Manipulated Miracles

imageIn trying to explain how the image could have been a hologram created as a byproduct of the Resurrection, Dave Hines explained:

… during the process of making a hologram there can be no sound vibration. Object must be 100% static. Cloth must also be 100% static. Interference pattern is easily disrupted resulting in no image at all.

Those are things I cannot explain other than to say the person/intelligent force in charge image making process has the ability to place a electromagnetic field around a cloth and body and hold it in place and or create a zero gravity environment during image process. and make sure there are no sound interruptions during the image process.

A tall order, only a “Higher Power Intelligence/God would be capable of filling.

Or – drum roll – God said, let there be an image on the cloth. And there was.

You don’t like that? Too much of a directed miracle? Too far from God-acts-through-nature? Well then you can consider Rucker’s radiation, Jackson’s dematerialization, Tipler’s sphaleron quantum tunneling, Fanti’s corona discharge, Di Lazzaro’s ultraviolet, Rogers’ Maillard reactions (quite natural if it could work but requiring every bit as much of a miraculous manipulation as Hine’s hologram), Freeman’s painting (if STURP and Berry are wrong) and Berry’s fraud-by-Maillard if Berry is right. 

I was reminded of a posting from two years ago on inexplicable explanation and particularly about an exchange between Matthias and Hugh Farey. CLICK HERE (or on the snapshot below to read it).

In the snapshot, I agreed with BT. Still do. I don’t buy into any explanation so far offered and I don’t consider the fact that we can’t explain the image as significant.


The Morphing of Rogers and Berry?

The most superficial part of the linen fibre is the PCW, and that comprises hemicellulose as a major constituent. Hemicellulose has a lot of pentose sugars, which are chemically reactive,  more so than the hexose sugars of starch and cellulose, and known to enter freely into Maillard reactions. Maybe the linen provided the sugar for the Maillard reaction.

image… on the shroud (or misnoma-shroud). Colin Berry teases it out a bit for us:

This blogger has already been accused of plagiarizing Rogers’ ideas (in seeing a role for Maillard reaction products, albeit between reducing sugars and proteins of white flour, and needing an exceedingly hot iron to get the colour). Well, I’m about to make things even worse for myself – by narrowing the gap between my medieval model and the pro-authenticity 1st century tomb scenario of Rogers. It involves volatile amines, those fishy smelling things with the general formula R-NH2 (primary amine)  where R is an alkyl group, e.g. CH3, C2H5, or, if a secondary amine, R-NH-R’, or a tertiary amine,  R-N(R’)-R”. What you may ask!  We know where the amines are implicated in the Rogers’ model (putrefaction of a corpse).  How can amines be implicated in a white-flour model?

Well, it’s a long shot, but here we go.  The yellow-brown image has been described here as a Maillard reaction product, formed between reducing sugars and proteins. But there’s a problem. The “Shroud” image was tested by Adler et al for protein – none were found.  But my image appears to have two components – an outer one that looks and feels thick, and can be reduced by washing, brushing etc, and a more resistant one that survives those treatments, and seems more like an intrinsic part of the linen fibres. What might have happened to produce the latter.  Well, there’s a little protein in linen fibres, and one might propose that had reacted with reducing sugar, and that the Maillard product formed had failed to react as protein. But one instinctively dislikes qualiofying assumptions. Might there be an alternative explanation? Yes, there is. The most superficial part of the linen fibre is the PCW, and that comprises hemicellulose as a major constituent. Hemicellulose has a lot of pentose sugars, which are chemically reactive,  more so than the hexose sugars of starch and cellulose, and known to enter freely into Maillard reactions. Maybe the linen provided the sugar for the Maillard reaction. But where did the amine come from? It might have been the protein of the flour or linen, especially the epsilon amino group of lysine (not involved in peptide bond formation). But there’s an intriguing alternative. Enter volatile amines. When one adds cold  limewater to white flour there’s an immediate strong fishly odour. So there’s an amine precursor there that is easily released by alkali. Maybe it’s released by heat also, even at lower pH closer to neutrality. Maybe it’s that amine that reacts with the pentose sugars of the linen PCW to produce the ‘resistant’ image that survives washing etc, and that does NOT test positive for protein.

