The Conspiracy of the Faux-Sweat Imprint

Colin Berry: I have set out a possible scenario that led to the TS being
fabricated as a rival attraction to the Veil of Veronica, indeed one that built
on the established credentials of the Veronica . . . as perceived by those at the time,
and which later . . . came to supplant the Veronica as the Church’s new “central icon”
(to borrow Neil McGregor’s words re the 14th century Veronica).

Colin’s old blog site, Shroud of Turin Without All The Hype (or something like that) has sprung back to life after several months, reincarnated as The Shroud of Turin: medieval scorch? The blog that separates the science from the pseudo-science…. The first posting since March is The Shroud of Turin: probably not miraculous, just a simulated sweat imprint – a triumph of medieval joined-up thinking.

(the 3D, negative scorch image, right, resides
on Colin’s blog, click on the image to see
a larger version)

There must have been at least some who, viewing, or even hearing of the Veil, [ca. 1350] must have asked themselves: how can plain old perspiration (“sweat” in common parlance) imprint an image on cloth? What would it look like initially? What would it look like a day later, a week later, a century or millennium later? And among those people, might there be just one individual who then asked themselves an audacious question: could or might the process be simulated, or to put it baldly, faked? Could one pass off an entirely and audaciously  man-made image as that of a divine sweat image? And if that were the case, what would be the most profitable way of doing that? Content oneself with producing a face imprint that was superior to that on the Veil, and claim that one had the “real” version, and that the one in Rome was the fake? Or avoid any such controversy and unpleasantness. Instead, marshall one’s technology to make an even more audacious claim, namely that one had not only an image that captured the face of Jesus, but that of his entire body! How could that be done? Was there a scenario from the New Testament gospels that might be adduced to back one’s claim?

Certainly there was, and it’s one that occurred just a day or two AFTER the crucifixion. It was the initial placement by Joseph of Arimathea of Jesus on  a costly sheet of linen, conveniently with no reference at this stage to the body being cleaned of blood and other bodily secretions, notably sweat.

Already a plan for developing that germ of an idea was taking shape. What were the criteria that could be adopted first to produce a whole body imprint of the crucified Jesus that would pass muster, yet importantly pose no threat to the status of the Veil?

Just a sampling here to give you an idea of what Colin is talking about and to encourage you to read . . . just a simulated sweat imprint . . . :

1. The image must NOT be mistaken for anything but a burial shroud. A single image of the frontal side might be mistaken for some kind of painted portrait. Solution: imprint BOTH sides of the body, align them head to head making it seems as though  . . .

[ . . . ]

5. Choose a weave that is receptive to one’s imprinting process. A twill weave  (e.g. herringbone 3/1 weave) has more flat areas than a simple 1/1 criss-cross one.

[ . . . ]

13. Feet are a problem. Does one terminate the dorsal imprint at the heel, as would be expected, thereby leaving an image lacking feet? Or does one image-imprint off a template as if the linen had been pulled up around the heels and pulled tight against the soles to capture those surfaces as well (creating an option for adding blood imprints too on soles of feet issuing from crucifixion nail holes)? Go for that latter option, since human intervention with enveloping a  shroud around the feet is not inconsistent with the the 1st century rock tomb scenario and indeed serves to enhance it.

14. The chin and neck are also problematical. Cloth laid loosely over the frontal surface would tend to bridge from chin to chest, creating a detached floating head with no neck. But cloth that imaged the neck, as if it had followed all the contours would risk imaging the underside of the chin too, making the neck look too long. Some compromise is needed, to get some neck and not too much underside of chin. Maybe simulate a crease at the chin to suggest there had been pressure applied to the linen, manual, or maybe from having a ‘neck tie’ of some kind that would not itself be imaged.

15. Loin cloth? . . .  Finer sensibilities must take a back seat. . . .

16. Frontal nudity? Use crossed hands to cover the genital area. Take liberties with human anatomy if necessary (slightly overlong arms and fingers).

Is it fair to call this a conspiracy theory?  No!  That is why I didn’t use the word theory in the title. It sounds like a conspiracy theory but it is clear that Colin intends to support his conjecture, indeed subsume the conjecture under science.

66 thoughts on “The Conspiracy of the Faux-Sweat Imprint”

  1. “13. Feet are a problem.”

    No kidding, Colin could even see individual toes. Actually, he had mistaken banding for toes. Science?

    “16. Take liberties with human anatomy if necessary (slightly overlong arms and fingers).”

    No overlong arms and fingers.

    1. 5. 14. Post hoc hypotheses…

    And so on… if not a conspiracy theory, at least an epicycles theory.

  2. Colin better be careful. Having decided that the Shroud is not a painting, he now advances new hypotheses, none of which ultimately make sense. Ultimately in the darkest recesses of his mind, an alien thought will take hold and he will resist this terrible idea until he is totally intellectual exhausted: the Shroud is authentic.

    1. “New” hypotheses. Not entirely Mr.Klotz. The sweat-imprint idea, prompted by the Veronica-like addition to the Machy mould is to be found in postings I did back in February. But there was no mention of “forgery” because it seemed at least a possibility that the body image had originally represented a “scorched ” Templar as a memento of the pogrom and 1314 executions by slow roasting. It’s Charles who has made me abandon that hypothesis, telling us we have to see the TS as just another painting. Charles has made me take a fresh look at the body image, detail by detail, looking not only for what features are portrayed, but – just as important – what is not. Methinks the artist/artisan was going out of his way to signal that the image was NOT to be seen as a portrait, but as a somewhat idealized full body version of the Veil of Veronica, i.e. a passive imprint of body relief, NOT a painting. The TS body image is as much (if not more) about technology as it is of art.

        1. ““The TS body image is as much (if not more) about technology ….” Or, possibly, a natural mechanism.”

          Not if one can detect tell-tale signs of the kind of decision making and compromises that characterize meticulous individuals, all sticking rigidly to script. The too- good -to- be- true scourge marks are a case in point.

