I have long advocated for for increased engagement by and with qualified skeptics in Shroud science. No one is perhaps better academically and experientially qualified than Dr. Colin Berry (PhD), a retired biomedical scientist in the UK, who has been studying the Shroud of Turin for many years. A look at "CS Berry" in Google Scholar shows the breadth and depth of his work over the years (not all of entries are his, only most of them, his name being so common). In the interest of seeking truth over advocacy, I asked Colin, what is it that we know and don't know about the image? I am delighted to be able to publish his well-formed, thought-provoking views.
What do we know about the image that is crucially, repeat CRUCIALLY significant? Would it be (a) its faintness and apparent superficiality, dare one say, ‘ghostly’ character or (b) its faint yellow colour, scarcely visible to the observer as that of a life-size adult male unless standing back a metre or two (etc etc).
. . . might it be that the coloured “fibres” were not actually fibres at all?
keep reading . the answer will become clear
Nope, it would be an aspect, one that strangely, some might say perversely, one that gets no mention whatsoever in the 1981 STURP Summary, namely its negative, tone reversed character.
If you mention “negative image” to most (if not all) TS authenticists, what answer do you get?
Answer: the image was generated via some kind of photography (supernatural input of some kind, needless to say, if 1st century as claimed, despite the 1260-1390 result from radiocarbon dating . Yes, that’s assuming – pro-authenticity generation in the 1st century AD via some kind of radiation outburst, whether from surroundings, or, wait for it – take a deep breath – the corpse of the Crucified Jesus.
Yes, we’re assured there must have been some kind of miraculous photography operating in the 1st century.
Where? How? Press harder and you may well hear about a miraculous flash of radiation occurring on the Third Day post-Crucifixion. (Thus the referrals to the TS as a largely “later-than-Day 1 post-Sabbath “burial shroud” – rarely if ever seeing any mention to Day 1 with its “Transport Shroud” deploying the “fine linen” summoned up by that otherwise obscure Joseph of Arimathea (as per Gospels 1-3). .
Yes, you’ll be told it has been modelled (after a fashion, albeit weak in the extreme) via 1st century “corona discharge” ( Prof Giulio Fanti, Coordinator /Prime Spokesperson for the somewhat inconspicuous Shroud Science Group why???? ), or via pulsed UV laser beams ( similarly Italy-based governmental ENEA’s Paolo di Lazzaro et al) .
So how, one might ask, did the “photography” link with a (yawn-provoking?) negative tone-reversed image arise in the first instance? Was it the obvious conclusion to arrive at, given the basis of those ideas, namely the NEGATIVE, TONE-REVERSED IMAGE that we see on the TS.
As indicated, a negative image is simply tone-reversed. Meaning what precisely? Generated by what background conditions? Miraculous or as encountered on an everyday basis, at least from time to time?
Answer: There are the so-called positive images: things in which the highest, most prominent relief, thus catching and reflecting most incident light, appear the brightest to the onlooker, as expected. Parts of the viewed item which have lower partially recessed relief, i.e. shadowed by neighbouring higher relief, accordingly look darker.
Yes, things that are shadowed look darker needless to say, when plunged partially or completely into obscuring shade.
So what about “negative”, i.e. tone reversed images, the kind that one would see if using old-fashioned photography, i.e. using light-sensitive chemically-based emulsions to capture a similarly negative image before 2nd stage printing off the tone-reversed positive?
Is the negative tone- reversed image exclusive to 2-stage 19th century photography (namely snapshotted positive subject converted first to a negative image – then back to positive at second stage printing off)?
Answer: NO. Resounding NO!
To claim so would be a massive logical fallacy (which is what the amateur photographer Secondo Pia (described as a lawyer by profession) allegedly did so, see below, way back in 1898). And guess what, he was largely believed, and – amazingly – his mistaken conclusions going largely unchallenged to this very day!.
Let me explain. Negative images have been known for centuries, even if not described as such.
Example? Think contact imprints, say the traditional brass rubbings from centuries ago, some still surviving.. Take something with a contoured surface, one where the highest relief looks brightest when viewed with the naked eye (on account of NOT being shaded by higher relief nearby) one where the lowest relief looks darkest, i.e. through being partially or totally shadowed by neighbouring high relief.
Visual aid? See my posting on the negative image from brass rubbings.
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/who-says-science-cant explain-the-shroud-of-Turin
So why for goodness sake did STuRP fail to flag up the key negative nature of the TS body image?
Answer: the claim is/was credited to the amateur photographer Secondo Pia (a lawyer by profession, invited to take photos of the TS in the late 19th century). He used photography first of all to improve the definition/clarity of the TS body image, then viewed what was on his Stage 1 photographic emulsion, then the secondary print.
The first as we know was a tone-reversed image, as expected, given the chemistry of 19th-century photography, deploying light-sensitive silver salts to capture the initial image (lightest parts giving darkest image as metallic silver, darkest giving lightest).
Secondo Pia was instantly surprised by what he saw, namely that his Stage 1 negative imprint looked like a POSITIVE of a human subject and vice-versa. How could that be, he wondered?
Answer: simple: the image of the subject was a tone-reversed negative to start with. The 19th-century photography merely reversed the tonal intensity, converting a tone-reversed negative back to a positive. So was it scientifically credible to claim that the TS image had been generated initially via some kind of photography?
Answer: NO, definitely NO!. If a scientist (as distinct from Secondo Pia a lawyer by profession) one had to look for alternative mechanisms by which tone-reversed negatives could be generated, ones that did NOT require or involve obligatory photography.
So what were the commonsensical alternatives?
Answer: yes that brass rubbing as shown above could and indeed SHOULD have supplied the answer – but sadly received no mention.
So what is it about brass-rubbing that generates a negative tone-reversed image?
Answer? No, not photography, but CONTACT IMPRINTING, where the highest relief (brightest on original viewing) generates the DARKEST image. Why? Answer: through making first contact via the more localized pressurised contact due to 3D topology with the imprintable surface and vice versa.
TS faint body image: painted, imprinted, or another?
As already flagged up, STuRP referred to “linen/body ” contact as a means of diminishing, indeed dismissing “physical cloth-body main contact” per se as the (main) theoretical means by which the TS acquired its image. Contact alone, we were informed, could not account for the sharpness and detail seen in the FACIAL image, compared with the rest of the body.
But that as baldly stated was a somewhat misleading argument, given the complex relief of the facial features compared with the rest of body (torso, limbs, etc), given that powder imprinting CAN capture the fine detail, as displayed above on my Galaxy Warrior imprint.
Is there a quick and simple way of proving my point, one that does not require folk to attempt flour-imprinting at home, with the need for second-stage heating?
Yes, there is, and while a wee bit messy, it involves a simple ingredient, namely charcoal (the barbecue variety, crushed with a hammer to get a fine powder) plus a simple accessible part of the human anatomy – namely the back of one’s hand.
Yes, rub the latter with powdered charcoal, shake off the excess, then overlay back of hand with light coloured fabric (maybe linen, but cotton will do), then press the cloth down firmly onto one’s hand, TAKING CARE TO USE VERTICALLY-APPLIED PRESSURE ONLY. (Why? In order to capture the topography of the flat (upwards-facing part of the hand) thus avoiding the sides. Imprinting of the sides, even partially, would result in a distorted image that basically cried out “Yup, I’m merely an engineered contact imprint”.
Why that cautionary note? Answer see my photograph below showing the near photograph-like character, correction NEGATIVE TONE-REVERSED IMAGE of my hand , as obtained with charcoal-powder imprinting in a manner that tries to avoid the sides!).
Fig 2: LEFT: negative tone-reversed imprint of my left hand obtained using powdered charcoal. (Note the near photographic quality, arguably not too dissimilar from the TS in character and quality). RIGHT : The same image, as seen after tone-reversal (negative back to positive) using easily-downloadable ImageJ computer software.
Yes, there is some image distortion on the forefinger (extreme left) due to slight wrap-around of the linen, but one does not see it on the two middle fingers, where adjacent fingers to left and right prevent any wrap-around effect.
OK, so that’s a quick and simple visual aid, one that demonstrates the effectiveness of contact imprinting in producing end results that tick a number of boxes.
What about flour-imprinting followed by heat-induced browning to render the image visible? (My Model 10 for starters, Model 9 maybe coming later)
Yes, there’s the initial negative image, roughly comparable to the previous charcoal-based version. (Oh and yes, it responds similarly to tone-reversal, and indeed to 3D-enhancing ImageJ!).
It’s anyone guesses as to why contact imprinting remains the poor relation in TS research to this very day. No, admittedly it did not get a good start from STuRP in 1978, given that earlier largely irrelevant reference to face versus body differences. Craig and Bresee came along in 1994 with a splendid but sadly somewhat sidelined science-based publication, talking up contact imprinting. (Dan gave a booster posting on it later, shortly before I personally came on the scene, which sadly I missed initially).
Yes, the resort to facial v body imprint as the sole means in the STuRP Summary to play down contact-imprinting was not in this experimentalist’s view an example for modern-day scientists to follow (kindly note, STERA Prezzy, given that pasting of yours claiming STuRP to be a model for today’s scientists!). My Galaxy Warrior imprinting above, plus that of hand (and much else besides, held back for now) shows that contact imprints, while maybe not as well-defined as paintings, least of all, one presumes, ‘supernaturally-aided snapshots’, can nevertheless be held up as models for the TS body image (we’ll discuss blood – or “blood” – later).
However, this brings us on to another issue that needs to be addressed if wishing as I do (admittedly) to promote my flour-imprinting/heating Model 10. (Sorry folks, it’s been some 10 years in the making, with scarcely an internet mention, other from the ideas-receptive Dan Porter on this and his multitude of previously retired/reawakened blog site postings). The new idea/issue in question? Answer: “Superficiality of image” as listed in Dan’s suggestions for issues for me to address in this posting.
Yes, powder imprinting avoids the common sidelining down the “just a painting” road when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise (negative image, lack of brush marks etc). But we then find ourselves transported to the opposite pole by SSG members and its Chief Spokesperson, aka “Coordinator” in their 2010 paper, Microscopic and macroscopic characteristics of the Shroud of Turin image superficiality, one is ever so gradually sold, para’ by para’, on the seductive idea of the TS body image being ultra-superficial, confined to a layer on the fibre’s PCW (primary cell wall) a mere 200nm thick (yes a mere 1/5,000th of a millimetre!). (One would hardly know it was there, but for its faint yellow coloration: but at least it explains, or tries to, why one has to stand metres back from that super-superficial TS image merely to see that one is observing the body of a naked male – making it just as well that it has also those bolder victim-identifying bloodstains!).
But there’s a big shortcoming where that 2010 paper is concerned. The particular sample of TS examined?