What might be the source of the free amine? Am not sure. It might be glutamine, with terminal -CONH2. It might be polar secondary or tertiary amine groups of phospholipids (lecithin, phosphatidylethanolamine etc).  Much food for thought (maybe a few experiments can help reduce the search options).

The Shroud is a Holograph?

imageIn a comment to another posting, Dave Hines tips us off to a new video he has produced. He writes:

… Here is a video of my latest research project. Holography experiments. I am very close to being able record a interference pattern on linen that would match many of the Shroud image characteristics.

Shroud Image and Hologram Image Match Points

1. Both images are extremely superficial, thin depth image (1/50th thickness of human hair)
2. Both have good resolution
3. Both have 3D Qualities to Image
4. Both images cannot be seen from the back side
5. Both have light coming from only 1 direction to form image
6. Both images fade and or vanish when tilted to the far right or far left
7. Both are a single color image
8. Both images involve subject close to film plate to capture image (past 5cm there is no image formation on a reflection hologram) (I know because I tried it)

Over at YouTube he writes:

"I can affirm without fear of being proven wrong The Shroud of Turin image was created by a interference pattern of laser like light that emitted from the body of Jesus" Shroud of Turin is a linen holographic film plate. As highly improbable as that may sound that is what the forensic evidence says happened. There is no other logical alternative image theory explanation that matches the gospel account or the forensic evidence. What is presented in this video not only matches the Gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus it also matches the forensic evidence on the Shroud of Turin.

I’m not persuaded. I don’t see how any of this matches the Gospel accounts of the
resurrection and I think some of these “match points”  with the shroud are little more than some so-whats. But that is just my opinion.  I’m willing to hear more from Dave and anyone else.

Those Gee Whizz Radiation Models

Intense sources, e.g from a laser, may simply target a trace component that wouldn’t normally  be sufficiently energized to produce  coloration.

imageHopscotching over to his other specialized blog, recently renamed “The Shroud of Turin: medieval two-stage imprint? The blog that separates the science from the pseudo-science” Colin Berry presents us with …an updated version of [his] ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud”.

It is "probably a misnomer," he adds.

BUT THE BEST PART is what he has to say "about those gee whizz ‘radiation’ models”:

The First Law of Photochemistry states that light must be absorbed for photochemistry to occur. This is a simple concept, but it is the basis for performing photochemical and photobiological experiments correctly. If light of a particular wavelength is not absorbed by a system, no photochemistry will occur, and no photobiological effects will be observed, no matter how long one irradiates with that wavelength of light.

Anyone proposing a radiation-based theory MUST  (a) state the wavelength of the radiation and (b) the chemical species (chromophore) that is capable of absorbing that particular wavelength.

Be wary of those who try to sidestep the First Law by telling you that their radiation source is hugely intense and monochromatic, or a type of radiation unknown to physics. There is no escaping the First Law. No absorption means no photochemical reaction, no localized heating, no coloration. That applies to ALL electromagnetic radiation, from long wavelength radio waves  though microwaves, infrared, visible, uv, x rays to  the highest frequency/energy short wavelength gamma radiation.

Intense sources, e.g from a laser, may simply target a trace component that wouldn’t normally  be sufficiently energized to produce  coloration. Trace components of linen that come to mind as normally overlooked  chromophores, but more readily energized molecule for molecule than cellulose, would be lignin and other phenolicss with aromatic ring structures, absorbing moderately in the blue end of the visible spectrum and the near uv.

