Looking for a paper by Mark Andersen

imageA reader from Costa Rica writes:

I’m sorry to bother you, but I would like to ask you, if you have some paper or report which comes directly from Mark Andersen. According to what I found Materials evaluation, Volume 40, Issues 1-5, 1982, Page 630, is one of the Andersen studios, but I have been trying to see what it says but I couldnt. Please help me!!, cause there`s a lot of people who thinks McCrone`s word is "sacred".

Anyone?  The website for Materials Evaluation.

Papers Included in the Proceedings but not presented at Valencia

imageJoe Marino spotted a couple of papers that are hosted at academia.edu that were included in the Valencia conference proceedings but not presented at the conference:

Subsequently, following some discussion at SSG, Barrie Schwortz updated the shroud.com page for the 1st International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain – Valencia. You will find this updated section:

Included in the Proceedings but not presented at the conference

 

A New Paper by Paul Maloney

a personal opinion that would not, could not be changed

Joe Marino passes along this important new (July 2014) paper by Paul C, Maloney entitled Walter C. McCrone and the Max Frei Sticky Tapes of 1978: A Background Study.

This is a MUST READ paper if you have any interest in the pollen found on the shroud. The concluding paragraph sums up what I think many of us have come to think about Walter McCrone’s thinking:

We may thus draw the conclusion that Dr. McCrone’s statement, sent to Joe Marino on 9 April, 1998 is a conflation of ideas that formed in Dr. McCrone’s mind over the years. My own reading of Dr. McCrone’s responses to Joe Marino’s e-mails convinces me that even if McCrone had had access to my published study, it would not have changed his mind (as evidenced by McCrone’s terse statement to Joe Marino on 19 April, 1998 (Wrapped up in the Shroud, p. 239)—any more than the large photo-mosaic had any effect on McCrone’s thinking on Saturday, July 23, 1988. Some may prefer to believe that this was dishonesty on McCrone’s part. I prefer to think that this conflated statement ceased to represent the science of the Shroud and had become a personal opinion that would not, could not be changed. To have done so would have meant that McCrone could not “save face” for his stance toward the Shroud developed very early on in his messages to STURP.

Picture:  Paul Mahoney at the 2008 Ohio conference

Another Paper by Yannick Clément

imageOn July 20th, I posted a lead to a new essay by Yannick Clément. At the time I mentioned that I would mention another paper soon.  Today, I noticed a link to it on The Holy Shroud Guild Facebook page. That prompted me to get going and mention it here. It is called My thoughts on a recently published paper by Raymond N. Rogers by Yannick Clément dated July 9, 2014.

Yannick begins:

I would like to express some thoughts about the « new » paper of Rogers that was recently published on the website Shroud.com, which is entitled “An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color”1 . This article was written by Rogers in 2001 but was never published anywhere before.

By-the-way, here is a link to the paper at shroud.com. An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color

After several pages of discussion, Yannick begins his several paragraphs of conclusion:

There is no doubt in my mind that this “new” paper of Rogers constitutes a real historical finding, which can help us to understand all the different steps that were taken by Rogers in his study of the Shroud image. These steps indicate the high level of scientific professionalism with which he did his work in order to discover the best rational hypothesis to explain this image without underestimating or leaving out any important data and observations. In consequence, this paper can also help us to realize the poor scientific value of the work done by some other “scientists” on the Shroud image, especially when we consider the fact that those researchers have not at all followed the same scientific “path” of Rogers. In the end, I think we can really see in this particular paper, which was the first attempt of Rogers at describing his impurity hypothesis for the image chromophore, as being the genesis of the Maillard reaction hypothesis he proposed the year later (in 2002)45 and which he never stopped refining until his death, two years later.

FYI:  Apparently, the two recent papers by Yannick have also be published on The Holy Shroud Guild site:

It’s the Cloth, Not the Image

"He who the third day rose from the dead was no less true
God in the manger than on the cross."  — Karl Barth

imageThe short quote from inside a longer quote reads:

In sum, we can say that it’s not the body image on the Shroud but the cloth itself that is the real material sign of Jesus’ Resurrection!

