After all, we do find in Wikipedia “that Leonardo da Vinci had faked the Shroud.”
A reader from Spaniards Bay, Newfoundland, writes:
I discovered this morning that the “Shroud of Turin” entry in Wikipedia no longer contains attempts by Freeman and Berry to include their -hypotheses in this, their latest attempts at social encyclopedia-ing. In fact, their names cannot be found at all on the page. It was like awakening from a strange dream.
It was real. It wasn’t a dream. Moderator comments do state:
- Deelted (sic) Colin Berrys removed as self promotion unsubstantiated in theory or peer reviewed in notable articles)
- Removal of Charles Freeman theory article overloading on theories
Colin fired back on a discussion page that Wikipedia created for him:
I concluded my account with:
"Links to Berry’s ‘simulated sweat imprint’ hypothesis"
Note the term "hypothesis", meaning idea. So where’s the conflict of interest in expressing an idea? Where’s the self-promotion in expressing an idea? Why bandy around these silly terms in a way that totally misrepresents this researcher’s interest in the Shroud? Are you aware that I have published over 250 postings on my science buzz and specialist Shroud sites, many with original research findings you will not find elsewhere. As for deleting the earlier reference to my scorch findings that someone else, not I, chose to publicize, that is just small-mindedness.
My IDEA is any original one, as you can check for yourself by googling, that can be expressed in a few words,and which does not need "peer review" to which incidentally I am no stranger:
The faint yellow Shroud body image was almost certainly an attempt to simulate a sweat imprint on linen, as if from a recently crucified man. In reality it was probably a thermal imprint ("scorch mark") from a heated 3D or bas relief template.
Do you not consider that folk who consult wiki have a right to be informed of the latest thinking? Do you not understand the difference between hypotheses that invite further experimentation and tendentious claims?
Colinsberry (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Colin Berry PhD
Does Colin have a point? He has done a lot of experimenting (not that I’m convinced by it). I don’t buy into the simulation of a sweat imprint idea but, then again, compare it to some other ideas that have been floated. After all we find this on the Wikipedia page:
Lynn Picknett has written a book proposing that Leonardo da Vinci had faked the Shroud. Picknett and Larissa Tracy appeared on a Channel 5 (UK) TV program that announced that the Shroud was the oldest known surviving photograph.
Colin, it seems that all you need to do is appear on Channel 5.
I think Colin has a point. Sometime even an idea that may or may not be right starts you thinking. Sometimes when we point out the problems with an idea it leads us to a new idea without those problems and maybe on the path of solving the issue.
Can’t you see the difference between:
A- CB, shroud researcher… blabla… claims the Shroud is a scorch imprint.
B- CB, blabla… has a gut feeling, the Shroud is a fake, and MAY, PROBABLY, be a scorch imprint imitatig a sweat imprint.
He no longer takes a stand for anything. Even writting rubbish, the minimum required is being consistent with yourself.
Colin has amply justified the idea that the Shroud image has been interpreted as a sweat imprint, by quoting from observers who have done just that, and he has amply justified the idea that the Shroud image resembles a Scorch, mostly by quoting in extenso from the STuRP scientists, most of whom said just that. His hypothesis that the Shroud is indeed a kind of scorch has been extensively examined by means of hot bas reliefs, hot statues and various media. During the course of his experiments he has modified various aspects of his hypothesis to help it correlate ever more closely with other people’s observations. I really can’t see what anoxie objects to. It may be that anoxie is hoping for a definite statement of “this is how it was done” and does not want the research towards that definitiveness to appear in public, which is a point of view, but I see this blog as a dialogue between colleagues on their way to understanding, and am pleased to see all the dead ends and back-tracking as a way of working towards the truth.
“His hypothesis that the Shroud is indeed a kind of scorch”
…”kind of”…
Sorry, but after more than 30 months, he doesn’t even seem confident that the image is a scorch any longer.
He is moonwalking, retrograding his bogus, classical “scorch” hypothesis (the one initially quoted in wikipedia) to a “simulated sweat imprint” hypothesis, murkier than ever.
Hugh, you’re an illusionist, as ever, saying black is white, or a “kind of” white.
I think anoxie is misrepresenting Colin, and he is certainly misrepresenting me. Colin has been working on STuRP’s own assessment of the image as degraded cellulose. This, as they all pointed out, looks just like a scorch. They decided it couldn’t be because a) a scorch fluoresces and b) a scorch burns through to the other side. Colin quickly demonstrated that b is nonsense, and various other things as well – a scorch can show image density resembling a body/distance correlation, and a scorch is essentially a contact mechanism, not a radiation mechanism. However, niggling problems remained, and so he began to work on how to produce an effect indistinguishable from a scorch, but with lower heat and different chemicals. This is what I mean by “a kind of” scorch.
His point about sweat is in contrast to Charles Freeman’s brighly coloured paint hypothesis. One thing a scorch does not look like is a brightly coloured painting. However, the Shroud has been described as being derived from sweat several times by pilgrims, who were saying what they saw, not suggesting a manufacturing process. If the Shroud was originally brightly coloured, then it could not have been intended to be its current brownish tinge, and any kind of scorch would have been a incidental byproduct, not a deliberate intention. This is my position, currently, although it could change any minute, and was cheerfully derided by Stephen Jones as he deliberately misinterpreted my statement to the effect that I thought the whole thing had been created by accident. Colin’s position is that Charles is wrong, and that the Shroud was deliberately intended to look like a sweat imprint from the start, so the “kind of scorch” that we see today was an integral part of the plan.
Rather than vague derogatory remarks, which suggest that anoxie either has not read or has not understood Colin’s, Charles’s or my ideas and comments, he might do better to offer more specific criticisms, that one or other of us might be able to address.
This is just another version to save his face after giving up his classical “scorch” theory.
30 months to conclude to the obvious, put it the way you want, i’m done with his mumbo jumbo.
He has written to the Vatican, the Royal Society and now even wikipedia is bored with his propaganda…
Thibault has already pointed the pb, Colin has never written a single pdf you can simply answer too, that’s why he has focused on his classical “scorch” hypothesis. Now, waiting for pdf n°3, and game over.
Rather than vague derogatory remarks, which suggest that anoxie either has not read or has not understood Colin’s, Charles’s or my ideas and comments, he might do better to offer more specific criticisms, that one or other of us might be able to address.
I think we need to pin down more clearly who these pilgrims were who said that the images were derived from sweat and what they actually said. The predominant observation was of the ‘blood’ on the Shroud ‘ as if it had been recent’. David Mo has suggested that they may have exaggerated the blood and this is possible as there was certainly an obsession with the blood of Christ from the fourteenth century onwards that may have led to observers highlighting it more than it deserved but this is not sweat. One also has to explain the descriptions and depictions of the Crown of Thorns that was certainly not a sweat imprint. I am so confused about what Colin is arguing but presumably his sweat would only have created the outline of the body and not extras such as the Crown of Thorns.
I am not sure whether anyone has done any work on whether the copies themselves have faded over the centuries. We must remember that we are dealing with at least seven hundred years and very vulnerable materials. The vast majority of linens recorded in church and monastery inventories with images on them have vanished without trace and this can only mean that they proved all too vulnerable to damp, decay or
fire. It is hard to make generalisations from the rare survivors such as the Shroud.
