. http://imgur.com/DPPpTT1.png. All I did was make sure that the eyes were the same level and enlarged/reduced the overlay until the lower lips matched. No two portraits, even of the same person, match perfectly, so the question is how much distortion of various features is permitted before identity is rejected. The value of using a computer algorithm is that whatever arbitrary tolerances are assigned, its accuracy can be checked and measured, which is why I suggested the ePassport machine (although the rejection rate of that was remarkably high as I re-entered the UK last week – about 10% I would guess). I have done experiments with iPhoto, and it is pretty poor, offering non-matching people as possible matches and not recognising matching people more often than not.
Hugh and all.
I can give you advice: mark in Paint all the notable features on both faces, in opposite colours (red and blue are the best in my opinion), like I did with Shroud and Manoppello (see my paper: https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/addendum-manopello-shroud-comparison3d.pdf ). Then overlay. The marked features are then clearly visible and easy to compare.
Still too subjective for me, I’m afraid.
But really helpful.
Hi Hugh, those images look good, convincing looking, but the problem is the aspect ratio of the images have been changed to make them fit. In the second that is done, that is no longer Johnny Depp, that is no longer John Lennon anymore. The reason I know is because I have the same photo of John Lennon and a similar one of Johnny Depp and put them up on video editing software and did comparisons. Those images do not match up with The Shroud of Turin face.
The Fresco image is not altered. The aspect ratio is not altered to make it fit.
I can put up those same photos of John Lennon and Johnny Depp and NOT change the aspect ratio and you will see a completely different image, One that does not match with the Shroud, awkward looking.
There is not one part of the Fresco in this video that has been made smaller or larger while another part is not so “that it fits” Enlarging a photo is one thing, but to change the aspect ration is a completely different thing, ASPECT RATIO CANNOT BE CHANGED.
I challenge anyone in the world, to come up with a better match than this fresco fits into The Shroud of Turin. Show me the photo and I will put it up and look at it.
A photo that has NOT been altered and tailor made to fit.
On a closing note I am not saying that I think you are dishonest or being deceptive, I don’t think so, I think the opposite, you come across as a extremely intelligent, honest person.
If this is going to debunked as coincidence, let’s do it in a fair and honest way.
Fresco image has not been altered, any comparisons must also not be altered, with the only exception being enlarging or making the image smaller but maintaining aspect ratio.
No, the aspect ratio was not altered at all. In each case the image is exactly as I pulled it off the internet. They were simply enlarged or reduced in order to make the vertical distance between the line of the eyes and the lower lip the same.
Hi Hugh, The Lennon photo you used was not to bad. It does match up to some degree with the Turin Shroud image. I gave it a thorough and honest appraisal. I had to tilt the image just a bit, spent a few hours working with it. It is not a completely awkward fit, but you would not connect the 2 and say one was used as a role model for the other. It does not just fall into place, like the Fresco did. It is kind of there and kind of not there type fit. It does have several points of congruency. There is no denying that. . Without changing aspect ratio I could blend the Lennon shot with the Shroud, so I know what you did was honest and upfront. It does work to some degree.
Now The Manoppello Image that I just got through comparing, was a stunning match. It dropped into place in less than 30 seconds.
I have never thought these 2 images had anything to do with each other. They look vastly different to me, but when you lay this image over The Shroud, it is truly amazing. Nearly a dead on match. The Manoppello Image looks like there is no way it is going to blend in, but it does. It works in a way hard to put into words, astounding is the 1st word that comes to mind.
I do not even know what the Manoppello image is but I am certainly interested now.
Anyways, I am interested in using the Johnny Depp that you used in the blend shot. I cannot find the image you used. Can you put it up on a link by itself, so I can try it out?
It was the first frontal portrait to appear on a Google image search for “Johnny Depp.” it appears at http://www.phootoscelebrities.com/celebrities/johnny-depp/
Hi Hugh: I did put up the J. Depp photo. I was able to line up the chin, lips, nose and eyes and forehead in the right place. I can fade it in and make it passable. But you would never look at the 2 images and conclude they were related and one was used as a role model to make the other.
The fresco looks like it was done using The Shroud as the role model. It is a superior match vs Depp image, there is no denying that. Some of the accidental characteristics of the Shroud image are copied on Fresco. No ears illustrated, odd beard shape with 2 angles going off to the left are copied. Owl shape eyes placed precisely where the artist would see white blotches. Forehead match. Eyebrows match, no variation. Hair parted in same spot, image is a straight on shot, exactly as seen on The Shroud..
The Image does not move as opacity is being changed and the images are combined. It is not unlike a very odd shaped puzzle piece that fits into the empty spot.
The other photos I tried can fit in to some degree, but they are vague, and have errors. Like a similar puzzle piece that does not fit into the empty spot, close but no cigar. Fresco image is not a “vague match” it is precise match. A big difference.
The fresco is a triple 777 winner. It fits inside just right.
Like the combination to a lock, even if you are off a few numbers, the lock will not open. The fresco opens the lock, the Depp image does not. The numbers are off.
To be fair and thorough, a large number of images should be compared, like 99,000 or 1 million using facial recognition software and congruence pts.
Of course that It does not prove the authenticity of the Shroud. This is a single display that supports authenticity. A small stone placed on the scale. How much weight does it carry? Time will tell on that one, there is still some missing information on this Fresco.
Can’t assign a numerical weight without the info.
But it could start getting heavier or lighter,
But either way, my paycheck stays the same. So I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
Thanks for giving me the line to the image, it was helpful
I challenge anyone in the world, to come up with a better match than this fresco fits into The Shroud of Turin. Show me the photo and I will put it up and look at it.
A photo that has NOT been altered and tailor made to fit.
Hi David, try this:
Hi OK, I gotta say, I got a huge surprise when I put the Manoppello image over the Shroud. I have never believed that these 2 images had anything to do with each other. Until tonight. When I changed the opacity of one image and began to allow the other image to blend, you can literally see the eyes opening on the Man in The Shroud. The image does not move around during the blend, it stays in place. Everywhere. There was some extremely minimal shift, perhaps due to the fact the length of face was a few points off.
What is truly bizarre is that these 2 images do not look like they could possibly be related.
But yet they seem to be. They compliment each other, like 2 halves of the same person. When they come together something remarkable happens,like they were meant to be joined.
I find it extremely unlikely this image fits in the way it does by random happenstance and dumb luck. Possible, but not likely. If this is coincidence, it is one hell of a bizarre coincidence. I need to test more images to be certain this same thing is not happening with other images. It is the only way for me to be convinced. I am a bit of a skeptic myself when it comes to these things. Thanks for sending me those links, it really was amazing when I dropped the image over The Shroud. It was just there immediately. Fell into place, like the fresco did. I was not expecting that to happen at all.
Yes, Dave. Please read my paper again: https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/addendum-manopello-shroud-comparison3d.pdf
Especially pages 28-29. Can there be any doubt that those two are directly related?
Would you mind if I ask you to do similar YouTube video, like you did with the Shroud & fresco, but this time with Shroud and Manoppello?
There is no doubt. They match up in a way that goes beyond coincidence. I need to do more research about the history of this image.
I will make the video. I will use the same time sequence and fade in, so both images can be seen alone and then slowly mixed together. 1 minute video.
Exactly as seen in this video. Same procedure.
I had to make my house check in ready for guests today otherwise I would have responded faster.
I am exhausted.
Hi OK, here it is
El dibujo del “Callistus fresco of Jesus” fue realizado por el artista Thomas Heaphy (1813-1873) y se encuentra probablemente en el British Museum.
[At Rome he made careful drawings of everything illustrating the subject to which he could obtain access in the Catacombs and Vatican Library. He has given an interesting account of his difficulties in procuring the necessary permissions for this purpose. His last journey to Rome was made in 1860, and in the following year he published the result of his labours in a series of eight articles in the ‘Art Journal.’ The papers with the necessary illustrations were not reissued till 1880, seven years after his death, when they were brought out in a folio volume under the editorship of his friend Mr. Wyke Bayliss, F.S.A., with the title ‘The Likeness of Christ; an Enquiry into the verisimilitude of the received Likeness of our Blessed Lord.’ A cheap reprint has since been issued by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The original drawings are now in the print room of the British Museum.]
Está recogido (Plate VII) junto a otros magníficos dibujos de Heaphy en el libro de Sir Wyke Bayliss “Rex Regum”,1898.
