“ENEA, effectively demonstrated, by "the scientific method," the miracle
of the Resurrection of Christ!”
“if it’s possible to reproduce the ‘look’ of that image, with its imprint features,
then it almost certainly IS an imprint.”
Two blogs. Two image hypotheses. Two crash-cymbal conclusions just this week past:
FIRST from Colin Berry’s blog posting That Man on the Turin Shroud: the mystery may finally be solved – at least in principle. The image of hands crossed at the wrists was experimentally produced by Colin.
How the image came to be:
Let’s stop beating about the bush shall we ? The image of the man on the Turin Shroud is an imprint (not a painting as Charles Freeman would have us believe), I repeat, an IMPRINT. It’s a contact imprint, to be more precise (no physical contact, no image)….
This posting focuses on just one feature of the Shroud image which is consistent with the view that the image is a contact imprint. I then make what some will see as a bald assertion, namely that if it’s possible to reproduce the ‘look’ of that image, with its imprint features, then it almost certainly IS an imprint.
The onus would then be on others who think otherwise, who have their own hypotheses, or as often or not fantasies as to how the image was produced, to do what I (with some assistance from my wife) have done this morning, namely to model their ideas experimentally. If they cannot, or will not do that, then their ideas are unscientific, and need detain this scientist no further.
[…]
… I say the Turin shroud is a medieval fake, produced by a simple two stage procedure: imprinting with an organic substance (which may well have been white flour, which has convenient adhesive properties)followed by second stage colour development (thermal in this posting, though chemical development is also feasible – see previous postings which used nitric acid or limewater).
Oh! The radiocarbon dating:
… this blogger did not set out with the intention of disproving the Shroud’s authenticity (or proving its non-authenticity). There was no need for that, given he accepts the radiocarbon dating, warts ‘n’ all, and feeling the onus is on those who reject it to press for re-testing. No, his research, starting December 2011, was a response to Paolo Di Lazzaro and others who claimed that the TS image characteristics, notably superficiality, could or would never be reproduced in a laboratory.
A bit more on why it took so long:
If the model were that simplistic, this retired researcher, who also has a record of research and modest achievement, would not have needed 3.5 years to conceive of it. The trouble with arriving late to an active area of research is the deadweight of ‘received wisdom’ that in many instances has hardened into rock-solid dogma. It’s hard not to be influenced by the big cheeses of Shroudology who descend onto websites to say one is barking up the wrong tree, that such and such was discounted decades ago, that one should "go acquaint oneself with the literature". In fact the current model incorporates many existing ideas – from Ray Rogers, Luigi Garlaschelli, Hugh Farey and Joe Accetta. But the key aspect was the realization that the body imprint was intended to represent ancient yellowed sweat, that it was not intended to represent a product of post-mortem putrefaction, nor a miraculous image imprinted by a flash of highly energetic radiation, of a type unknown to science, a signature of resurrection, or as some would have us believe, a love-letter to modern man (that being the case, why the ‘wrong’ answer for radiocarbon dating?).
SECOND from Stephen Jones’ blog posting Shroud of Turin News – June 2015
How the image came to be (with a bit of scripture-in-the-lab to help Di Lazzaro):
… There is no evidence that Jesus’ resurrection was a nuclear event, that produced a neutron flux. There is, however evidence, in The Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; Mk 9:2-3; Lk 9:28-29), where Jesus’ "face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light," "his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them," that Jesus’ resurrection (implied by Lk 9:30-31 where during The Transfiguration "Moses and Elijah … appeared in glory and spoke of his [Jesus’] departure [Gk. exodus] which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem") produced intense light which imprinted His image on the Shroud….ENEA, using "the scientific method," effectively demonstrated that "a miracle" occurred in the imprinting of the image of a "whole human figure," front and back, on the linen of the Shroud! And since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud man is Jesus, ENEA, effectively demonstrated, by "the scientific method," the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ!
Oh! The radiocarbon dating:
… 1) the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the Shroud is authentic, i.e. 1st century; 2) the probability of the Shroud being 1st century, yet having a radiocarbon date of 13th/14th century is "about one in a thousand trillion’"; 3) the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date must be the result of some type of fraud; 4) a form of fraud that was rife in the 1980s was computer hacking; and 5) there is much evidence that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, allegedly Arizona physicist, Timothy W. Linick….