Another Reaction to Ray Rogers’ Paper on Radiation

“… [Rogers’ conclusion is predetermined by his anti-supernatural presupposition.”

clip_image001Robert A. Rucker, who presented MCNP Analysis of Neutrons Released from Jesus’ Body in the Resurrection has responded by email to yesterday’s posting, A Reason to Doubt the Image Was Formed By Radiation:

I happened to go to your website today (7-16-15) where you asked a question about whether Ray Rogers 2005 paper "The Shroud of Turin: Radiation Effects, Aging and Image Formation" was ever refuted or disputed.  I have read the paper several times and do not regard his conclusion as being justified by the evidence that he included in the paper, rather his conclusion is predetermined by his anti-supernatural presupposition.  If you assume that everything must operate according to the "laws of physics" as we currently understand them, then of course radiation could not have been emitted by the dead body wrapped in the Shroud, and no investigation with the microscope is even needed.  After reading his paper the first time, I thought his investigation and logic were so poor that I just ignored it.  But I find that many people are still referring to this paper to prove that radiation can not have been involved in the production of the image on the Shroud, whereas I believe that radiation emitted from the body and absorbed on the Shroud is the key to understanding how the image was formed.  As a result, I have written a four page critical review of his paper titled "Review of ‘The Shroud of Turin: Radiation Effects, Aging, and Image Formation’ by Ray Rogers" to which I am going to ask others to add their reviews of Rogers’ paper as well.  I have also recently completed a first draft of a ten page paper titled "Information Content on the Shroud of Turin" which I believe proves that only radiation is capable of carrying the information content from the body to the cloth that is necessary to define the appearance of a crucified man in the pattern of discolored fibers on the top of the threads in the Shroud of Turin.  Something must have caused this information content to go from the body to the cloth and if it was not radiation, then what was it?  This paper is now in review.      Keep up the good work,  Bob Rucker 

Do I need to say it?  I am not persuaded by any of the arguments for radiation. But then, I’m not a scientist; what do I know?  But I’m not persuaded by any of the so-called natural explanations. But then again, I’m not a scientist; what do I know? And I am not persuaded by any of the arts-and-crafts-of-fake shroud explanations, either. But then again, again, I’m not a scientist; what do I know?

Here are some links pertaining to Bob’s St. Louis presentation:

Abstract for the Following

MCNP Analysis of Neutrons Released from Jesus’ Body in the Resurrection (54 Slides)

Notes for the 54 Slides

Video of the Presentation in St. Louis (1 Hour)

A Very Helpful Answer from Paolo Di Lazzaro

imagePaolo Di Lazzaro very kindly provided a helpful answer to yesterday’s posting, A Reason to Doubt the Image Was Formed By Radiation (see editing note*):

Dear Dan,

[Your friend]’s question is legitimate, like almost all questions, but it denotes a not updated knowledge of published scientific data and results obtained in the last ten years. We answered [your friend]’s question in our paper published in Applied Optics in 2012, see Superficial and Shroud-like coloration of linen by short laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet.

More recently, we were even more explicit, see reference [9] in the paper Shroud like coloration of linen, conservation measures and perception of patterns onto the Shroud of Turin.

In short, the sentences of Rogers were triggered by negative experimental results of excimer laser irradiations on linen (as well as of particle irradiations). Rogers wrote "Experiments we did with pulsed ultraviolet lasers on linen resulted in ablation and destructive shock waves. Samples often were converted into a little amorphous powder and gas”. (Testing the Jackson “Theory” of Image Formation)

Moreover, he wrote “Very intense, 50-ns-long bursts of UV ablated the cloth surface, and the samples were reduced to a cloud of very fine particles. We could not get a color with a flash of light.” (Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review)

Few years later, in 2006 we have experimentally shown the above Rogers’ statements are simply not true. We obtained a superficial coloration of linen by UV laser beam without destroying the linen, nor altering linen’s structure. Does it means Rogers’ results were wrong? No, because we experienced the same Rogers’ failure when using longer than 50-ns laser pulsewidth. Rogers and his coworkers just used a too long laser pulsewidth, and the wrong combination of intensity/fluence/ number of shots to obtain a Shroud-like coloration.  Details on why it happened are given in Shroud like coloration of linen, conservation measures and perception of patterns onto the Shroud of Turin.

This is normal in science, one performs an experiment with negative results, and later another one finds the good combination of parameters to achieve the desired results. I am sure a honest scientist as Rogers was, would have recognized his "overestimation" of radiation results.