          Allow me to explain. Having decided at the outset that the body image was to be restricted to skin and hair (sweat-laden hair supposedly behaving essentially like sweat-coated skin) a decision had to be made re wounds. Do open wounds sweat? No, they leak blood, but don’t sweat. So there are no wounds visible anywhere on the body image (don’t let anyone tell you otherwise). Committee resolution: wound sites have to be identified entirely by blood That’s no problem as regards nail wounds, lance wound, crown of thorns wounds etc where a copious blood flow can be imagined and then suitably executed. It’s those scourge wounds that are the problem, How much blood do you apply to each tiny scourge wound site? Add too much and it’s then no longer clear that it’s a scourge wound. So what we have are all those production line dumbbell-shaped blood imprints looking for all the world as if they had been applied by an ink-jet printer – precisely metered amounts just enough to show the shape of the business end of a Roman flagrum and no more. But that’s not how real wounds behave. Some scourge wounds would bleed more than others. Committee resolution: don’t be too perfectionist. The average pilgrim isn’t. It’s first impressions that count.

          As I say, the TS image has (metaphorical) human fingerprints all over it – from clever, meticulous, self-disciplined fingers to be sure, working to a rigid protocol, but human ones all the same. The end result had to be minimalist, credible and seemingly realistic, but not too much so, more an exercise in technology with any art highly rationed and ‘stylized’.

          Yes, I’m more and more inclined to think the TS was a committee job, probably involving a sizeable investment and lengthy gestation period – maybe years rather than months with much fine tuning to achieve the desired end result.

        2. It depends on the mechanism of imprinting Louis. If using heat from a template, then it’s important to get a minimalist scorch that does not go through to the reverse side, or which produces too obvious “burn” marks on the top surface – just faint yellow or tan coloration. There must not be excessive lateral distortion from the wraparound effect, though a little can be tolerated.

          The difficult bits out of plane with the long axis (notably feet) must be imaged but not excessively so. The neck/chin area is tricky – very tricky. That prominent transverse baked-in crease may be there for a purpose, perhaps to distract from a unnatural look that comes from imprinting a 2D image from abrupt changes in relief on a 3D template or to suggest kinking of the linen as the reason for anomalies.

          The intensity of the frontal and dorsal images must be very nearly the same. There must be a severe cut-off at both sides of the face, since it’s been decided (committee resolution) that “sides” don’t image. By the same token the top of the head won’t leave an image, being a kind of “side” so the gap between the frontal and dorsal head must be just right for credibility, given it’s a single immobile body that is being imaged in a “thought experiment”.

          The eyes are critical. There has to be just the right amount of image intensity to suggest weakly imaged closed eyes (weak because of difficulty of imprinting from recessed features set back in a cavity). Too much image intensity might suggest the eyes were open. That would really spoil your day.

          It was a masterful job to be sure, and I suspect it must have taken a lot of false starts and wastage of linen before everything came just right.

        3. Ah, the famous dumbbell imprints. But here’s the problem – how would a medieval committee even know what a Roman flagrum looked like when, as Hugh has pointed out before, we aren’t even sure today what one looks like? Why such meticulous detail when the medieval pilgrim would not have known what a Roman flagrum was? Why not a simple whip mark that the medieval person would be familiar with?

  3. Why only painted copies of the Shroud then and not a single scorched shroud copies looking like a sweat imprint besides the Turin Shroud? Re faux-sweat-imprint on August 18, 2012, I wrote:
    “We also can create a very good fake with a tortured corpse covered in urine (BTW prolonged exposure to moisture from sweat, urine and/or faeces + hyperthermia might well be the key factors to account for the Jospice top side mattress image).”

  4. Max, sweat, urine, feces, only phlegm is missing.
    None of these were found to be key factors in the Jospice mattress imprint. Part of the head can be seen on the imprint and this part of the imprint was formed through the pillow. Professor Fanti made his own study and reached a conclusion that is not very different from what I had published around ten years earlier:

    1. In the past I wrote a message, here the words:

      >reading the study by Dr. Frederick Zugibe
      ( )
      about that imprint, we can see that is possible to know
      what is the material involved in the process of image
      formation (polyurethane coat on PA 6 = thin colored layer on polyamide 6).
      The substrate was polyamide and not linen and there is
      the interesting analogy about the thin layer (involved in
      the image of the body).

      >But, in another study, under the address :

      >the material indicated was the polypropylene and not polyamide.
      In any case, the very thin layer of polyurethane was
      the common denominator … !
      — —
      See also : the process for dyeing a polyamide substrate
      with anionic dyestuffs according to the cold pad-batch method …

      Instead if you want to dye the polyurethane layer
      perhaps you have to chose the right way …

      1. Well, here we are “two or three other words…”.
        I try to limit the amount of confusions in topic that we
        have covered before …
        Yesterday I have pointed the finger toward
        the cold pad-batch dyeing process because
        this is the simplest model to use during our tough will
        (as truth-seekers) of exact investigations in the laboratory
        for researching body-transfer phenomena…
        For example : first of all we can try to do something of useful
        working with our feet on polyamidic soles or polyamide polyurethane-covered soles …
        (But we are still free men and we are not working in a sort of laogai…
        So, we must try to do other works!).

        Louis, you wrote:
        >Part of the head can be seen on the imprint ??????

        So, I turned a bit confused and I wrote “to chose” instead of “to choose” …
        Not, on that Mattress Imprint there is no head or “part of the head”.
        Instead there are the imprints of :
        – the shoulders
        – the beginning of a leg
        – an arm
        – an hand.
        The hand show a good resolution, the same for the buttocks,
        but there is not a similar resolution for the elbow or
        for the other bodily parts.
        So, if you claim the presence of the head, then you are in contadiction
        with the image that yourself showed us in your paper :
        “Can the Jospice Mattress Imprint be compared to the Image on the Shroud?”

        Another interesting question:
        I don’t know if you are right with your definition : polypropylene mattress
        because Dr. Fred Zugibe wrote something about a polyamidic material,
        covered with polyurethane …
        B.T.W. : Why you have not taken into account (in that your old paper)
        what wrote Dr. Fred Z ?
        It’s common opinion opinion that Shroud image is not truly similar to the Jospice Mattress Imprint.

        As you can read Dr. Zugibe (
        indicated interesting the features:

        >Fiber Composition = Nylon 6 (polyurethane coat)
        >Nature of Image = Bilirubin Pigments????

        >The manufacturers indicated that the nylon was nylon 6
        and that the outside coating was polyurethane.

        In any case:
        Polyamide is not polypropylene and
        polyurethane is not polypropylene.
        So, before to start with Metaphysical Travels on Jospice Imprint (in my opinion the Holy Shroud is another case, Jesus! Because, according to the doctrine of the Christian Faith, Jesus was/is God and man, then, “two species” are present in the nature of Jesus, the Son of God) we have to know what we have in front.
        Applied Materials Science can help us.
        Probably careful SPM controls can solve that enigma.
        If we are not able to solve this “little enigma”, then the door is open to the Parapsychology, Religion or unkown Physics …

        I am not an expert in the field of Parapsychological phenomena, I only want to see where is the chemical truth in this strange phenomenon and then I can only to start with a model. A model near the presumed pathway (possibly
        developed with maximum likelihood)…

        Where are the most acute analytical minds?