The longer, embracing quotation is from a new paper, An image that speaks of the Incarnation well before it speaks about the Resurrection by Yannick Clément (It makes me wonder if Yannick gets his progressive thinking from Barth):

Because every characteristic related to the Shroud image can find some similarity in nature and, even more, because some of those characteristics (like the discontinuous distribution and the very superficial aspect of the image) really seem to strongly suggest that the image on the cloth has been formed by a natural interaction between the crucified dead body and the surface of his burial cloth, seeing this image as some kind of material proof of his Resurrection is presently only possible through faith and consequently, such a concept cannot be based on a real scientific and rational reflection. But having said that, it’s important to note that it is truly possible, through rationality, to see the Shroud (not only the body image on the cloth, but the burial cloth itself, along with the body imprint and the bloodstains present on it) as a material sign (not a proof!) of the Resurrection of Christ, in the sense that it has been proven that the cloth contained, only for a short period of time (i.e. less than 72 hours), the real crucified body of a man who presents all the bloody stigmata of Christ, as described in the Gospels, while the extraction of his body from the Shroud did not seem to have disturbed the bloodstains, broken the linen fibrils under them or disturbed the body image in any way, which can be seen as possible signs (not proofs) of a “dematerialization” (or a “spiritualization” if you prefer) of his body at the moment of the resurrection. Also, and this is probably even more important, the simple fact that such a gruesome burial cloth of a crucified criminal (which shows the complete body image of a nude “Christ”, along with lots of bloodstains) has been taken out of the tomb, quietly kept and carefully preserved for centuries after his dead body has only spent a short period of time in it, can truly be seen as the greatest material sign of the Resurrection of Christ that exists. In sum, we can say that it’s not the body image on the Shroud but the cloth itself that is the real material sign of Jesus’ Resurrection! Effectively, if this cloth would have been the burial shroud of an anonymous crucified man, why in the world would such a grave cloth have been taken out of the tomb and well preserved until now?

Nevertheless, it’s important to emphasize the fact that this sign remains an indirect sign of this event, instead of being a direct proof of it, like it is researched by many people today who really want to see a clear physical proof of Resurrection in the body image of a dead Jesus that is present on the cloth.

(emphasis mine, this is from a note in the paper, note references are removed in the blog and should be noticed and read in the paper)

This is one of two new papers from Yannick published at the iSEAM site. The other will be discussed shortly. Hat tip to Pete Andy.

A Telling Interview with Giulio Fanti

imageLouis wrote in a comment in the posting, Bari Conference: A scientific event unprecedented in Puglia:

. . . Professor Giulio Fanti told me that the corona discharge was possibly connected to ball lightning.

This interview-article was posted on the Holy Shroud Guild website but at my request my folder was deleted, for reasons that will soon be made known by me. I am sending it to Dan in pdf format, who can upload it if he wishes to do so. I can understand the pressure he faces. Welcome to the world of Shroud studies!

imageHere we go:  Science and religion meet in Shroud research by Louis C. de Figueiredo.

Catching Up: Yannick to Hugh, Anoxie and All of Us

imageHere’s a reply by Yannick to one of Hugh’s comments :

Hugh, I think you completely pass over page #4 of our paper in your reading! If you would go there, you will find this pretty good explanation for the questioning you raised in your comment : « In fact, the presence of blood, serum and bile pigments are the result of a direct-contact mechanism between a real wounded human body who died by crucifixion and the linen cloth, which had been used to cover it (see Items xi through xiii). It’s important to understand that some of these biological stains could have been formed on the cloth by temporary contacts during the burial procedure (for example, during the probable moving of the enshrouded body from a central place inside the tomb to his final resting place on a stone bench carved in a wall of the tomb), while others (representing certainly the major part of the bloodstains) are the result of a permanent contact between the corpse and the cloth (e.g. direct-contacts that were maintained after the end of the burial procedure). And it should be noted that the very probable fact that some bloodstains were formed by temporary contacts during the burial procedure could explain why some bloodstains on the Shroud are offregister with respect to the anatomical details of the body images (Item xv). Here, it is necessary to add a comment: in spite of the vast amount of solid data obtained by different experiments and analysis done by blood chemists and medical or forensic experts, there are still self-styled scientists who denied such a fact (personal note : we should have add  a precision here to state that the fact in question is the fact that the bloodstains on the Shroud really comes from a real human being), which is incredible, especially when we consider that this is one of the most unquestionable facts regarding the Shroud! These people should know that science has nothing to do with personal opinions. »

And a reply to Anoxie:

I have decided to write a reply to Anoxie’s claim that it’s impossible for the Shroud image to be related to a stochastic phenomenon. His comments needed a reply and here it is :

Anoxie, on the contrary to what you claimed in the last few days, the characteristics of the body image on the Shroud (especially the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the image area, which is a well-documented FACT) are not at all inconsistent with the idea of a stochastic process of coloration involving the release of a small quantity of energy (most probably biological and happening at normal temperature) from the corpse of the Shroud man.