Colin’s quote is from St Francis de Sales. Was he the only one? In a letter to his mother in 1614, St Francis says: “…our divine Father’s shroud which bears the marks of Christ’s sweat and blood…”
That was a couple of centuries before the STURP team examined the Shroud.
Colin has lost his credibility with his scorch hypothesis, no need to hear just another version.
Hugh, you have lost your credibility long ago, latest discussions being about cotton and banding.
Charles, well, it’s just another painting theory.
We’ve spent months to explain Colin the obvious, now that finally he is giving up his “scorch” hypothesis, adding epicycles on epicycles, it’s high time to stop feeding his conspiracy theory.
Well, if de Sale’s quotation is the only one that mentions sweat ( alongside blood as in so many other observers’ descriptions) it can hardly stand for much. Perhaps I am wrong but surely Colin has something more to go on before he attempts to rewrite medieval art history.
Far be it from me to rewrite medieval or any other art history. I am merely asserting a mainstream view, namely that the TS BODY IMAGE was not the work of an artist (‘over-flagellation’ with 372 scourge marks is irrelevant to body image, since scourge marks are, we are told, exclusively blood, not body image, except maybe for some curious fine cut-like marks on the fabric).
How difficult is it to understand that what I consider to represent a simulated sweat imprint left by a man’s body, with reversal of normal tones (“negative” character), 3D properties, non-directional character, spectral and chemical properties of chemically-dehydrated linen carbohydrates etc, one moreover that was immediately branded as an attempt to deceive, can by no stretch of the imagination to be seen as just another painting? In any case, it could hardly have had time to degrade to a faint ghostly image over the few years between its first display at Lirey and the subsequent ban that lasted decades.
From the word go, the TS was seen as EITHER the real burial shroud of Jesus OR a very clever forgery, which the Troyes bishop, first of the non-authenticists, unwisely declared to have been cunningly painted. Shame he didn’t say cunningly executed, but the key word there is “cunningly”.
I see you recently substituted “admirably” for “cunningly” Charles, which if referring to the same quotation, completely changes the sense. Do you have the original verbatim text to hand?
Colin – we are talking about different quotations. The
‘Cunningly’ is from the fourteenth century arc is Memorandum, the ‘admirably painted’ is from -a hundred years later, in 1449, a Benedictine monk. The Latin original is ‘ miro artificio depicta’. It is,of course, part of my ‘ this was originally a painting’ evidence.
Thank you for the clarification Charles.
So why did Bishop Pierre D’Arcis of Troyes say in 1389 that his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, had considered the TS to have been “cunningly” painted, and indeed a forgery?
Does that sound like it was a bog standard item of devotional art being referred to there?
Not to me, it doesn’t. It sounds more like a devilishly clever attempt to fake the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.
But then what do I know, being a mere scientific observer on the sidelines, totally ignorant of medieval art history?
Never too late, Colin, to read some introductory books on medieval art history , especially as this seems to be the area you are working in. I have told you about the Villers which is specifically about painted linens. I will leave you to get on with it so that you feel able to talk with more confidence and credibility.
I am not in my office so I don’t know what the original of the translated ‘ cunningly’ is. I am not sure exactly what connotations the original may have had. I think the good bishop was referring to the fraud of pretending that the Shroud was authentic, not saying that it was in itself a forgery but again we need to go back to the original text.
I am, of course, referring to the 1449 quotation as this was someone who was referring directly to the image that he could see before him.
Archaeologists have found, it is said, “thousands” of shrouds over the many decades. Let’s say it was only “hundreds.” What percentage of those bodies were sweaty? How manyof those left a sweat imprint? One sweaty imprint is an Impossibility.
Oh dear. The message is still not getting through it seems. A ‘simulated’ sweat imprint is no more a real sweat imprint than a simulated leather handbag is a real leather handbag.
My thesis is that the TS body image was made to look as if it were an ancient sweat imprint. It was not a real sweat imprint but probably a faint contact scorch produced from a 3D or bas relief template (thus accounting for the negative image, the 3D properties etc). In short, it was an eye-deceiving confidence trick, and a brilliantly successful one at that.
Oh dear, You’re right, CB, the message is not getting through — to you. How exactly does a hoaxer come to think up a simulation of a sweat imprint, if there has never been one seen on a shroud? Can you cite an instance of even one, medieval or non-medieval? If no one has seen one, how does a hoaxer think he will raise up a certainty in the the medieval mind that that it is a sweat imprint?
How about the ‘Veil of Veronica’ as a source of inspiration? That too was a sweat imprint in the first instance, if you exclude all the add-on miraculous narrative, mainly of 14th century origin.
The Veronica, a much venerated ‘relic’ in the 14th century, despite having no biblical backing, is a central part of my thesis, proving a precedent for viewing the TS as a ‘sweat imprint’ (plus blood for added dramatic impact).
We modern day detectives have to make do with whatever scraps of information are available, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie etc have been keen for us to appreciate…
Beggars can’t be choosers. All sources of information – scientific, forensic, historical etc etc need to be considered.
Detectives do not need doctorates in multiple specialities to determine where to finally point the finger of guilt. One constructs a case, only stopping when one is convinced that no other conclusion is likely to provide as good an explanation for the available evidence. Nope, not incontrovertible proof, just a highly probable scenario that makes others look deficient in one or other respect.
It was not a sweat imprint, and here’s why:
As the Wiki says, “there is no doubt that there was an image displayed in Rome in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries which was known as the Veil of Veronica. The history is, however, PROBLEMATIC.” Nowhere can you reliably document that the image was a sweat-print. The only inspection: in 1907 in St. Peter’s when Jesuit art historian Joseph Wilpert inspected the image, he saw only a piece of light-colored material, faded, with two faint rust-brown stains. On the contrary, all the medieval paintings of the Veronica intended to show an actual colored portrait of Christ’s face (miraculously imprinted, they thought) and were not portrayals of a sweat-print, leading any honest analyst to conclude that the Veronica was originally a PAINTING. Even the common medieval “rube” would have known that a face-print is not created from someone rubbing the sweat and blood off of a man’s face–only a messy blob. Therefore, anyone, cleric, artist, common-man, would have supposed the Veronica was a miraculous image and not a sweat imprint.
The original entry for my article was not by myself and I was surprised that someone, I assume a moderator, had posted one so soon. I simply enlarged it and made clear that it was me who had done so. My article had, after all, gone through a great deal of academic eyes with approval before publication in History Today and I am well-known as the author of the only university press published book on the history of medieval relics so i do have some wider credibility in this field. It was not a moderator but a semi-anonymous figure called Stetson7 who removed both the original article and my additions. I assume a moderator would have reverted to the original entry of 7th November if they had disapproved of my addition.
I am quite happy to see how the flow goes- if it has not been replaced by this time next year, I will think about whether I feel it ought to be there or not. Despite its many achievements , a Wikipedia article can still become the focus of games between rivals and I had another article relating to me completely displaced by a troll- someone who I knew had been banned from several websites for his behaviour. When I was an examiner In critical thinking for the International Baccalaureate students were forbidden to use Wikipedia as a source. They had to go back to an original source. So I am not going to lose a my sleep over this.