Answer: Rogers’ Mylar sticky tape sample, taken during the STuRP visit in 1978. No, not microscopy of the intact, unstripped TS. What one might reasonably ask might have changed or altered re body image v associated fibres if/when deploying that aggressive strip-off procedure.
It gets worse, much worse. Microscopy was restricted, mainly if not entirely to longitudinally- spread image threads and fibres(aka LS viewings), without inclusion of TRANSVERSE (TS cross-section) fibre specimens. Microscopy was introduced to me at school and university as joint LS versus TS – never one without the other!
Progressing from where we’ve reached thus far on this posting (notably the negative image, contact imprinting, etc) to that super-superficiality claim is not one that can be taken in a simple single step. One has first to “clear the decks” so to speak, to address a number of background details. Then and only then, one can look critically at the crucial, nay dominant, super-superficiality claim, one that underpins so much that appears in the media and elsewhere regarding the claimed “ghostly” and “miraculous” nature of the TS body image, generated by some kind of Third Day Resurrectional outburst of radiation. Yes, one has to look critically, as stated at microcopy employed, i.e. LS , mainly if not entirely lacking TS, at the nature of the sample (sticky-tape sampled versus untried alternatives, notably (still to come) mechanical fragmentation of TS image-bearing threads and fibres, or chemical solution of fibre cellulose.
Where you may ask does it end where this posting is concerned? Answer (supplied as a mere hint, a tiny clue: it ends with introduction of a new (ish) concept – my own – that can be summed up as follows: bogus/phoney image fibres, produced by capillary migration of a briefly liquified image chromophore along inter-fibre channels largely invisible within the TS, then solidifying to create the “bogus image fibre” in the microscopic channels that exist between genuine image fibres. Please bear with me before reaching that finale! Let’s return (as briefly as possible) to background detail first).
So what led me to powder-imprinting, as distinct from brush-stroke art (or flash of radiation image-capturing “photography” in the Gospel era!.
There were two main factors. First, as stressed earlier, there was the tone-reversed negative that largely excluded painting. But there was also a separate idea. It was the model developed by Ray Rogers (STuRP’s chief chemist no less) namely that the body image was not on the linen per se as some variant of chemically modified cellulose – as flagged up in the STuRP Summary. It was on some kind of coating that had been applied to the linen in the course of spinning and weaving. But what precisely?
Rogers proposed “starch”, purified no doubt from cereal grains, etc, i.e. freed from sugars, proteins, etc. Rogers proposed a chemical pathway that led starch to become yellow or brown.
Let’s not dwell on the chemical details, except to say that starch alone would not have supplied all the needed ingredients to achieve his so-called “Maillard reaction products” aka melanoidins, given the latter require amino-carbonyl reactions. (Indeed, starch would have been hard-pushed even to supply the needed carbonyl functions!). Cue Rogers’ stroke of genius: might it have been skin secretions ((sweat etc to put it crudely) on a crucified body that supplied the additional ingredients for a yellowish body image? Answer: maybe, or there again, maybe not! Cue science-based speculation, followed by experimental modelling.
There were other considerations that tended to back up the Rogers’ model, over and above that flagged up by STuRP. Members of the latter had discovered (importantly!) that the TS body image could be bleached using a number of specialized chemical reducing agents, notably diimide, hydrazine, alkaline hydrogen peroxide, etc. They fit with Rogers’ version of chemistry, inasmuch as they bleach melanoidins etc via reduction of colour-endowing conjugated double bonds. But here’s the rub where STuRP is concerned. Look at the quoted passage above, and you’ll see a reference to “sulphuric acid” as a means of modelling a body image starting with cellulose. But go to John Heller’s 1984 book on the STuRP operation, and what does one find? It was CONCENTRATED sulphuric acid that was deployed, which is not just a browning agent, but usually, given a short time, a CHARRING AGENT too, i.e. producing black elemental carbon. That would tend to exclude the possibility of total colour bleaching, given the inertness of elemental carbon to so-called “bleaching agents”. ! So big, big question marks hung not only over Rogers’ model, but STuRP’s too, inviting one to seek new alternatives, whether to simple added starch OR to intrinsic cellulose as the component responsible finally for a yellowish image-depositing chromophore after a complex series of chemical reactions.
Not mentioned thus far is the Mark Evans of STuRP. No, not a chemist but a skilled photographer and microscopist, one who took pictures entirely off the intact undisturbed TS, i.e. prior to Rogers’ sampling/STuRP investigation with “sticky tape” specimens. What he spotted through his microscope at relatively low magnification, looking at threads and fibres from image and non-image zones, was truly bizarre (so much so that his findings have if the truth been told, been largely sidelined and/or overlooked in the subsequent 40 years and more. Evans described the image fibres as displaying what he called a “half-tone” effect, plus “image discontinuities”.
“Half-tone” effect? Image colour is evenly dense wherever one looks. It’s merely a case of that even colour being present or absent!
Image discontinuities? Look along the image “fibres”, and the colour can abruptly cease!
I, along with most others, did not give Mark Evans’ descriptions a lot of thought, until viewing my own Model 10 flour imprints, whether from toys, my own hand etc under home-based (cheapo) microscopes. Suddenly, the penny dropped. The image threads and fibres, viewed sideways on were displaying, guess what? Yes, a “half-tone” either/or effect” (Shame the view was somewhat blurry, which Is why I did not immediately publish the side-on view – one that matched Evan’s too. But it didn’t stop there., seeing at least of hint of sudden “image discontinuities”. Modelling can work – just once in a while, even if less than perfect.
I wasted no time in taking TS (transverse) cross-section, and found something totally unexpected. While coloration looked even, viewed from the side, that was not the case in cross-section. There was a speckled appearance to the cut ends of threads, suggesting (at first sight!) that one was seeing a mix of coloured “fibres” directly alongside uncoloured ones.
I have Dan (Feb 2019) to thank for flagging up my transverse sections of my Model 10 flour-imprinting/heated linen fibres.
See image below:
See my final science-based posting from June 2022 for ideas regarding inter-fibre channels along which a (briefly?) liquified chromophore can migrate via capillary action.
Explanation: might it be that the coloured “fibres” were not actually fibres at all? Might it be that the colour was NOT within the core of as such fibre (e.g. the inner SCW – secondary cell wall as I first proposed) but in longitudinal spaces, i.e. the narrow channels running BETWEEN the fibres?
So why a half-tone effect? Answer: might the image-chromophore have been generated and released from the roasting flour imprint as a liquid (albeit briefly)? Might the liquid have leaked into channels BETWEEN the fibres, progressing along via capillary action, until suddenly coming to a dead halt (either because the supply of liquid from source had run out, or the liquid has quickly solidified, or maybe both!
So what impact if any would that sequence of events, involving a migrating LIQUID chromophore, have on what one sees if, like STuRP (and subsequently the 2010 pdf paper from the Fanti et al SSG group)?
What impressions, false ones especially, may have been created, especially if looking at fibres that had been stripped away from their mother-threads by means of Rogers’ sticky tape?
Thus far this has been mainly based on the chemistry. We now need to switch to physics to get a better grip of what relevance the otherwise unexplained Evans’ findings might have on those later claims for body image being confined to an ultra-thin layer on the PCW of fibres. Might an artefact have crept in unnoticed, one based on sticky-tape sampling, one that was absent from Evans’ viewing of intact threads and fibres?
Guilio Fanti (Team Leader) plus a selection of named Shroud Science Group colleagues used for the most part (it seems) image fibre specimens that had been harvested from the 1978 STuRP investigation using Rogers Mylar sticky tape. (The latter was pressed down onto the TS with limited pressure, then pulled away together with stripped-away fibre fragments with some attached image chromophore).
See: Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality
The main conclusion of that 2010 paper? Answer: the TS body image is an ultra-thin layer that is some 200 nm thick ( i.e. a mere 1/5000th of a millimetre!). What’s more, it is specifically confined to the outermost PCW (primary cell wall) of the linen fibres. (The paper is packed with additional detail – some quite good and observant – that will have to pass without comment for now).
Can the incredibly thin PCW-confined claim be accepted without question? Or might there have been some disruption of the image-fibre relationship due to that sticky-tape sampling (chosen as a means of minimising damage to the TS).
I say (based on my Model 10 flour-imprinting studies) that there is a sizeable question mark over the 200 nm claim. Why?
Answer: the paper makes reference to Mark Evans of STURP, who, as already indicated, performed microscopy on the entire TS (not a stripped off sample). He observed and reported the so-called “half-tone” effect, he did likewise for “image discontinuities”. Yet neither effect receives interpreation in that otherwise authoritative-looking 2010 Fanti et al paper.
As already stated, my Model 10 microscopy suggests an unexpected mechanism whereby image chromophore interacts with linen fibres. No, not merely by binding of a (mystery) chromophore to linen fibres. No, far from it.
Evans’ finding can be interpreted as follows. The TS body image was developed by heating body-contact imprinted linen. The initial yellow chromophore exuded from the flour particles as a LIQUID initially. The liquid intruded into the channels between fibres (initially occupied in pre-retted flax by pectins etc), and then proceeded to be wicked along those channels by capillary action (the channels being exceptionally narrow). Thus the even coloration of the image chromophore along the LENGTH of fibres. Thus, additionally, the sudden discontinuities due either to a limited supply of chromophore OR to solidification of liquid chromophore, or maybe both.
Impact on microscopy, if viewing the threads and fibres spread on their sides? Inter-fibre channels, plugged with chromophore, may well have been mistaken for coloured fibres! Put another way, what was viewed and reported as image fibres may have been nothing of the sort. They could have been “bogus” aka “phoney” image fibres, masquerading to the unaware microscopist as image fibres when they were not!.
When viewing sticky-tape samples, the confusion gets worse – at least in theory. Who’s to say that the sticky tape has not merely stripped a thin layer of inter-channel chromophore off with the fibre, leaving most of the chromophore behind on the TS – such that what gets taken away from Turin in 1978 was simply a low yield sample of the chromophore? Might the claims for an exceptionally thin image layer, barely visible, “ghostly” etc be an artefact, based on selective, exceedingly limited sampling of the image chromophore? Might the decision to deploy sticky tape for sampling have carried with it a huge penalty, nay sting in the tail, unrecognized at the time, and indeed for decades thereafter, up to and including the 2010 SSG paper by Fanti et al?
So what can or might be done in a STuRP Mk 2 to explore the alternative interpretations that can be made of Rogers’ sticky tape samples, and whether or not there is a logical explanation for Mark Evan’s two main descriptors (half-tone effect, image discontinuities).
Were one to have access to the TS per se, and were one to be able to sample sufficient material, then two obvious means of avoiding sticky-tape sampling to better define image location/thickness spring to mind.
