To twice slay the slain,
[…] Is but labour in vain,
Unproductive of gain,
—"Monkeyana" from Punch, May 1861

Blogging is different than mid-nineteenth century satire. It is at once more interesting and less poetic.

Barrie Schwortz, in his latest update, highlighted a relatively new, fascinating paper, The Mysterious Coexistence of Bloodstains and Body Image on the Shroud of Turin Explained by a Stochastic Process by G. Fazio, Y. Clement and G. Mandaglio. The article was published in the Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry International Journal (Vol.14, No. 2) in June of 2014. Barrie noted that he has added the above link to appropriate lists of papers on his site.

If you missed it before (or you want to twice slay the slain) there are some interesting comments from when I blogged about this paper this past June in Paper Chase: A Natural Stochastic Process May Explain the Coexistence of Bloodstains and an Image on the Shroud of Turin. Read all 15 comments.

Within a day of the posting, Yannick Clément felt compelled to write, at some length, Clarification of the Stochastic Process Paper. It is important to read this along with the paper.

Thibault Heimburger was one of the people who had commented. That evoked this from Colin Berry (see Photomicrographs and Stochastic Imaging):

Thibault Heimburger is correct – Shroud photomicrographs lend no support to the notion of a ‘stochastic’ imaging mechanism.

And there is more. You can enter ‘stochastic’ in the blogs search field.

Threads photograph is inlined from Colin’s blog HERE. Colin captions the image: “The difference between those areas within the blue and red rectangles may possibly have theoretical significance as regards the mechanism of imaging (stochastic v deterministic, if you’ll pardon the jargon). Why? Read on…”