But I see Stetson7 has not removed the entry on my Ht article from the History of the Shroud article. But perhaps the last person to modify that article who goes by the name ‘anonymous’ may the one to do so.
I can see why we never let students use Wikipedia as a source!
Rumours of the death of the scorch hypothesis are greatly exaggerated. Indeed, its linkage now to good technology (as a means of simulating a sweat imprint) instead of previously to tasteless art (caricaturing of a half-roasted Templar) could be said to have given it a new lease of life. Shame the early shift of thought-police at wiki didn’t see it that way.
Oh, and Charles still doesn’t seem able to grasp the haemorrhagin’ obvious, namely that no one, absolutely no one, least of Troyes bishops looking at a recently executed “painting” would have mistaken it as an attempt to represent the real burial shroud of Jesus, and banned its display for decades.
But they weren’t looking at a “painting”, and certainly not a faded ghost-like one so soon after the first known display at Lirey in 1357 or thereabouts. They were looking at what seemed for all the world like a REAL bodily imprint on a REAL burial shroud – produced by some mysterious kind of phenomenon – natural of otherwise – NOT the product of an artist’s palette.
Kindly get real Charles (and do try to take on board some of that boring stuff about negative images, 3D properties, non-directional character etc etc).
One way forward must be for comparative images,e.g. take photos of other medieval linens whose images are now faded, photograph them and then produce the negatives for comparison.You may be surprised but until you have done that you cannot claim that the Shroud is unique.
Non-directional is not an issue as many (of the few surviving) painted linens from the medieval period have non-directional paint – it depends on how fluid the ‘paint’ was when it was applied whether it dried with brush marks on it. Some did, some didn’t. Do read (the late and much lamented) Caroline Villers’ (ed.) book on painted linens before you go any further, Colin. It amazes me the way you go it alone without any help for the people who have studied images on medieval linen professionally.
I am just working on hypotheses that experts have so far not been able to dismiss – and I have approached quite a number. Obviously without close-up examination of the Shroud with the latest technology ( and the application of a great deal more information we have accumulated over the past fifteen years on painted linens ), no one is going to give me an authoritative ruling but at least they are supportive and it is always wrong to get too far outside the academic community.That is why I am waiting for a year for academic responses to my hypotheses. However, it seems that a TV company is already working on this (though from long experience I know that only about ten per cent of proposed programmes actually get made!!)
Charles wrote: “It is hard to make generalisations from the rare survivors such as the (Turin) Shroud” while generalizing the TS is just like any other painted copies that have faded over the centuries!?
If the TS is just like any other painted copies that have faded over the centuries (which it is NOT indeed!), not a real bodily imprint on a real burial shroud, how come all Yeshua’s burial copies are obviously the product of an artist’s palette and JUST CANNOT pass medical examination confirming it is a real bloodied body imprint while the TS can?
In his 1389 CE Memorandum, Pierre d’Arcy, using the latin word depinxit, ‘painted’, misrepresented the Lirey Shroud case to the pope. The FRAUD ACTUALLY WORKED BOTH WAYS namely to present the Lirey Shroud as Yeshua’s genuine shroud when it actually had no certificate of authenticity that accompanied it OR to present it as a mere painted copy when actually nobody could tell for sure whether it was or not the real thing.
In the event that we were not quite convinced of “numismatic dating” as evidence to dismantle the hypothesis of Charles Freeman (one thing that I pointed out a few times, tediously…), then we should work more refined.
— — —
There is a study that employs the technique for AFM measurements.
Unfortunately this is not exactly what I would be done on the linen fibers
(… to be able to try to determine its age), because what is needed for us
would be the Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) study of the cellulosic
DP (= Degree of Polym.) changes…
In any case it’s an interesting thing to show that in the past
someone has worked with the AFM and that you can work
with use of the AFM on cellulosic materials …
This study is titled:
“Local morphological and dimensional changes of enzyme-degraded cellulose materials measured by atomic force microscopy”
Here few words:
>Each sample was imaged by an atomic force microscope (AFM) in tapping mode.
The images were analyzed to determine the dimensional changes of the insoluble CAFs
(CAFs =cellulose aggregate fibrils)
…
Link:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226559372_Local_morphological_and_dimensional_changes_of_enzyme-degraded_cellulose_materials_measured_by_atomic_force_microscopy
— — —
And see also: Raman spectroscopic analyses (in comparison with AFM analyses).
— — —
… And, for the moment, I even talked too …
So, let’s see if I’ve got this right. Charles’s case that the TS is an unextraordinary painting of its period is based on:
(a) there having been lots of others just like, which sadly, unlike the TS, have all decayed away, making it impossible to demonstrate the obvious, namely that the TS was a typical painting of its period.
(b) there having been features on the present TS originally, like a crown of thorns, which have also decayed away, so we can no longer see they were there (but take Charles’s word that they must have been there originally, given the TS is a painting, typical of its period in art history, as would be clear if we could still see the crown of thorns).
(c) there having been lots of typical artists’ pigments of the period there originally, which have unfortunately all detached or otherwise decayed away so that there are no traces whatsoever left to confirm that they were there originally, but which we know were there originally because the TS was a typical painting of its period.
I think I get it. There are just one or two crucial pieces of evidence, nay three, that are missing that might have helped to nail Charles’s case.
This says all that needs to be said about the vulnerability of painted cloth such as I assume that the Shroud once was. Note the speed which which they decayed- I think that the Shroud did well to hang on to its images as long as it did. Note the ‘experiments with modern replicas” certainly worth following up.
From The Hangings About the Hall: An Overview of Textile Wall Hangings in Late Medieval York, 1394-1505 by Gr. Charles Kightly in Medieval Textiles Issue 28, June 2001.
Painted cloths
In York, as throughout England, painted cloths were much the most popular cheap wall hangings from the late medieval period until the mid seventeenth century. The earliest York reference I have found is to a painted dorser belonging to John de Birne, rector of St. Sampson’s, who died in 1394 (C). Their great attraction was that they offered brightly coloured and often figurative wall decoration – much cheaper to paint than either to embroider or to work in tapestry – at a very low cost. The shop stock of the York tailor John Carter (d. 1485 B), for example, included twelve yards of ‘panetyd clothes’ at 2/8d, or only 2_d a yard, while that of the chapman Thomas Gryssop (d. 1446 B) included six whole painted cloths (admittedly ‘old’) at 5/- the lot. Their cheapness, however, was counterbalanced by their lack of durability: experiments with authentically produced modem replicas have shown that they degrade quite rapidly, especially when the painted surface is cracked or damaged by rolling or folding for storage. For this reason their second-hand value could be very low indeed. The most expensive York example was Richard Dalton’s (1505 B) complete painted hallings at 7/-, but their average second-hand value seems to have been only one or two pence a yard, and two whole cloths belonging to Henry Thorlthorp, vicar choral (d. 1427 B) were appraised at only a penny each.
The low value and ephemeral nature of painted cloths has ensured a very low survival rate, and no indisputably medieval English examples are known to exist.
What did they show?