The first is to take image-bearing linen (yes, whole linen) and subject it to intense mechanical grinding so as to break up the cellulose and PCW cell walls into smaller particles. After monitoring the end-result by microscopy, there would be a further step, namely to employ separation techniques that exploit any differences in particle size and density, e.g density-gradient centrifugation. Might one then see chromophore fragments freed from inter-fibre channels that exceeded 200nm in size?
That’s the physical approach thus far. There’s a chemical alternative too, one that relies on a particular liquid reagent that is unique in dissolving cellulose cell walls etc, namely that intense blue cuprammonium ion, formula Cu (NH3)4 ++. (One makes it as I recall by adding ammonium hydroxide to a solution of copper sulphate, filtering off the precipitated copper hydroxide, then dissolving the latter in an excess of ammonia solution. Would that similarly free-up chromophoric material that may have been trapped within inter-capillary channels, allowing it to be seen separate from its (limited?) attachment to PCW?
This retired researcher, now TS experimentalist, decided against trying to get better microscopy of his LS v TS piccies from low-cost home-based microscopes. He felt that sophisticated microscopes were required? But where based, and belonging to whom.
The decision was made to approach the SSG Chief Spokesperson, namely Prof Giulio Fanti at Padua University. I supplied him via registered post with a roasted flour imprint taken of my 14cm Galaxy Warrior’ plastic figurine.
Response: have previously described the finally negative outcome of that approach in a previous comment on this site. Nothing (that I’m aware of) was done with my Model 10 sample. Instead, I got a 24-point list of why my approach to the TS was entirely wrong!
This is a cut-and-paste of a previous comment to Dan Porter’s posting, The Shroud’s 3D Problem Gets in the Way of the Truth:
Colin Berry
May 26, 2022
Back in Jan 2019 I contacted Prof Fanti at Padua University asking if he would be willing to examine microscopically a sample imprint (from a plastic toy) in first instance – with a human hand imprint maybe later). I gave reasons (theoretical, to do with his suggested superficiality of TS body image fibre, as put forward in his collaborative papers with fellow SSG members – though I made no reference to SSG as such).
The initial response looked promising. But he then began making references to “confidentiality”. Would he be free to discuss his findings with “friends” (again, no specific mention of the SSG). That issue (“confidentiality”) did nor concern me in the slightest, and I said so. It was the next development that got me initially worried, then somewhat irritated. I found myself on the receiving end of questions as to why I had resorted to my Model 10 technology, deploying white flour, oil, heat etc. with the focus taken off my prime reason for making contact, namely to see how an imprint generated with Model 10 compared with one of his own via that corona discharge idea of his involving sudden and intense burst of high energy radiation (whether natural or result, dare one say, of Third Day Resurrection).
Things went rapidly downhill. I got a reply acknowledging my sample had been received but that he was too busy at that particular moment to attend to it immediately. Fair enough, but I also got directed to a list of 24 points he and (SSG) colleagues had drawn up defending, albeit indirectly, the corona discharge and/or similar processes, asking me to defend my own more mundane hands-on technology. In short, I was being diverted away from a request merely to put our two chalk v cheese END-RESULTS side by side to compare similarities v differences via microscopy – much neglected TRANSVERSE MICROSCOPIC SECTIONS especially (not relying on LS viewing only). I was being being criticized for the sceptic thinking that had generated Model 10, despite my progressively sequential science-based self critical multi-year model building that considered and rejected 9 prior models no less.
I did not mince my words. I spelled out the nature of the scientific method, the self-critical approach.
Guess what. The correspondence came suddenly to a halt. Prof Fanti failed to come back with my request for microscopic evaluation, TS especially, of my Model 10 end-result, as distinct from the manner in which it had been obtained. My time, effort and expense in preparing and sending the sample (registered mail) had been wasted!
Later, in correspondence with another SSG member (winner of my £100 prize compo) I confided by email what had – correction had not- been achieved through my suddenly terminated dealings with his SSG head. Back came a communication from Prof Fanti, accusing me of breach of confidentiality! Yes that dreaded C-word – yet again!
Yes, call it what you will Dan – confidentiality, privacy, secrecy – it’s the SSG lead man – albeit not addressed by myself as such – who was first to flag up those issues, while at same time trying to shift focus from end-result to mode of production.
Sorry Dan, but I made feelings clear at start of my final posting re Model 10: the SSG needs either to drop “science” from its title if trying to wave aside model-building experimentation of the kind this accredited scientist had been pursuing. OR, alternatively, it needs pronto to get itself a new Prezzy if wishing to keep “science” as its main descriptor where that single sheet of mystique-laden linen is concerned.
Science – the real commodity – has zero patience with pseudo-science dressed up /masquerading as if the real thing.
Nuff said! My scientific credentials counted for naught where the SSG (or rather its Chief Spokesman) was concerned. Seems I lack their pro-authenticity tunnel vision!
Sticky tape sampling may have seemed OK to Rogers and others back in the late 70s (STuRP era), thinking, nay assuming without question that it would minimize damage to the precious TS. All it would do, they thought, was to strip away the superficial image-bearing fibres from the rest of the linen threads.
But as indicated, there may have been a fatal, totally unforeseen flaw in deploying that technique if what appeared via casual microscopy as a yellowish “image fibre” was nothing of the sort, being in fact a bogus, phoney fibre!
Applying sticky tape to a profoundly-altered architecture, one that has been transformed by penetration of a LIQUIFIED chromophore BETWEEN fibres, followed no doubt by solidication as described, alters the scenario completely. Sticky tape, to put it baldly, would wreck the new invaded architecture, pulling real fibres away from the bogus ones, taking with them that alleged 200nm thick film of chromophore, leaving most of the latter behind.
Assuming the above is correct, what is needed to rewrite the TS story from scratch? Answer: StuRP Mark 2!
In other words, go back to the TS (or to begin with at any rate, models therof!) with alternative means of separating image colour chromophore – not just from the rest of the linen thread, but from the individual fibres and their immediate surroundings, like those actual inter-fibre channels, whether unoccupied or, as suggested here, serving as hidden repository for chromophore.
In passing there’s a wee problem as regards new sampling procedures. How can one go back to Turin with one’s new sampling procedures, given there’s only on TS, still of celebrity status, whether 1st or 14th century origin?
There’s a drastic solution – namely to separate the frontal from dorsal sides of the TS via a simple side-to-side cut across the middle. Keep the frontal side, with its self-evident association with the crucified Jesus for its continued status as a religious icon (or genuine relic as some continue to maintain). View the dorsal side, with its lack of detail, as (wait for it) dispensable. Hand the dorsal side in its entirety over to the scientists recruited to a proposed STuRP Mk2, not just for a single week of intense research, but for continuous research over months, maybe years.
But that scenario, let’s face it, is unlikely to happen. Let’s immediately move on.
Realistic alternative, albeit less likely to generate instant answers? Answer: model building, genuine experimental model building, largely ignored in STuRP1 – not surprisingly given its time restricted time for TS access, its need to be content for the most part with those stripped-off sticky tape samples.
Don’t just check out what at first sight seem probable models. Check as wide a range of models as possible, deploying modern-day linen initially (maybe supplemented later with tiny squares of TS linen from relatively inconspicuous image-bearing locations).
Don’t forget to include POWDER-IMPRINTING among one’s models! Don’t forget to seek evidence for an initially liquified chromophore penetrating inter-fibre channels to generate phoney-fibres! Deploy the most sophisticated microscopes possible – whether designed for light, electron etc. Not home-based microscopes that give tiny blurred images!
Comments, questions invited, and indeed welcome. This writer used to be a school teacher as well as a lab-based researcher. Science (real science) thrives on questions, indeed openly critical input. Real science attempts to steer clear of the all-to-frequent “tunnel vision”, sadly displayed in so much of the pro-authenticity thinking re the TS!
I’m more curious about the latest two experiments (one a few years ago, and now a couple months ago) that showed the shroud to be near the date of the death of Jesus.) Looking around, I have seen nothing done to discredit the findings?
If these new dating methods are reproducible, and because they do not damage linens they can be done with no damage to the underlying textiles, why are we seeing or hearing nothing about them? If they can be reproduced over and over in blind testing with numerous known=age cloths, why do we hear nothing about this? Seems to me that would be a game-changer, for either the skeptics if they can be debunked, or the pro=authenticity folks on the other side.
Sorry Tim. You’ve left us all (well, one of us at any rate) guessing!
What are the recent findings which now re-date the TS as being
1st century?
So how come the radiocarbon dating was wrong by some 1300 years?
I personally am totally ignorant as to which (recent) publication (s) you are referring to.
So kindly fill us in please as to how the new results were arrived at!
Better still, provide some internet link(s) to which we can go for nitty-gritty details.
Do so, and I shall then try to get back to you ASAP with a considered opinion…
The carbon dating is absolutely on point. The fibers that were tested were unwittingly taken from the repairs made to the shroud after the fire in 1300. The fibers tested were not cut from the original cloth. The repairs were made to strengthen the fabric as it is over 2000 years old. There is also a backing sewn to the back of the shroud to strengthen it and has been replace from century to century as it deteriorated.
It has still not been determined how the image came to be or of what the image is composed and people still call it a forgery. The shroud is a gift from God Himself as witness to his greatness.
Hi Tim, and Colin, for that matter.
For a detailed review of the latest dating method, please see my blog post, WAXSing and waning at https://medievalshroud.com/waxsing-and-waning/. Then by all means comment further on this or that blog.
Best wishes,
Hugh
The approach taken to dating of ageing linen via testing of strength etc is bizarre, Hugh, truly bizarre. The promotional papers which attempt to claim it can – freely acknowledging the many factors – temperature, humidity etc that can influence fabric strength – effectively rule it out as a means of testing whether a linen is 700 or 2000 years old.
Carbon-14 dating is something else. The decay of C-14 is (as far as I’m aware) largely, indeed totally unaffected by environmental factors. That’s why it was adopted as the ‘gold standard.’ where dating is concerned. It simply cannot be lightly and casually dismissed.
To dismiss C-14 dating in favour of strength testing, whether by X-rays or alternatives – with any amount of guesswork involved re environmental factors – is, as I say, bizarre, totally bizarre.
Let’s not mince our words Hugh: what we see is tunnel-vision-driven pseudo-science.
I don’t dismiss C-14 at all, and I think we can agree that Rogers didn’t either. He was convinced of a reweave in the single sample performed multiple times, which I myself and not sure of either way. It sure would be nice if the Vatican would allow samples–very small–from at least 5 areas to be tested in a modern setting. It would seem that would go the furthest in settling the age of the cloth.
Restricting the C-14 dating to a single small rectangle from a corner of the TS was driven, needless to say Tim, by a desire on the Vatican’s part to minimize visible damage needless to say.