A bit more on Stephen’s could-have/would-have hacking conspiracy theory:
… In 1988 the Shroud was radiocarbon dated by three laboratories in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, all using the same then new Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy (AMS) method. The very first run of the first laboratory to date the Shroud, Arizona, returned the date "1350 AD," which was uncritically accepted by all those present. That "1350 AD" date was leaked to the media by a Rev. David Sox while the carbon dating was still in progress at the other two laboratories. AMS pioneer Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009, the unofficial leader of the Shroud’s carbon dating, by a process of elimination concluded that the primary leaker was "someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement." Later it was discovered that "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist" was quoted in Sox’s 1988 book on the carbon dating as hard-line anti-authenticist. So Linick must have been in communication with Sox about the carbon-dating, despite having signed a written undertaking "… not to communicate the results to anyone … until that time when results are generally available to the public." So the inference is irresistible that Linick was the source of the leak of Arizona’s very first "1350 AD" date to Sox. In 1989 the journal Nature reported that "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval … AD 1260-1390". But this must be wrong because the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud has existed well before 1260 (e.g. the Pray Codex) and indeed all the way back to the 1st century. The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years, and as Shroud sceptics were quick to point out, 1325 `just happens’ to be only just before Bishop d’Arcis [falsely – see above] claimed that the Shroud was painted in the 1350s. But given that all the other evidence overwhelmingly points to the Shroud being authentic and therefore first century, as Prof. Gove pointed out, the probability that the Shroud is first century, yet has a radiocarbon date of between 1260 and 1390, is "about one in a thousand trillion". So the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud must be the result of some form of fraud. A form of fraud which was rife in the 1980s was computer hacking, as documented by Clifford Stoll (1950-) in his 1989 book, "The Cuckoo’s Egg." And according to Gove’s eyewitness account of the AMS radiocarbon dating process of the Shroud at Arizona, and presumably at the other two AMS laboratories, "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen." So a hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), who on 4 June 1989 was found dead of "suicide in very unclear circumstances," could have written and installed a program on Arizona’s AMS computer, and then had it installed on Zurich and Oxford’s AMS computers (e.g. by the confessed hacker for the KGB, Karl Koch (1965–89)). Linick’s alleged program substituted the Shroud samples’ first (or early because of irremovable contamination) century date for computer-generated dates, which whencalibrated, combined and averaged across the three laboratories, yielded a bogus date about 1325. Which `just happened’ to be about 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355. That the Shroud samples’ dates were computer-generated is supported by Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper, which admitted:
"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [non-Shroud controls] is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted."
But this is impossible given that the Shroud and control samples at each laboratory were all on the one ~26 cm (~1 inch) diameter carousel wheel and rotated through the one caesium ion beam within minutes of each other. If there was something technically wrong with the dating process at a laboratory, the controls and Shroud samples at that laboratory would wrongly agree and disagree with the controls and Shroud samples of the other two laboratories. But that the agreement across the three laboratories in the dates of the non-Shroud control samples was "exceptionally good" shows that there was nothing technically wrong with the dating itself, which must mean that the Shroud samples’ dates were not real but computer-generated. Koch is not essential to my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, as Linick could have acted alone. But that both Linick and Koch (who need not have known each other) were involved in hacking the Shroud’s radiocarbon date for the KGB is supported by the fact that Linick died of "suicide in mysterious circumstances" on 4 June 1989 and Koch’s inexplicably burnt body which was made to look like suicide, had been publicly identified by the German police only a day earlier on 3 June 1989!
Is there some way to put these two in a room together and tell them they can’t come out until they agree on everything.
Question-would flour have been detected on the shroud? I know that Colin’s flour imprint theory would not hold water because there are too many other questions he would need to answer especially the blood.
The blood is irrelevant here. Heller and Adler looked for but detected no starch on the Shroud. Rogers looked for it and found it. Either make up your mind before looking at their evidence and deride one or the other as an incompetent fool, or try to understand what was going on in all their minds and in all their laboratories to make them come to such different conclusions.
Anyone who looks at Colin Berry’s flour prints and think they bear any resemblance to the actual shroud image should see an optometrist for some new glasses.
There is a yardstick by which to judge other experiments being made. It is the experiments that were made by Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro, described in:
https://www.academia.edu/11355553/Dr._Paolo_Di_Lazzaro_explains_his_research_on_image_formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
Not long after this was published his work was highlighted in “National Geographic”.
As for the blood, Drs. Heller and Adler were serious scientists and published their findings in peer-reviewed papers.
And now?
Now we have another proof that the TS image has not been yet reproduced and remains a challenge.
CB: ” Note the relative absence of lateral distortion.” Are you serious ? Lateral distortion is obvious.
CB: “Do my imprints respond to 3D enhancement in ImageJ?Judge for yourself, dear reader:” I judge: not at all. How is it possible to compare the so-called 3D properties of Colin’s hands with the 3D properties of the hands of the man of the Shroud?
After several years of researches and experiments, Colin, like many others, is unable to create an image similar to the TS image. It is a fact.