Why can I be so sure about such a conclusion? Simply because this is EXACTLY the kind of result we must expect from a stochastic event!!! In other words, the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the Shroud’s image area CAN be explained by a stochastic event of coloration because such an event will always produced a uneven, non-homogenuous and unpredictable result, just like we see in the image area!

And by the way, you said that the key to the Shroud’s image is “a varying threshold”… Have you thought about the possibility that the real key could be a second stochastic event instead that would have happened well before the image formation (i.e. an evaporation-concentration phenomenon that would have happened at the time of the drying of the final cloth in open air, after its weaving)? Effectively, when we consider all the available data, along with Ray Rogers’ work and hypotheses, I think there’s a real possibility that the main factor that lead to the kind of image we see on the Shroud (i.e. an extremely thin image composed of yellowed fibrils, which show a discontinuous distribution) could have been the presence on the top-surface of the cloth of a very thin AND UNEVEN layer of carbohydrate impurities (the possible uneven aspect of it can be considered as a stochastic result), which was the only thing that was able to get colored by the image formation process.

And if this is true, then we have to conclude that such a process of image formation must have been very mild, because it would have only been able to produce a visible yellowing in this thin layer of impurities, which is the kind of substance that would be easier to get colored by a chemical process than the structure of the linen fibers itself. And when we consider such a fact, we must assume that the quantity of energy that would have been involved during such a mild process of image formation was most probably low, which is the kind of scenario that is truly consistent with the idea of a stochastic event of coloration.

Considering all this, I don’t think anyone can claim that the image on the Shroud had nothing to do with a stochastic event, while in fact, it is truly possible that it had something to do with not just one but two stochastic event (one being the release of a small amount of energy – still unknown – by the corpse and the other being the evaporation-concentration phenomenon that could have happened at the time of the drying of the final cloth in open air, producing a very thin and uneven layer of carbohydrate impurities on the top-surface of the cloth).

I have submitted this idea to Fazio and he think it’s interesting… It is possible that, in a near future, we write together another scientific paper to describe such a hypothesis of image formation in details… Note that, to my knowledge, no one has ever proposed such a “two stochastic event” hypothesis before in the context of the Shroud’s image formation.

That’s it Dan! Now, I would like you to post this reply under Anoxie’s recent comment that begin with “Actually I think the shroud is consistent with AM screening…” (link to the page: https://shroudstory.com/2014/06/17/photomicrographs-and-stochastic-imaging/#comments). In sum, I would like you to post this reply to him in the same manner than you agreed to post another reply of mine under Hugh’s comment of yesterday concerning the image and bloodstains…

Since I’m blocked from posting personal comments on your blog, you’re my only hope that Anoxie (and everyone else) can read this message!!! As usual, I count on you!!! I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR DOING THIS!!!

And here is a clarification of a clarification:

In the « P.S. » of my long email of yesterday, I was referring to quote #114 of my paper entitled “Raymond N. Rogers’ observations and conclusions concerning the body image that is visible on the Shroud of Turin”. In fact, there is a mistake there and the quote I would like people to read is #115 instead (and especially the personal note I wrote following this quote).

Here it is: “Rogers is referring here to some lab experiments he did to analyze the evaporation concentration phenomenon in the context of the washing and drying of a linen cloth. For that kind of experiment, he used a colored dye to have a better look at the resulting concentration of “impurities” on both surfaces of his samples of cloth. In his book, Rogers give us a good example of that kind of experiment, along with the results he recognized: “The phenomenon can be demonstrated with a simple experiment. Prepare a dilute solution of food coloring, and divide it into two parts. Add a drop of liquid detergent to one part. Cut some squares of white cloth that are about 10 cm on a side. Saturate cloth samples with one or the other of the solutions. Mark the samples for identification. Lay some saturated samples of cloth on smooth, non-absorbent surfaces (e.g., a sheet of plastic). Lay some samples on dry sand in the sun. Hang some samples from a line. Let the liquid evaporate. Different types of cloth will show different degrees of concentration of the dye on the evaporating surfaces, even on different adjoining fibers. It is possible to get dye concentration on both surfaces, while leaving the interior of the cloth white.”