        For example, I have found an old (2005) “SNOM study”:
        Investigation of dyed human hair fibres using apertureless
        near-field scanning optical microscopy
        F. Formanek, Y. De Wilde, G. S. Luengo & B. Querleux
        “Journal of Microscopy”,
        Vol. 224, Pt 2 November 2006, pp. 197–202
        (Received 14 October 2005; accepted 24 May 2006)

        If using the SNOM you can see the hair (year = 2005), then you can also observe (in 2014 … …or when?) the polyamide fibers and thin layers of polyurethane…

        In conclusion:
        we can not put everything in a pot: Holy Shroud, the Holy Face of Manoppello, physical imprint of the poor died in Liverpool, Padre Pio Handkerchief, and so on… without studying fine details (in a careful manner!).
        Do you agree ?

        In short, my speech is not intended as a sermon …
        But I hope you will want to consider my words.

        1. Buonasera, Piero.
          I never said that the Shroud image is similar to the Jospice mattress imprint. Now if you read the paper carefully you will see what Father Francis O’Leary observed and had to say and what Dr. Zugibe was unable to tackle. The partial imprint of the head is clear in the image and surely you will agree that it was not due to bilirubin…
          The whole imprint has to be taken into account:

        2. Dear Louis,
          The result obtained by Zugibe who used the Bilirubin test appeared to be inconclusive.
          But …
          What is your claim? … On what analytical test is based?
          In addition: if I am right Father Francis O’Leary was not a chemist…
          — —
          The affinity of the polyamide substrate for anionic dyestuffs permits the dyeing of the polyamide.
          Using the cold pad-batch process the energy savings is considerable …
          Also it’s possible a cold dyeing of polyamidic carpets.
          It’s the same question for both processes: the affinity of the polyamide substrate for anionic dyestuffs.
          So, perhaps, (in our case) we have to deal with a cold dyeing of polyamide (= the mattress) with anionic dyestuffs …
          Then it can be easily deduced that those cadaveric emissions were based on a sort of anionic dyes substances… Therefore it is necessary to check this point!
          So we need adequate experiments and the control of the experiments with the microscope (and the best way, in my opinion, is the use of SPM microscopies) that before we ruin the material of Jospice imprint (an imprint left by the poor man).
          In conclusion: at first glance the Jospice Mattress Imprint can be explained by cold dyeing process…
          (this seems to be the right explanation, but [until now] we have no adequate proofs…) unless you are able to prove otherwise.
          That is, in a nutshell: the outcome of an action from telergy, etc. …

          The other possible way is the direct control of the material of the polyamidic sheet with the use of the SPM microscopies.
          Perhaps this is the best way in order to understand what happened.

        3. Buonosera, Piero
          You are right about Dr. Zugibe’s conclusions being inconclusive; he did not tackle the partial head imprint.
          Yes, Father Francis O’Leary was not a chemist, he had an MA in theology, and he certainly did have good eyesight. He stressed the partial head imprint, which Dr. Zugibe ignored.
          How could cold dyeing produce such an imprint? Can you explain the process? I wrote about telergy as a possible explanation, because it is the only one that can explain the head image.
          Telergy can also be invisible, it is in the realm of Parapsychological phenomena. It is possible that it also had something to do in the case of the Gerasene demoniac in the Gospel according to Mark.

        4. I have found (under the address: the following
          curious explanation about “telergy”:

          – the influence one brain is thought to exercise over another, from a distance, by means of some hypothetical mental energy …
          — — — — — — —
          Here’s what I can tell you:

          We knew that the pH of the dyeing liquor can be adjusted to a value depending on the dyestuff affinity of the polyamide substrate (and you can also read that : the synthetic polyamides are divided in three classes depending on their affinity for anionic dyestuffs: high, moderate, low …).
          Using Acid Levelling Dyes for Polyamide you obtain
          good levelling properties and migration, with excellent compatibility and coverage of yarn irregularities.

          I remember the dyeing tests in the Textile Laboratory…
          (… working with demineralised water… This is an important detail. For example: what is the hardness of the water of Liverpool? Here an explanation: the hardness of water is due to the presence of calcium and magnesium minerals that are naturally present in the water…). I have just found a website = “Water Hardness in United Kingdom” (and this UK Water Hardness Map was designed to be used as a guide only).
          Here the result:
          > L = Liverpool = S.

          We were able to perform dyeing at scale in order to simulate dyeing of carpets.
          Then… I also went to visit a company that dyed carpets …and all this happened about thirty (… or thirty five ?) years ago.

          For example, see also under:

          >Methods of and apparatus for cold dyeing pile fabrics, particularly carpets, wherein dye liquor is first applied to the pile side of the fabric in an amount between 150% and 300% of the material weight, the dye impregnated fabric then being coiled, under tension, into a roll and the roll allowed to stand, all at room temperature. …

          >In a known cold dyeing method the dye liquor conventionally is applied to the pile side of a continuously conveyed fabric web, the aim being to obtain a good coloring through the fabric pile side (down to the pile backing or base) with a minimum of liquor. …
          But, if I remember correctly, we were working with another patent …

          Here’s a guess:
          during the subsequent washing (of the polyamidic sheet) the thin layer of polyurethane … perhaps … it could protect the dyeing of polyamide and … at the end the image appeared yet.
          This is certainly very interesting, but it is not yet certain that the cold dyeing of polyamide is the exact explanation for the strange imprint of the poor man.
          We need accurate analysis.
          I think this goal can be achieved using SPM microscopies…

          What is your opinion?

          I wrote my message.
          But now I send these my short writings,
          not seeing the button that says “Reply” …
          Therefore I ask:
          How so?
          What is happening?
          …So I hope that the other participants of the blog can read our exchange of views on the issue of “Imprint of Liverpool” (They wanted to wash down the bed and the mattress … but [if I’m not mistaken] the imprint was
          there, evident in the eyes of observers).