Among the earliest described belonged to Robert Lyndesay (d. 1397 B), parish clerk of All Saints North Street, which depicted ‘the image of Christ sitting in the clouds’. John Underwode, clerk of the vestry at York Minster (d. 1408 A), had a cloth ‘of the Last Resurrection’, Henry Thorlthorp (d. 1427 B) and John Danby (d. 1485 A), vicars choral, both had cloths ‘with the Crucifix’; and cloths ‘with the Trinity’ are recorded for the goldsmith John Colan (d. 1490 B); the widow of Thomas Person (d. 1496 A), and John Clerk, chaplain of St Mary Magdalen chapel (d. 1451 B), whose hanging also depicted St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist. These two saints also appeared on a cloth belonging to John Tidman, chaplain at All Saints, North Street (d. 1458 C), who likewise owned painted hangings with ‘a great image of the Virgin’ and with ‘the history of the Five Joys of the Virgin’. Agnes del Wod (d. 1429 A) favoured images of St. Peter and St. Paul; William de Burton, vicar of St. Mary Bishophill (d. 1414 A) had a cloth with ‘the history of St. Thomas of Canterbury’; and John Colan (d. 1490 B) one with ‘the Virgin Mary and St. George’; while both John Kexby, Chancellor of York Minster (d. 1452 B) and Janet Candell (d. 1479 C) owned cloths depicting ‘the Seven Works of Mercy’. Secular subjects were seemingly much rarer, though the vicar of Acomb, Henry Lythe (d. 1480 A) had a ‘halling painted of Robyn Hude’.
Leaving the science aside for a moment, can we imagine that a perfectly obvious painting could ever have been thought of as the genuine Shroud of Christ? I think that it could. As I have suggested several times before, the genuineness of a relic in the 4th century does not seem to have been related to its verisimiitude, but only to its attestation. Nowadays, we expect our miracles to at least have some semblance of scientific rationality, even if they defy the laws of physics, but I don’t think the medieval mind was so constrained. A painting might have appeared miraculously after Jesus had simply wiped his face on a cloth, just as curing somebody need not require the laying on of hands or the application of any substance. After the Shroud of Besancon appeared, both Shrouds were considered equally genuine without any one seeming to have queried whether this was possible or or not – the words; “it’s a mystery” were a perfectly valid explanation for contradictory occurrences in a way that no longer applies.
To Hugh,
Apparently destroyed during the French Revolution, most likely the Shroud used in the Easter liturgy at the cathedral of St. Stephen at Besançon (then capital of Burgundy and straddling
France and the German Holy Roman Empire) was a 16th c. CE painted copy of the Chambery Shroud and a late substitute for ‘the original Besancon Shroud’ (most likely a painted copy, less likely a white linen destroyed in a fire on March 6, 1349). Its veneration was not so much linked to its being considered genuine as both being a shroud copy of or shroud substitute for Yeshua’s original/Holy Shroud and part and parcel of the Easter liturgy.
Correction: 17th CE Besançon first historian, Chifflet, told us that ithe Besançon Shroud
had “disappeared” after the fire of the cathedral St. Sephen (1349 CE). A few isolated documents referred to the Shroud’s rediscovery in a niche in the church in 1378. Chifflet saw it then and described it as a cloth with a clumsy frontal only painted image of the body of Yeshua looking like the Lirey Shroud. This frontal-only shroud copy of 1377
was singled out in the official account of those events in 1794 as having been
torn into bandages.
One has to remember that if one of the grave cloths for the Quem Queritis ceremony decayed or was destroyed, they would have to commission a new one for the following year. So it is quite possible that a single cathedral,church or monastic church whose inventories talk of a burial cloth is talking of different cloths at different times. If the Besancon Shroud is sixteenth century as Andrea Nicolotti argues it is, then this does not mean that there were not earlier ones, including, possibly,one lost in the earlier fire.
The real issue is the very low survival rate that gives us virtually no examples to make meaningful comparisons with the Shroud. In fact, its importance for me ( and I think other people with an interest in early medieval drama) is that is the only known survivor of what must once had been hundreds of others, all, like every single Medieval English wall hanging, now lost.
Charles,
Don’t you misunderstand me, I only refer to two Besançon Shrouds: the one lost in a fire of the St. Stephen cathedral and a painted shroud of replacement (the frontal-only shroud painted copy of 1377 CE much alike the Lirey Shroud).
Methinks Nicolotti just ignored the two shrouds and mistook the 1377 CE shroud of replacement for a 16th c. CE’ white linen’. How can Nicolotti totally overlook French historian Chieffley’s research work and documents is ‘the sole mystery’ here.
Typo: read was a 14th c. CE painted copy of the Lirey Shroud (instead of “was a 16th c. CE painted copy of the Chambery Shroud”.
Look here:
it seems to me that you, Colin, … you should go for the straight way
and be able to nail Charles like you want, but with the exact tests.
Instead I have indicated as useful: the “numismatic dating” and a particular
dating method with the use of AFM techniques.
Was I wrong ?
From your message that can not be understood.
In fact I do not think you dialogues with me.
Instead what we could do?
Excuse me, but from your interesting words it is not clear
how you really want to nail Charles (ie: without making the turns of phrase …).
— —
And here’s what I think may be a case to be solved:
How can we quantify the necessary amount of occasional microns size paint pigment particles necessary to suppose that the Shroud was a painting?
Instead we know that the Shroud image (during the past centuries)
was copied many times by painters…
By the way (but … changing the subject!) …
What do you think of my hypothesis (= cold dyeing of polyamide sheet)
for the image obtained from the poor man of Liverpool?
Here a very simple question:
Are you able to perform cold dyeing of polyamide?
And here, again, my advice:
Starting with the experiments you have to use purified water (= demineralized).
Then you can do the tests with biological liquids, fluids …
What do you think?
Is that like : “Interstellar polyamide” , a new science fiction film?
Here the possible subtitle for that film = “Please note that our dyeing equipment
(for “human dyeing” …) is functioning properly …“.
I wait for your reply….
Max’s idea that the Shroud of Besancon was recognised as a copy of the Turin one is not borne out by contemporary accounts. Searching for shrouds in early books on archive.org suggests that all the known Shrouds were happily considered as genuine. That enlightening tome “Last Journey and Memorials of the Redeemer, or Via Crucis, as it is in Jerusalem” by the Rev. J.J. Begel, published in 1880, explains how.
“Since, as in the case of the cross, this abundance might become a pretext for denying their authenticity, we will endeavour to show that the Jewish manner of burial required large quantities of linen.” … “Hence the multiplicity of shrouds is now no longer a problem, and that great question of former times, who possesses the true shroud, the authentic shroud of our Saviour, has no longer any weight, and merely proves long ignorance of a fact.”
Nor was the existence or not of an image at all a problem.
“We know that after the embalming and enshrouding the ancients painted the mummies exteriorly. This was the last operation before restoring them to the family or bearing them to the tomb. From this cause, I think, among the holy shrouds that remain to us, some bear the image — not, indeed, very artistic, and traced with hurried hand— of our Saviour extended lifeless, and others do not.”
Interestingly:
“The two shrouds which bear the print of the body of Jesus Christ are that of Turin, in Piedmont, and that of Besancon, in Franche-Comte. … In this last the painting is not so vivid nor the traits so distinct as in the shroud of Turin.”
Hugh,
Don’t you overgeneralize and mispresent the case alike Charles. This is just an isolated opinion. Actually the Veil of Veronica or Sudarium, the Lirey Suaire and the Oviedo Sudarium were known to the Christian world. Indeed there were three sudarii with an imprint (or touched-up imprint in the case of the Veronica). Don’t youn mix up apples with oranges and make too much of one potatoe.