“Rex Regum” (on line) ediciones de 1898 y 1902
Off-topic: Thomas Heaphy 1775-1835, famous English water colour painter, well-known for his portraits, involved with art politics in England and establishment of Royal Academy; Not to be confused with son:
Charles Heaphy 1820-1881: extremely well-known in New Zealand for his early landscape paintings, portraits of Maori chiefs and others, beautiful cartography work. He gave his name to a popular walking track, now a National Reserve, tourist destination, on the north-west of the South Island, following his early exploration journeys there. Coming from a well-to-do family, his various exploits exhausted his resources and he ended his life in reduced circumstances.
Google on “Charles Heaphy Artist” ‘Images’ to see examples of his work.
Good detective work finding the artist who did this. ¡Magnífico trabajo!
So, He was in the catacombs. Very interesting. Now we need to find the fresco role model that he painted. A remnant of it, must still be there, it does not matter how faded it is. See if you can find any more info on exactly what part of the catacombs he was in. We need a photo of that spot he was at and the fresco he was looking at and the other art surrounding it. How old are those?
I am awaiting news from a contact I have in Rome. He knows the catacombs. See if you can find any info on where he was exactly. The catacombs go on for 12 miles.
It said that Pope Urban II was also shown in the painting looking intently at the face of the Christ. Pope Urban II reigned from 222-230 AD
Where in the catacombs is there a fresco of Pope Urban ll? That is the starting point.
I am sending you the link to 27 different paintings that I did. I did some reproductions of
Da Vinci, Caravaggio, Botticelli (I put the face of Venus in a Starry Night Painting, in the cypress tree)
Van Gogh, Thomas Gainsborough, I stole a bit of El Greco in a few paintings.
In the meantime I am going to have a look at some of the art of Charles Heaphy.
No confundas Thomas Heaphy “the elder” (1775-1835) con su “eldest son” Thomas Heaphy “the younger” (1813-1873).
[HEAPHY, THOMAS, the younger (1813–1873), portrait and subject painter, eldest son of Thomas Heaphy the elder [q. v.], by his first wife, Mary Stevenson, was born at St. John’s Wood, London, 2 April 1813. In 1831, when a lad of seventeen, Heaphy accompanied his father on a visit to Italy, where he acquired a knowledge of the language and cultivated a taste for religious art, for which he always retained a strong predilection. Adopting his father’s profession, he commenced life as a portrait-painter, and for many years enjoyed an extensive patronage. He exhibited for the first time at the Royal Academy in 1831, and in 1850 sent his first subject picture, ‘The Infant Pan educated by the Wood Nymphs.’ Among his most successful works which followed were ‘Catherine and Bianca’ (1853), a series of peasant girls of various countries (1859–62), ‘Kepler mistaken for an Astrologer’ (1863), ‘Palissy the Potter taken for a Coiner’ (1864), ‘Lord Burleigh showing his Peasant Bride her new Home’ (1865), and ‘Lizzie Farren, afterwards Countess of Derby, waiting at the Prison Bars with her Father’s Breakfast’ (1872). In 1867 he sent to the exhibition of the Society of British Artists ‘General Fairfax and his Daughter pursued by the Royal Troops,’ and in that year was elected a member of the society. In 1844 he was commissioned to paint an altar-piece for the protestant church at Malta, erected at the expense of Queen Adelaide, and he also executed one for a church at Toronto, Canada. He devoted much time to investigating the origin of the traditional likeness of Christ; in the pursuit of this inquiry he travelled widely. At Rome he made careful drawings of everything illustrating the subject to which he could obtain access in the Catacombs and Vatican Library. He has given an interesting account of his difficulties in procuring the necessary permissions for this purpose. His last journey to Rome was made in 1860, and in the following year he published the result of his labours in a series of eight articles in the ‘Art Journal.’ The papers with the necessary illustrations were not reissued till 1880, seven years after his death, when they were brought out in a folio volume under the editorship of his friend Mr. Wyke Bayliss, F.S.A., with the title ‘The Likeness of Christ; an Enquiry into the verisimilitude of the received Likeness of our Blessed Lord.’ A cheap reprint has since been issued by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The original drawings are now in the print room of the British Museum. Heaphy possessed considerable literary ability, and contributed articles on various subjects to the periodical press; among them ‘A Night in the Catacombs’ (‘St. James’s Magazine,’ 1861), ‘The Beggar Saint’ (‘Once a Week,’ 1862), and ‘Mr. H——’s Own Narrative’ (‘All the Year Round,’ 1861); the last tale attracted great attention, and was subsequently republished in a separate form under the title ‘A Wonderful Ghost Story,’ with letters from Charles Dickens to the author on the subject. During the last four years of his life, when ill-health kept him much indoors, he painted a series of types of foreign beauty, and wrote accounts of them in various publications. At an early period Heaphy assumed the additional christian name ‘Frank,’ with the view of thereby distinguishing his works from those of his father, but dropped it before 1850. He died in South Belgravia, 7 Aug. 1873. In 1842 he married Eliza Bradstreet, daughter of Joseph Bradstreet, of the family of Little Wenham, Suffolk, by whom he had many children.]
Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 25
Compré el libro, Gracias por la info, quiero leer lo que Thomas Heaphy tiene que decir sobre el tema, el libro está agotado y era difícil de encontrar a un buen precio, pero lo conseguí, Que el espíritu de dios descansa sobre usted, el espíritu de sabiduría y de inteligencia, espíritu de consejo y fortaleza, espíritu de conocimiento y de temor de Jehová. ¡Amén!
Fascinating stuff. It’s wonderful how many avenues of research the Shroud opens doors to.
The bottom line, however, is that the remarkable portrait from the Callisto Catacomb was largely unrecognizeable by 1898, and that the only reproduction we have is a painting made in 1860 – from which, presumably, the images discovered by David Hines were derived. It is no longer possible to say how closely Thomas Heaphy’s portrait adheres to the original. To me, the distinctive upper outline of the moustache-free upper lip is particularly 19th, rather than 1st or 2nd, century.
Hugh, I live for the day that you might be able to concede that one single early portrait of Christ that looks to many of us that it was indeed influenced by the Shroud image, just might have been, barely possibly may have been, so influenced by that enigmatic image! Or is it a matter of scientific dogma with you, that such an influence is entirely beyond the bounds of any reasonable possibility?!
Might that be because of the elephant in the room, namely that the TS is a negative image (with scarcely any attention or even interest in shroudology as to reasons why)? In the absence of a Secondo Pia in medieval times or earlier, it’s hard to see how the TS image could have hugely influenced art (except for providing a beard and moustache)? They say the eyes are the window to the soul, but the eyes of the TS image are generally and conveniently agreed to be shut!
There are other reasons why a beard and moustache (and longish hair) could have come to be adopted as standard that do not depend on prior sight of the TS. They disguise to some extent the individuality of clean-shaven features, making easier the task of representing Jesus in art, and perhaps also as a sop to those who considered any image to be blasphemous. The facial hair serves therefore as a partial cover-up.
A good point, Colin. Though we can’t know for sure how the Shroud looked in the 1st century (if it is 1st century). The image may have been more pronounced, it may have been fainter and darkened over time. Certainly any early artist wanting to produce an image of Jesus would not have needed the TS to come up with a bearded, long haired model. He had only to look at the Jewish men of the time. Perhaps James, brother of the Lord, was the model – who knows. I agree with Hugh below, ultimately the facial recognition exercise, while intriguing, is only going to frustrate both sides of the argument because it is so subjective and is not decisive.
I don’t dispute any of that, David G, but there’s no escaping from the somewhat scary quality of the ‘as is’ TS image, which is the only one that artists of any period would have seen prior to Secondo Pia.
Put (shroud of turin) into Google image files, and the vast majority of returns are Secondo Pia type reversals, ones that most folk respond to immediately as ‘the real Jesus’. Then look quickly at the few ‘as is” images on offer, and there’s that off-putting dare one say grotesque quality, seemingly with eyes gouged out.
So I fail to see how the TS could have produced the appearance we now describe as ‘Christ-like’ (gentle Jesus meek and mild, as per hymn). At best, it would have said there’s a beard, moustache and longish hair. Anything else would have been blanked out in the artistic eye and mind.
But here’s a thought to conjure with. Suppose it had been artists, maybe under pressure from the early Church, who decided that Jesus had to be shown with facial hair, to avoid revealing too much of a “real” likeness, that being largely, indeed entirely conjectural.