        5. Buonosera, Piero,

          The dictionary has given a wrong definition, mixing up telepathy with telergy. Telergy is an energy that can be both visible and invisible. I dwell on the visible effect in paragraphs 7 to 9, which it seems you have not read:

          Telepathy also functions and Freud, cited in the above paper as a reductionist influenced by Ernest Haeckel, was also interested in the topic. Did he have an experience? It could be. Genuine parapsychological phenomena are spontaneous and he knew that C.G.Jung was conducting his own studies.

          Body fluids, dyeing, painting do not explain the imprint. The telergy proposed by me explains the partial head image. It is the only proposal that solves the mystery of why this part of the imprint was distorted.

        6. First of all :
          I mentioned the issue of water. It is well known that the hardness of process water can cause different types of problems in textile processing.
          Water quality is the first thing for successful wet processing in textiles.

          I mentioned the issue of water hardness as emblematic reference. For example: if you work with hard water you do not get a good cold dyeing of polyamidic carpets.

          Have you tried to control what is the hardness of the water of Liverpool?
          Dyers needed clean, soft water… In fact there is soft (= S) water in Liverpool, that contributed to develop the textile industry. A constant supply of clean soft water was an absolute necessity for the dyer.
          Even the modern dyehouses are heavily dependent on the use of softened water… Also some chemicals like electrolytes and metal contamination of fiber by naturally or during production are responsible for hardness of bath water. That is why the total hardness of bath water should be maintained at a minimum level.
          In any case the addition of the tetrasodium salt of ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) [… or other chelating products] permits to bypass some problem of water hardness (EDTA is a chelating agent and chelating agents are used to eliminate water hardness and heavy metals…).

          Here I do not discuss the telergy … or telepathy or other parapsychological phenomena.

          Do you know all the Basic Principles of Textile Coloration ?
          The trivial fact that biological fluids may have colored a polyamidic sheet is very simple to understand.
          Why then must bring up the history of radiations if you do not have the material proof of this?
          A simple and accurate control will settle the issue.
          So … In my view,
          we need more rigorous examination of the material,
          … unless you already have an adequate response …
          ie: demonstrable with adequate analytical references, photomicrographs, nanoanalysis/nanoanalyses, etc. …
          But where are these tests?
          I do not see that in your interesting writings on the subject.
          In short, remember the question arising from the History of Science:
          Copernicus developed a complete model, much simpler
          than the Ptolemaic system, which interestingly did not offer better predictions initially, but Kepler’s refinements ultimately outperformed all geocentric models…

    2. More key-factors? Body pressure on mattress (in terms of ‘dead weight’) and material/chemical composition of receiving surface.

      1. Most likely “PROLONGED exposure to moisture” (in terms of body fluids) is ‘the key of the key-factors’ along with ante-mortem and post-mortem hyperthermia. Fanti’s miraculist hypothesis and Zugibe’s are far very far from conclusive.

    3. Reminder for Louis: One of Padre Pio Padre corporal peculiarities included a tendency to hyperthermia… so much so he left his face imprint on his handkerchief.

  5. Max, Didn’t you notice that Dr. Zugibe ignored the head? Why? He had to, otherwise his bilirubin hypothesis would make no sense. How could the bilirubin penetrate the pillow to leave an imprint of at least part of the head? Since he did not answer the observation made by Father O’Leary I doubt the good priest swallowed the hypothesis. My only difference with him was that I did not accept the imprint as a spiritual phenomenon.
    I know of no one who measured Padre Pio’s temperature with a thermometer. Do you have any reference? It is hard to believe that people with hyperthermia only use hand fans and no handkerchiefs to wipe their faces on hot days. Why would only Padre Pio leave his imprint on the handkerchiefs?

  6. Louis, you wrote: “I know of no one who measured Padre Pio’s temperature with a thermometer. Do you have any reference?”

    Just enter “Padre PIo hyperthermia” as search terms and you’ll read “Padre Pio had episodes of hyperthermia, his temperature once reaching 48°8C (=120° F, the highest in medical history. A temperature of 109 degrees usually means certain death, but Pio seemed to suffer no ill effects and he recovered quickly): ‘At the altar my whole body burns in an indescribable manner.’

    1. Re Padre Pio hypothermia link at:

      “Il primo medico che misura con esattezza il grado della temperatura della ipertermia di padre Pio e un medico foggiano, quando il sante Frate è in un convento di quella città luogo ed è continuamente ammalato; quel medico utilizza un termometro da bagno con il quale registra una temperatura di 48 °C.

      Scientificamente, quelle anomali temperature sono studiate, nel 1920, dal dottor Giorgio Festa, perché, avendone sentito parlare, non crede che un fenomeno sia possibile per un essere umano.

      Ha un suo metodo di studio: misura la temperatura a Padre Pio due volte al giorno ed ordina ai superiori del convento che nessuno debba farlo in sua assenza.

      Nel suo rapporto, il dottor Festa, afferma che vi sono giorni in cui la febbre di Padre Pio va dai 36.oo ai 36.5 °C, ed altri giorni in cui riscontra 48-48.5 °C -. Quando queste forti temperature compaiono, il corpo del frate è molto sofferente e si agita nel letto, ma non c’è ombra di delirio o quegli scombussolamenti che, in genere, si manifestano dopo stati febbrili forti.

      Padre Lorenzo da San Marco in Lamis, superiore dei Cappuccini di San Giovanni Rotondo, conferma, in data 16 giugno 1921, al Visitatore Apostolico, che, più volte, ha personalmente misurato la febbre a Padre Pio, anche in presenza dei dottori Francesco Antonio Gina ed Angelo Merla, rilevando temperature di 43°C., di 45° C. e di 48° C. per uno o due giorni; poi tutto si normalizza, tanto che al terzo giorno era di nuovo dentro al confessionale.”

      1. Thanks, Max. It appears to have been a paranormal phenomenon, however the priest apparently considered it as a kind of punishment. The next thing to do is to verify if the handkerchief imprints were produced while he had this fever. The reports don’t say anything. As for the material forming the imprint, the response is in the interview with Professor Fanti.

        1. Louis you wrote:

          “The next thing to do is to verify if the handkerchief imprints were produced while he had this fever.”

          This is the most likely along with sweat pouring off him.

        2. Well, Max, I can see what you mean but it is still conjecture. Three thermometers cracked in the beginning till a bath thermometer was used and even then no doctor could believe what he saw.
          If you read the interview you will see that it was thought to be carbon powder, but another scientist was unable to identify the material. More research is needed.