And this is the main reason why a wise scientist never writes his/her results are the "definitive proof" or "provide conclusive evidence" of something. Every result is obtained in good faith (bona fide) until another scientist proves otherwise. Unfortunately not all scientists are wise, see e.g. the conclusions in the Nature’ paper on Shroud radiodatation.

Hope this may clarify the issue, ….

All the best

Thanks, Paolo.

*Editing note: To better fit in this blog, I took the liberty of replacing long http-ish links with the actual titles of papers and made the titles linkable. Most browsers will show you the original link if you hold your mouse-cursor over the title. I also replaced my friends name in the letter since it has not been revealed here.

A Reason to Doubt the Image Was Formed By Radiation

A question raised by a friend got me to wondering if a certain paper by Ray Rogers
was ever really refuted or disputed or was it simply ignored as inconvenient?


imageA 2005 paper by Ray Rogers, THE SHROUD OF TURIN: RADIATION EFFECTS, AGING AND IMAGE FORMATION clearly states on page 6:

Direct comparisons between image and non-image parts of the shroud show exactly the same amounts and types of radiation damage in the two types of areas (e.g., figures 7 and 8). This suggests that the image was not produced by any mechanism that involved heat, light, or ionizing radiation.

and concludes with this sentence:

I believe that the current evidence suggests that all radiation-based hypotheses for image formation will ultimately be rejected.

Has this ever really been refuted or disputed or was it simply ignored as inconvenient? Is the linen coloration obtained by ENEA scientists different? image

Fall-Through Papers

Bimageob Siefker writes:

Late last week a posting on your blog mentioned that John Jackson’s "Fall-Through" hypothesis for Shroud image formation could be found on Stephen Jones website.  It would be thoughtful if you would inform your large population of readers that the Fall-Through hypothesis can also be found on the TSC website ( There are four related papers all together that might be helpful and interesting for your readers:





We hope all is well with you and your family. Hello and keep up the good work from the entire TSC team including John and Rebecca.

Happy to oblige.  By-the-way, the posting Bob is referring to is Who Proposed Ultraviolet?

Is Colin Berry Onto Something?

a chemo-graphic (à la photo-graphic) explanation for the shroud image

imageA reader from Palo Alto writes:

You and your blog mates are being unfair to Dr. Colin Berry. As I see it he is the real successor to Raymond Rogers. With imagination and exploratory experimentation Berry is developing new hypotheses for how the image on the Shroud might have formed. That is what Rogers did. Berry thinks out loud and shows us his trials along the way. That is also what Rogers did.

At this stage of development Berry is suggesting the image may have formed from a wet or moist organic coating on a body or statue. When a cloth is applied and removed some coating comes away on the cloth forming a latent image. That latent image is then developed into a visible image by a browning reaction, possibly a Maillard reaction.

Berry may be onto something, a chemo-graphic (à la photo-graphic) explanation for the shroud image. His latest method may help to explain an intentional fake image or an accidental natural one. An accidental image may have been from the tomb of Christ or a later reenactment. Mankind is forever reenacting important events.

There are many questions that need to be answered. Will a suitable chemical and physical process be found by Berry or a successor? I’m thinking about soaps, oils and spices. Can Berry’s process produce an image with many of the Shroud’s image characteristics? Can unmet characteristics be explained by age or circumstance?  I’m thinking about a damp cloth which might blur or soften away an outline and produce more plausible 3D like characteristics? A damp cloth may also produce a more superficial image.

Berry is certainly right to suggest that the image evolved over time because of handling, temperature, humidity and exposure to light.

I part company with Dr. Berry on the radiocarbon dating. There is too much historical evidence to believe it is correct. If the Shroud’s image was faked it was faked many centuries earlier.

Yes, but, Rogers was always respectful to others. That is a big difference. And, no, we have not been unfair to Colin.  I’d like to hear more.  I’d like to see his work continue. Maybe he is onto something. But there is some bad chemistry in this blog and his blog that is making this difficult.