Yes, the TS image is an imprint, not a paint. But this imprint is very special. A direct imprint (no contact, no color) seems to be unable to explain the entire TS image. Some kind of “action at a distance” seems necessary.
Nickell, Allen, McCrone, Pesce,Garlascelli and many others and now Colin: all of them failed to reproduce the properties of the TS image.
No: the mystery has not been solved (even in principle)..
Now we also need some lines about why there really is blood on the Shroud.
Thibault wrote: “this imprint is very special. A direct imprint (no contact, no color) SEEMS (upper cases mine) to be unable to explain the entire TS image. SOME KIND (upper cases mine) of “action at a distance” SEEMS (upper cases mine) necessary.”
I believe more in plain common sense than alleged “big science” in terms of “archmiraculism” or “archfraudulism” as far as the Turin Shroud double bloodied body imprint is concerned. To claim there was “no contact” and the TS image image results from an “action-at-a-distance” force is misleading per se to say the least and totally biase the whole enigmatic image formation process issue.
Plain common sense (or is it the Infinite Intelligence of LIfe?) tells me the TS bloodied body imprint most likely results from a contact-and-gradual-loss-of-contact formation process in conjunction with an external thermal source (with or without body hyperthermia).
Most likely the sindon/himation used as an inner burial linen cloth was in-soaked with an alkaline water solution and thus providentially sort of “prepared” through halakha (Judean religious law here in terms of funerary customs, rites and practices) for transferring the dorsal and ventral imprint of the Jerusalem-limestone & Judean-desert-dust & lactate-residue-covered bloodied body to the inner surface of the fabric on taharah (the latter in terms of wrapping in ritually clean shrouds –an alkaline water solution in-soaked inner burial winding sheet and smaller dry outer shrouds + a much larger dry “all-enveloping shroud” or sovev in Hebrew, sudara in Aramaic– and subjection to aloetic fumigation to make up for the anointing procedure and dry out the body) .
Methinks a change of paradigm is much needed indeed to get out of the alleged “scientific” dead-end that tends to misleadingling promote “archmiraculism” and “archfraudulism” at the expense of plain common sense as far as funerary and forensic archaeologies are concerned.
Typo: as far as funerary and forensic archaeologies + archaeological bloodstain analysis are concerned
More typo: blodstain pattern analysis
Reminder: On June 9, 2015 at 10:24 am, I wrote in the hypothesis the TS man is Yeshu’a:
“As a victim of a violent death, Yeshua’s body should be buried with his shed innocent blood and his POST-MORTEM blood could not be DIRECTLY cleansed. The use of alkaline solution along with (myrrhic-)aloetic fumigation) could account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal. Now these two signals precisely tend to prove the body could have been purified in accordance with an ancient (Judean) burial custom/practice. The true archaeological fact is there is more than one way by which blood could have become depleted of key ingredients if one considers the bloody body purifying & drying ritual scenario, which Adler clearly did not (crucifixion being an implicit assumption in all his discussion at the expense of specific burial practices, rites and customs). It is light-years’ far from proven yet the burial cloth was just draped about or loosely bound the TS man’s body and the image recording implies JUST ONE body-to-cloth configuration.”
Additional reminder: still on June
“Most likely, the neat haematic cartography resulted from a sticking-gradual-unsticking transfer mechanism implying first the clean long inner burial sheet soaked in an aqueous alkali solution (made of living or rainwater + ashes and/or limestone dust) and tautly drawn lenthgwise back and front from head to toes, was compressed widthwise with shorter dry clean shrouds (othonia) as ALL PARTS of the body should be wrapped up (see Naḥmanides, Torat ha-Adam; Inyan ha-hoẓa’ah) and then, most likely, the tightly wrapped up bloody corpse was subjected to fumigation (see see 2 Chronicles 16:14 – 21:19 Targum) and the long inner burial sheet somehow got taut again back and front through drying out and shrinking .To his likley five-six buriers and (secret) disciples Yeshua was no am ha-arets (“average citizen) but a prophet (and even the Messiah) whose freshly dried innocent blood had been shed, and should be kept with his body and purify.
In the case here under study, Second Temple period speedy tahara in terms of wrapping in shrouds, purifying & drying out was an act of ultimate kindness to honor the deceased who died a violent death. It shall not be mistaken with careful physical cleansing Jewish/Judean ritual of a NON-bloody body.The (myrrhic?) aloetic fumigation rite temporarily made up too for the anointing procedure that could not have been performed on burial since grinding spices was not allowed on shabbat to prepare spicy oils. Actually the women came back to Yeshua’s tomb after shabbath JUST TO ANOINT/apply the spicy oil perfumes to his wrapping shrouds (NOT TO WASH, ANOINT AND tightly WRAP up his naked body in shrouds as it is currently misthought).