But that has knock-on effects. When you add a beard and moustache to an initially clean-shaven male face, you tend to make it bottom-heavy. The facial hair tends to dominate, and not everyone warms to the sight of facial ‘fungus’ anyway.. Artists may then have been tempted to compensate, first by elongating the face and nose, making them thinner, to de-emphasize the bulking effect of facial hair, while also omitting ears that might tend to detract from the haunting new sallowness via their Toby Jug like effect. Larger more doleful eyes too would have helped in balancing out the image .
What you end up with is an arguably less realistic, more stylized, more arresting iconic face, one that some have described as displaying a ‘gothic’ influence.
The evolved image, now ticking all the correct sensibility boxes, religious and artistic, may then have served as a model – first for codex illustrations and oil paintings, then for 3D crucifixes and life-sized bronzes etc.and finally as template for that unattractive 14th century negative imprint that we now call the TS, rather than things being the other way round.
As I’ve said before, my money’s on the TS having initially been a Templar-created artifact, possibly to represent Jesus, or perhaps ‘Jesus-like’ for reasons one can only speculate. It was then skilfully re-invented by the knightly De Charny and/or his wife as a Veronica-like sweat imprint on the ‘real’ burial shroud, designed to attract pilgrims to their newly-founded church. The rest as they say is history (and supporting 20th century science of uneven quality, much of it, dare one say, clearly agenda-driven).
There’s that maddening subjectivity again. You see, I don’t find the original image ‘scary’ at all. Plucked eyes?It’s certainly not as impressive and peaceful as Second Pia but if one looks at it from a distance, it’s placid enough and reasonably detailed. And if the image was originally sharper (having faded much over time) then I don’t see any major challenge for an early artist to produce a portrait of some detail – certainly filling in the gaps with imagination and some knowledge of Jewish facial features. I don’t know if the Shroud is a work of art, but it certainly is having the effect of one. Everyone sees something different in it. I reckon that’s what makes it special, regardless of what image formation theory one prefers.
There’s now’t “subjective” about declaring negatives to be non-photogenic.Negatives do not show the world as we see it. How can light/dark reversal be said to be attractive?
Back in the days when we used to put our holiday snaps into the chemists for processing, I can’t ever recall anyone saying “Don’t bother to print out. I’m happy to view the negatives”.
Why is there so much indifference to the TS image being a negative, when there is no known physics, other than direct contact imprinting, that can produce an image across air gaps without external hardware (converging lens, camera obscura, photosensitive film etc)? Radiation physics certainly cannot, whatever the agenda-driven folk with their high-energy uv lasers and/or error-riddled theory might say in their press releases or tv documentaries (to say nothing of hit-and-run missives to this site).
Colin: “Why is there so much indifference to the TS image being a negative, when there is no known physics, other than direct contact imprinting, that can produce an image across air gaps without external hardware (converging lens, camera obscura, photosensitive film etc)?”
Who says that the TS image is not a contact imprint?
Everybody agrees that most parts of the body imprints are contact imprints (probably 80% of the frontal image).
The true question is: is the TS image a contact-ONLY imprint?
In order to answer to this question, several researchers performed many detailed experiments in the past. None of them have shown that a contact-ONLY mechanism could explain all of the TS image.
The TS image seems to be incompatible with a contact-ONLY process. The term ONLY is important.
In this sense there is a tremendous difference between contact-ONLY image and contact+non-contact image.
“None of them have shown that a contact-ONLY mechanism could explain all of the TS image.”
That’s because the modelling assumed a corpse (or human volunteer in lab experiments) and a loosely draped cloth. In other words the model assumed authenticity, and is simply trying to account for apparent discrepancies. Thus we have the absurdity of the ‘collapsing cloth’ theory that even Rogers felt obliged to dismiss as unscientific.
To be scientific means to be entirely objective, considering all possibly models without preconceptions as to age or provenance. In a medieval scenario, that means viewing the image as produced by contact-only, i.e. in accordance with feasible physics and chemistry, and contact moreover, i.e. a source of thermal or chemical energy capable of leaving a contact imprint. But one is then no longer constrained to modelling with a loosely draped cloth. One can consider the problem of imprinting into the valleys and hollows of a 3D template that would normally be inaccessible to a loosely draped cloth that missed them through bridging extremities. That’s where some methodology I described previously comes into its own, i.e. with manual moulding of linen to 3D relief, increasing the area that is imprinted.
As for contact or contact-only, I consider that a semantic irrelevance, believing as I do that there is no known physics that will imprint across air gaps. If you or anyone thinks there is, Thibault, then please specify the nature of the process. Is it convection or radiation? If radiation, is it electromagnetic or not? if electromagnetic, which part of the spectrum?
For my part, I regard the TS image as the product of a contact-only mechanism, so make no apology whatsoever for occasionally omitting the word “only”. Non-contact imaging is frankly pseudo-science in my opinion.
I wrote: “The true question is: is the TS image a contact-ONLY imprint?
In order to answer to this question, several researchers performed many detailed experiments in the past. None of them have shown that a contact-ONLY mechanism could explain all of the TS image.”
Your answer: “That’s because the modelling assumed a corpse (or human volunteer in lab experiments) and a loosely draped cloth. In other words the model assumed authenticity, and is simply trying to account for apparent discrepancies. Thus we have the absurdity of the ‘collapsing cloth’ theory that even Rogers felt obliged to dismiss as unscientific.”
I thought I was clear enough. The researchers in question were mainly anti-authenticity researchers who tried to reproduce the TS image using a contact-only technique (Nickel, Garlaschelli, Pesce for the scorch hypothesis and others).
You wrote: ” One can consider the problem of imprinting into the valleys and hollows of a 3D template that would normally be inaccessible to a loosely draped cloth that missed them through bridging extremities. That’s where some methodology I described previously comes into its own, i.e. with manual moulding of linen to 3D relief, increasing the area that is imprinted”
At least we agree that the “scorch hypothesis” is a contact-only model: no contact=no color.
Your experiments as well as my own experiments clearly show that neither convection nor radiation can produce a color in this model.
I agree that manual moulding of linen to 3D relief can increase the imprinted area.
This is obvious.
However, looking carefully at your crucifix experiments, many areas of your heated crucifix are not at all imprinted (for example the thighs): there is no color at all in those areas.
Your 3D rendering is misleading: these uncolored areas seem to have 3D properties (ImageJ) but these pseudo-3D properties (in those uncolored areas) come from the shadows coming from the “valleys” in the fabric which are only the result of the pressure applied to the fabric.
In practice, it seems very difficult (according to my and your experiments) to obtain a color from the “valleys” of the template.
You wrote: ” As for contact or contact-only, I consider that a semantic irrelevance, believing as I do that there is no known physics that will imprint across air gaps. If you or anyone thinks there is, Thibault, then please specify the nature of the process. Is it convection or radiation? If radiation, is it electromagnetic or not? if electromagnetic, which part of the spectrum?”
You know what? I have to thank you for your help. Sincerely.
You will have my answers tomorrow in my final PDF paper (including new experiments, answers to your previous criticisms and more ..).
I know you don’t like PDFs.However I have no other mean to present my thoughts, my experiments and my photographs.
Let’s hope there are specifics to discuss in the new pdf. (Yes, let’s discuss specifics: I can hardly be expected to respond meaningfully to the broad-brush generalities here).
Will the new pdf withdraw the extraordinary claims of its two predecessors, i.e. that any scorch image from a heated template (TH’s bizarre choice of template!) will show excessive contrast, and that it’s impossible to scorch just a few surface fibres in a thread?
Maybe pdf has a different meaning in French. Potpourri de fantasie? ;-)
Fact 1: if one uses a bas relief template with smooth rounded contours, in place of TH’s peculiar sunken relief with those shallow right-angle ledges, there’s no reason why there should be excessive contrast.
Fact 2: It’s the easiest thing in the world to show that a contact scorch can affect just a few of the most superficial fibres in a thread. I’m still at a loss to understand how TH was only able to see an ‘all-or-nothing’ effect under his microscope.
I may make a longer comment here later in the day, explaining more fully why I think contact-only imprinting is the only realistic option if staying within the realms of conventional physics and chemistry. Anything else is almost certainly likely to be science fiction.