Click on the image to see a larger version of this ImageJ 3D rendering by Colin. CLICK HERE to read Colin’s latest posting about his work.

A Shameless Plug

Your words, Colin; not mine.

imageWe find Colin Berry, who has once again quit this blog forever for the umpteenth time, now posting in DISQUS. He is plugging his latest theory.

Here we go a quoting from DISQUS:

Title: "The Pope" … "sad world of make believe"


Colin is referring to a story in The Telegraph, The Pope joins the EU in a sad world of make-believe by Christopher Booker. It is an opinion piece about Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’. It is not about the shroud. Not at all.

Who cares, Colin, right? Let’s trollishly intrude!

So Colin continues:

Fiddlesticks. For one moment I thought that might be a reference to his paying homage to the Shroud of Turin, allowing one shamelessly to plug (without splitting an infinitive) the latest Blue Peter "Make Your Own Turin Shroud" shamelessly immodest breakthrough discovery.


Simply paint a gluey cold water slurry of plain white flour onto one’s 3D subject – whether a real person or a bas relief (probably the latter for the face), imprint onto linen, then press the dried imprint with a really hot iron (linen setting). Hey presto, one gets a negative sepia-coloured Shroud-like image of one’s subject. Nope, it won’t wash out, so may well be permanent. It may even display those ‘mysterious’ 3D properties if you use dowloadable software (ImageJ etc) that excels in finding "3D" wherever there’s tonal contrast in one’s 2D image.

Maybe the children’s show will send Colin an honorary iron-on Blue Peter patch.

Read about Colin’s latest hypothesis, A new and simple thermal imprinting model for the Turin Shroud needing only plain white flour and a hot iron – in 12 pictures.

Resolution of the Shroud Image

Ray Schneider has put together some useful charts on the subject in
The Shroud of Turin an Enduring Mystery – Part 4: Skeptics & Image Formation 
(Charts 14, 16-18 deal with resolution).

imageIn snippets from comments, Hugh Farey has raised some good questions about image resolution. 

To Louis, he wrote:

Can I ask for some opinion about ‘high resolution’ we keep hearing about. The resolution is not at all high. The resolution is poor. The fat that one smudge can be seen as the edge of the lower lip does not justify the complete absence of any nipples, fingernails, navel and so on, all of which would be expected from an image of any good resolution.

And in response to a comment by Max, Hugh wrote:

I wish I knew what people mean by a resolution of 5mm. Grab a pencil and draw the outline of the arms. How precise is it? 30mm, I reckon. The fingers and face are a bit better, but a contact image precise to an accuracy of 5mm is not good resolution, it’s poor. One of the arguments against the Shroud being some kind of bas relief rubbing is just that – its resolution is so poor.

Max had said:

The optical high resolution of the details of the TS body images –at least as good as 0.5 cm (see L. A. Schwalbe, R. N. Rogers, “Physics and chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, a summary of the 1978 investigation,” Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3-49, 1982 and J. P. Jackson, E. J. Jumper, W. R. Ercoline, “Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape,” Appl. Opt. 23, 2244-2270, 1984) or even approaching 0.1 to 0.2 cm (see V. D. Miller and S. F. Pellicori, “Ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the Shroud of Turin”, Journal of Biological Photography, 49, 71-85,1981)– suggests a contact-and-gradual-loss-of- contact mechanism of transfer to account for the integrity of blood clots of which optical high resolution of their details is as good as 0.04-0.05 cm that is ten times higher than the body image details).

Optically speaking, what do you consider is the minimum for “high-res”?

Hugh wrote back to Max:

Yes that’s what they all say, and perhaps I misunderstand them. Can we detect collarbones or the Shroud image? Ribs? Kneecaps? You don’t need a very high resolution to see these clearly on images of people, and the Shroud shows none of them. I don’t know how the resolution of an image of a body should be quantified, but I do know that the Shroud isn’t very very high, regardless of what Schwalbe and friends think, unless, as I say, I misunderstand what they mean by a resolution of 5mm.

and later added:

You are still explaining why the resolution is poor rather than substantiating the opinion that it is good. Prof. Fanti did indeed say that the edge of the lower lip of the image was well defined, and I agree with him. The rest of the face is less so, and the rest of the body a mere blur. optically speaking a well defined Shroud image would be one around which it would be possible for different people independently to draw outlines of various features (e.g. arms, legs, eyes, fingers) and when superimposed they should not differ by more than a millimetre or so. I said that before. That’s my answer.