BTW, I never said “the Shroud of Besancon was recognised as a copy of the Turin one”. Don’t you misrepresent my opinion, please to give some weight to your most spurrious argument.
Hugh, Do notice how, in the same short pargraph, Baillet used as synonyms the words ’empreinte’ (imprint) and ‘peinture’ (painting). Was it for lack of a second better French word? Begel is just making his Baillet’s opinion. So what does that prove?
Thanks for the quote,Hugh.
Begel is quoting André Baillet (1649-1706), Les vies des saints et l’histoire des festes de l’annee . T. IV. Paris, Louis Roulland, 1703, p. 261. Free in Google Books p. 28.
« L’autre Suaire qui porte ausi une empreinte du corps de Jesus-Christ est celui qu’on appelle le saint Suaire de Besançon. La peinture n’y est pas si forte ni les traits si distinguez que le Suaire de Turin. »
My comment misplaced:
November 26, 2014 at 3:47 am Reply
Hugh, Do notice how, in the same short pargraph, Baillet used as synonyms the words ‘empreinte’ (imprint) and ‘peinture’ (painting). Was it for lack of a second better French word? Begel is just making his Baillet’s opinion. So what does that prove?
More interesting:
« L’autre Suaire qui porte aussi une empreinte du corps de Jesus-Christ est celui qu’on appelle le saint Suaire de Besançon. La peinture n’y est pas si forte ni les traits si distinguez que le Suaire de Turin. C’est ce qui a fait dire à ceux qui ont donné l’histoire de l’un & de l’autre, que celui de Turin avoit servi à envelopper le corps tout ensanglanté à la descente de la croix, & que celui de Besançon avoit servi à l’ensevelir après qu’il eut été lavé & embaumé ».
It was a common belief that the mark of Turin Shroud was made with blood.
Snap. I had arrived at precisely the same conclusion this morning, namely that the TS was a “body bag” used to transport from cross to tomb, and NOT used as a final burial shroud.
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-turin-shroud-was-not-intended-to.html
Colin wrote: “the TS was a “body bag” used to transport from cross to tomb”. Can he give me another example of a 440 x 110 cm cloth used as a “body bag”?
From a pratical standpoint, this is most unlikely for the long shroud is too narrow. Most likely a stretcher, a short ladder or a much larger shroud much like the Kornelimünster Sudarium was used to do the job.
An up-and-over rectangle of linen when secured with temporary ties is effectively 2 x110cm wide, more than sufficient to accommodate a corpse.
A stretcher, a short ladder or the Kornelimünster Sudarium are BETTER CANDIDATES to do the job.
E.g. the Kornelimünster Sudarium needs no temporary ties absent the fact the corpse stiff rigid was with arms abducted.
Most likely to save time and ressources, Yeshua’s 4-6 buriers used a short ladder (the very same ladder used to take him down from the cross).
Chifflet saw the 1377 CE Besançon Shroud in the 17th c. CE and described it as a cloth with a clumsy frontal only painted image of the body of Yeshua looking like that of the Lirey Shroud. No matter how pale or faded was the frontal-only shroud painted copy of 1377, it is definitely NOT a 16th c. CE ‘white linen’ as Nicolotti most misleadingly wants us to believe.
I have been attempting to post this comment into this WordPress blog for the last 24 hours. Here goes for about the 12th attempt:
Concerning the D’Arcy memorandum alleging that the image was painted:
The position is clearly set out in Markwardt’s 2001 paper “Conspiracy against the Shroud”, and Wilson 1978 also comments on it.
In 1900 Ulysse Chevalier apparently had available to him a near-finished Latin draft from the Troyes diocesan archives addressed to a Scribe, which would imply that the alleged memorandum was never even sent to the Scribe, let only to Anti-pope Clement VII. However rather than producing this draft, Chevalier cobbled together a text from prior separate notes, which included editing marks such as marginal notes, cross-outs, and substitute wording, and manufactured for it an end of 1389 date; as by its archival retention it would be clear from the near-finished draft for the scribe that the memorandum had not in fact been sent to Clement.
Markwardt refers to the two source documents: “In 1993, Hilda Leynen discovered that two distinct drafts of the D’Arcis Memorandum were maintained in the Champagne collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, one very rough and containing bracketed words, and the other a relatively neat and polished product.”
From Chevalier’s cobbled Latin text, Herbert Thurston published an English translation in the Catholic periodical “The Month” in 1903. Wilson 1978 provides the full text of Thurston’s translation as Appendix B, the fraud apparently even escaping Wilson’s attention.
The relevant text cited by Markwardt is included in his Note 6:
‘6 The memorandum refers to an alleged investigation conducted, in about 1355, by Henri
de Poitiers, Bishop of Troyes. “Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he
discovered the fraud and how the cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being
attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not
miraculously wrought or bestowed.” ‘
Wilson makes the point that Latin lacks a definite article, and that the verb used was not “pingere” (to paint) but “depingere” (to copy). Thus the key phrase can be just as easily translated as: “… by an artist who had copied it … ” which sheds rather a different light on the whole bizarre episode. Thus relying on a questionable translation of a fraudulent memorandum may be the stuff by which art historians might make a living, but to others it may seem rather slender grounds for asserting that the origin of the Shroud image was ever an artist’s paint-brush!
Very likely, D’Arcis’ alleged copy assuming it existed, may have been commissioned by Jeanne de Vergy to replace the original she had taken from St Stephen’s at Besancon for safe-keeping and the venerable cleric was confused about the matter. The 1880 assertion that both the Besancon and Piedmont Shrouds were authentic burial cloths beggars belief, would seem to be based on no more than an excessive piety, by 1880 the French Revolution would already have deposed of the Besancon icon, the reverend gentleman would no longer have had access to it, nor would he have had access to the 1898 Pia photography.
All the comments above illustrate the lengths various commenters, and the adherents of each particular cloth, would go to in order to demonstrate that their relic was as authentic as all the others. If it was a clumsy painting, it was painted on by Nicodemus; if it was a uniform smear, it was made by sweat; if it had a diiferent design, it was used in a diiferent place; if it had no marks at all, it was lying on top of the others. There are even convoluted explanations as to how some shrouds had one image while the Turin Shroud has two. Max’s comment: “Its veneration was not so much linked to its being considered genuine as both being a shroud copy of or shroud substitute” is not borne out by the remarks of the 19th century commentators. In case of misunderstanding, I don’t think Colin personally thinks the Shroud was any kind of body-bag; however he is perfectly correct in saying that it was often described as the sheet into which Jesus was immediately placed after being taken down from the cross, or the sheet in which Jesus was transported to the tomb, in order to differentiate it from the several sheet/s in which Jesus was wrapped once in the tomb.
It is perfectly possible that the Shroud of Besancon was destroyed in 1349, and also that that of Turin was destroyed in 1532. This had no effect on popular belief, as the replacements were invariably “rediscoveries” of the previous ones, which happily turned out not to have been destroyed after all, as was massively attested to by as many bishops as could be gathered to the site.