PS: I re-read one of Giulio Fanti’s pdfs on his “corona discharge’ hypothesis yesterday. There’s a highly questionable assumption made in his chemistry. It’s the one where he suggests that secondary uv radiation is the real effector of carbohydrate coloration. I’ll explain why if anyone is interested. It ain’t rocket science (think pre-chemical industry ‘bleaching-field’ technique).
‘Maybe pdf has a different meaning in French. Potpourri de fantasie? ;-)’
You mean ” Pot pourri de fantaisie”
I like it! We need humour and I am sincere. We are not enemies.
I am writing my new and last PDF.
I would like to include some of your pictures in this PDF.
Do you agree?
Believe me, I live for it too. Not recognising the Shroud in paintings cuts both ways. Although I don’t think any of the early portraits can convincingly be shown to be derived from the Shroud, I am still taxed by the problem that if it is 13th century, then why does it not conform better to conventional portraits of the time? As you know perfectly well, I do not have any scientific dogma. If the Shroud is 1st century then of course it is not impossible that it was copied. However, to claim that any early portraits are sufficiently similar as to prove that they were derived from it is, I think, so far unjustified.
To David Hines: whilst having no wish to rain specifically on your parade, I feel an urge to assert my party pooper credentials yet once again.
You are not matching like with like when you do your overlays. The fresco is a positive image, and if you look at it closely, it is the tiny amounts of shade that give the face a little individuality, the rest being essentially featureless white space. Now look at the TS image, or any negative image for that matter, and you will see that the parts of the face that one would normally see in life or positive photographs as that all-important shade are not there, having been converted by tone-inversion to white space. So is it any surprise that it is easier to achieve “congruence” between a positive and a negative image, each complementing and thus making good the deficiencies of the other, than between two positive or two negative images?
Sorry, but the technique is biased in favour of achieving a match (or at any rate, an impression of one, probably spurious) via that mutual complementation effect.
Hello Mr. Collin Berry: I can assure you there are no parades taking place on my behalf here in Central America or any other country.
The Fresco matches up with The Shroud image whether I want it to or not. Any portrait painter (including myself) would not have any trouble determining where to place the lines based on this negative image. There is more than enough image to know where to draw the lines of the face, chin, nose, length of head and beard.
The sides of the face are vague,because of the white lines (chin band?) that would present a challenge.
But All the important gaps are clearly visible.
The placement, size and shape and of the eyes would be the most difficult aspect of this work, since none are illustrated. In which I would have struggled the hardest to place.
The artist that did this fresco did not have the Shroud in front of him, but the person who painted the fresco on the wall in which this was made may have the actual Shroud as the role model. There is no way to be sure of that, but it CANNOT be eliminated as a possibility that this could be a second or third generation copy.
To really map out the points correctly on the Shroud and make a reproduction would take 2 or more people, one up close to the image another standing back and confirming points. Once that math was established a standard would be set for future and additional replica’s. Which I am convinced is exactly what happened.
But it does not matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove. I am not a point where I am able to do that yet. This Fresco is just a appetizer, the main entree is being prepared, so every body can get a full meal and be satisfied.
In the early centuries of course a reproduction would be made with the rights and lefts not corrected. With “E” on left side. Unless one thought to do a replica with the image in a mirror, “Hey, let’s correct the lefts and rights of the image” Possible, but not likely.
Comparison image should also be matched with the rights and lefts not corrected.
This reproduction of Jesus matches the unique characteristics and even a few of the accidental characteristics of The Shroud of Turin. Some but not all.
I am looking at it up close on video editing software. The images are placed on separate tracks and I can change the opacity so one begins to bleed into the other.
I observing what I am seeing and writing it down. Going from one to the other. The same thing I have done with over a 100 paintings to replicate them.
I cannot force either image to do what I want, or display what I want to see, only what is and then replicate it. I am very good at replicating art. I see a person replicating The Shroud.
Starting from the top.
1. Same width of hair on top of head before forehead visible.
2. Parts hair in middle in replicating Man in The Shroud,
3. Forehead same length, width and shape
4. Eyebrows begin at exact same location and follow same unique shape
5. Owl Like Eyes added precisely where they need to be with proper space between
6. Nose begins and ends at the same spot and follows same shape
7.Does not illustrate ears, although it looks like they should be, matching Shroud
8. Illustrates blood stains in the hair where blood is on Shroud (Accidental characteristics)
9. Width, size and shape of lips match, follows same unique path.
10. Mustache and beard line up and leaves blank spots where Shroud image is blank.
10. Copies shape of dark angled lines of forked beard (Accidental characteristic)
11. Replicates lines on side of face by shading both sides. (Accidental characteristic)
12. Length, width and unique shape of entire head is the same.
Where the image deviates is the hair on the lower ends. That is all.
there is no one piece of evidence that authenticates The Shroud. This is only a single display that tips the scale toward authenticity. No one can argue that this tips the scale the other way, or has no weight at all.
It is not possible to assign a numerical value of weight to this evidence until more information is available and more comparisons done, up to 1 million
using Congruence points and facial recognition software. That is how a accurate number could be established. A combination of both. That has not been done yet.
I’ve already expressed my strong reservations David H re the validity of comparing two images of entirely different character – one a positive painting, the other a negative imprint. Mutual complementation stacks the odds in favour of getting a match.
You say you have done separate comparisons using tone-reversed images, and still get a match, Sceptical soul that I am, I thought I’d check that out.
Here’s a link to a composite image comparing the full house of 4 negatives and positives, tacked on the end of this morning’s posting on my sciencebuzz site.
I leave folk here to judge whether the fresco was modelled on the TS (or the TS on the fresco?) based on these static pictures (which were screen-grabbed off your video and inverted using ImageJ).
Hello Mr.Collin Berry
In the case someone would question my ability to give a accurate assessment or evaluate another work of art, I posted 27 paintings I did, reproductions and originals. I do have knowledge of how an artist would approach doing a replica based on Shroud.
Dimensions of face are being replicated in Shroud not so much achieving a negative look.
Don’t misunderstand me, DavidH. It’s not your artistic or technical skills I question. It’s the entire validity of the exercise in attempting to merge one image with another of entirely different character – positive and negative – where one makes good the gaps in the other through combining (apparent) shade v non-shade.
What’s more, having slept on the composite image posted earlier, focusing especially on the two positives, I’ve come to the conclusion that the most basic aspect of physiognomy – the overall shape of the face – a reflection of underlying bone structure – is entirely different for TS v fresco image (or rather derivative at-second-hand fresco).
The TS face is iconic in an artistic sense by virtue of its peculiar and distinctive linearity, nay ‘rectangularity’, which some have described as essentially gothic (though I’m largely ignorant re art history). The fresco image is not iconic, except maybe for the depiction of those sad doe-like eyes, which while arguably gothic as well (“Man of Sorrows”) is an exercise in artistic licence, inasmuch as the eyes of the man on the TS are either closed (or possibly non-imaged). The fresco face is more typically triangular, tapering from a broad forehead down to a narrow chin.
Now I’m aware that some consider the linearity of the TS face to be a result of banding in the yarn, due in turn to bleaching differences, with alleged additive effects of image and background colour (that I don’t pretend to understand). But even if that were the case, implying that the TS image is not a true “likeness” and in need of image-supplementation – which some have experimented with – one is left with the small embarrassment of a work of art failing to match the iconic one on which you claim it is based, in respect of its most crucial feature, namely that vertical linearity and severe symmetrical cut-off at both sides.
Nice try DavidH. Maybe a slim Havana cheroot, but no fat cigar. Not from this sceptic at any rate – one who views the TS as an ingenious medieval artefact (serving only to “remind us of the Passion” as a recent Pope cautiously put it).
Wouldn’t you mind maybe to check match between Shroud and the original (Kazimirowski) Divine Mercy image, made by eugeniusz Kazimirowski in 1934, under supervision of visionary Saint Faustina Kowalska?
Just for the verification of the work done here: http://shroudstory.com/2014/08/22/another-overlay-divine-mercy-image-and-the-shroud-of-turin/
You can also use later Hyła version from 1944 (http://www.niedziela.pl/gifs/portal/1398253506.jpg ), painted after Faustina death, as a control.
Hi OK, it matches. What is noteworthy is that this image is not copying the “falsely perceived” high set eyebrows on the linen cloth image, That is the part that did not match. On the 1898 shroud negative and of course the later better photos you will be able to see what were “falsely perceived” as high set eyebrows are actually not eyebrows. They look to be eyebrows on the cloth image but they are not. Manopello image was “not fooled” by the falsely perceived high set eyebrows image on cloth and did not copy them, it matches the true face. They are set lower in the 1898 negative. Many of the old frescoes copy the “falsely perceived high set eyebrows” More evidence that supports authenticity.