The part I’ve underline and put in bold is the one that proves that the probability is good that there really was an UNEVEN and thin layer of carbohydrate impurities on the top-surface of the Shroud, which could have been the only thing colored by the image formation process, thus offering a pretty good explanation for the observation mentioned by Thibault Heimburger on your blog concerning the fact that, in the image area, there are sometimes bundles of yellowed fibers right next to bundles of uncolored fibers. And as I said, this kind of explanation can fit with Rogers’ Maillard reactions hypothesis, as well as our hypothesis of a stochastic event of coloration.

In sum, the observation reported by Thibault lead me to conclude that the best thing that can explain the image formation on the Shroud is not only a stochastic event that involved a very small amount of energy and which happened probably at normal temperature (or the kind of event described by Rogers), but a stochastic event (or the kind of event described by Rogers) that would have colored only a thin and UNEVEN layer of carbohydrate impurities that was coating a portion of the top-most fibrils (some with a thin coating that was thicker than some others with a very thin coating, while some others had no coating at all) on the top-surface of the Shroud, thus causing the yellowing of only a portion of the top-most fibers that were coated with some carbohydrate impurities while leaving the rest uncolored. And in the end, it’s only the fibrils that were oxydized and/or dehydrated by the stochastic process (or by the kind of event described by Rogers) and that were coated with a minimum amount of impurities (undetermined) that really took part in the formation of the visible image…

In other words, in order for a particular fiber to become visibly yellowed and thus, to take an active part in the formation of the image, it needed probably two things:

1- A stochastic event involving only a small amount of energy (which could have been compose of postmortem gases and/or heat and/or singlet oxygen atoms and/or urea (or ammonia) and/or lactic acid released by the corpse or some other biological substances and/or some volatile burial product(s) that could have been put all over the body) or a non-stochastic event involving the release of postmortem gases in the way described by Rogers. One of these two events would have contributed to oxydized and/or dehydrated the carbohydrate impurities residing on-top of that particular fiber, while leaving the structure of that fiber intact.

2- A minimum amount of carbohydrate impurities (undetermined) on-top of that particular fiber in order to produce enough yellowing to become visible on the surface of the cloth through the stochastic event or the non-stochastic event that are described above. Note: such a minimum amount of impurities would only have been present on an undetermined percentage of the top-most fibers of the cloth (and probably also only present over just a section or some sections of those coated fibers, instead of being present over the entire length of those fibers; to be convinced of this, please that a good look at the great microphotograph of a PARTIALLY colored fiber that was taken by Rogers and that is available on the STERA bank of images).

To me, this would offer a good explanation for the observation reported by Thibault.

Again, I think you should post this present email as a complementary comment to the one you already posted on your blog.

I wrote all these comments for one single reason: to offer people interested by our paper some more precisions concerning the way me, Fazio and Mandaglio are understanding the nature of the Shroud image and the most probable way it got on the cloth.

Thanks for posting this email, along with the comment of mine your already posted (in the same topic)…  I really think this is an important addition to make…  I count on you for this since I know you always help me with such a clarification thing.  In order to help you, I give you the same email in a Word document in attach…

And you can be sure that this will be my last addition.  I think I’ve said it all!!!  Just let me know when this additional comment will be added on your blog.  THANKS!

Clarification of the Stochastic Process Paper

imageYannick Clément wants to clarify some points about the paper, THE MYSTERIOUS COEXISTENCE OF BLOODSTAINS AND BODY IMAGE ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN EXPLAINED BY A STOCHASTIC PROCESS discussed HERE. What follows is an email he sent last evening. Following that is a summary that he also sent:


Thank you for your post on the blog that inform people of the publishing of the MAA paper I wrote with Fazio and Mandaglio! Well done!