Hugh first you wrote:
“Nowadays, we expect our miracles to at least have some semblance of scientific rationality, even if they defy the laws of physics, but I don’t think THE MEDIEVAL MIND (upper cases mine) was so constrained.”
And then: Max’s comment: “(The Besançon shroud) veneration was not so much linked to its being considered genuine as both being a shroud copy of or shroud substitute” is not borne out by the remarks of the 19TH CENTURY COMMENTATORS (upper cases mine).”
Actually you misleadingly changed the time-perspective of the issue…
Firstly you just overlook the fact I was referring to late 14th c. CE commentators (see e.g. Henri deTroyes’ and Pierre d’Arcis’ opinion) NOT 19th century commentators (the latter’s opinion is irrelevant as far as medieval mentality is concerned). My comment IS borne out by the two archbishops’ remarks and the pope’s (Clement VII) at least.
Secondly you just overlook those simple facts in 1794 the Besançon shroud of replacement was turned into bandages and 19th century commentators just do not reflect neither the late 14th nor late 18th c. CE popular opinions.
Thirdly, according to the late 14th c. CE Christian Church, relic authenticity was based first and foremost on certificates of authenticity not just popular beliefs.
Fourthly, it doesn’t seem you just cannot discriminate betwen 14th c. CE Church offficial view and servum pecus belief.
Tupo: it DOES seem you just cannot discriminate betwen 14th c. CE Church offficial view and servum pecus belief.
Hugh,
You most misleadingly shortened my comment too as I actually wrote: “its (the Besançon Shroud’s) veneration was not so much linked to its being considered genuine as both being a shroud copy of or shroud substitute for Yeshua’s original/Holy Shroud AND (upper cases mine) part and parcel of the Easter liturgy.”
Hugh wrote: “It is perfectly possible that the Shroud of Besancon was destroyed in 1349, and also that that of Turin was destroyed in 1532.”
The Chambery Shroud was destroyesd as Turin Shroud!? That’s a good one!
Reminder for Hugh: The Besançon Shroud was ‘replaced’ by a copy in 1377 CE (see the pious legend of the Besançon Shroud’s rediscovery in a niche in the church in 1378 CE).
Posted on behalf of daveb who is experiencing technical difficulties:
Concerning the D’Arcy memorandum alleging that the image was painted:
The position is clearly set out in Markwardt’s 2001 paper “Conspiracy against the Shroud”, and Wilson 1978 also comments on it.
In 1900 Ulysse Chevalier apparently had available to him a near-finished Latin draft from the Troyes diocesan archives addressed to a Scribe, which would imply that the alleged memorandum was never even sent to the Scribe, let only to Anti-pope Clement VII. However rather than producing this draft, Chevalier cobbled together a text from prior separate notes, which included editing marks such as marginal notes, cross-outs, and substitute wording, and manufactured for it an end of 1389 date; as by its archival retention it would be clear from the near-finished draft for the scribe that the memorandum had not in fact been sent to Clement.
Markwardt refers to the two source documents: “In 1993, Hilda Leynen discovered that two distinct drafts of the D’Arcis Memorandum were maintained in the Champagne collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, one very rough and containing bracketed words, and the other a relatively neat and polished product.”
From Chevalier’s cobbled Latin text, Herbert Thurston published an English translation in the Catholic periodical “The Month” in 1903. Wilson 1978 provides the full text of Thurston’s translation as Appendix B, the fraud apparently even escaping Wilson’s attention.
The relevant text cited by Markwardt is included in his Note 6:
‘6 The memorandum refers to an alleged investigation conducted, in about 1355, by Henri
de Poitiers, Bishop of Troyes. “Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he
discovered the fraud and how the cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being
attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not
miraculously wrought or bestowed.” ‘
Wilson makes the point that Latin lacks a definite article, and that the verb used was not “pingere” (to paint) but “depingere” (to copy). Thus the key phrase can be just as easily translated as: “… by an artist who had copied it … ” which sheds rather a different light on the whole bizarre episode. Thus relying on a questionable translation of a fraudulent memorandum may be the stuff by which art historians might make a living, but to others it may seem rather slender grounds for asserting that the origin of the Shroud image was ever an artist’s paint-brush!
Very likely, D’Arcis’ alleged copy assuming it existed, may have been commissioned by Jeanne de Vergy to replace the original she had taken from St Stephen’s at Besancon for safe-keeping and the venerable cleric was confused about the matter. The 1880 assertion that both the Besancon and Piedmont Shrouds were authentic burial cloths beggars belief, would seem to be based on no more than an excessive piety, by 1880 the French Revolution would already have deposed of the Besancon icon, the reverend gentleman would no longer have had access to it, nor would he have had access to the 1898 Pia photography.
Max makes a couple of valid points above. When a “new” relic appeared, such as the Shroud, I suppose it was natural for supporters of rivals to try to denigrate it as much as possible. Nearly all the miraculous images, whether or not we include the Shroud, looked like obvious paintings, so it was easy to claim that while my painting was a miracle, yours was cooked up by an artist a few years ago. After a while, when the new relic had achieved popularity, respectability and episcopal, or papal, approbation (invariably in that order), then of course it had to be assimilated into the canon. The only denigrations I have seen are those of Pierre D’Arcis, but I dare say there were others of the various veronicas, shrouds and other images as they turned up.
It is true that my sources are 19th century rather than, say 15th or 16th century, but can anyone say that individual relics were being denouced as fakes then? Apart, of course, from people like Calvin, who didn’t think any of them had any validity.
Max’s next two points do not support his own argument. The Shroud which was turned into bandages was destroyed in the face of popular belief in its authenticity, as a deliberate challenge to it, by an avowedly atheistic authority. His third point, that relic authenticity was based first and foremost on certificates of authenticity not just popular beliefs, does not fully reflect the close relationship between the two. If a relic wasn’t popular (or thought likely to become popular), it didn’t receive hierarchical authority, although once it had done so, it’s popularity was no doubt enhanced.
Hugh: Two corrections:
“It is true that my sources are 19th century.”
Baillet: beginning of 18th century.
“If a relic wasn’t popular (or thought likely to become popular), it didn’t receive hierarchical authority”.
A lot of relics were accepted by the Church because they were owned by a powerful aristocratic family. The construction of a magnificent building to guard the relic, the insertion in a collection of prestigious relics, processions and other rituals, often determinate the Church approval and fostered the popular devotion and not in an inverse way. Very often the relic was hidden to the people into particular chapels and castels and his fame was expanded by artists or ministrels, after its proclamation.
Thanks, Mo.
Hugh wrote: “If a relic wasn’t popular (or thought likely to become popular), it didn’t receive hierarchical authority, although once it had done so, it’s popularity was no doubt enhanced.”
Reminder: because the Lirey Shroud was presented as the true Shroud of Christ without any certificate of authenticity, no matter how popular the cloth was then, ‘the fraud’ had to cease. Indeed the relic as such didn’t receive full hierarchical authority yet its popularity kept being enhanced, which totally contradicts Hugh’s comment.
In light of the final version of the bull of Clement VII (1 June 1390 CE) most obviously, Hugh, Charles, David Mo and Nicolotti keeps misunderstanding the papal notion of ‘fraud’ as far as the Lirey Shroud aka Turin Shroud is concerned. The pope is neither asserting the Lirey Shroud is the true Shroud nor it is a fake or a painted copy. Most obviously to Hugh et al, ecclesiatical convoluted Medieval Latin is not their jasmin flavoured shisha for sure.