But that decision created an Achilles Heel where belief in the findings were concerned when released back in ’88, notably on the part of those totally-convinced advocates of 1st century authenticity
So yes, repeat the C-14 dating, taking several samples from a range of sites.
Might it now be possible one wonders to date individual (largely inconspicuous) threads as distinct from patches, carefully dissected out from non-body-image regions, so as to further minimise damage to the overall appearance of the TS?
Yes, I would hope so, and it’s rather disappointing the Vatican has not acquiesced to the much less invasive parts that would be required to do so now. Rogers himself said that the removed holes from the fire would be perfect for such a test. Sigh…someday…
Hi Colin,
The latest one is here, from April 19 of this year:
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/new-scientific-technique-dates-shroud-of-turin-to-around-the-time-of-christ-s-death-and-resurrection
This other paper was directly from Professor Fanti, and the citation here is dated 2018:
https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/GJAA.MS.ID.555707.php
Regarding your efforts, I think it’s rather amazing the amount of work you’ve put in over the years, and for that you’re to be commended. I am myself not a scientist, but I adore the scientific method, so I’m hoping for some insight about these two methods above. When methods are bunk, they tend to be discredited quickly, and yet I have not seen that as of yet. I would love your opinion on these, even knowing you are a skeptic and Fanti is very much the opposite.
Hugh, thanks, that was a good read, and it shows some skepticism may be warranted about Fanti’s method. Still, I would prefer something more firm, from either side if possible.
In Fanti’s paper I referenced above, he refers to Rogers estimating the age to be between 1000 BC and 700 AD due to Vanillin content. Has that been discredited?
You have mentioned that paper Tim, the one that Ray Rogers did back in 2005 (sadly the year of his death) namely on alleged use of “vanillin” to estimate the age of centuries-old linen. You asked if there had been a crit’.
Yup, there was. It was back in 2014, and done by a certain fringe character in these parts, one who shall remain nameless. ;-)
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/critique-of-rogers-so-called-vanillin-clock-for-dating-the-shroud-why-was-stanley-t-kosiewicz-not-a-co-author-and-wheres-the-data/
There’s too much re the alleged chemistry, correction, “chemystery” underlying the so-called “vanillin clock” to sum up here.
Suffice it to say that there’s no vanillin per se worth speaking of in linen (OK, so there’s a fairly close relative, namely coniferaldehyde, but is bigger and more complex than vanillin, and NOT free but bonded as a sidechain onto the hugely complex lignin with no assurance that is generates a pink colour in that phloroglucinol/HC1 test .
(What’s more, vanillin, even were it present, is said to give a weak yellow colour only with the crucial phloroglucinol reagent – not, repeat NOT pink!).
But it gets worse- considerably worse, albeit from an entirely different angle. How you might ask?
Rogers’ paper gives credit to a work colleague (namely one Stanley Kosiewicz) for developing the needed chemistry, while saying nothing more re the the latter’s assistance – someone who should arguably have been a co-author on the paper (see title of the crit’ posting).
Guess what? The same Stanley Kosiewicz posted to the comments sent to the crit’ paper in 2020, stating he’d only just come across Rogers’ paper, and had nothing, absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with it, being unaware of having been “credited” with the chemical know how!
Best methinks to forget about that vanillin paper. What it describes is little short of a chemical minefield. At worst – it’s a lot of fanciful gobbledegook, written, sad to say, in Rogers’ twilight years, nay months…Nuff said re that oh-so-dodgy “vanillin” methinks…
Ahh…so there is nothing to it? You would be in a better position to know that, certainly, so I will take your word for it. Was Rogers just completely wrong, then?
Any input on the article from a few months ago? Sadly, this like of mine regarding all things Shroudish is only something that can be pursued on a not-deep basis due to my writing commitments, so I must hear from the experts like yourself to form my opinions. As with everything in life, doing so in an effective and critical-thinking fashion requires one to hear from both sides.
The real pseudoscience lies in your ridiculous and very biased hypothesis, already cited by many skeptics. It totally ignores the impossibility of making an exact replica of the shroud, those many evidences supporting its autenthicity, the evidence of its existence before the 14th century, such as the Hungarian manuscript of the 12th century and the sudarium of Oviedo which existence has been confirmed since the 8th century and you believe that partial images of poor quality can be extended over a 4 meters long fabric, a very difficult task for a forger whose identity no one knows. Why would this supposed forger do something so difficult and complex? If he had gotten rich and famous from it, everyone would have known about him!
Suppose, just suppose Tersio, that you’re walking down the street, and you got stopped by a policeman (elderly, uniformed).
“Excuse me sir” he says “but I’m not happy with your movements. Kindly tell me who you are, where you’ve come from, where you’re going to”.
What’s your immediate reply, Tersio?
Would it be “Oh shut up you weirdo. Just who the hell do you think you are? Call yourself a policeman? I say you’re nothing of the sort. You’re just someone posturing as a policeman! Admit it chum – you’re nothing but a fraud!”.
That, to put it baldly, is essentially the nature of your comment, Tersio. Your immediate response is to question my credentials as a genuine scientist, indeed to brand me as a pseudo-scientist.
Have you done any homework as regards yours truly?
Did you see the posting I placed on my own site recently, one which displayed what was being said on my behalf from one professor to another by way of testimonial many decades ago (1978).
(I was applying for a senior and responsible position at a science-based institute – FMBRA, Chorleywood, UK,)
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2022/03/14/reference-to-colin-berry-originator-of-the-medieval-flour-imprinted-model-for-turin-shroud/
Hi Tim,
I reference Giulio Fanti’s original research papers in my blog, with some discussion. Like Colin, and, it seems, the rest of the world of archaeological dating, I don’t have faith in them. They require too much subjective pre-selection of suitable fibres, and insufficient objectivity. In the last six years, nobody unconnected with the Shroud has pursued his ideas in any other context.
Regarding Rogers and Stanley T. Koseiwicz. Rogers says:
” Stanley T. Kosiewicz of Los Alamos aged samples that contained lignin at 40, 70, and 100◦C for up to 24 months. Comparison of detection limits among the samples showed the rate of vanillin loss is very low. A suitable chemical-age predictive model therefore could be produced.”
Rogers is correct in his first sentence. In Themochimica Acta 40, Koseiwicz published a ‘note’ entitled “Cellulose Thermally Decomposes at 70°C.” Actually his experiment dealt with numerous materials, which he heated until they decomposed (gave off appreciable quantities of Hydrogen and CO2). In one experiment the materials were simply heated and the decomposition temperature recorded (about 185°C in the case of ‘cellulosics’) and in another the materials were left at fixed temperatures (20°, 40°, 70° and 100°C) and rate at which gas was evolved recorded over long periods of time. For paper, gas evolution was not detectable at 20° or 40°, even after two years, but it was just detectable at 70° and slightly more detectable at 100°. However, the author concluded that “it is apparent that the gas generation rates are so low that truly quantitative statements cannot be made on the rates of thermal decomposition at or below 100°C.”
There is nothing in the paper about lignin or vanillin, only cellulose, and given the author’s conclusion, it was dishonest to say that “A suitable chemical-age predictive model therefore could be produced.”
Hi Hugh,
As pertains to vanillin, there doesn’t seem to be a generalized agreement about what it could mean for shroud research, so I will leave that for the moment, What do you think about the recent research above, where they claim a new process indicates a 2000 year old date for the shroud’s origin?
This is from only 3 months ago, and of course involves people that believe in its authenticity?
Hi Tersio,
It’s always good to hear from those who think differently from oneself, as they sometimes encourage one to review, or to research, one’s own supporting evidence. As a serious Shroud researcher, you will no doubt have read my work on the Pray Codex and the iconography of the Three Marys, and my recent evaluation of the Sudarium of Oviedo (see this blog, a few posts ago).
If there is something I’ve said with which you disagree, then I would be very grateful if you would point it out, as it will give me an opportunity to revise my opinions if necessary.
From the tone of your comment, it seems that you suppose the making of the image on the Shroud to have been “difficult and complex,” from which the craftsman responsible should have “gotten rich and famous.” I wonder why you should think that? Those of us who have researched it mostly suppose that it was probably very simple to make the image, and no great credit to him who made it. If we knew his method, we could all make one ourselves, but, paradoxically, it is often the simplest things that are the most difficult to reverse-engineer.
For the TS to be authentic first century AD, it needed to have been hidden away, without a single whisper as to its distinctive features (until, at long last those Lirey displays/Lirey Pilgrim’s badge appeared on public display in the mid-1350s as a big, big money earner.).
(Oh, and with it, that confession to the local bishop Henri that it had been “cunningly painted”. i.e. a suspect forgery).
Can someone then please explain to me what possible compelling motive could have existed for some 1300 years no less, one that kept the TS firmly under wraps, out of sight, indeed in total 100% secrecy from the world at large?
Am I personally able to think of one – whether credible, or even scarcely believable?
Answer: nope…Me mind’s gone a complete blank…
Hi, Colin,
You assert the following:
“For the TS to be authentic first century AD, it needed to have been hidden away, without a single whisper as to its distinctive features (until, at long last those Lirey displays/Lirey Pilgrim’s badge appeared on public display in the mid-1350s as a big, big money earner.).”
I’m rather curious as to why you think that the Shroud of Turin (that’s of course, easily traceable to the mid-1300’s in Lirey) needed to be hidden for about 1300 years in order to be authentic.
I think that its authenticity is better proved through its historical PRESENCE (not absence.)
Gregory Referendarius’ sermon the day after the Image of Edessa was brought to Constantinople is compelling evidence that the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa are one and the same. Gregory even references blood CLOTS on the cloth that he personally witnessed the day before his sermon. And, of course, what is it that’s on the Shroud of Turin??? Transfers of BLOOD CLOT exudates.
JACKPOT!!!
I dispute Mark Guscin’s definition where he claims that it is blood “drops” –not “clots.” Being of Greek heritage, speaking both Greek and English at home, being forced to take dreaded Greek classes for years by my mother and having two years of college-level Greek, I know (and have double-checked with dictionaries) that the word for “drops” is “stagones” ΝΟΤ “thrombous.” Moreover, “thrombos” means “clots” –as we even see with medical terms in English that are derived from that word.
And, ol’ Thurston with his English translation of the, D’Arcis Memo always used the most nefarious and self-serving definitions for the Latin words that he could find. While “cunningly” is, indeed, one possible translation for the Latin word “artificem” there are other viable translations for this word which include: “skilled,” “artistic,” “expert,” “artuful,” or “creative.” That changes the tone of things quite a bit, don’t you think? Another example in the English translation of the D’Arcis Memo by Thurston where he chose the inflammatory word “clever” instead of the more mundane words such as “skilled,” “dexterous” or “expert” was with the Latin word “solerti.” Thurston had an ax to grind, because he (like plenty of other Christians) thought that the Shroud of Lirey/ Shroud of Turin couldn’t be authentic, because the Bible, allegedly, doesn’t mention it. So, he wrongly thought that Christians were engaged in idolatry by engaging in a type of “worship” of the Shroud. So, I think his motives were good (like the Jews who thought they were defending the honor of God by attacking Jesus), but they were, quite tragically, mistaken.