In the koine Greek Gospels, do you really read Yeshua’s shroud was just draped over or loosely bound? And, besides anointing, do you really read the women were to wash and tightly wrap up Yeshua’s body in shrouds/linens clothes on Sunday morning? Why the wrapping in shrouds/linen clothes SHOULD be read as ONLY metaphoric in the Gospels while the anointing procedure the women were about to perform on Sunday Morning SHOULD be read as referring not only to FACTUAL anointing to be but also to FACTUAL washing and wrapping to be (had Yeshua’s body be still in the tomb)? This implicit interpretative line makes no sense at all.”
How long will both archmiraculists and archfraudulists totally overlook the true possibility of a shortened taharah in terms of wrapping in shrouds (more than two and most likely six), purifying & drying (via alkaline solution and fumigation) to account for the lightly mordanted blood looking red in natural daylight as if it had been shed the day before?
How long will they both totally overlook the long inner burial winding could have been wet/alkaline water based solution in-soaked and first firmly drawn taut lengthwise and widthwise over the head to the toes before being compressed widthwise?
How long will they be unfamiliar with Second Temple period funerary archaeology, Judean burial core procedures and archaeological bloodstain pattern analysis and totally overlook the man’s volumetric bloodied imprint recorded on the inner side of his long inner burial winding sheet implies both an initial and final body-to-cloth configuration to account for the image formation process?
Typo: implies both an initial and final body-to-cloth configurationS to account for the image formation process?
Methinks “I’m a voice crying out in the desert” of archaeological plain common sense as far as the TS is concerned.
Re my theory solving the bloodied body imrpint formation process mystery in principle:
On June June 10, 2015 at 1:30 pm, I wrote:
“Compression and gradual decompression induced collimation along with cloth-to-body sticking and gradual unsticking. The TS bloodied body image is the result of a self-collimated light mordancing extended to the back and front of the stiff rigid corpse of the crucifixion victim.
And on April 30, 2015 at 10:56 am I also wrote:
“(…) methinks the crucifixion victim’s ‘smooth wet and dust-covered textile skin’ (or ‘second skin’ aka his aqueous alkali solution in-soaked inner winding burial sheet now known as the Turin Shroud), tightly moulded over his dust-lactic-acid residue-freshly-dried-blood covered body, acted as an image enhancing membrane for accurately aligning (collimating) compressible and decompressible vapour flow and orthogonally moved in terms of body-to-cloth gradual drying/shrinking and unsticking front and back by means of the said flow as a thermal actuator.”
Reminder: Whether it be 3D printing of a crucifixion victim body between two sheets of an ancient linen cloth, small sprigs of fresh herbs, the fresh individual flowers and/or freshly caught fishes between two sheets of (blotting) paper, such a process requires moulding by either manually rubbing, pressing or compressing crests and valleys between the said sheets, moistening or remoistening (through a moisturizing ingredient as liquid medium) AND drying (in terms of external and/or internal thermal source). Note: Ammonia and/or lactic acid is present in eccrine sweat and urine and lactic acid is also produced through fermentation of plant derived carbohydrates and is an excellent moisturizing ingredient.
Even in the case of the Jospice matteress cover image case, besides prolonged exposure to moisture from sweat, urine + gradual drying through pre- and/or post-mortem hyperthermia and/or well heated hospital room, compression is involved (see Zubige: “a significant amount of weight was exerted on the hand from the weight of the body on the hand and in the shoulder area, the weight of the head on the lower part of the face area and on the shoulders”).
Besides to claim the TS man’s stiff rigid blodied body was not FIRST compressed (in shrouds) and had no contact and acted at a distance (up to 4 cm) to yield a 3D imprint with minor distortions, is not only contrary to the Gospel accounts (Yeshu’s was wound, compressed fastened in his shrouds), to Judean funerary customs, pratices and rites but to facts of experience as well (the Volckringer patterns, Gyotaku images and Jospice matteress cover irrespective of the Antinoë Veil).”
Well my latest curiosity is the interesting imaging just to the side of the nose. It’s as if a cheek has been swollen and has come up into closer proximity to the cloth than the other cheek. I’ve just been on Shroudscope and it’s quite noticeable.
Methinks it is not so much body-to-cloth proximity than body-to-cloth duration of contact time due to the gradual sticking-unsticking process that shoud be taken into account in terms of bloodied body imprint volumetric recording on the inner side of the alkaline water based solution in-soaked sindon/himation used as a purifying long inner burial winding sheet.
Typo: sticking-and-gradual-unsticking process