As we discussed before, it doesn’t really matter what the pope thought, or, indeed, what he said about the authenticity of the shroud. His instructions were all that mattered, and the Shroud gained respectability by being allowed to be venerated. You could take this as a kind of holding position, if you like, awaiting the vox populi. Eventually it was obvious that popular support overwhewlmingly endorsed the Shroud, and so sanctioned episcopal exposition became the norm.
The ambiguous position of the Church elicited the continuity of the popular cult to the Shroud. Though it was decaying till the 16th century, when the Savoy family took the matter into their hands and obtained the Ineuco Crucis.
And again, thanks David.
No, that’s too simplistic. The point is that popular enthusiasm and ecclesiastic approval grow together. Max’s statement: “because the Lirey Shroud was presented as the true Shroud of Christ without any certificate of authenticity, no matter how popular the cloth was then, ‘the fraud’ had to cease,” doesn’t mean anything. Obviously no relic can be popular before being ‘presented.’ As a challenge to Bishop Henri it was suppressed. When it resurfaced it was obviously more popular, and, in spite of another attempt (D’Arcis) to supress it, it gained limited papal approbation. Later still it was generally regarded as genuine, reported as such, and thronged about with mitred clergy.
The fact is the Lirey Shroud was OFFICIALLY VENERATED NOT AS THE TRUE SHROUD YET GAINED POPULARITY (it was said to be figura seu representacio Sudarii Domini Nostri Jhesu Christi/figure or representation of the Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which actually did not intend to define the Lirey Shroud as a painting or a fake either).
What is REALLY simplistic is to understand (as you currently do) the word ‘fraud’ as if referring to the Lirey Shroud as a fake or a painting, which is to misrepresent Clement VII’s real opinion, which does matter here.
Hugh you also wrote “Max’s statement: “because the Lirey Shroud was presented as the true Shroud of Christ without any certificate of authenticity, no matter how popular the cloth was then, ‘the fraud’ had to cease,” doesn’t mean anything.”
Oh, really? Have you ever heard of fraud as misrepresentation of one’s opinion and/or an object as true relic without any certificate of authenticty?
No, Max, it’s simply a question of syntax. Either way, the idea of fraud is not relevant here. A little popular attention produced a little papal sanction, which helped to generate more popular attention and more papal sanction, culminating in the huge expositions whose illustrations we are familiar with.
I have seen that my messages are ignored.
This is probably due to the fact that I mentioned the “numismatic dating”
indicating that proof as useful to deny the thesis of Freeman (… and then…
Is not it true that this “numismatic dating” dismantles the strange idea of Charles?).
However, despite this, I still want to speak about my suggestion previously
given to Colin about cold dyeing system for the sheet of polyamide.
Colin alluded to the question of ‘simulated’ sweat imprint but I see that
he was not even able to link the question of Jospice Imprint (= of the polyamidic
sheet of Liverpool) with the subject under discussion.
How so?
Maybe he does not know the chemistry of cold dyeing
for materials made of polyamide …
Now I ask:
Are you able to obtain a generic bodily imprint on a polyamide sheet ?
You can use mice or other (dead) small animals …
No offence, Piero, but I prefer to stay focused on the details that interest me, while keeping an eye open for new ideas and developments.
I am curious about the possibility to work (with cold dyeing systems for good imprints …) into Movile Cave …
…that is a cave in Constanța County, Romania discovered by Cristian Lascu in 1986 a few kilometers from the Black Sea coast. It is notable for its unique groundwater ecosystem rich in hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide but very poor in oxygen …
But see also the gyotaku imprints…
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyotaku
http://www.michaelcyra.com/artists/rick-steingress
http://global.yamaha-motor.com/business/outboards/life/fishing/chapter10/
>Gyotaku (Japanese = gyo “fish” + taku “rubbing”) is the traditional method of Japanese fish printing, dating from the mid-1800s. This form of nature printing may have been used by fishermen to record their catches, but has also become an artform on its own. …
In any case we would wonder (ie: to search!) what was the medieval knowledge of the technique of Gyotaku …
I have found the following words:
>With the invention of paper, T’A-PEN or “stone rubbing” in China prior to 200BC is in evidence. The first plant printing found on paper is from the early 1100’s on a Syrian manuscript. Japan has the earliest fish printing done in the 1800s. …
Link:
http://natureprintshawaii.com/history-of-gyotaku/
— —
>Stone rubbing is the practice of creating an image of surface features of a stone on paper. The image records features such as natural textures, inscribed patterns or lettering.
>By rubbing hard rendering materials over the paper, pigment is deposited over protrusions and on edges … etc. … etc. …
>Rubbings are commonly made by visitors to the US Vietnam Veterans Memorial …
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_rubbing
Buonosera, Piero
It would be nice if Colin would join the discussion about the Jospice mattress imprint, however you must first explain how the chemistry of cold dyeing makes sense in the context. I requested this from you yesterday.
You may have seen how Professor Fanti’s findings correspond to a certain extent with my article, published years before he worked on the imprint: https://www.academia.edu/4691379/Can_the_Jospice_Mattress_imprint_be_compared_to_the_Image_on_the_Shroud
Like me, he rules out bilirubin and any artist. Don’t forget, the secret lies in how the head image was partially imprinted — through a pillow.
dear Louis,
Surfing the Web you can read that nylon does not dye at all well in cool water …
But (reading my previous messages) we have known an industrial process (with anionic dyestuffs) for cold dyeing of polyamidic material…
… And take care: in the case of trichromatic dyeing (yellow + red + blue)
you have to be careful in your cold dyeing work = the rise of the dyes
on polyamide sheet (or another polyamidic material) should be as uniform as possible.
Unleashing how you want your imagination you can also achieve particular
effects using luminescent dyes …
— — —
Here a diagram of temperature (a scale)
as very rough suggestion for your first attempt:
Starting temperature 20° C.
Permanence at 20° C. for 20 min
Heating in 30 min to 25° C. and in another 30 min to 30° C.
Permanence for 90 min at 30° C.
End of dyeing.
Obviously a cool corpse doesn’t reach that temperature.
So, after the first attempt (a simulation without corpses!)
we have to do some calibrations…
You can work using an addition of a bit of ammonia and chemical products
that is adapted to impart to the bath an initial alkaline pH
and then to lower the pH you have to reach the elimination of volatile bases …
But you should be able to go to a temperature sufficiently higher
(…and however we can not even exceed 30 C!). Then you need
to gradually change the pH making it more acidic …
So:
Can you follow me in this my attempt to explain the procedure?
— — —
I am waiting for your reply on the issue …
Dear Piero
Here is the response you requested:
I don’t see what any dyed mattress can do with a corpse, whether hot or cold. You are living in a First World country and do you know how many poor people die in Third World countries and the corpses lie for hours on a mattress waiting for the government authorities to do something, given that relatives, if there are any, have no money to arrange anything at all? No imprints have been seen.Not all of them land on tables to be cut open by students studying medicine, some are even sold for black magic rituals. I can show you something worse: dead bodies of poor people buried less than a foot deep in cemeteries where one has to pay nothing.