Concerning what I said to you Friday about the fact that, even though the title of our paper can suggest otherwise, we are not willing to discard the hypothesis proposed by Rogers for the image formation on the Shroud in the form he wrote it, it’s important to understand that we still think an alternative scenario involving the release of a smaller quantity of postmortem gases than what he thought, which would have started a stochastic event of coloration on the top-surface of the Shroud, is more probable and we also think the possibility is quite high that this kind of stochastic event could have been started by some other forms of weak energy released by the corpse of the Shroud man, other than the postmortem gases proposed by Rogers (especially the heavy amines). That’s why our main conclusion mention this: “In our opinion, the bloodstains formation was followed shortly thereafter by a transfer of a little quantity of energy that was released by the dead body in direction of both parts of the cloth (ventral and dorsal parts), which triggered a stochastic process that produced, after some time (e.g. a few decades), a yellowing of some fibrils on the cloth’s surface.”

This precision is important to understand…

And on a more general note, I just want to point out that the main conclusion of our paper is the fact that, on a theoretical level, the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the Shroud’s image area can only be explained by a chemical process of oxidation and/or dehydration that must have involved only a very small amount of energy during a mild and natural event that most probably happened at normal temperature.

And, for us, such a weak amount of energy could only have produced two possible results:

1- A stochastic event of coloration that could have come from various possible natural sources (i.e. thermal diffusion from the corpse, postmortem gases released by the corpse or by some biological products (like urea and/or lactic acid) left on the skin and hair because of the abundant sweat of the Shroud man, a release of singlet oxygen atoms from the corpse, etc.), which would have lead to the formation of a latent image on the top-surface of the cloth that would have only be clearly visible years or even decades later. (note: this is the scenario that, me, Fazio and Mandaglio are favoring the most to explain the Shroud’s image).

2- An event of coloration coming from the release of postmortem gases by the corpse that would have produced Maillard reactions in the layer of impurities resting on the top-most fibers of the cloth, just like it was described by Rogers (i.e. a non-stochastic event that would involved a yellowing reaction of the layer of impurities EACH TIME these impurities would have come in contact with the amines released by the corpse), which would also have lead to the formation of a latent image on the top-surface of the cloth that would have only be clearly visible years or even decades.

Here, it’s important to note that, theoretically speaking, it’s much easier for the scenario #1 (stochastic event) to explain the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the image area than it would be for the scenario #2 and Rogers was fully aware of this when he wrote in his book about the Shroud: “However, identification of a probable chemical process does not explain one of the perplexing observations on the Shroud, the discontinuous distribution of the color on the top-most parts of the weave.” But as I wrote myself in my paper entitled “Raymond N. Rogers’ observations and conclusions concerning the body image that is visible on the Shroud of Turin” (http://shroudnm.com/docs/2013-01-10-Yannick-Clément-Reflections-on-Ray-Rogers-Shroud-Work.pdf), such a statement by Rogers doesn’t mean that the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers observed in the image area cannot be compatible with a natural mechanism for image formation that would involve a chemical process like the Maillard reaction he proposed before his death in 2004. To me, this quote from Rogers only means that, in order to explain properly this discontinuous distribution of the colored fibers, at least one more factor other than a chemical process like a Maillard reaction must have been active during the image formation process. For example, this additional factor could have been the presence of an uneven and very thin layer of impurities on the top-most fibers of the cloth (which would have render only a portion of those top-most fibers suitable to get easily colored) and/or a much smaller amount of energy involved in image formation process than what Rogers thought (note: this last possibility would place Rogers’ hypothesis in scenario #1 instead of #2, because it would mean that a much smaller amount of postmortem gases were involved in the image formation event, which would have lead to a stochastic result of colored fibers).

It should be noted that the possibility of a chromophore of the image residing only in an UNEVEN (this word is crucial) layer of carbohydrate impurities that could have produce a thicker coating of impurities on bundles of fibers that are adjacent to bundles of fibers that are coated with much less impurities as well as bundles of fibers that maybe are completely free of any impurities (which is a possibility that, unfortunately, we did not mentioned in our paper) can be seen as a possible answer for the good questioning that was emitted by Thibault Heimburger on your blog (when he said: “the colored fibers are not randomly colored.In a colored thread, there are BUNDLES of colored fibers adjacent to bundles of uncolored fibers.”). I think the possibility that an UNEVEN layer of carbohydrate impurities could be the only chromophore of the image give the two scenarios I mentioned more credit in the light of Thibault’s observation… Note also that this possibility of a chromophore residing only in an uneven layer of impurities can fit with Rogers’ hypothesis (scenario #2) as well as with a stochastic event of coloration (scenario #1) if such an event affected only the layer of impurities described by Rogers (which is truly possible, especially when we take into account THE FACT that such a layer of carbohydrate impurities is much easier to yellow than the structure of the linen fiber itself, including the PCW).