Cheers,
Teddi
Thanks for your continuing interest in my posting Teddi (and to Dan especially for the invite to summarize my thinking developed over the past 10 years).
But as stated a number of times previously, I am left both weary and disenchanted with the modern-day internet as a vehicle for delivering ideas. ( I’m further disillusioned by the response from the Shroud (so-called) Science Group and its leader to my sending a sample of a Model 10 flour imprint for advanced microscopy etc. and having it shelved, of being told that my approach and thinking is unacceptable`.).
Don’t take this personally Teddi, but I’ve decided this is an appropriate time to bow out from sindonology (at least re the fine detail of this and that). All I wish or need to say now is blunt and simple. Prove me and my Model 10 wrong, SSG, sindonology, wider internet etc etc.
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2020/06/20/shroud-of-turin-final-report-of-my-8-year-learning-curve-entirely-consistent-with-my-final-flour-imprinting-model-10-crucial-second-stage-roasting-of-a-medieval-body-contact-imprint-to-mimic/
Further communication welcome on my private email only
sciencebod01@aol.com
Bye one and all …
Colin Berry
Hello, Everyone,
I think that it is important to establish certain understandings. The first is that nothing can be proven to a 100% certainty other than consciousness –as Rene Descartes brilliantly proved: “I think, therefore I am.”
Everything else (and, I do mean everything else –all things science included) is just provable to a degree.
I find it helpful to look at things in terms of either being proven (1) “beyond a reasonable doubt” (this can vary, but I think of it in terms of certainty that’s at about 96% or higher), (2) by a preponderance of the evidence (anything over 50%) or (3) “probable cause” (where a reasonable person would likely think that something is true.) Nobody’s interested in something that can only be proven by a “scintilla of evidence” –although, this amount of evidence MIGHT be enough to warrant the further investigation of something –especially if there are other independent pieces of evidence which corroborate it.
With proving things, there is the issue of WHO has the BURDEN of PROOF? Claims in the form of hypotheses can be very interesting and stimulate thought, but, ultimately, they are not actual evidence.
While the Shroud of Turin had been studied deeply by many scientists and medical professionals (such as Paul Vignon, Pierre Barbet and Yves Delage) in the past, the most comprehensive body of work –producing compelling evidence that its image was not made by human hands or crafted through the human mind– was delivered to us on a silver platter by the STURP team. Shroud scholars such as Professor Giulio Fanti, Dr. Gilbert Lavoie, Dr. Frederick Zugibe, Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro, Dr. Niels Svensson, Adrie van der Hoeven and many others have added to STURP’s groundbreaking work.
And, one cannot ignore the historical evidence, either, that links the Shroud of Turin to the sindone discovered in Christ’s empty tomb. And, for a real “eye-opener” read a breakdown of the Greek words into English for Galatians 3:1. This is evidence that what is now referred to as the Shroud of Turin had been shown to the Galatians. (!!!)
In short, there is a mountain of evidence –far more than what is needed– to create a “rebuttable presumption” that the Shroud of Turin is the AUTHENTIC BURIAL CLOTH OF CHRIST.
Anybody seeking to attack this rebuttable presumption is, of course, free to do so –so long as we continue to have freedom of speech.
HOWEVER, when someone seeks to attack something that has reasonably earned a “rebuttable presumption of correctness,” the person doing the attacking bears the burden of proof. It is not Professor Fanti’s duty (nor any other Shroud scholar nor anyone else for that matter) to falsify or confirm someone else’s hypothesis.
It is through the back-and-forth and parsing of evidence that the Truth about something stands a chance of being revealed. So, I always find value in such discourses.
Kind regards,
Teddi
Hi Tim,
Both the claims you speak of are by Giuio Fanti, a mechanical engineer from Padua, Italy, both depend on the regular deterioration of a material with age, and significantly, the hypotheses tested all used the same set of reference samples to try to establish a calibration chart.
Fanti reckoned, not unreasonably, that the mechanical strength of a flax fibre would deteriorate with age, that its colour would darken, and that its crystallinity would also deteriorate. These factors could be measured using various mechanical and spectroscopic tests. Five mechanical tests, two FTIR and Raman spectroscopy were carrfied out in 2014, and a WAXS X-ray test was the subject of his latest paper earlier this year.
2014
To determine whether his hypotheses were correct, Fanti collected numerous specimens of known date, measured them in various ways, and established correlations between the measurements and their age. He then measured some fibres from the Shroud and by seeing where they fitted in his calibration curves, gave the Shroud its age.
It all sounds great. Find an old sheet in a tomb in China? Extract a few fibres, subject them to battery of tests and plug the results into the calibration curves.
But there were problems. From his initial samples Fanti extracted between 4 and 22 fibres (why not the same number from each sample?) and then whittled them down, both before and during testing, to the ones whose results he finally used. A Shroud from first century Jerusalem was rejected before even extracting fibres because it was so badly decomposed thanks to the damp environment, and all 22 fibres from a Peruvian cloth were rejected as unsuitable. Between 30% and 100% of the fibres from the textiles that made the cut were finally used. All the textiles used were from Israel or Egypt, and had lain in tombs undisturbed for between 1000 and 4000 years befored being excavated and kept in museums. The Shroud, of course, has been continually folded up in different configurations, tucked into boxes, rolled around a pole, held out for exposition and suffered extensive burns and liquid stains. The fibres from it that were tested were from the vacuumed samples extracted by Giovanni Riggi di Numana, not carefully extracted with a needle as were the others.
Five different ways of measuring the mechanical strength of a fibre were given calibration charts, and five measurements of fibres from the Turin Shroud were compared to them. Three of them gave a date between 400 and 600 AD, one gave a date of 14AD, and one of 510 BC.
Three ways of measuring the optical characterisitics of a fibre were given calibration charts, and three measurements of fibres from the Turin Shroud were compared to them. Two gave a date between 200 and 300 BC, and the other of 32AD.
On the basis of this widely divergent collection of results, an average was derived of 86AD, suggesting, if the Shroud is authentic, that all the physical manipulation of the Shroud in the last two thousand years has actually made it stronger!
2022
A new calibration chart was drawn up using Wide Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS), this time using whole thread, but from the same collection of samples; samples from which between 0% and 70% of their fibres had previously been rejected as unrepresentative. The X-ray results from the Shroud gave a date of about 200AD.
There have not been any other recent datings, whatever the popular press might say!
The original group of researchers were all skeptics. The cuttings were not allowed to be taken from the shroud because testing destroys them. The cuttings were taken from patches the nuns sewn in because of a fire that occurred around 1300. The shroud is sealed and will never be available again for research. The shroud is protected and is not even on display anymore. Only copies are available for viewing because light is destroying the 2000 year old precious piece of cloth. Its over fellas. It is now a matter of faith.
Hi Paul,
Good of you to drop by. Your comment consists of eight statements, not one of which is wholly true and six of which are wholly false.
But God bless you anyway!
Thanks for the feedback folks (and to Dan especially for issuing the invite to post my gradually-evolved ideas here on his own site).
It’s good to know there are still some open and receptive minds where the TS is concerned.
Let me know if there are any aspects (especially re pro- v anti-authenticity) that might benefit from being addressed here in greater depth and detail.
Being drawn in –like a moth to the flame.
Hi, Colin,
I was wondering about a couple of things regarding your flour and oil roasting experiment. And, I have only had a chance to read some of what you have read –so, I might ask you a question or questions which you have already responded to. So, my apologies in advance for that. But, I’m curious, so I’m going to ask, anyway.
Have you checked to see whether the body image that you have produced fluoresces or not under UV photography? (I have long-wondered whether a superficial-enough scorch could avoid fluorescing.)
Also, why would anyone go to the trouble of putting flour all over 1 or 2 naked men to create a fake with a non-high-tech (and likely very uneducated and gullible) audience? Why not just “fake up” the image with a dilute iron-oxide paint –like what McCrone suggested? What medieval person would have known the difference? Why go through the hassle of such an over-the-top, messy and challenging process when simple artwork would suffice?
How does your process get around the problem of a distorted image –as is a criticism of the bas relief hypothesis for image formation?
How do you get around the problem of there being no traces of oil left on the Shroud? Was every sub-micron trace of it washed out? (That would be quite the laundress, no?) Or, did every trace of it oxidize away over time? That’s a big assumption, too.
Where does one find a place to “roast” such a large cloth –and, especially, not get “hot spots” on the cloth? And, again, why would someone go through the trouble, of doing this when a simple grisaille painting (like what ol’ McCrone proposed) would’ve sufficed for the intended audience?
How do you get around the blood first, image second issue –and without the bloodstains undergoing alteration from the heat?
How do you account for the cloth underneath the bloodstains being like the non image area of the cloth (as opposed to the non bloodstained body image areas of the cloth?)
Anyhow, just curious as to your thoughts on these issues.
Cheers,
Teddi
Cor. I have a big shot taking a close interest – Teddi Pappas no less!
(Google “shroud turin teddi pappas” folks and you’ll see what I mean!).
You have asked some 7 questions of meTeddi, addressing a wide range of aspects re the TS.
Rather than deal with each and every one in a single mega-reply, it’ll be dribs and drabs, i.e. taking one at a time,hoping to respond finally to all 7 at various times throughout the day..
Back later…
Teddi’s comment:
“How do you account for the cloth underneath the bloodstains being like the non image area of the cloth (as opposed to the non bloodstained body image areas of the cloth?)
Answer: simple – accounted for already. The linen beneath the overlaid BLM had received no flour-derived image whatsoever, and thus nothing to generate a colour derived from the flour imprinting medium.
BLM = (phase 1, pre-heating ) Blood Locating Medium.
It would have stayed the same colour as the non-image-bearing linen, albeit wee bit yellowed .
Overall conclusion:
NO, not art, admittedly Teddi. Let’s be content to call the TS “artfully engineered” i.e. something that succeeded in grabbing headlines, bamboozling all-and-sundry (bar a few) for 600+ centuries thereafter.
If I had to choose just one feature of the TS that has been either (a) ignored (STuRP) or (b) hugely misinterpreted (Secondo Pia) and then wrongly promoted decade after decade as a 1st century “photograph”, what would it be?
Answer: that iconic tone-reversed, negative body image, implying, I say, merely a run-of-the-mill CONTACT IMPRINT ) deploying a simple, readily-available POWDER, i.e. medieval white flour, as the key, nay crucial ingredient (albeit a wee bit messy Teddi).