        3. Here are two versions of ‘the story’ of the Padre Pio Handkerchief:

          “Si racconta che i coniugi Cavicchi andarono in pellegrinaggio a San Giovanni Rotondo nel 1967 e in questa occasione incontrarono Padre Pio. Dopo l’incontro col santo, al commendatore cadde il fazzoletto che Padre Pio raccolse con le sue mani e lo porse al signor Francesco.
          Ritornati dopo alcuni anni per commemorare la morte del frate, Cavicchi dopo aver sognato Padre Pio prese il fazzoletto in chiesa per asciugarsi il volto e da quel momento notò i due volti impressi.”

          “La storia del fazzoletto appartenuto dal commendator Francesco Cavicchi, e per tanti anni custodito nella villetta di via Croce a Conegliano, è già di per sè abbastanza misteriosa. Nel 1967 i coniugi Cavicchi andarono in pellegrinaggio a San Giovanni Rotondo e incontrarono Padre Pio. Al commendatore cadde un fazzoletto, il frate lo raccolse e glielo consegnò. L’anno dopo il frate morì e i coniugi nel 1969 decisero di tornare a San Giovanni Rotondo. E’ in quell’occasione che, secondo il racconto di Cavicchi, il fazzoletto mostrò improvvisamente ai due lati i volti di Gesù e del frate di
          Pietrelcina, che non scomparvero mai più (…)”

        4. ….as (at first sight) it looks like ninhydrin has turned dark, obscuring Padre Pio face imprint and was then treated with a ninhydrin clearing reagent to remove the darkened layer uncovering the developed latent face imprint.

        5. Standard formulations for ninhydrin can cause the active chemicals on THERMAL porous surfaces (paper, textile) to turn dark.

        6. In other words an application of fingerprint powder to Padre Pio face imprint on the handkerchief cannot totally be ruled out.

  7. “Ah, the famous dumbbell imprints. But here’s the problem – how would a medieval committee even know what a Roman flagrum looked like when, as Hugh has pointed out before, we aren’t even sure today what one looks like? Why such meticulous detail when the medieval pilgrim would not have known what a Roman flagrum was? Why not a simple whip mark that the medieval person would be familiar with?”

    That kind of fine detail give the tour guide something to talk about. Pilgrims go away feeling they have had their money’s worth, and can later impress the neighbours back home with the wealth of detail that exists on the TS, if you look close enough, “proving” it has to be authentic.

  8. Collin, all the other issues aside, first one basic thing.

    You claim that the Shroud was created in the 1350s to imitate Veil of Veronica, believed to be a sweat imprint of the face of Jesus.

    However it seems most likely that the original Veil of Veronica WAS NOT a pale sweat-like imprint, but rather this:

    See also

    And read those articles by Fr. Pfeiffer:

    1. OK: maybe it’s best to assume (or propose) that the motivation in modelling a burial shroud by ‘thought experiment’ was not based on that image above. It was based on the popular legend of an imprint left by sweat ALONE that subsequently coloured up with age, but importantly with NO artistic embellishments of any kind that resulted, consciously or otherwise, in morphing a negative image into a positive one!

        1. This is starting to look like a pro-authenticity counter-attack via the back door – to suggest that the appearance of the TS is closer to that of an artefact that preceded the medieval era by centuries than a hypothetical (and idealized) sweat imprint, ruling out any mid-14th century provenance. As I say, the image you display is a positive, whereas an actual sweat imprint would be a negative, just like the TS.

          It’s the legend of the Veronica that matters – not the one or more artefacts claiming to be the genuine article that existed 13 centuries after the supposed event.

  9. Collin, this is just a reminder of concurrence between the Shroud and Manoppello, which cannot be simply left without an explanation. Dependent on which image is older -if the Shroud, than why its features are cloned on Manoppello, and vice-versa. Or perhaps, like pro-authenticity claims, they are both authentic and miraculous relics from the 1st centrury Tomb of Christ.

    Anyway, you cannot concentrate on one and ignore the other.

    Just mentioned this, because you have adressed the Veronica topic.

  10. Colin Berry:” I have set out a possible scenario that led to the TS being
    fabricated as a rival attraction to the Veil of Veronica, indeed one that built
    on the established credentials of the Veronica . . . as perceived by those at the time,
    and which later . . . came to supplant the Veronica as the Church’s new “central icon”
    (to borrow Neil McGregor’s words re the 14th century Veronica).”

    Therefore the shroud must look like a sweat imprint but that of Jesus after his death.
    1) There is nothing in the very complex history of the Veronica Veil legend referring to a “sweat imprint” of Jesus face on the road of the Calvary. To the contrary, the Veronica Veil was understood as a miraculous image not as a sweat imprint, as you wrote.
    2) I do not see any link between the “Machy mold face” and the Veil.
    For example,the Machy face clearly shows that the man of the Lirey Shroud was seen as having closed eyes (compare with the opened eyes of the priests).
    The “Machy mold face” is simply a representation of the Lirey Shroud face.

    There is no evidence that the TS forger wanted to complete with the Veronica Veil.

    I have seen:
    Colin Berry:” I have set out a possible scenario that led to the TS being
    fabricated as a rival attraction to the Veil of Veronica, indeed one that built
    on the established credentials of the Veronica . . . as perceived by those at the time,
    and which later . . . came to supplant the Veronica as the Church’s new “central icon”
    (to borrow Neil McGregor’s words re the 14th century Veronica).”

    Frankly Colin, I do not understand your new “paradigm” (which in fact is not a paradigm).

    Shortly (according to you,if I understand well):

    “What were the criteria that could be adopted first to produce a whole body imprint of the crucified Jesus that would pass muster, yet importantly pose no threat to the status of the Veil?”

    Do you really think that a medieval forger was concerned with your 16 criteria?

    1. Hello again TH. I was wondering when you would be along to fire your customary broadside. You raise a number of points, too many to address in a single comment. Let’s just take the first, re the Veronica not being a sweat imprint but a miraculous image.

      First, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Let’s start with the horse, first, and see what wiki has to say, not because it’s always the ultimate source of wisdom, but because it’s most people’s first port of call, so is unlikely to say anything that has hugely offended common sense (which is the crucial issue here in my view – common sense, not specialist historical or theological knowledge).

      I’ve bolded up the words that in my view make it reasonable to assume that the Veronica image WAS seen as, first and foremost, a sweat imprint IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. To deny that, or dismiss it as irrelevant, seems unhelpful to say the least.