In the end, after we (i.e. me, Fazio and Mandaglio) took into account the fact that, on a theoretical level, the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the Shroud’s image area can only be explained by a chemical process of oxidation and/or dehydration that must have involved only a very small amount of energy (e.g. scenarios #1 or #2), we were able to state categorically that all the image formation hypotheses involving an important amount of energy (like the ones proposed by Fanti, Di Lazzaro, Jackson, Moran, Rinaudo, etc., and even the one that will be proposed in St-Louis by Villareal, which involved a release of alpha particles) must be discarded because they cannot rationally explain the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the Shroud’ image area. This lead me to conclude that this kind of discontinuous distribution of colored fibers is certainly the aspect of the image that can be seen as the most important “deal breaker” for all these image formation hypotheses. Effectively, in all these cases, the amount of energy would have been too high to produce a stochastic event of coloration or to only colored the top-most fibers of the cloth that were coated with enough carbohydrate impurities, without affecting also the structure of the fibers underneath those impurities, as well as the other top-most fibers surrounding those heavily coated fibers.

I really think you should post this present email on your blog in order for people to understand more easily the heart of our MAA paper (as well as offering an interesting response to Thibault’s questioning). Thank you in advance for doing this…

[ . . . ]

Yan J

P.S.: Concerning the possibility that, on the top-surface of the Shroud, there is an UNEVEN layer of carbohydrate impurities, which would have been the only thing colored during the image formation, I remind the readers of your blog to read carefully the footnote #163 of my paper “Raymond N. Rogers’ observations and conclusions concerning the body image that is visible on the Shroud of Turin” (http://shroudnm.com/docs/2013-01-10-Yannick-Clément-Reflections-on-Ray-Rogers-Shroud-Work.pdf), which reads: “In his paper entitled An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color (2001), Rogers reported an evaporation-concentration experiment he made with a cotton nap and a dye solution and described the result like this: “The photomicrograph shows that the main concentration of dye on the top surface appears on the fibrils of the nap that are pointing straight up and on the top-most surfaces of the threads.” This is a clear indication that when an evaporation –concentration phenomenon is active inside a cloth, it normally produces an uneven layer of impurities that concentrate mostly on the top surface of the cloth, thus giving us a possible explanation for the discontinuous distribution of colored fibers in the image area of the Shroud (as well as the extremely superficial aspect of the image). Effectively, starting from this result obtained by Rogers, we can presume that, after the active phase of the image formation process (which was most probably mild), only a portion of the coated fibers located on the top surface of the cloth (i.e. the ones that were coated by a thicker layer of impurities) were able to get colored enough to help produce the body image that we see on the Shroud, because the amount of impurities, in their case, would have been sufficient to produce such a result. Notice also that Rogers reports the same kind of evaporation -concentration experiment with dye in his book “A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin”, while mentioning that the degree of dye concentration can be variable even between two adjoining fibers (see quote #114), which confirms very well this personal interpretation of the previous quote coming from his paper entitled An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color (2001).”

SUMMARY

There is a true possibility that the answer to the Shroud’s image formation can be found in BOTH a stochastic event that involved only a very small amount of energy released by the corpse (i.e. a natural event that happened most probably at normal temperature) AND the presence of a UNEVEN layer of carbohydrate impurities that coated the top-most fibers of the cloth and which would have been the only thing that was affected by that stochastic event, which was so mild that it provoke the oxidation and/or dehydration of only a portion of the most coated fibers on the top-most part of the cloth (while not affecting at all the structure of the linen fiber itself, as well as not affecting in a visible way the other top-most fibers, even if some of those fibers were directly adjacent to those that became yellowed), thus leading to the formation of a latent image that became fully visible only years or even decades later.