Teddi’s comment:
Where does one find a place to “roast” such a large cloth –and, especially, not get “hot spots” on the cloth? And, again, why would someone go through the trouble, of doing this when a simple grisaille painting (like what ol’ McCrone proposed) would’ve sufficed for the intended audience?
Suppose, just suppose, that the TS had been made by the clerics at G.de Charny’s private (monarch-financed chapel at Lirey.
There were 6 of them in all, clerics that is, plus staff at the main house.
In short, a sizeable number of folk needing filler bread to eat on a daily basis. So it’s not unreasonable to suppose there had been a sizeable bread-baking oven, large enough (maybe?) to accommodate the single sheet of TS linen, whether slung horizontally, maybe vertically, maybe folded, maybe not.
Alternatively a flour-imprinted linen could have been held over a flat or raised bed of red hot glowing charcoal, and visually monitored as yellowing of the flour imprint occurred, shifting/re-positioning the supported linen from time to time to ensure even coloration.
“Painting”? No, that was ruled out at the start. It would have been quickly spotted!
“Hot spots” on the cloth? But there are precisely those things apparent , still to this day unexplained (like those so-called “L-pattern burn holes”!)
Teddi’s comment:
How do you get around the problem of there being no traces of oil left on the Shroud? Was every sub-micron trace of it washed out? (That would be quite the laundress, no?) Or, did every trace of it oxidize away over time? That’s a big assumption, too.
First, a word or two about the oil, and why it was introduced.
Sprinkle white flour on your skin, Teddi, rub gently with the back of a spoon, then blow off the surplus.
You’ll see a trace of adherent flour. Then repeat, but first smear skin with vegetable oil before dusting with flour. Yes, you’ll find you get more attached flour.
I tried Model 10 (flour imprinting) with and without that initial smear of oil.
Result: the flour with additional oil-attachment aid browned up faster in the oven than the oil-free control.
(Incidentally, in passing, the hugely insightful Thibault Heimburger saw the same when checking out my Model 10 – and, if you don’t mind me saying, stating it was the best outcome he’d ever seen in terms of model building the TS! Wow! Rare praise indeed! ).
“No traces of oil left on the Shroud”. There’s a simple straightforward answer, Teddi. My Model 10 does not end with the roasting step. It’s followed by washing the linen with soap and water. That takes away the encrusted residues of baked flour on the surface, leaving a mere faint yellow or brown hint of image colour that is well-incorporated into the linen.
Oil has done its job – allowing extra flour to stick, giving a better colour on heating, but (after finally being washed away} leaving just the image chromophore subtly, dare I say, oh so easy to overlook, incorporated within, correction, BETWEEN the fibres of the linen. ;-)
Teddi’s comment:
How does your process get around the problem of a distorted image – as is a criticism of the bas relief hypothesis for image formation?
What in particular are you saying that looks “distorted” Teddi. Is it the TS image per se, or the various attempts in the past (mine included) to generate look-alikes?
If, as I suspect, you refer to the first, then which, if any, particular “distortions” are being referred to?
Might it be what Spencer McDaniel described on his “Tales of Times Forgotten” website as that “Gothic Art” look, namely of wasted-looking slimmed-down features, with overlong arms etc etc?
Flour-imprinting arguably supplies some of the answers. Why? How?
It’s flour-imprinting that was performed by PRESSING a MOISTENED SHEET OF LINEN DOWN VERTICALLY ONTO THE FLOUR-DUSTING OF A REAL-LIFE ADULT MALE. Contact would have been greater at some parts more than others.
Which in particular? Answer: parts with underlying bone close to the surface skin would have received greater contact pressure than those parts where thicker layers of muscle or fat separated skin from bone. That would tend to generate a body image with a somewhat bony, dare one say, sallow slimmed-down look. Admittedly, it’s a bit of a grey area… More modelling required!
“Bas relief” hypothesis?
In the early days I assumed direct scorching off a metal template, either a 3D figure of a mere “bas relief” , i.e. coin-like representations with shallow 3D relief/contours.
But once Model 10 flour-imprinting came along, I dropped “metal template or bas relief” in favour of imprinting (as I’ve said) off a real live 3D human subject, so no longer see “bas relief” as a relevant issue.
Apols if I’ve failed to grasp your meaning Teddi..
Teddi’s comment:
Also, why would anyone go to the trouble of putting flour all over 1 or 2 naked men to create a fake with a non-high-tech (and likely very uneducated and gullible) audience? Why not just “fake up” the image with a dilute iron-oxide paint –like what McCrone suggested? What medieval person would have known the difference? Why go through the hassle of such an over-the-top, messy and challenging process when simple artwork would suffice?
Firstly, one cannot be certain that the so-called fee-paying “pilgrims” were the very first viewers of the TS.
Why do I say that?
Answer: the TS was being displayed at the private chapel of G.de Charny, he being a very close (closest?) consort and fellow battle-fighter alongside his monarch (King John !!).
I’ll spare you the details, except to say that the so-called Order of the Star, founded in the early 1350s was a joint effort on the part of de Charny and his monarch (see wiki entry for Order of the Star).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_(France)#:~:text=The%20order%20was%20inspired%20by,merit%2C%20not%20success%20in%20tournaments.
Who’s to say the the TS was not intended for private viewing by the newly-recruited members of the Order, and wait for it, only LATER deployed as a down-market money spinner closer to 1356 after de Charny had died at the Battle of Poitiers while bearing the Oriflamme, personally defending his King, with the latter having been captured AND held to ransom?
Who’s to say that de Charny’s widow (plus the still-employed) private band of clerics at Lirey were not using the TS as a means of raising funds for the ransom?
(OK -it’s something of a long shot, but it’s unwise in my view to overlook the rapidly changing circumstances at the Lirey estate and its private King-financed chapel.
Lirey was not a back-of-the-woods entity, despite it being tucked-away geographically-speaking. It was, let’s face it.a somewhat secretive top-notch Establishment!
As for flour-imprinting , messy you say Teddi ? OK, maybe yes at first glance. But let’s step back and take in the wider view.
Whether intended to be seen by its earliest viewers as a religious icon OR a fake relic, it was required to make an INSTANT FIRST IMPRESSION on each new viewer, as immediately taken on board visually , one might ask.
Answer: unique features of the TS provide an immediate answer to the above question.
Firstly, there’s the DOUBLE (frontal v dorsal) body image of a life-size naked male implying that it was the two sides of a REAL PERSON.
Secondly: there were, as stated frontal versus dorsal images, but absolutely NO SIDES. Why not? Answer: it was NOT a painting. No, it was a CONTACT IMPRINT made between the figure stretched out on the single sheet of linen wrap-around sheet of linen.
Thirdly: Maybe immediately visible perhaps in its early days to keen observers only (due to faintness of the body image) one was not looking at a whole body image as might be represented by a paintbrush-wielding artist. No, one was viewing a TONE-REVERSED image, comparable to that seen (a) in muddy footprints imprinted on a white stone floor, or comparable to (b) coating one’s hand with a dark powder (e.g. crushed charcoal) and pressing down onto paper or pale-coloured fabric.
Take each and every one of the above body image characteristics listed thus far, then add the sight of blood in “all the right places”, of scourge marks and lancing of the side etc etc, and that first time viewer (maybe aided by a cleric in attendance, maybe not) arrives at a quick conclusion: I’m looking at the IMPRINTED (not painted) image of the newly-crucified Jesus. Maybe engineered, but not artistic!
On closer inspection of the fabric (a rare and expensive 3/1 herringbone weave onto linen) the link might then, sooner or later be made to the Gospel reference to the collection of the crucified Jesus by one Joseph of Arimathea into what one of the Gospels describes as “fine linen”, that being a single sheet (“sindon”) until latter replaced by plural “othonia” in the final Gospel (winding sheetS of linen).
So what could have generated the faint yellow body image, deposited on the linen as a negative IMPRINT? Answer: bodily secretions (in addition to shed blood) . More precisely? Answer: dried on. aged perspiration, aka, let’s not beat around the bush, SWEAT.
Could the image have been a mere painting? Answer: almost certainly NO (faintness, absence of brush marks, somewhat fuzzy nature of image edges etc etc).
If not a painting, then what if it were a mere forgery?
Answer: nothing springs immediately to mind. There’s nothing comparable to be seen elsewhere.
Whether an icon or a relic, the TS looks IMPRESSIVELY REALISTIC , as if taken for a real imprint off, guess what, the newly crucified Jesus described in the Gospels. So could be easily mistaken for such (even if, as I continually to maintain – after some 10 years of investigation- 14th, as distinct from 1st century).
Hi, Colin,
Just a quick, partial, response for now on this. Lirey was, indeed, a teeny, tiny, itsy bitty town. It didn’t even have a church. That’s why Geoffroy de Charny I had to build a church there (so he could attend services in his hometown.) De Charny had inherited this land from his mother, so that’s why he moved there with his family. I want to say that back then, I read that there were either 30 or 50 “hearths” in Lirey. Going from memory here, but I had somewhat recently googled the present-day population in Lirey, and I seem to recall that it was about 100 people. (!!!) People all over the world were only coming to that little church in Lirey because they knew that the Christ’s blood was on His burial cloth that was being displayed there. That’s what the word was, and it spread like wildfire across the globe.
Anyhow, I’ll try to get to countering more of your points a little later.
And, once we get all of these various points out of the way, I want to talk BILIRUBIN with you –since I have read that this was an area that (from what I seem to recall) that you did research in –jaundiced infants I seem to recall? I’d be interested in your thoughts on some various issues.
Cheers,
Teddi
Teddi’s comment)
Have you checked to see whether the body image that you have produced fluoresces or not under UV photography? (I have long-wondered whether a superficial-enough scorch could avoid fluorescing.)
Answer – yes, I did checks, Teddi, as reported on my TS-devoted site back in December 2015.
Here’s the first of the 3:
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/shroud-of-turin-performance-characteristics-of-a-simple-uv-lamp-chosen-to-check-out-claims-that-are-dismissive-of-thermal-imprinting-mechanisms-part-1-of-3/
Admittedly I was using a cheapo uv lamp, but one that was able to detect not only the fluorescent anti-forgery markers on banknotes (as advertised), but on fluorescent ink writing from a wide range of felt-tip marker pens, and even the pale blue fluorescence of a gin and tonic!
So what did I see when checking out my Model 10 flour imprints, following their colour-development by oven-roasting?
Answer: none – none whatsoever. (That’s not to say that a stronger uv lamp, delivering more than 4W, would have similarly failed, as pointed out by Hugh Farey at the time deploying his much stronger modified/traditional tungsten-element lamp).
So where did the idea arise that thermal imprints ALWAYS fluoresce under uv light?
I could supply an answer that goes way back to 2012 when I was using direct scorches off strongly-heated metal templates.