The Thomas Heaphy reproduction of the fresco copies the high set eyebrows, Also Thomas H sketch copies the angle of the forked beard, leaves blank what is blank on Shroud, and when that is matched up everything lines up, eyebrows, nose, eyes, lips, everything. That cannot be a coincidence, possible but highly unlikely. IT is a match, no one shall convince me otherwise. Let’s see another face put into the Shroud that has a missing beard section that matches up with The Shroud image and then have everything else line up when matching that. NOT HAPPENING.
The Heaphy sketch is a superior match to that of the “Pantocrator” which supposedly has 200 matching points. If that is true the Thomas H sketch has more than 200 matching points.
It is by far the best match to the Shroud there is. The Manopello image acts more like a contact image Not a reproduction of another work, but actually made contact with a face, possibly the face of Jesus. It does match the Shroud. Another match point not being discussed are the “unusually long bony fingers” on the Pantocrator with the thumbs barely visible.
A Coincidence? I think not.
Coincidence? I think not.
Good Evening Mr. Colin Berry: I did make this observation when looking at the images and wrote in my previous response. “The sides of the face are vague,because of the white lines (chin band?) that would present a challenge”
Any artist looking at The Shroud to replicate it would know that a face does not have 2 straight white lines coming down from it. In making comparison we should use the negative image that appears white on the sides, not black. The artist did not see black, he saw white.
I notice the artist makes his best estimate in forming the lower part of the face, not replicating the white lines which would look extremely out of place on a portrait.
Worse, painting what would like a letter E on the forehead in a blood red color.
If someone came to me and asked me to do a portrait painting, say a Mother who’s Son was brutally murdered and who’s face was disfigured and covered with blood as a result of death. And unfortunately the only photo she has of her son to give me as a role model is one taken of the body at the morgue or crime scene, would I replicate a morgue photo for her?! Something frightening looking or bizarre.
And perhaps with tears in her eyes hands me the morgue photo, “Please do the best you can to paint my boy” “I don’t want to remember his this way”
From the photo I can determine the dimensions of the face and do the portrait.
Question: Would I replicate all the blood stains and all the aspects of light and dark on the image? NO “Make him look beautiful, the way he was when he was among us”
This is what we are seeing in this Fresco Painting. “A cleaned up version of Jesus”
This is only 1 display with a lot of unanswered questions, by itself, is not 100% convincing.
A cleaned up Jesus…exactly. The face on the Shroud would be a death mask – swollen and bloated from blows, perhaps sunken in other parts from dehydration. The face on the Shroud is distorted from the crucifixion. Not many artists seem to desire to capture that aspect, going instead with a more or less unblemished face, save for some blood trickles from the thorns.That the image itself projects an eerie serenity is part of it’s enigmatic charm.
Hello Mr. David Goulet: It is unfortunate that there apparently was not an artist in this time doing photo realism. Paint exactly what you see, regardless of how grotesque it might be and replicate it. Like for example replicating what looks like the letter E on the left side.
The negative look as well.
The final words of Jesus according to the Gospel account was, “It is finished/accomplished, Father, in your hands I commit my spirit” A hard mission accomplished type statement that would likely leave a person’s face with a look of relief/serenity
“It’s over, I did it”
“I am going back home now to be with my family in the Kingdom of Heaven”
Scripture and forensic evidence match here as well.
Good Evening Mr. Colin Berry
I know you are real determined to prove Shroud image is contact only. I did some experiments with 3D figures of Jesus covered in myrrh and aloes and left them for 3 days.
In pure linen fabric. I still have the photos and the linen from 3 years ago.
It did look convincing. Made a great mold and could stand up the linen, a linen statue of Jesus at the end, the sepia, caramel color, no traces of paint or pigment, yet the linen does look painted. Over time the cloth softens a bit and flattens. (3 years ago I did this)
Of course no distance information, numerous other problems that did not match Shroud image. It was just a experiment I did, then exposed the myrrh resin to the brightest light I could get. A poloraid flash gun.
I really think if the Templar Knights were going to do a Shroud deal, they would have the read Gospel and done it this way, according to Gospel account
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices
I believe Shroud image is combo of both. Mr. Light and Mr. Imprint both involved.
Bear in mind myrrh resin will react to light by changing color. Up close with a poloraid flash gun it will turn darker. ” Can be used as a substitute for cellulose acetate. (not as good though)
Ray Rodgers found starch fractions and pectin that he believed made up the micro thin where the image resides.
Perhaps you could try a few experiments with myrrh resin. Bear in mind it is expensive. I would not want your hard earned money to be spent with dissappointing results.
But before eliminating myrrh as being on The Shroud I made these comparison notes.
COMBINED CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF STARCH FRACTIONS & PECTIN IN COMPARISON TO MYRRH AND ALOES AS MENTIONED IN THE GOSPEL
These substances (Starch fractions & Pectin) were found to make up the micro thin layer where the image of The Shroud of Turin Resides.
Let’s begin by defining what starch & pectin is made up & see if the chemical properties match up with “the 100lb weight of myrrh and aloes” as mentioned in the Gospel of John.
Amylose (you might disagree with that) was found on the Shroud of Turin and is a spiral polymer made up of D-glucose units. It is the main component which makes up starch. Starch and cellulose are polymers derived from the dehydration of D-glucose. Starch is a polysaccharide (meaning “many sugars”) made up of glucose units linked together to form long chains.
The main component of Pectin is D Galacturonic acid, which is a sugar acid, an oxidized form of D-Galactose.
Pectin is a polysaccharide of 1 – 4 linked polygalacturonic acid with intra chain Rhamnose insertion, neutral sugar side chains and methyl esterification from many of the rhamnose residues, side chains of various neutral sugars branch off. The neutral sugars are mainly D-Galactose, L-Arabinose and D-Xylose,
PECTIN is also a uronic acid, Naturally occurring uronic acids are D-glucuronic acid, D-galacturonic acid.
Let’s make a simplified list of what Starch and Pectin are made up of.
1. Uronic Acids
2. D Gluceronic Acid & D-Galacturonic acid.
3. Polygalacturonic acid (An oxidized form of D Galactose)
NOW LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MYRRH AND ALOES IN COMPARISON TO STARCH AND PECTIN
Myrrh resin contains D Galactose and L Arabinose, Xylose and 4>0 methyl D-Gluceronic acid From the resin yields Uronic Acid 19% D-Galactose 60%
L-Arabinose 10% and L-Rhamnose 5%
Many of the health benefits associated with Aloe vera have been attributed to the polysaccharides contained in the gel of the leaves.
A variety of polysaccharides are present in the cell wall matrix. An overall carbohydrate analysis showed that the cell walls of the aloe leaf hold mainly polysaccharides, cellulose and pectic polysaccharides whereas the skin of the leaf contains in addition significant quantities of xylose-containing polysaccharides
Aloes contain cellulose and hemicellulose and store carbohydrates.
Saccharides in aloes are, Mannose, Glucose, L-Rhamnose, Aldopentose
THE PRIMARY POLYSACCHARIDE IN ALOES IS A PECTIC SUBSTANCE.
MYRRH & ALOES STARCH & PECTIN
1. Uronic Acids 1. Uronic Acids
2. D Gluceronic Acid 2. D Gluceronic Acid
3. D-Galacturonic acid. 3. D-Galacturonic acid.
4. D Galactose 4.Oxidized D Galactose
5. Glucose 5. Glucose
6. L-Arabinose 6. L-Arabinose
7.. D-Xylose 7.. D-Xylose
8.. L Rhamnose 8. L Rhamnose
Dr. Baima Bollone a professor of forensic medicine in Turin claimed to have found myrrh and aloes in the BLOOD by antibody-antigen testing, this evidence would support his findings.
Note Myrrh resin also contains many volatile oils and other chemical properties such as (limonene, eugenol, pinene, terpenes, sesquiterpenes, esters, cinnamaldehyde, cuminaldehyde, cumic alcohol, heerabolene, dipentene, m-cresol and cadinene), resins (myrrhin, alpha-, beta- and gamma-compiphoric acids, commiphorinic acid, alpha- and beta-heerabomyrrhols, heeraboresene, commiferin, campesterol, beta-sitosterol, alpha-amyrone
All of which would have evaporated over the course of almost 2000 years with only the remnant of the sugars/carbs of the myrrh remaining.