Paper Chase: A Natural Stochastic Process May Explain the Coexistence of Bloodstains and an Image on the Shroud of Turin

clip_image001The paper, THE MYSTERIOUS COEXISTENCE OF BLOODSTAINS AND BODY IMAGE ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN EXPLAINED BY A STOCHASTIC PROCESS by Giovanni Fazio, Yannick Clement and Giuseppe Mandaglio and published in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry is now available online:

The presence of bloodstains certifies that a wounded human body has been enveloped in the Shroud of Turin and that most parts of this corpse came in direct contact with the cloth during the burial procedure. On the contrary, the ventral body image, by correlation between image intensity and cloth-body distance, shows codified information regarding the distance from which the cloth was versus the body at the time of the image formation. At first sight, this last statement seems to be impossible for a human corpse. Therefore, the coexistence of the bloodstains and the body imprints on both sides of the Shroud could be seen as unnatural, especially when we consider that a deterministic process as the UV radiation or the action of an electrostatic field (corona discharge), as well as manmade chemical and thermal treatment. These processes do not explain all the known characteristics of the body images (ventral and dorsal) because they do not distinguish the fibrils that must be yellowed from the ones that must retain the background colour. In this paper we prove that a natural stochastic process can offer a rational and scientific explanation that can account for all the known properties of these bloodstains and body images. However, another possible explanation that must be taken into account is a natural process involving the production of oxygen that yields a latent image.

Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry is an open access journal published by the University of the Aegean.

Navy Seals at the Battle of Gettysburg? A Picture of the Shroud in 1036?

If it is the shroud perhaps it explains the poker holes

imageIs this what is now known as the Shroud of Turin being carried through the streets of Constantinople.?

(Click on the picture for a larger view)

Pam Moon writes:

. . .

Last year I spent a lot of time with the Madrid Skylitzes and I wondered if you would be interested in the image which doesn’t fit at all.

It is one of the finest images in the Madrid Skylitzes and the one every google search picks up.

But it is the equivalent of of putting a modern day company of Navy Seals into a picture of the Battle of Gettysburg. 

The army in the image is the Varangian Guard (pg 16/17) It doesn’t fit – it is 160 years out of date. 

Is the image actually of the Shroud in the 1036 exposition through the streets of Constantinople which has been redacted by a later copyist to make it fit a wrong part of history?

If it is perhaps it explains the poker holes on the Shroud?

Pam has put together a paper, The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople? Paper I: An analysis of the L Shaped markings on the Shroud of Turin and an examination of the Holy Mandylion and Holy Shroud in the Madrid Skylitzes .   Take the time to read it. It is quite fascinating.

Paper Chase: The Effects of Douse Water

imagePam Moon has just today published a new paper, The Feet of Christ? : Douse Water damage from the 1532 Fire, the Lier Shroud and the Missing Corners at The Shroud of Turin Exhibition website. (As before the paper is a PNG image file. Links to a PDF version are on the web page but are not yet implemented. Pam, in an email, indicated that she was working on it).

The first paragraph introduces us to the paper’s objective:

This paper suggests that douse water used to put out the fire which almost destroyed the Shroud in 1532 obscured some features that were once visible on the Shroud of Turin. The feet of the Man on the Shroud are no longer distinct. Also the elbows arc no longer visible because of douse water rather than fire damage. This paper compares the feet and elbows of the Shroud of Turin with the Lier Shroud. The Lier Shroud, painted in 1516 is an artistes impression of the Shroud of Turin possibly created by the German Renaissance artist Lucas Cranach the Elder. it gives a clear impression of the feet and elbows sixteen years before douse water damage.

imageHere is a black and white contrast enhancement of the the above picture to see if it this offers more clarity. I think so.

Schwortz: It is Worth Reviewing David Ford’s Noteworthy Blood or Paint Paper

imageBarrie Schwortz posts on the STERA Facebook page:

I recently received a letter from a Shroud skeptic defending the work of Walter McCrone that prompted me to draft a reply (which I will include in our next website update in early June). While writing my response, I referenced a paper that we published in 2000 by David Ford which independently evaluated and summarized all the available data titled, The Shroud of Turin’s ‘Blood’ Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry. The paper is worth reviewing again and can be found at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf, in case you missed it.

Paper Chase: Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert

imageSurprise! This paper seems to be open access. Click here to have a go at it.

Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert by  A.J. Timothy Jull, Douglas Donahue, Magen Broshi and Emanuel Tov; Radiocarbon, Vol 37, No 1, 1995, pp 11-19.

Abstract:

We report on new 14C measurements of samples of 18 texts (scrolls) and 2 linen fragments from Qumran Caves 1, 2, and 4 and from Nahal Hever, both in the Dead Sea region. The radiocarbon results are in good agreement with estimates of age based on paleography.