      The Veil of Veronica, or Sudarium (Latin for sweat-cloth), often called simply “The Veronica” and known in Italian as the Volto Santo or Holy Face (but not to be confused with the carved crucifix Volto Santo of Lucca) is a Catholic relic of a piece of cloth, which, according to legend, bears the likeness of the face of Jesus not made by human hand (i.e. an Acheiropoieton). Various existing images have been claimed to be the “original” relic, or early copies of it, but the evidently legendary nature of the story means that there are many fewer people, even among traditional Catholics, who treat claims of actual authenticity very seriously compared to the comparable relic of the Turin Shroud.
      The final form of the Western legend recounts that Saint Veronica from Jerusalem encountered Jesus along the Via Dolorosa on the way to Calvary. When she paused to wipe the blood and sweat (Latin sudor) off his face with her veil, his image was imprinted on the cloth. The event is commemorated by the Sixth Station of the Stations of the Cross. According to some versions, Veronica later traveled to Rome to present the cloth to the Roman Emperor Tiberius and the veil possesses miraculous properties, being able to quench thirst, cure blindness, and sometimes even raise the dead.

      As I say, a sweat imprint in the first instance. That does not prevent it being somehow miraculously upgraded to a spectacular portrait if one is minded to do so. I’m sure generations of artists were only to happy to assist that upgrading, given that sweat imprints per se offer limited opportunities to show of their artistic skills. But let’s not overlook one thing – there is no biblical basis for the Veronica anecdote, and thus no compelling reason for the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus to believe that any relic described as the Veil of Veronica had any miraculous origins. It’s just a legend.

      14th century entrepreneurs may simply have seized upon that legend as a pretext for fabricating a burial shroud with a FAINT NEGATIVE IMAGE of a recently deceased man that would be immediately perceived as some kind of imprint, one that would be assumed to be made by sweat, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, as per the then celebrated Veil of Veronica. But making that connection, i.e. imprint -> Veronica -> sweat needed some extra help, which will lead on (tomorrow) to my second response to your comment, namely the appearance of that Christ-like face above the word SUAIRE on the Machy mould. We can discuss tomorrow whether the eyes are open or closed, and much else besides, though I somehow suspect this discussion is going to lead nowhere, it being down to individual interpretation.

      Those who see the TS as the genuine burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth are making an interpretation, and must not be surprised at the existence of counter-interpretations, especially those like mine that have a strong (though not exclusive) scientific basis and are based on a now lengthy period of intensive study and research. It will take more than statements of others’ opinion or interpretation to shift me from mine, unless they come up with new authoritative information or data, which you, TH, if you will forgive my saying, have so far failed in your comment thus far to deliver.

      1. PS Here’s an article featuring the Veronica that appeared in the popular press just over 3 years ago.

        The only reason for mentioning it now is that it attempts to make clear the relationship between an initial “imprint” and later more attractive versions, stating that the initial imprint was “copied” by artists, thus preserving for posterity the “likeness” of Jesus. Based on that I think it’s a mistake to place too much emphasis or credence on the narrative that would have us believe that the imprinting aspect is an irrelevance, that there was some kind of instant or even slow motion one miracle that of itself generated a high quality image without artists needing to become involved. Once the latter happens, and paint starts flowing freely, things tend to spin rapidly out of control, the end results of which are currently plain for all to see. I refer to Charles Freeman’s claim that the TS initially showed a “Crown of Thorns” that one can see in later painted copies, and that ipso facto there must have been a crown of thorns on the original TS that has since (selectively!) faded from view.

        What seems more likely, indeed certain, is that there was a Veronica like process, where an initial image that was at best a mere imprint gradually acquired further embellishment with each new generation of artists, so that blood on forehead or in hair from presumed thorns and their wounds, the latter not imaged, was considered insufficient, making unreasonable demands on the average pilgrim’s interpretive skills. Thus it was argued it was perfectly legitimate to insert the ‘missing’ crown of thorns as a visual aid. In time the distinctions between fact and fancy became progressively blurred.

        (Turning that on its head, one feels that Charles as a historian really had no business in back projecting from later copies of the TS to the original in the way that he did, knowing as he should the nature of artistic licence, especially as regards devotional art)

        1. What Colin has made clear with his mention of artists, the embellishment of images ,etc,etc, is that he is in the realm of history of art. How can he not be? An image made in sweat or to represent sweat is as much within the field of history of art as painting is – well particularly interesting to historians of art in that there has never been any documented case of such image making in medieval art before Colin got to work on it.
          This was medieval Europe at a time of enormous disruption after a third to half of the population having died from the Black Death. Lirey is miles from Rome, not even on one of the pilgrim routes along which news would have travelled. The de Charny family had no known links with the papacy or Italy and it is only later that the Veil of Veronica becomes a popular theme of art. Yet somehow this cloth that supposedly touched the living face of Christ inspired the creation of a cloth that supposedly touched the dead body of Christ and was, as Colin suggests, worked over for years ( which years is he suggesting?) .And if Chevalier had not dug up those documents ,we would probably have not heard about it all despite it being a completely out of the ordinary artistic creation ( let alone the technique not having been heard about by any art historian) .
          It is enough to make you think that the Shroud might be authentic after all.

      2. Sorry to spoil the punch-line in Charles’ last sentence, but it seems displays of the Veronica were held in Rome before 1355, when it seems the Shroud was first displayed at Lirey. Italian chronicler Matteo Villani apparently reported that the Veronica was displayed at St Peters Rome during the year 1350, and from Christmas to Easter there were constantly about 1 million pilgrims there.

        But he is correct that there was little contact between the de Charnay family and the Roman pontiff, although Geoffray I had gone on a Papally approved crusade to the east. The family was of course French and supported the anti-pope at Avignon, Clement VII having a family connection to them. (Ring any bells?)

        Chevalier did discover purported documents, but along with Thurston misrepresented them, attaching more significance to them than warranted for his own purposeful agenda, and fooling much of posterity.

        1. The Veil of Veronica first became prominent in Rome after 1205 and was a prominent relic in the Holy Year of 1350. There is absolutely no reason to link it ,however, with an obscure village in Northern France in those traumatic years of the Black Death. Relic cults and imitations ,etc, grew up along the main pilgrim routes. Why would Colin’s artists have chosen there to make there to make their unique sweat image? Italy would have been more appropriate and this was the age there of the greatest artistic creativity.

        2. Are you seriously suggesting Charles that a particular theory, one based on clever forgery, stands or falls on the location chosen by the sponsor and his artisans? What if the theory depends on doing the initial R&D secretly and unobtrusively? Why not display it in the same quiet location, on one’s home ground, in a brand new church, built specifically for that purpose?