There is, on the outermost fibers of the cloth a clear washing residue: a thin coating of starch fractions and the various saccharides found in soapwort: glucose, fucose, galactose, arabinose, xylose, rhamnose, and glucuronic acid.
Sugars in myrrh and aloes are the same sugars in soapwort
6. Gluceronic Acid
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices.
Bottom Line: Try some myrrh resin with your contact experiments. It also has other great side benefits, a great skin cream, it makes you look younger, not saying you look old.
Leaves no trace of paint or pigment.
Thank you David of Costa Rica for the free coaching.
In fact I spent some 12 years researching starch and cell wall polymers as part of a UK government-funded programme to assess experimentally the alleged health benefits of dietary fibre and resistant starch, so none of what you write is unfamiliar to me. The results of that – largely positive – are in the form of a few concisely-written papers on the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the Journal of Cereal Science, the Report of the BNF Task Force on Complex Polysaccharides (to which I contributed Chapter 10 entitled “The Glycaemic Index”). I’m not telling you this to win brownie points or to inhibit your enthusiastic writing style, but to flag up the difficulty that is presented when bombarded with information – like where to begin, and where to stop.
I was tempted to make the same point earlier on this thread to another commentator – no prizes for guessing who. I don’t pretend for one moment that science has all the answers, but its chief advantage is that it focuses on one thing at a time, and confines itself to addressing those questions that are testable in principle. If others wish to pursue ideas that are difficult to test, e.g. those involving entirely hypothetical impurity coatings or mysterious radiation that can imprint images on linen across air gaps then fine, but the onus is on them to test their tendentious/contentious ideas, and no obligation exists on others to do the testing for them. Have you ever wondered why Messrs. Fanti, Di Lazzaro, Jackson etc etc are not beavering away as we speak, accumulating and publishing more and more experimental data in support of their corona discharge, laser beam or other radiation models? Go figure, as they say.
I maintain now, as I have done since looking briefly at a radiation model in December 2012 (charcoal-sensitized thermo-stencilling) that contact imprinting, thermal or thermochemical, is the only game in town, not just through being able to accommodate most of the distinctive features of the TS image (negativity, superficiality, lack of external pigment, 3D-properties etc) but to do so utilizing the laws, facts and principles of chemistry, physics and botany.
In passing, if you are so convinced of your ideas re the power of the Holy Spirit to intervene directly in folk’s personal lives, then why did that book of yours (“Convinced”) need to run to 245 pages? Could it not have been expressed more concisely, maybe with some divine assistance?
Do you really believe you have a “hot line” allowing you to act as go-between, as the publisher’s (author”s?) blurb would seem to suggest?
Thinks: who was it who said ” I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said?
Good Evening Mr. Colin Berry
I really didn’t expect to see my book on The Shroud Blog Site. But that’s ok.
The Shroud of Turin is actually involved in the writing of that book. That is a long story.
But the title and illustration kind of says it all. I got convinced.
It was written with a chemically dependent person in mind. It is based on the steps of the AA program. The reason for the seemingly long length of the book is because people represent the world in different ways, visual, audio and kinesthetic, so things are explained in all 3 ways, which takes up more space. I did a series of 40 paintings for the book that took up more space. Only some of them made it inside.
Anyways I’ve seen some your past posts so I know you have elevated knowledge in chemistry and physics, far superior than my own primitive, basic understanding at best.
I thought there might be something in what I wrote that could be useful info for you.
I’m here in Central America on a rather serious mission, seeking the will of God and the power to carry it through. In the end it is all going to work out. I wish the same for everyone. Of course that includes you. We are a bit north pole/south pole when it comes to the authenticity of The Shroud of Turin, But that’s ok. There is a time and purpose for everything under heaven Anyways I gotta go. I am convinced you are going to find the answers to all the questions you seek. PEACE
La FIDELIDAD al original era esencial en un artista de enorme experiencia como retratista y que dedicó años a la copia de frescos y dibujos en las Catacumbas y en la Vatican Library.
Sir Wyke Bayliss, también artista y President of the Royal Society of British Artists, no dudó de la fidelidad de la copia de Thomas Heaphy con el original, y creo que David Hines, también magnífico artista NO tendrá ninguna duda respecto a la fidelidad de la copia de Heaphy.
¿No cree maravilloso ¡”quasi” milagroso! que en ausencia de material fotográfico de la Sábana de Turín, Thomas Heaphy consiguiera la enorme concordancia entre el retrato Callistinus y el rostro de Jesús en la Sábana?.
Soy “perro viejo”.
Creo que Thomas Heaphy cumplió con su deber de ser fiel al copiar el original, y creo que usted cumple con su deber de intentar “torpedear” todo aquello que pueda ir demostrando inexorablemente la autenticidad de la Sábana y su pertenencia a Jesús.
Buenas noches, Carlos,
Estoy en Costa Rica ahora mismo, tengo invitados que llegan de San José hoy a alquilar mi casa de vacaciones cerca del mar. Hablo y escribo en Español todos los días. Gracias por los comentarios super positivos y informativos
He estado trabajando toda la noche y me agoto. Tengo que pasar algún tiempo en silencio, rezo y consejo con el Señor. Esto es un gran lugar para hacer esto, por eso me moví acá.
Después de que mis invitados se registren más tarde hoy, seré capaz de darle una respuesta apropiada
Hice algunos nuevos descubrimientos que quiero compartir con usted.
Mientras tanto que el Espíritu Santo sea contigo
el Espíritu de sabiduría y inteligencia, el Espíritu de Consejo y poder,
el Espíritu de conocimiento y del temor del Señor. Amen
Las congruencias entre los 2 positivos son aún MÁS IMPRESIONANTES
La coincidencia de las sombras a ambos lados de la cara (y otras muchas) son realmente ASOMBROSAS.
You are wrong!
The congruence between the 2 positives are even MORE AWESOME
The coincidence of the shadows on both sides of the face (and many others) are really AMAZING.
Er, how can you say that, Carlos, given that the TS image is non-directional, i.e. without off-centre “illumination”, whereas the fresco image shows shadowing consistent with a source of illumination on the subject’s right? If the TS image is non-directional, then so the “positive”, despite tone-reversal.
And you are still not comparing like with like in attempting to match or merge one positive with another, not when one has directional light, and the other lacks any kind of directionality. It’s chalk and cheese, as we say in English…
Adios (for now) mi amigo.
Hola Carlos, en realidad el negativo sobre tela los partidos un poco mejor, esto parece coincidir con la razón es mejor porque son del mismo color blanco y negro
Aunque coincide muy bien con la imagen positiva también. Yo recientemente re había posicionado con más exactitud que este video. Es realmente un partido increíble impresionante, no hay ningún otro fresco que coincide con el mejor, nadie podrá convencerme de lo contrario. Cualquier persona que cree que estas imágenes no coinciden en la necesidad de revisar su vista. Dios Le Bendiga
I have no doubt that Heaphy’s depiction is as accurate as he could make it. I have also no doubt that it must differ from the original in small ways. What they are, and whether they are important or not is now impossible to check.
I must say I’m sorry if the impression given by this and other discussions is that wave after wave of irrefutable evidence of authenticity is being piled up in a huge mountain of incontrovertibility, while petty men snipe and quibble over trivial inconsistencies. I don’t see it like that. I see wave after wave of increasingly fanciful persiflage being stuffed hurriedly into the breach, which simply doesn’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
There are major objections to a 13th century origin for the Shroud, and significant arguments in favour of a 1st century one, and I have never denied that. The comparison of paintings, however entertaining, isn’t one of them.
So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s actually a goat??!!
Well put Hugh
We can never know what exactly Heaphy was able to view.
David (Hines) what Heaphy saw and did not see continue to be mysteries, there is no confirmation.
“The Likeness of Christ, an enquiry into the verosimilitude of de received likeness of our Blessed Lord”. Thomas Heaphy
Creo que su lectura te será interesantísima.
(desafortunadamente mi inglés es pésimo)
Los dibujos originales de Heaphy están en el British Museum y no creo que sean accesibles.
Su actividad tuvo que ser coincidente con la del arqueólogo Giovanni Batista de Rossi (“padre” de la moderna arqueología del cristianismo), pero es muy probable que el “retrato en cuestión” ya hubiera sido descubierto mucho tiempo atras, por los comentarios que hace Heaphy.