But there’s a range of differences – too long to enumerate here in a brief reply – but one in particular sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.
With direct scorching, it’s the linen and its (relatively inert) cellulose etc that need to be chemically at least partially-incinerated, needing a higher temperature I might add than the one required to make a flour imprint turn yellow or brown. (The latter depends incidentally on a different chemistry, one that deploys (probably) free reducing sugars, amino side chains etc to yield those so-called Maillard browning products, aka melanoidins.)
That takes us into Ray Rogers’ ( generally sniffing-out-the right track territory) re lower temperatures as distinct from STURP’s official line (as expressed somewhat inadequately in its 1981 Summary), the latter (misleadingly in my mind) claiming heat or – unstated – CONC (!) sulphuric acid deployed to model supposed browning of linen as distinct from a chemically-more reactive coating of some kind.
Oh, dear! What can the matter be?
Dear, dear! What can the matter be?
Oh, dear! What can the matter be?
Shroudstory’s gone off the air!
Something was broken. Things seem to be working now.
Am wondering if my little rhyme was misinterpreted, Dan.
I was not suggesting that your site was knackered in any shape or form – merely that there had been a dearth of comments!
(Just one comment had appeared in something over 30 hours – coming from myself!)
Actually, the site was down for a while and that may have been contributing to a lack of comments. Either that or I can blame it on the heat. Or both.
Teddi’s comment:
How do you get around the blood first, image second issue –and without the bloodstains undergoing alteration from the heat?
It took considerable time and thought (years!) to account for that “blood-before-image” finding. Teddi, but a possible (likely?) answer did finally present itself.
Firstly, makers of a genuine -looking icon (or claimed relic) decided at the outset that there had to be a “blood-before-image” look in order to look authentic.
But how? Answer: flour imprinting , with its second-stage heating , also needed a means of keeping the heat applied to flour, separate from blood. But how?
Here’s my solution. Firstly, the subject was dusted with flour all over.
Then (wait for it) a so-called BLM was applied in discrete dabs “in all the right places” ON TOP OF THE FLOUR prior to heating.
BLM? Blood-Location-Marker (choice of which comes a wee bit later).
The subject then had the sheet of moistened linen pressed down VERTICALLY. The linen picked up either flour alone, or, in the dual-coated regions, the BLM first, with maybe just a trace of overlying flour.
The dual-imprinted linen was then roasted (oven or, alternatively, open fire with glowing charcoal embers).
Regions with flour alone came up yellow, while regions with overlay of BLM stayed free of yellow colour, though probably with visually-apparent BLM.
Final stage? Take a brush, dip in blood (or “blood”) and proceed to daub the parts that had received the BLM only. The viewer would no doubt see “blood” only, with little or no clue as to the faint Phase 1 (of 2) layer of underlying BLM.
Nature of the BLM?
Matter for speculation admittedly , but Gerard Lucotte and his co-workers in Paris may have found an explanation. When analysing blood near the eye ,i.e. present in that reversed epsilon stain, they detected an abundance of mineral particles, in which “clay” they said was a major constituent.
Might “clay” have been selected initially as a suitable choice for the BLM, being, first and foremost, heat-stable AND able to prevent flour from adhering to linen in the places deemed necessary to display bloodstains acquired during scourging, nailing, lance-spearing, crown-of-thorns etc.
Hi Teddi,
Some interesting views from a legal point of view, but not, to my mind, necessarily relevant to the process of scientific inquiry. Scientists do not prove; they demonstrate, as, perhaps, I hope to do now.
In referring to Galatians 3:1, and a “breakdown of the Greek words into English” being “evidence that what is now referred to as the Shroud of Turin had been shown to the Galatians” I think you are primarily supposing that the word ‘προεγράφη’ (proegraphe) implies some kind of image. It has been translated ‘presented,’ ‘described,’ ‘set forth,’ ‘displayed,’ and ‘portrayed,’ but to understand its true meaning, we have to look at as many instances as we can of its use in other circumstances. In my blog post “https://medievalshroud.com/προεγράφη/” I give seven examples, not one of which can be interpreted as having anything of the pictorial about it. That’s not to say that “προεγράφη” could never mean “shown as an image,” only that there is no evidence that it was ever used that way. Is it really a “real eyeopener”?
The word occurs near the beginning of Paul’s letter, which is overall an attempt to reconvert the Galatians to his point of view, from which they had been swayed by proponents of “another Gospel.” These are usually supposed to be the more Jewish-centred Christians (i.e. Peter and James and their disciples) with whom Paul had several quite bitter arguments. So when Paul says: “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” he is referring to the Jewish Christians as the ‘bewitchers.”
Given this feud, we must ask ourselves, if the shroud of Christ had in fact been rescued and kept, who is more likely to have kept it: Peter & James, or Paul? At this stage in the history of Christianity, it is overwhelmingly more likely that, if it existed at all, it was with Peter rather than Paul, who could not, therefore, have “displayed” it to anybody.
Now, have I proved anything? Certainly not. Have I demonstrated anything? I think so.
1) The word translated as “portrayed” has never been found to mean anything pictorial.
2) If the shroud existed at all at the time, it was overwhelmingly unlikely that Paul had it.
To my mind, and I hope to anybody’s who reads this, this is very good evidence that “what is now referred to as the Shroud of Turin had” NOT “been shown to the Galatians,” and I feel that, in order to maintain that it had been, “the burden of proof” now falls upon those who support that view.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Hello, Hugh,
Let’s get into the full verse of Galatians 3:1 (as translated from the Greek, word-by-word, on biblehub.com):
“O foolish Galatians! Who you has bewitched the truth not to obey WHOSE BEFORE EYES Jesus Christ was publicly PORTRAYED [as] having been crucified?” [Emphasis added.]
It is quite clear that someone publicly portrayed SOMETHING (like the Shroud has been documented to have been “publicly portrayed” on many occasions) that depicted Christ as having been crucified. Are you proposing that someone could have been doing a reenactment of the crucifixion? If so, I would say I disagree. Why? Because a reenactment does not speak to whether something is true or not. However, the display of a burial cloth with blood stains in all of the right places –to evidence the wounds of Christ’s particular crucifixion– is something quite different. Whether the body image was visible at that time, or not, is an open question, but I think that the probabilities tip in favor of the answer, “yes,” because it is stated that the truth of it should have been rather obvious to the viewers. This, perhaps, implies more than just bloodstains which could have, more easily, been “faked up.” The addition of a strange image –especially to people who might have seen what Christ actually looked like while alive– makes more sense. That’s why, I suspect, they are being called “fools.”
Also, the root word in “προεγραφη”/”proegraphe” is the word “graph” –which means “to write.” So, this portrayal was something displayed which had something on it that was showing Christ as crucified. (If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck –the balance of probabilities tell us . . . it’s a duck.) I am not arguing that this evidence, alone, is all that is needed. But, it is evidence that goes into the pile the makes up a circumstantial case that the Shroud of Turin is the Shroud of Christ. Specifically, it is evidence that counters the argument made by skeptics that the Bible makes no mention that Christ’s burial cloth with an image (blood and/or body) on it. Would it have been better if this verse said in plain language, “You fools saw Christ’s burial cloth with his blood and mysterious body image that was not made by human hands, yet you do not believe?” Yes, of course, but, as Mick Jagger proclaimed, “You can’t always get what you want, but you get what you need.”
And, as C.S. Lewis stated about God and how He operates –so as to preserve our free-will– “He cannot ravish; He can only woo.”
God gave us the Holy Shroud as evidence, and God has permitted science to provide us with a mountain of evidence that this bloodied burial cloth in Turin with Christ’s face on it is, indeed, genuine. But, God will never give us so much evidence that it will, in essence, force everyone to bend the knee –in order to avoid Hell. This would overcome free-will, and it would defeat God’s purpose in only wanting to surround Himself in Heaven with people who want to be with Him. So, the evidence will never be 100% perfect, and, quite frankly, no piece of evidence is –except that which we have to prove our own earthly existence.
And, one last thing, science is nothing more than just one tool (albeit a very important one) for helping to prove certain things to some degree of certainty (or, exclude certain unviable ideas.) Science, at its best, only yields evidence. It, then, becomes necessary to use reason and logic and debate the issues to see what we must make of the evidence and to determine if the evidence is even credible.
Scientists forget something that lawyers do not: evidence can be faked. I’m not sure that there is any scientific experiment that can withstand scrupulous cross-examination. For example, how many experiments are videotaped from start to finish? Even if it is, one can claim the video has been altered. With the things that are shown on the video, does the viewer really know what is being shown? How does this viewer know whether if an experiment was done if it was done properly? How does the viewer know if the person conducting the experiment was honest? With studies that are done, how do we know that the people in the study are telling the truth to get into the study or are telling the truth about potential side effects they are experiencing, etc.
I think you understand what I am saying –which is, there is a tremendous amount of TRUST that we must have even with SCIENCE. Yep, I said it, and I mean it. But, we don’t have a better alternative. But, let’s not act like science is the end-all-be-all, because I will tell you that REASON can, sometimes, get to the truth of the matter better than science can.
And, this is one reason why a circumstantial case which is built with many pieces of evidence can, sometimes, be more compelling than a case that has just one or a few direct witnesses –since eyewitness testimony can, often, be incorrect.
So, science is a wonderful tool for helping us arrive at certain truths, but it, typically, isn’t the exclusive pathway.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hello, again,
I would like to reword what I said here:
“[B]ecause it is stated that the truth of it should have been rather obvious to the viewers.”
Instead, I should have said, “strongly implied.”
Hi, Everybody,
I just noticed that an earlier email that I had sent, for some reason, did not properly post. So, since I had already written it, I’m just posting it.
From: teddipappas@aol.com
Date: July 20, 2022 at 12:00:09 PM CDT
To: donotreply@wordpress.com
Subject: Re: [New comment] What Do We Know About the Images? By Colin Berry
Reply-To: teddipappas@aol.com
Hi, Colin,
Thanks so much for your response. Oh, I never doubted the reason why oil is thrown into your hypothesis. While water would work, too (so that the flour would adhere to the naked bodies of the 1 or 2 grown men who, hypothetically, allowed themselves to be treated like a chicken cutlet), the oil would further promote the Maillard reaction, and not (potentially) dry out as the flour is being applied. I commend the hypothetical artist/forger for his restraint in not adding lemon juice and capers into the mix in order to have a proper piccata!
But, the problem is that oil is not so easy to remove from cloth . . . especially at the sub-micron level. And, how easily and how well can a 14×3 foot cloth be thoroughly cleaned by hand, anyway?