          How do you explain the production of at least one commemorative medallion (the Lirey Pilgrim’s badge), Charles, to say nothing of that mould for a second found in nearby Machy? Clearly the de Charnys felt they were not too off major routes to attract visitors, and lots of them. Some might think they knew they were onto a winner. Time proved them correct, spectacularly successful in fact, overlooking that initial difficulty they had with the local bishop with his unhelpful view that the TS was a forgery that had been “cunningly” painted. Why did you omit to mention that crucial adverb “cunningly” from your article Charles, stating it was simply dismissed as a painting or that the TS was immediately seen as a “forgery”, not a mere prop or work of art?

          In fact Lirey and Troyes are just 120 or so miles south-east of Paris, on a major route leading to the Alps, the Mediterranean and, among other places, Rome – hardly the back of beyond. What’s more, the Lirey medallion was recovered from the Seine in Paris, apparently from near a bridge that was popular as a place for tossing religious mementos of one kind or another that pilgrims had collected on their travels.

          It’s your version that has the credibility gap, not mine Charles. I’m only saying what that Troyes bishop was saying all those centuries ago, just 7 or so years after the display of the Veronica in 1350 (“Holy year”). But then I’m only an amateur historian.

    2. “There is no evidence that the TS forger wanted to compete with the Veronica Veil. ”

      Oh but there is TH. The Veronica was on public display in 1350, we’re told, that being a “Holy Year”. Seven or so years later, a humble new church was built in Lirey, specifically to house and display the ‘newly arrived’ Shroud (from where is anyone’s guess) and a commemorative medallion bearing the coats of arms of the de Charnys, the herringbone weave, double image etc is struck to accompany it.

      What’s that if it’s not competition, TH, especially as the claim was made that it was the genuine burial shroud, whereas the Veronica, while celebrated, had no backing in the NT, being a mere legend we’re told that did not appear in its present form until the medieval era?

      But how was the pilgrim supposed to know that the image on the Shroud represented an imprint of the crucified Jesus, as distinct from a “cunningly” painted portrait as believed by the local bishop? I say the pilgrim needed a little help in the visual aid department, and what better way to achieve that than to add a image to a new badge above the word SUAIRE that while possibly referring to the image on the Shroud, though with no encouragement to do so (no blood, crown of thorns etc) may have been there to work via the power of association. (Veronica = contact imprint originally, not painting. Therefore shroud image must also be a contact imprint, not painting).

  11. Does the man in the shroud have his eyes closed at all? I don’t remember discussing this recently, but if it’s old hat I’ve no doubt daveb or OK can rustle up the last time. There is a presumption that, if the Shroud is a natural formation from a dead body, he would probably have had his eyes closed, but if an artificial creation, then I think there is nothing in the image itself that says whether his eyes are open or shut apart from the lack of distinct irises. If they were painted on, then we are off into Charles’s flaking off issues, but if the image derived ffrom a bas relief – what would the irises have looked like then? Veronicas are usually shown with open eyes, and the Shroud is almost invariably described as having “staring” eyes. Did anybody describe the eyes of the man in the shroud as shut before the negative image was discovered? I don’t understand Thibault’s: “the Machy face clearly shows that the man of the Lirey Shroud was seen as having closed eyes.” Both eyes on the Machy mould face clearly have pupils.

    1. Here’s an image to help folk make their own decision on whose eyes are open or closed – those of the added face, and those of one of the clerics supporting the shroud.

      I’m delighted needless to say that Hugh agrees – there does seem to be a pupil in the good eye on our left, while the image of the cleric does not really have a great deal to offer, given his eyes seem hooded, as if he’s looking down at what he and his opposite number are holding aloft.

      For my part it hardly matters any more.Sorry if that sounds like a cop out, but it’s true. It was the hunch that the added face was that of the Veronica, not the one on the Shroud (why no epsilon if the latter?) that got me thinking that the TS image had been conceived and executed as an imaginary sweat imprint. That’s the new thinking, right or wrong, that dominates this blogger’s view, and helps rationalize details that previously were a puzzle (yup, a paradigm in the making, TH, if only for one man right now). So it hardly matters any more, to me at any rate, whether it really was the Veronica or not that was added to the Machy mould.

  12. Well to my eyes at least it looks very much like the eyes are closed…but I don’t have any science behind that, it’s just how it looks to me…I’m sure there’s science around the dimensions / proportions of the eye area as “closed” versus “open”. I would also have thought any artistic creation of Christ lying in death would depict with the eyes closed.

  13. Of course I am referring to the negative image. The positive obviously lacks details in the eyes area.
    Describing the arrival of the Mandylion (Shroud?) in Constantinople in 944, the Emperor’s sons were described as being unable to see the eyes and ears!!!!!

  14. Re Veronica & Manoppello Veil. My record of notes taken:
    Veronica: Father Heinrich Pfeiffer, Jesuit and Professor of Iconology and History of Christian Art at the Gregorian University of Rome, thinks the veil of Manoppello is the Roman Veronica. According to the historic reconstruction, Veronica, called “acheiropoietos”, reached Constantinople in VI century (coming from Jerusalem and then from Camelia, in Cappadocia). It stayed there until 705, when it disappeared mysteriously, perhaps to save it from the iconoclastic movements of the time. It was in Rome under Pope Gregorio; after several vicissitudes, it was carried into St Peter’s Cathedral, becoming an important destination for thousands pilgrims. After the demolition of the chapel where Veronica was held, in 1608, no trace of the veil was found. The veil appeared in Manoppello is thought to be the historic and legendary Veronica.

    Italian chronicler Matteo Villani reported that the Veronica was exhibited in Rome in 1350, and from Christmas to Easter there were constantly around 1 million pilgrims. So clearly it was rediscovered after its being hidden from iconoclasts in 705, assuming it was indeed the same object. Colin’s comments about attracting pilgrim tourists would seem to be to the point.

    Manoppello Veil: According to the tradition based on a historic account written by Father Donato from Bomba in 1640, it arrived in Manoppello on an unknown day in the year 1506, when the physicist and astrologer Giacomo Antonio Leonelli, while was talking with some people, met a foreign man. He was invited to follow him into the Church. He received a mysterious wrapped veil. He should have taken care of the mysterious object. In return he would have got material and spiritual advantages. While Father Donato was unrolling the veil, thus discovering the image of Christ, the foreign man disappeared.