Escríbe un comentario en mi blog (no lo publicaré)
si te parece oportuno, dándome una dirección de e-mail a la que yo pueda escribirte.
Creo que es preciso que conozcas “cosas” muy importantes si vas a proseguir tu línea de investigación.
Mi dirección de correo electrónico es firstname.lastname@example.org
No dude en ponerse en contacto conmigo en cualquier momento
The sound of special pleading is, not for the first time, slowly getting louder and louder in the defence of the identity of two images, one of which is that of the Shroud. The argument, this time as in the past, follows a well-worn route, and goes like this:
1) These two images are identical in so many instances that anyone can see one must be directly derived from the other.
2) Tiny detailed congruences are more significant than broadly obvious differences, such as the overall shape of the head and distribution of hair.
3) Of course the artist did not copy the Shroud exactly, as he did not want to portray a dead body.
4) The image on the Shroud shows such a battered face it is hardly surprising that the artist cleaned it up for his portrait.
5) Although we now admit that the two images don’t look anything like each other, we still think it is perfectly obvious that they must be related.
Well, it won’t do. Either the two images are an ‘exact match,’ (by some definition of ‘exact’) in which circumstance a case for identity can at least be claimed, or they are not, in which case it can’t. Of course, it’s not impossible that an artist, seeing a rectangular face, vertically falling hair, bushy moustache and prominent lower lip should nevertheless convert this to a triangular face, moulded hair, minimal moustache and prominent upper lip, but such a hypothesis cannot be defended on the strength of the images alone.
For the record Hugh, I’m not saying any fresco or other work of art has been ‘copied’ from the Shroud. Inspired, perhaps, but I don’t believe any artist sat down with the linen and tried to make a rendering of it. So there’s no special pleading from me on points #3 and #4. It was just an observation that I find is often neglected when artists try to reconstruct Jesus’ face from the Shroud. If the Shroud is authentic then it is a death mask and therefore what Jesus in life actually looked like may be quite different than what is captured on the TS.
I’d be interested to know what folk make of the wiki entry on “Man of Sorrows”.
The sea change in ‘acceptable’ imagery in Western devotional art is what in science we would call a new paradigm.
Interestingly, it arrived (apparently) in the late 13th to mid-14th century. You will see mentions in that link to the new artistic fashion of representing the crucified Jesus, right down to “crossed hands” (though unhelpfully not illustrated).
That medieval New Age trend would almost certainly have been mightily assisted (according to that same wiki article) by the Pope in 1350 lavishing rewards in the form of indulgences (“14,000 years” no less off one’s thumb-twiddling spell in purgatory) in return for paying homage to the then original and still extant ‘Man of Sorrows’ image, a come-on marketing ploy if ever there. Inescapable imperative: to conform, nay prostrate oneself, to the then prevailing fashion (sounds off stage – ringing cash registers, or the medieval equivalent thereof).
1350 note, that being just 5-7 years before the first recorded appearance in the written record of a certain image at Lirey of a presumably crucified man with those, er, crossed hands, arguably displaying the same artistically-daring, height-of-fashion “man of sorrows” look, albeit somewhat quirky and OTT.
Maybe it was the medieval equivalent of the ‘socialist realism’ demanded of artists and musicians in the Soviet era. Or there again, I know nothing about art (but know what I like – and don’t like – like having my opinions made for me by other people.
Anyone is free to use images from my blogs. Thibault. No need to seek permission.
Here’s another image you should try to incorporate into that pdf
(Or maybe Dan Porter can provide you with a ‘letters column’, as suggested previously).
But I can’t see this “another image”…
Far better that you can’t see something that should be there (like my mischievous cut-and-paste of Dan’s comment box) Thibault, than claim to see things that aren’t there…
(Yes, I did meanfantasie (fantasy), not the more innocuous fantaisie (fancy), thinking of the surreal claims made in your first two pdfs).
TH writes: “Everybody agrees that most parts of the body imprints are contact imprints (probably 80% of the frontal image).
The true question is: is the TS image a contact-ONLY imprint? “
I don’t as yet know how to use ImageJ to quantify image density (but may try doing so soon). But there is a way of amplifying image density in a manner highly suited to the TS image on Shroud Scope, which is to apply the 3D tool which simply reads image density as elevation on an imaginary z axis. In other words, it amplifies into a viewer-friendly third dimension.
This is what you see when you do that:
It would seem to me that Thibault’s figure of 80% would apply more to the dorsal than the frontal side.
Imprinting of the frontal side is nearly complete, except for a few awkward locations that are easily explicable in a contact model, e.g. in and around crossed hands etc where linen would tend to bridge at the boundaries separating higher and lower planes.
It is the dorsal surface where there are major areas that have failed to imprint (not just poorly imprinted note – an important distinction).
As I’ve said before, there is a simple way of accounting for the differences between frontal and dorsal imprinting that is not only explicable but largely anticipated in a contact-only imprinting model.
It arises from a single-stage imprinting where a 3D template is first pressed dorsal side down onto the lower half of the linen, underneath which is a soft yielding underlay, and the top half then turned over to cover the frontal surface, with a soft yielding overlay. The double layer of the latter is then being patted in and around the major contours. The two configurations are LUWU and LOTTO respectively (Linen Underneath With Underlay; Linen On Top Then Overlay). The first of those is more prone to bridging, with incomplete imprinting, whereas the latter gives a superior imprint, thanks to manual moulding of fabric to frontal relief.
I don’t as yet know how to use ImageJ to quantify image density (but may try doing so soon).
+scale (of course relative). Remember to adjust B&C first.
Thanks OK. Do you mind my asking which of ImageJ’s vast range of tools you used to get that handy ‘heat map’?
(My advice to the gent above would be to down a second glass of tipple, hopefully achieving a more symmetrical result).
Use ‘Thermal LUT’ in ‘Interactive 3D surface plot’. While there, have also legend marked in ‘Display options’
“Thermal” LUT you say? I find myself warming to the sound of that (but can’t imagine why).
Thanks. Just the job.
Here’s that same image in your Thermal LUT mode, OK.
The chief point of interest to me is the higher proportion of yellow in the dorsal image. That says the image density is greater for dorsal than frontal image. Has anyone else spotted that before?
It would seem to fit neatly with the LUWU v LOTTO model. LUWU imprinting relies on the template being pushed forcibly down into the underlay, with no possibility of precision moulding of cloth to contours. It depends solely on brute pressure with much bridging of fabric and loss of contact, e.g. backs of thighs and knees. LOTTO on the other hand involves much lighter pressure between fingers and template exerted through two layers of cloth.It permits precision imprinting, with fewer non-contact dead zones.
Thanks for the tip, OK. Do you have anymore up your sleeve for spotting subtle differences between one image and another?
Don’t use so much smoothing, Collin. It smears the scourge bloodmarks all around the back:
The settings are the same.
Hi OK, here it is
Thanks Dave. Very nice.
Except that you have made one tiny error, like many before you.
You have confused left and right sides.
The blood fleck on Manoppello nose is actually on the left side.
See once again my paper: https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/addendum-manopello-shroud-comparison3d.pdf
, especially pages 28-29.
I got it. I’ll reverse it. Thanks.
Hi OK, I am looking at the Manopello image straight on, to do a correct line up the big upper blood spot on the nose should be on the left side? The one closest to the eye, From my viewpoint? Is that correct? The reason I am asking because it is on the right on the paper you wrote. Which by the way was extremely well done. I just want to be sure I have my rights and lefts placed correctly without any doubt. Let me know. Thanks
Hello, Dave, sorry that late, I have been offline for a few days.
Use the illustrations in my paper as a guide. They have several congruence points marked for help and confirmation of identity.
Use blood marks on the right cheek for help. The pictures I had sent you have correct orientation.