Introduction:

Various parchment and papyrus manuscripts found in caves in the area of Qumran and at other sites in the Judean Desert are known generally as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran scrolls are generally considered to have been hidden by the Qumran Community, identified by most scholars as the Ess- enes. The documents are usually regarded to have been copied between the mid-third century BC and AD 68, when the Qumran settlement was destroyed by the Romans.

Bonani et al. (1991, 1992) dated 14 texts, 8 of which came from Qumran. We present here new radiocarbon dates of 18 texts, including 3 date-bearing texts (3 from Qumran Cave 1,12 from Cave 4, and 3 from other sites in the Judean Desert). We consider the importance of the 14C dates in relation to other age estimates and we also report on 14C examinations of linen fragments from the Judean Desert.

Paper Chase: DNA Analysis and the Shroud of Turin: Development of a Shroud CODIS

imageSTERA has just published another paper by Kelly Kearse, DNA Analysis and the Shroud of Turin: Development of a Shroud CODIS. This is Kelly’s fourth paper at shroud.com. This paper will certainly shape discussions about future research on the shroud.

Barrie Schwortz, in introducing the paper this morning on shroud.com, writes:

once again, he has taken a very technical subject and made it interesting and understandable for everyone,”

Based so far on an early morning first read (the coffee is still brewing), I agree. More importantly, what do you think?

ABSTRACT: 

Since its development in the mid 1980s, DNA analysis has become a standard procedure utilized by law enforcement and legal systems in the forensic examination of human remains, and to help establish or exclude a connection to a crime scene. The recent progression of gene amplification and enrichment strategies, together with next generation sequencing techniques, have made the analysis of ancient and degraded DNA samples much more feasible than previously imagined. Human DNA has been isolated from the Shroud of Turin, although the results remain rather limited and controversial. Indeed, it is unknown if such DNA truly originates from blood cells present on the cloth or is the result of contamination from exogenous sources. Here, the potential and limitations of modern molecular biology techniques in the analysis of the Shroud of Turin are reviewed, including the evaluation of both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.

Paper Chase: A Wonderful, Rare Document from Father Weuncheal

imageGiorgio Bracaglia has uploaded a new file, Doctor Hynek and the Holy Shroud by Edward A. Weunschel, C.SS.R., S.T.D.  to the website of the Holy Shroud Guild.

Giorgio calls it “a rare document from Father Weuncheal.” I might add the word wonderful, as well.

You may click HERE for direct PDF access if you are using Windows 8 and want to read the document with the Chrome browser or in desktop mode.

Paper Chase: Dorothy Crispino on The Fathers of American Sindonology

Barrie Schwortz writes on STERA’s Facebook Page:

I am busy working away on our January 21st update but wanted to give you something to read in the meantime. This is a presentation made by Dorothy Crispino at the 1996 Esopus Conference in honor of Fr. Adam Otterbein, in which she details the beginnings of Sindonology in the U.S. – In case you missed it…

The Fathers of American Sindonology

In this place sixty odd years ago, a handful of Redemptorist priests recognized Christ in another effigy, and like the disciples at supper at Emmaus, they lost no time in spreading the news. Perhaps you remember how it started, here in this very building. How Father William Barry, a priest at the Mo…

Updated Paper from Yannick Clément

imageYannick Clément writes (I hope he doesn’t mind this bit of a personal note):

I hope you took time to check out the video of my song « Louiseville » (song about the place I live) that I put recently on Youtube! Hope you like the melody and the beat!

I did, and here is the song (hope you don’t mind, it is good).

Also, I want to let you know that I finally got time to add what I consider “the most pertinent quotes” concerning the image formation problem that can be found in the imagerecent paper of Ray Rogers that was published on Barrie’s website (“An alternate hypothesis for the image color”, written in 2001) in my own paper “Raymond N Rogers observations and conclusions concerning the body image that is visible on the Shroud of Turin” and this updated version of my paper can now be read on Shroudnm.com and on the website of the Holy Shroud Guild.

Here’s the 2 links:

So, it would be nice if you could add a topic about that on your blog to let everyone knows that this updated version of my paper is now available on those 2 websites. And it would be good if you could tell people the quote numbers that were updated, which are : 24, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 115, 148, 149, 150 and 151.

Yannick, if I shouldn’t put up the video let me know and I’ll take it down (I enjoyed it, very much and Google’s got it).