Ray Schneider has put together some useful charts on the subject in The Shroud of Turin an Enduring Mystery – Part 4: Skeptics & Image Formation (Charts 14, 16-18 deal with resolution).

Comment Promoted: Charles Freeman Comes Closest

imagePaulette writes:

After three years reading this blog I have come to believe that of all the hypotheses ever proposed for how the image came to be Charles Freeman’s comes closest to the mark even as his arrow misses the target by a country mile.

Max opined:

To Paulette, it is easy to criticize but hard to act and substantiate your belief. BTW what is your opinion? Are you just another archmiraculist relying on biased observations?

And Hugh chimed in:

But keep an open mind, Paulette. There’s always a possibility that a naturalistic mechanism will turn up.

I sort of agree with you, Paulette.  And I’m not an archanythingorother whatsoever.

Colin Berry, Mario Latendresse and ME-29

A reader writes:

I just encountered your postings on stochastic processes at Yahoo. Good material. Thank you. However, you failed to provide a link to Dr. Colin Berry’s helpful opinions on the subject.  You also failed to link to Dr. Mario Latendresse’s critical evaluation of the paper by Fazio et al. A link to the full sized jpeg of ME-29 would be most helpful.

By Yahoo I think he may be referring to a recent, private conversation going on over at the Shroud Science Group. It is hosted as a Yahoo Group. I have provided some links into this blog.

Well, actually, I did provide a link to Colin’s posting on the matter. Here it is again:

Here is a TinyURL version of the above link, just in case:

Here is a link to Latendresse’s evaluation entitled Matters Arising. It appears to be a letter to the editor of the journal. A reply by Fazio is included in the same PDF. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

As for ME-29, I can’t find anything larger than 870×616, and I think that has been stretched. I recommend the image found on Mario’s site which is 735×496. Access it by clicking on the above image or by CLICKING HERE.

I’d like to know from Barrie Schwortz what is the largest ME-29 image available and can it be put online for public examination. 

Is Charles Freeman Emerging as the World’s Leading Shroud Skeptic?

“This is a small sample of Charles Freeman’s research on the subject, which should be more widely known so that National Geographic would be embarrassed to take the shroud seriously.”

— Ophelia Benson

clip_image001While Colin complains that the world is ignoring his two-stage imprinting model, Charles Freeman is getting special attention for his painting theory from Ophelia Benson over at Butterflies and Wheels in the well-read Free Thought blogs collection.  Benson is particularly well known for her criticism of pseudoscience and religious fundamentalism. She writes: 

Charles Freeman has an article in History Today about the Shroud of Turin. He tells me the subject is neglected by academics, and “the absurd ideas of the authenticists are given full and virtually unchallenged internet space.” He adds that National Geographic is especially bad on this, maintaining “the idea that there is something inherently mysterious about the Shroud when in fact an afternoon in a conservation lab – which would find the traces of gesso and paint – would probably sort things out.” He gave me carte blanche to use the article, so have a feast.

So have a feast. Or not.

Colin Berry: It’s the negative image with 3D properties, stoopid

The Urban Dictionary defines stoopid as having the quality of being really, really, really, stupid.