You avoid answering the question I have asked you a couple of times and I repeat it again: tell me how the the partial head imprint got to the mattress through the pillow. If you can’t answer it then there is no point our continuing this discussion as that will mean you are proposing something like the bilirubin hypothesis proferred by Dr. Zugibe. Did Father Francis O’Leary swallow that? No he didn’t.
As for telergy, it is rare and can be invisible. Do you think Jesus believed that the “demons” he expelled from the Gerasene madman entered the swine and that is why they fell from the cliff and were drowned? If you think he did, it will mean he also believed in metempsychosis, and such a view has no support at all in the New Testament.
Clue: Why does the Gospel of Mark end the narrative by saying that the man was sitting “in his right mind”?
I’m sorry that you (… and maybe even … Colin Berry!) do not understand that there really is a chance to do something with cold dyeing of polyamidic materials …
So if you just can not understand the question of cold dyeing (of polyamide 6) … all the other stories seem to become just frills, minor problems!
Listen to me! We need to run at least some simple experiment and I think Colin Berry can do this (for example: using little dead animals…).
And …also do not understand what has to do the dyeing of polyamide with the Gospel of Mark …
So.. you have to be a bit more consistent with what it is about the cold dyeing.
I felt you were wrong about the question of cold dyeing for polyamide.
So …
I beg your pardon about my short answer with my rough words.
Probably, using the cold dyeing system (at low temperatures), you can obtain a polyamidic sheet washable only in cold water…
Please, take into account that I have not indicated reactive dyes, but I have suggested to work with anionic dyes. After the first cold dyeing attempt you can see what happens and decide if you want to work with little animals.
I have never worked with dead animals (also
it is not said that dead animals have the same behavior of human corpses …). And it is for this reason that I wanted to discuss with you…
Do you know Dr. Bill Bass and his particular experiments?
Maybe we could ask Dr. Bill Bass.
He can to try to do the experiment for us.
Do you agree with me on That strange idea?
But I see that there is a problem:
How to avoid to hold in contempt the corpse on that polyamidic sheet?
One should not get into these problems…
Louis,
You wrote:
>tell me how the the partial head imprint got to the mattress through the pillow.
The “partial head imprint” is only a very bad stain and cannot be compared with the Holy Shroud of Turin.
That’s a horrible stain, not recognizable as a head!
A good dyeing of textile materials requires that the phenomena connected with the dyeing, such as the dye take-up by, and the migration of the dyes in the fibre of the material, occur in an optimal way.
These phenomena are influenced by a considerable number of variants, such as the nature of the material to be dyed, the composition of the dye bath, with respect to the dyestuffs and to other substances it may contain, temperature diagram of the dyeing process, the duration of its several stages, and so forth…
Are you perhaps a dyer ….?
Do you want to know more than me in terms of dye?
Do you want to become a dyer?
You can buy special acid dyes that work especially well on nylon. They are called acid dyes because they are used with a mild acid, such as vinegar.
In any case, nylon, unlike cotton, needs some acid to take up the dye.
But you have to start at the beginning with a dye bath
with neutral pH, then you can go down gradually to a pH decisively/decidedly (…and excuse me, here I am undecided on the English term to define better [ie: more correctly] the language issue…) acid.
Obviously a corpse can not emit a strong heat and therefore the first tests of dye must not exceed the threshold of 25 or 30 degrees Celsius.
Do you know the book on Bill Bass?
Here’s the headline:
“Death’s Acre: Inside the Legendary Forensic Lab the Body Farm Where the Dead Do Tell Tales”
(Foreword by Patricia Cornwell)
by Dr. Bill Bass and Jon Jefferson.
But with the Shroud we have not to deal with shocking facts on deep human decomposition …
The body of Jesus disappeared before putrefaction.
And then … in this regard I want to ask to you:
Have you read the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich?
She was a nun who lived from 1774 to 1824 and Emmerich’s visions allegedly led a French priest Abbé Julien Gouyet to discover a house near Ephesus in Turkey…
Please read carefully the paragraph:
“Extreme honors “…
But, having said that, we must remember, however, that’s not really necessary to automatically believe that particular vision!
… honoring the dead body of Jesus, then to the disciples suddenly appeared the image of the Shroud …
But the strange story does not convince me really.
In any case, the story that offers us the strange “theory of body bag” by Colin Berry is a bit different …
We should discuss it…
But this message in this space does not seem to create the exact situation to get it right …
Buonosera Piero
Re.: Your comment regarding my research, seen above.
Please click on the link below, convert the pdf into word and then use google to translate the text into Italian:
https://www.academia.edu/4691379/Can_the_Jospice_Mattress_imprint_be_compared_to_the_Image_on_the_Shroud
Don’t misunderstand me as no offence is intended. We have been playing ping pong here with bad results. I have never said that what we see on the imprint can be compared to what is seen on the Shroud. The exact opposite will be read in my article.
So please, once you follow my instructions, we can continue the discussion.
Best wishes.
Dear Louis,
I certainly do not despise your request, but now (unfortunately) I can not have on hand your paper.
Every week I buy an Italian magazine (titled: “Miracoli” = Miracles) speaking of miracles…
But we can not abandon the serious scientific research on the material in question.
So I think it would be appropriate to better understand what it was produced by the corpse of the poor man on the material of polyamide and on that of polyurethane (thin layer)…
…And before going away from reality with flights of fancy we have to know what was the exact situation:
Were the polyamide yarns (components the polyamidic sheet) coated with a very thin layer of polyurethane?
or:
Was the polyamide sheet coated with a very thin layer of polyurethane?
I’m sorry, but now (…in the heat of the speech) I missed these interesting details.
So this shows that it is best to proceed calmly in our discussions on the details…
Well.
Now I have found your study (= Can the Jospice Mattress Imprint be compared to the Image on the Shroud?)…
So, you wrote:
>.. very thin layer of polyurethane which lies on top of the mattress cover.
and the italian traslation is the following:
>…strato molto sottile di poliuretano che si trova sulla parte superiore del coperchio del materasso.
and in portuguese:
>muito fina camada de poliuretano que se encontra na parte superior da capa do colchão.
capa do colchão = coprimaterasso (in italian language)… = mattress cover
So… “coperchio del materasso” it’s a wrong translation…
But… in what consisted that “mattress cover”?
Probably it was a misnomer to define the thin layer that covered the sheet of polyamide (but in an adherent manner).
… And polyurethane barrier is an interesting question for our next dyeing experiments (after the first attempts using only polyamide).
— — —
Unfortunately I had some small problems with language
(“of type linguistic”….) but I believe that the substance of my thought is completely intact.
— — —
However keep in mind that I have never claimed that the Shroud of Turin (= a sort of particular “imprint on linen”) and the imprint of that poor man Lierpool (on polyamide…) really have the same characteristics!
—- —-
Another question:
Why did not you answer to me about the strange vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich? …
Been doing some research on pieta…an artistic form from the 1300s onwards that showed an intensely tortured Christ.
Interesting to see the quite crude examples in the 1300s, wasn’t really till the 1400s or later that sculptors were able to achieve reasonably realistic body forms:
https://sosreb.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/pieta/
Not exactly. See Nicola Pisano, for example. .http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Pisano_Pisa_Baptistery_Pulpit.jpg
There are many counter instances.