    It might seem a reasonable conjecture then that sometime before 1608, possibly as early as 1506, the Veronica veil was uplifted from its place in the chapel, and soon afterwards disposed of in Manoppello by a person unknown, for what reasons can only be surmised.

    One plausible reason that occurs to me, is that the perpetrator may well have thought he was doing a holy deed and saving the relic from a corrupt papal court. The saintly Savanorola had been executed (hanged and burnt) in 1498, and the Borgia Pope Alexander VI had died only in 1503. The year of the relic’s alleged arrival in Manoppello 1506 seems suggestive. Its subsequent history is hardly edifying.

    Fr Donato’s 1640 chronicle continues: From 1506, the veil stayed at the Leonelli family for almost one hundred years; but in 1608 the several heirs started to contend for it. Pancrazio Petrucci, a soldier, one of the heirs’ husband (Marzia Leonelli’s husband), carried the veil away with force. Since that day the Leonelli family started falling down. Pancrazio was arrested and imprisoned in Chieti; his wife was forced to sell the precious veil to Donantonio De Fabritiis in order to free her husband. As De Fabritiis was not well, he showed the veil to the Capuchin Friars to verify the real value of the veil.

    The Friars were happy with that relic and put it inside a frame (today you can still see it) in order to protect the veil. In 1683 De Fabritiis gave it to the Capuchin Friars who showed the relic for the public veneration in 1646, after the notarization.

  15. Final part of TH’s comment:

    “What were the criteria that could be adopted first to produce a whole body imprint of the crucified Jesus that would pass muster, yet importantly pose no threat to the status of the Veil?”

    Do you really think that a medieval forger was concerned with your 16 criteria?

    My answer: YES, with an almost obsessional attention to detail to recreate what a contact imprint might have looked like. However there were a handful of departures from the “imprint only” script, no doubt carefully mulled over, made in the interests of artistic impression (like that gap between the frontal and dorsal head images, when there should have been continuity given the straight-line skull-circumference distance of separation shown).

    Plan A, with unbroken image continuity across double fused heads would have been a real turn-off.

    Plan B? Separate the heads too much as if there had been a generous surplus of linen? Nope. It then ceases to look like a practical, economical snugly-fitting burial ‘bag’.

    So settle instead for the SSI Working Party’s compromise Plan C (no one will notice, except maybe a 21st century NZ engineer in the distant future who measures the separation of heads and declares that something’s not right as regards the failure of the top of head to leave an image).

    1. NZers are well-known for pulling beyond our weight, even though we’re not all named Rutherford. You might recall that I had mistaken a water mark for the dorsal image of the head and I had then thought it far too close, and it prompted several fruitful comments at the time. Both Hugh F and myself measured the distance on Shroudscope from tip of nose to where we thought the occiptal bump was and it came out 35cm, which was spot on, possibly because we have such big heads.

      This required the Shroud to be drawn firmly over the top of the top of the head which only needed to be masked by a cloth, such as a jaw strap or other, so as not to produce an image. Mario L disagreed because of where the blood stains had accumulated, maintaining the cloth was loose over the top of the head, and offered his own explanation, suggesting a home experiment by lying on the floor to see where the back of head touched the floor.

      Either way, there seems to be no problem with the distance between ventral and dorsal images. Your “artisans” were cleverer than you credit them, or maybe it’s just an authentic burial cloth after all!

      1. Yup, it was a certain friendly neighbourhood blogger, not a million miles away, more like 12,000 I guess, who was first to point out your error in mistaking a water stain for the head, daveb. ;-)

        Let’s not lose sight of the central point, which is this: even in authenticity models, where there is recourse made to what some of us regard as supernaturalism (miraculously collimated radiation, wavelength unspecified, which is able to imprint images onto linen across air gaps) the inconsistencies become painfully apparent, like the ‘top of head’ problem. One then sees folk on this site go into what I call INNIT mode (INNIT = It’s Not Inconceivable That…) and then the qualifying assumptions begin to flow freely. It’s the need for those qualifying assumptions that is scarcely constrained by the existence of Occam’s razor, occasionally needing something more akin to a chain saw massacre. You yourself acknowledge solutions offered to resolve the ‘top of head’ problem, one of which may or may not require certain Jewish folk to revise their knowledge of 1st century burial practice (the “jaw strap”). Incidentally, I was taught that Occam’s Razor is “entities should not be multiplied needlessly”. The more commonly quoted one on internet sites, i.e. “the simplest model is likely to be the correct one” probably came later, and is often misapplied in the scientific context where testing of hypotheses is concerned, models being for using, not believing, and can thus be shamelessly refined or qualified.

        In my model, the ‘top of head’ model is explained quite simply. The artisans didn’t like the look of fused heads, so inserted a damp cloth or similar to prevent imaging at that point. Look, no need to make assumptions about ancient burial practices, and one can make a prediction: if there’s one concession made to practical or artistic considerations, then there are likely to be others too (“no top of head, no open wounds either, just blood, but let’s image the soles of those feet since legs without feet will look odd etc.etc”). Human ‘fingerprints’, relatively recent medieval ones especially, are a lot easier to spot – and even predict – than divine ones).

        1. PS: after penning the above comment, I had a vague recollection of devoting an entire posting to that “top of head” problem that daveb was first to raise at the start of this year.

          That was indeed the case, see link below, which shows clearly the first signs of a blogger trying to see things through the eyes of a medieval forger (albeit reluctant at that juncture to deploy the f word, while now having no such inhibitions).

        2. “In my model, the ‘top of head’ model is explained quite simply. The artisans didn’t like the look of fused heads, so inserted a damp cloth or similar to prevent imaging at that point.”

          This is a simple conclusion based on a complex preconception — your Veronica theory — which is based on quite a few INNITs.

          I don’t mind INNITs, by the way, we all have to start somewhere.

  16. Dan, how come my comments are still awaiting moderation?

    November 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    ….as (at first sight) it looks like ninhydrin has turned dark, obscuring Padre Pio face imprint and was then treated with a ninhydrin clearing reagent to remove the darkened layer uncovering the developed latent face imprint.

    Max patrick Hamon
    November 18, 2014 at 4:47 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Standard formulations for ninhydrin can cause the active chemicals on THERMAL porous surfaces (paper, textile) to turn dark.

    Max patrick Hamon
    November 18, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    In other words an application of fingerprint powder to Padre Pio face imprint on the handkerchief cannot totally be ruled out.

Comments are closed.