My current two-stage imprinting/developing model, which the world of Shroudology
is still largely ignoring …

imageColin tells us on his blog:

Digression: Yup, it’s how real science operates – there is no obligation in model-building to incorporate other people’s assumptions or preconceptions that might not have been given as much prior thought beforehand: science ain’t democratic, and would not have made such speedy progress between the 17th and 20th century if that had been the case. Science is unashamedly elitist, which is why scientists rely on each other via ‘peer-review’ to judge the fitness for publication in respected journals. There is no trial by media where traditional science is concerned. Internet-reporting of science in real time via the internet is a different matter entirely, which is why this blogger is taking the trouble right now to spell out the difference between a painting and an imprint, and will be explaining shortly why the a priori  indications are that the TS image IS an imprint, not merely an artist’s attempt to simulate an imprint, or even a hybrid of painting and imprint, reiterating yet again his amazement that STURP bothered to squander so much time, energy and resources on checking out the depressingly third-rate “just a painting “ hypothesis when there were far more pressing questions to address re the MECHANISM of imprinting.  STURP was supposed to be an elite task force, and should have behaved as such, eliminating non-starters from its model-building assumptions, and indeed should have STARTED WITH A MODEL, instead of thinking one could go in with space-age equipment and simply hoover up the relevant facts, arriving on time at a destination called Truth. Sorry, all you STURP defenders, but that’s not how science (real science, that is) works in the real world. Indeed, it sometimes fails to reach its destination on  time, even using its preferred model building approach. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: experimentally-based model building is the worst form of enquiry, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.

So, to the question: why are/were we supposed to see the TS image as an imprint, a real imprint, not just an artist’s impression of an imprint, the answer, correction , answers, are painfully simple:

1. It’s the close correspondence to events leading up to and immediately following Joseph of Arimathea’s arrival at the cross bearing expensive linen for wrapping and transporting a sweat and blood-stained body, likely to leave an imprint, stoopid
2. It’s the up-and-over double image, on high quality linen, stoopid.
3. It’s the life-sized image, stoopid.
4. It’s the negative image with 3D properties, stoopid.
5. It’s the cardboard cut-out look, stoopid, with no imaging of sides, stoopid.
6. It’s the image superficiality, stoopid
7. It’s the real-looking bloodstains, stoopid.
8. It’s the absence of a loin cloth, stoopid.
9. It’s the absence of a crown of thorns, just strategically-sited blood stains in the hair etc, stoopid.
10. It’s those spindly fingers, exactly as expected from real imprinting, stoopid
11. Ten killer clues should be more than enough to be getting on with. If you want more than 10, then it’s the whole darn shebang, stoopid.

To conclude: to those of us who ain’t stoopid, the Turin Shroud IS a real imprint.

The real question is whether the TS could only have been formed by imprinting of the real Jesus onto his burial shroud, as we are repeatedly asked to consider and/or believe by certain self-styled "scientists", OR whether it could have been faked by a medieval artisan.

This retired scientist’s own position, after some 3.5 years of research, albeit in kitchen and garage: of course it could have been faked. My current two-stage imprinting/developing model, which the world of Shroudology is still largely ignoring (Thibault Heimburger MD being a notable  exception) – or maybe has yet to learn of – shows how it could have been accomplished, at least in principle. It ain’t rocket science. Indeed, it’s part kitchen science, starting with plain white flour. Medieval alchemists could have supplied the nitric acid.

Hopefully my model will not turn out to be a damp squib,  the way the STURP Summary was a damp squib, with much pseudo-science following in its wake, much of the latter coming from senior STURP members who, in view of their unique  STURP credentials should  have exercised greater self-restraint, no matter what their particular ‘world view’.

Fascinating Video from Dave Hines

Link =

He writes in YouTube:

This part 1 series of 3 videos goes into how Jesus was buried 1st. Blood stains 1st. We cannot talk about the image formation until we 1st address the blood stains and other aspects of the image that are result of body to cloth contact.

Shroud image is the result of both body to cloth contact and another aspect of the Shroud image is a non contact image.

I want to make it clear I am not proposing that the Shroud image is a contact image only.
We will get into the discussion of what aspect of the Shroud is a non contact image in Part 2 of this series.

In the 2nd video will show how the myrrh resin applied to the cloth will convert the linen into a holographic film plate.

We will demonstrate live on film a laser beam bounced off the figure and then diffracted and the interference pattern recorded on the linen.

Part of the Shroud Image is in fact a hologram.

We will prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.