To my knowledge, no oil has been found on any of the sticky-tapes. So, the challenge that you face is this concerning your hypothesis: You would need to show that a variety of oils that were used in medieval France (olive oil, perhaps, might be the most common –and this would be great for that piccata, too) are capable of being washed out of linen (with just enough effort where the oil is no longer visible), but where there is no trace of the oil to be found on a sub-micron level. If you want to argue that it, potentially, oxidized away over the years, then that whole line of argumentation (with proper scientific support) would need to be added into the mix.)
And, we must keep in mind that, in terms of probabilities, the person washing the cloth wouldn’t remove the oil any more than would be necessary so that the cloth would not exhibit oil stains. Why? Because nobody had microscopes to examine fibers at a microscopic level back then. So, this hypothetical forger would have, actually, had a much easier job in trying to make a fake Shroud.
Also, one thing to keep in mind as you go about trying to reverse-engineer the Shroud. An artist/forger didn’t have to make the Shroud look a particular way –such as its having 3-D qualities, and the general qualities of a photographic negative. This claimed forger could have done away with those tricky details, because the people that he would have been attempting to dupe wouldn’t have even been aware of those qualities. So, why would this forger go through such an enormous hassle when a painting like what McCrone’s friend Walter Sanford did would have sufficed –when not subjected to the scrutiny of a microscope and other types of equipment? So, who’s the idiot that’s going to go through that much trouble for nothing? Nobody, that’s who.😉 And, since absinthe hadn’t yet been created in the mid-1300’s for some French artist to drink drink too much of to come up with such fantastic ideas regarding his fake shroud, the “Green Fairy” can’t be used an excuse.😂
Also, could you please elaborate on the distinction that you are emphasizing with regard to the chromophore being “between” (instead of “within”) the fibers of the linen? Since the body image only colored the top 2 or so fibrils/microfibers of the thread, I am unclear as to what you are specifying.
I’ll try and carve out some time later on to address your other response.
It’s great to see that you are, apparently, among the scientists with PhDs who think that McCrone’s claims are full of malarkey. (!!!) Kinda like the U.S. and the U.K. joining forces with the USSR during WWI and WW2 . . .
And, I do want to thank you for doing these experiments and having these conversations. It, actually, provides a great service in helping to build the body of evidence which points to the images on the Shroud as not having been made in a natural way. How? Because when each of these attempts to replicate the Shroud fails to meet all of the criteria that the Shroud exhibits, those methods then become excluded as a natural means to have created the image.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hello, again, (again),
I’m trying to re-post a comment that I had made the other day which did not seem to properly post. Here it is. I understand that Colin is not interested in further discussions, so no need for him to reply (unless he wishes to, of course.) But, just posting this for others who might be interested.
Thanks,
Teddi
Hi, Colin,
Thanks so much for your response. Oh, I never doubted the reason why oil is thrown into your hypothesis. While water would work, too (so that the flour would adhere to the naked bodies of the 1 or 2 grown men who, hypothetically, allowed themselves to be treated like a chicken cutlet), the oil would further promote the Maillard reaction, and not (potentially) dry out as the flour is being applied. I commend the hypothetical artist/forger for his restraint in not adding lemon juice and capers into the mix in order to have a proper piccata!
But, the problem is that oil is not so easy to remove from cloth . . . especially at the sub-micron level. And, how easily and how well can a 14×3 foot cloth be thoroughly cleaned by hand, anyway?
To my knowledge, no oil has been found on any of the sticky-tapes. So, the challenge that you face is this concerning your hypothesis: You would need to show that a variety of oils that were used in medieval France (olive oil, perhaps, might be the most common –and this would be great for that piccata, too) are capable of being washed out of linen (with just enough effort where the oil is no longer visible), but where there is no trace of the oil to be found on a sub-micron level. If you want to argue that it, potentially, oxidized away over the years, then that whole line of argumentation (with proper scientific support) would need to be added into the mix.)
And, we must keep in mind that, in terms of probabilities, the person washing the cloth wouldn’t remove the oil any more than would be necessary so that the cloth would not exhibit oil stains. Why? Because nobody had microscopes to examine fibers at a microscopic level back then. So, this hypothetical forger would have, actually, had a much easier job in trying to make a fake Shroud.
Also, one thing to keep in mind as you go about trying to reverse-engineer the Shroud. An artist/forger didn’t have to make the Shroud look a particular way –such as its having 3-D qualities, and the general qualities of a photographic negative. This claimed forger could have done away with those tricky details, because the people that he would have been attempting to dupe wouldn’t have even been aware of those qualities. So, why would this forger go through such an enormous hassle when a painting like what McCrone’s friend Walter Sanford did would have sufficed –when not subjected to the scrutiny of a microscope and other types of equipment? So, who’s the idiot that’s going to go through that much trouble for nothing? Nobody, that’s who. And, since absinthe hadn’t yet been created in the mid-1300’s for some French artist to drink too much of it to come up with such fantastic ideas regarding his fake shroud, the “Green Fairy” can’t be used an excuse.
Also, could you please elaborate on the distinction that you are emphasizing with regard to the chromophore being “between” (instead of “within”) the fibers of the linen? Since the body image only colored the top 2 or so fibrils/microfibers of the thread, I am unclear as to what you are specifying.
I’ll try and carve out some time later on to address your other response.
It’s great to see that you are, apparently, among the scientists with PhDs who think that McCrone’s claims are full of malarkey. (!!!) Kinda like the U.S. and the U.K. joining forces with the USSR during WWI and WW2 . . .
And, I do want to thank you for doing these experiments and having these conversations. It, actually, provides a great service in helping to build the body of evidence which points to the images on the Shroud as not having been made in a natural way. How? Because when each of these attempts to replicate the Shroud fails to meet all of the criteria that the Shroud exhibits, those methods then become excluded as a natural means to have created the image.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
Before the straw horse, you suggest the importance of “before whose eyes.” This simply means “in front of whom.” I have no doubt that whatever Paul used to convince the Galatians of the truth of his argument, he did it in front of them. That does not imply anything pictorial at all, let alone a re-enactment (where did you get that idea from?). As you will have read in my blog post, the word proegraphe is used of public proclamations and bulletins, and even lists stuck to the wall. It is never used of images.
You are possibly correct that a burial cloth, with or without an image on it, could have been a powerful tool of persuasion, but the evidence is against it, as clearly the Galatians had been bewitched out of belief in it. It is also extremely unlikely that Paul ever had the shroud in his possession.
You are certainly correct that the root -graphe means to write. That’s write, as in writing, not sketching or painting (although in fact it can mean that too, just not in the usage proegraphe).
All in all, your response is more a triumph of wishful thinking than a logical rebuttal of my demonstration, but that’s OK. And the rest of your post is an appeal to emotion, not to evidence or logic, but that’s OK too. Those who read our comments can decide for themselves who has reason on their side.
Hello, Hugh,
Here’s the literal translation, again, that I had gotten from Biblehub.com:
“O foolish Galatians! Who you has bewitched the truth not to obey WHOSE BEFORE EYES Jesus Christ was publicly PORTRAYED [as] having been crucified?” [Emphasis added.]
I agree with you, Hugh, that this awkward translation of “whose before eyes” is meant to mean what you suggest: “before whose eyes.”
But, you are suggesting that what is being referred to in this verse (with regard to “before whose eyes”) is the crowd seeing Paul speak and trying to convince them of something.
I disagree with the TIMING of WHAT was “publicly portrayed” or shown to them. In that verse, Paul is speaking in the present tense. What he is referring to the foolish Galatians have seen occurred in the past tense. Paul is telling them that they are fools, because they saw Jesus Christ being publicly PORTRAYED as crucified.”
We know that it would be nonsensical for Paul to be referring to any of these people having actually witnessed Christ’s crucifixion. Why? Because he wouldn’t use a word that has “graph” in it –which is specifically deals with a depiction of some sort.
You want to use a very literal interpretation of “graph” to mean “write” –as opposed to something being portrayed. However, it is commonly understood that overly literal translations can lead to a disaster in terms of the proper understanding of what a sentence means. One must, of course, pay attention to the context of what is written.
And, we have every reason to think that it was NOT Paul who publicly portrayed this depiction of Christ crucified. Why? Because he, likely, would have mentioned that HE had, previously, been the one to show them this. Instead, the rather heavy implication is that SOMEONE ELSE showed them this portrayal of Christ having been crucified (not actually crucified), and Paul is stunned that they are not obeying what is true.
Also, the wording “portrayed as having been crucified” seems to imply that this portrayal was not, necessarily, of Christ dead on the cross but, perhaps, Christ’s corpse (or the evidence of His crucified corpse in the image that the Galatians had been shown.
No, Hugh, no wishful thinking here . . . just looking at what’s being stated in that verse and looking at the best contender for what the foolish Galatians saw.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
Thanks for getting back, but I don’t think I made myself clear. I didn’t mean to suggest any of the things you have suggested I might.
1) Yes. Paul’s epistle implies at least two visits to the Galatians before he wrote his letter. The first was by himself, in which he preached his version of the crucifixion and the resurrection, and conversion. I don’t know whether he had any visual aids; almost certainly not. His ‘portrayal’ probably consisted of his comparison of Christ to the messianic scriptures and his own conversion story. But you agree with me that he certainly did not have the shroud.
The second time was by Peter or one of the more Jerusalem centred Christians, who reconverted them (bewitched them) to what Paul describes as a “different Gospel.” This is usually interpreted as part of the early Christian debate about the primacy of “faith in Christ” over “following the law” or vice versa, and whether it was necessary to become a Jew first (with all its circumcision, dietary restrictions and temple-visiting duties) before you could become a Christian. For much of his letter Paul disparages the “following the law” party in the harshest possible terms; they are cursed, they are evil, and they bewitch people. You seem to be suggesting that this Petrine visit was when the shroud was displayed, which is not impossible, but that in spite of actually seeing an image Christ crucified, they nevertheless repudiated everything Paul had taught them.
Can Paul’s letter be interpreted as that? “O foolish Galatians! Even though Peter showed you Christ’s actual burial shroud, you were bewitched by him into false thinking.” That doesn’t make sense to me. What about: “O foolish Galatians! Just because Peter showed you Christ’s actual burial shroud, you were bewitched by him into false thinking.” That doesn’t make much sense either. Do you go along with either?
2) Moving on. The word “graph” certainly does not “specifically deal with a depiction of some sort.” Its primary meaning refers to writing. Saying so is not a “very literal” interpretation, it’s the normal meaning of the word. My favourite dictionary, Liddell and Scott, gives dozens of examples of the use of “graph” in literature, and Strong’s Greek Concordance (on biblehub) gives graptos, graphé, and graphó, and dozens of scriptural references, and not one single instance of the words suggests any kind of picture. Before you can claim that “graph” can be interpreted pictorially, I think you should find some examples. I agree with you that “over literal translations” can lead to disaster, but that doesn’t mean anyone can make up whatever meaning they like.