Hi OK, I am in Central America presently in a rather intense situation that has delayed my response. I have spent a great deal of time looking at The Manopello Image. I am going to need a bit more time before I put this footage together in a video, because it needs narration and some explanation. Bear in mind and I am sure you must know that a imprint image will have rights and lefts reversed. The Manopello Image if it is the result of imprint as said, the rights and lefts will be reversed. Meaning if this image is laid over and compared with The Shroud it must be laid over the negative image, not the positive. In the same way I cannot lay the negative image of The Shroud over the positive and expect them to line up. rights and lefts are mixed up. I understand how this needs to be done because I have done it with The Sudarium,
I also horizontally flipped the negative image of the Shroud and laid it over the positive, so the rights and lefts are in the same place and I can see the color reversal when I bleed the images together, which is actually a amazing sight. When doing this Manopello image, I am going show it from all angles, flipped horizontally both ways and placed over both negative and positive image, so people can see the difference and understand what is being done and why. That is going to take time, because it involves multiple images being used and narration. In order to see the “true image” of the Manopello image, it must be flipped horizontally. Same with The Shroud of Turin, image on cloth has rights and lefts reversed, I am sure you know that. Allow me some more time. I am having some problems here in Central America of a serious nature that I must resolve.
But in the end the rights will be right and lefts will be left. It will be done correctly.
May the Grace and Peace of Our Lord Jesus Be With You. Amen
Hi OK, I finally have it lined up correctly. It is the same as you have it on the paper you wrote. If you horizontally reverse both images that is how the image would have appeared on the cloth with lefts and rights reversed. The image presented in your paper is the true image with rights and lefts corrected. Bottom Line: They match up. I made some final fine point adjustments just now. I am slow but persistent. I will put them together in a video so you can see how they blend together in slow motion.
I’m not sure what Dave Hines means by “imprint”. The Shroud itself is a mirror image essentially because it is quasi-contact. Do we think that the Manopello image was formed by some other process. I would have thought that if a genuine printing of Jesus, then it would have been formed by some kind of similar quasi-contact process. Alternatively if it is a copy of the Shroud facial image, why would the artist have reversed left-and-right? The only way I can think of if left and right are different from the Shroud facial image, is that what is seen is actually the back of the contact surface, when they would indeed be reversed. Do we think that is the case? I pray that Dave H is able to resolve his current problems in Central America, and that he is not in some kind of peril.
Daves, the Manoppello Image is transparent, and has two, slightly different images on both obverse and reverse sides. So the question of left and right sides on Manoppello is quite irrelevant.
There is wonderful site on Manoppello that illustrates this: http://manoppello.eu/eng/index.php?go=badania
The rest of bibliography and useful links you can find in my papers.
OK, it would be a interesting experiment to use Dave Hines imaging overlay with the Manoppello image and the Albrecht Durer painting.
When I say Imprint, I am referring to blood stains. But yes Shroud image is a mirror image with lefts and rights reversed, imprint will have the same effect, rights and lefts reversed. If Manopello image is same process as Shroud cloth image then rights and lefts will be reversed and it would be matched up with the negative. I looked at it both ways. It is very easy to horizontally flip a image on video editing software, not a complicated process.
So if the Manopello image we see on the cloth is the same as the Shroud image on cloth that means the rights and lefts are reversed and need to be corrected.when compared with a positive image on Shroud, or leave it as is, and match to negative so rights and lefts are in correct. place.
I will show it both ways and also I will horizontally flip negative image of Shroud and place over positive, so only the color reversal process can be seen happening very slowly. which by the way is a amazing sight in itself. To see the negative with positive matching up.
I have a family member here in Central America I am helping out in a “uncomfortable situation” which I nearly have resolved. Appreciate your concerns and prayers. That helps.
I am travel mode presently but wanted to make comment about the fresco in this video and The Manopello image. I spent well over one hundred hours looking at The Manopello image and placed it in The Shroud Face in every possible way, horizontally flipping the image and laying it over both the negative and positive image. In the process of doing so I discovered something unique about The Shroud image that I had never noticed before. Out of curiosity I horizontally flipped the negative face so it would match the positive and then slowly merged the 2 together so I could see the color reversal taking place in super slow motion.
What are perceived as “high eyebrows” on the negative image, actually are not. That is just where the cloth made closer contact giving the illusion of “high eyebrows” which of course was copied in the fresco in this video and countless other frescoes.
However, The Manopello image does NOT imitate the “high eyebrows” they drop lower and match the positive image of The Shroud, better than the negative. I seriously doubt the Manopello image is a result of using The Shroud as a role model, as in doing art. It looks more like the result of contact with a face and then touch ups added with paint. Although the eyebrows seem to be in the wrong place when laying it over the negative they are actually placed correctly if one desired the true image of the Man in The Shroud.
The fresco matches up the with the negative image of Shroud incredibly well. One area that is very noteworthy is the forked beard that has 2 dark lines going off at a angle to the left and a blank area in between. This is copied exactly, Not only that, when that is lined up, everything else lines up, nearly perfect. The entire face. Every gap, length, distance and width. It is the easiest image overlay I have ever done because it fit’s so perfectly.
You can put other faces in there, but I seriously doubt you will ever find a forked beard that fits in this image the way this Fresco does, and have every other aspect of the face line up near perfect when that is done.
I had a harder time matching The Shroud face with the Shroud face than the Fresco. I am convinced the Shroud was the original role model and this fresco is a 3rd or 4th generation copy of it. But it does not matter what I believe only what I can prove. Unfortunately that cannot be done with a single fresco.
OK, it would be a interesting experiment to use Dave Hines imaging overlay with the Manoppello image and the Albrecht Durer painting.
Challenge accepted. Wait for results.
I’ll do it, I just need time.
Dave, we are already forward on these matters:
The Manopello image does NOT imitate the “high eyebrows” they drop lower and match the positive image of The Shroud, better than the negative.
What do you mean by “positive” and “negative” images of the Shroud, because there may be a little confusion? The “negative” means Shroud visible by naked eye, while “positive” -the image seen on photographic negative, I presume?
Hi OK, I am behind the times. Unfortunately I cannot devote my time to this because the sick problems going on in Central America that I had to drain my bank account to fix. My research money, I am not happy about it. But yes I referred to the image on The Shroud as the negative and the image with color correction and rights and lefts corrected as the positive. I was looking at the Manopello image in the same way I looked at the Sudarium as possibly being a image more of a result of contact than a artist doing a reproduction using another image as a role model. I do not think the Manopello image is a reproduction using Shroud as a role model, I think it is a contact image with a actual face.
I wanted to know exactly where the Manopello image made contact with a face if it was indeed the result of contact. But how exactly? Both ways have many match points, whether the image is flipped horizontally or not, it is a little bit confusing. So using the paper you wrote and looking at it for well over 100 hours I made a final determination of the correct placement of the rights and lefts. As highly improbable as it may seem, that the Manopello image made contact with the face of Jesus it cannot be eliminated yet as a possibility.
The fact the eyebrows are in a place that matches the color corrected image and are where they should be got my attention. That image was not seen until 1898. It could not have been used as a role model, yet it looks like it was the role model, something that was not yet in existence.
The frescoes follow the dimensions of the Shroud image without color correction and imitating the “not yet corrected rights and lefts” imitating what appear to be eyebrows set up high, when actually they are not.
As I recall, Max Patrick Hamon maintained that the Manoppello image was made from true byssus. Byssus is an extremely fine fabric, sometimes known as sea silk. It has been known from ancient time and is woven from the filaments exuded by certain molluscs, for attaching themselves to the sea bed. It is now extremely rare, because of the loss of the sea grass on which the molluscs feed. The art of byssus cloth is now only practised by a few women on a remote island near Sardinia. I have heard that it is impossible to paint and even very difficult to dye. The nature of the Manoppello image is unknown, but remains inaccessible to any investigation because of its fragility.
Chiara Vigo is the “mastercraftswoman” of byssus:
She identified the cloth as byssus, however there are said to be traces of paint on it.
Reblogged this on Best of Shroud Story.
Hello Mr. Dan Porter: I once saw that you asked if The Pantocrator image could be overlaid with The Shroud so I tested it. If you want to see it I will put the 2 together and slowly blend them in together in a video, not changing aspect ratio of either image, fair and honest. The Pantocrater does not fall into place like the Thomas H. fresco reproduction does,which is a superior match to the Pantocrator in many ways.
The Pantocrator looks to me like a reproduction of a later dated reproduction. Basic face is there, but missing details this Thomas H. sketch has. (apparently a copy from a 1st to 3rd century fresco in Rome) I bought his book so I can hear what he has to say and look more at his art. It was a bit difficult to find, it is out of print.
But the Pantocrator does have the ” unusually long bony fingers” with the thumbs barely visible, “I wonder if that has anything to do with the shroud?” Ha, Ha.
Thanks for all your efforts!
That would be great, Dave. Thanks.
If the two sides of the Manoppello image are slightly different, it adds to the mystery.
Comments are closed.