This is not just a theory I am proposing but you are going to see a up close and personal genuine demonstrated reality in front of your own eyes. "seeing is believing" and you are going to see.

Maybe for the 1st time in your entire life.

One of our goals in this video is to silence the voice of the skeptic once and for all. When we are done there will not be a single witness left to testify against Jesus of Nazareth.

The Man in the Shroud/Jesus is going to get the fair trail he did not get back in 1st Century. This time he is going to be set free along with the viewer. Permanent freedom from the spirit of fear. Spirit of joy will replace it. No one should have to live with a sick spirit of fear. We are setting out to free people of it, so they can have a chance of having a genuine, successful and happy life.

Shroud of Turin is a witnessing tool only so that one may "come to believe in a power greater then themselves that can restore the normal function of the mind and body.

One of the greatest sensations in the world that people spend millions of dollars to experience is freedom. It is positively exhilarating and spirit uplifting. You can have that sensation for free.

The truth revealed in this series of videos, will set you permanently free and it will not cost you one penny to do so, in accordance with the will of the Spirit of God. Spirit of God is not a paper and coin chaser and does not need to know your credit card number or access to your bank account.

He simply does not care how much money you have. It is something else the Spirit of God seeks from you. We suggest sending him a "knee mail" message to figure out what that is exactly.

Colin Berry On Rogers and Arnoldi Paper

imageYesterday, Colin Berry, in one of his updates to his seemingly always evolving and meandering long postings, tells us what he would have done had he been refereeing Rogers’ and Arnoldi’s paper, “THE SHROUD OF TURIN: AN AMINO-CARBONYL REACTION (MAILLARD REACTION) MAY EXPLAIN THE IMAGE FORMATION”, which appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Melanoidins:

Had the paper come to me for refereeing… it would have been rejected out of hand.

I’d have appended the following specific comments to the author and journal Editor:

1. Do not go citing Pliny the Elder out of the blue, begging the question re Shroud authenticity, implying that the radiocarbon dating can be safely ignored.  Oh no it cannot. The author might think it invalid, based on his examination of a few threads illicitly removed from the radiocarbon sample, with a subsequent gap in the chain of custody. But he cannot expect others to take his rejection as the consensus position in science. It’s not. Indeed, the manner in which Pliny has been insinuated into the above text suggests strongly that Raymond N.Rogers was not strictly neutral and disinterested on the subject of authenticity when he penned the above paper, making it worryingly possible that he was not  neutral at the time he worked with STURP in 1978. It’s my belief that Rogers was a closet authenticist. If he considered the radiocarbon dating, then he as STURP’s chemical team leader should have been the one to press for a repeat dating – not to go tacitly assuming authenticity. Science has to be totally objective in its written PEER-REVIEWED publications.

2.The presence of starch "confirmed" with a reagent that designed to test for something entirely different? The correct reagent for detecting starch is a solution of iodine in potassium iodide, which gives a blue-black inky colour with starch. A solution of iodine in sodium azide, intended to detect sulphoproteins, one that gives a totally different colour (red), CANNOT be assumed to be testing for starch UNLESS VALIDATING TESTS ARE REPORTED.  They were not. We are asked to accept that iodine/azide is a dual purpose reagent. Who says? Neither does it inspire confidence to see a reference to "amilose", it being AMYLOSE needless to say. Secondly the differentiation between amylose (straight chain starch) and the unmentioned amylopectin (branched chain starch) simply cannot be inserted into a scientific account without a word of explanation. In nay case, the two components of starch were not properly recognized as distinct chemical entities until the 1940s. Their relevance to colorimetric tests for starch is highly questionable to say the least, unless dealing with genetic variants of wheat that are enriched in one or the other (e.g. waxy maize starches that are almost entirely amylopectin, which gives a red or purple colour with iodine/potassium iodide). What we see here is at best sloppy and imprecise unscientific reporting that should never have got past the referees.

3. There is no conclusive evidence that starch or other polysaccharides and/or sugars are  present on the Shroud, and even if the red colour with iodine/azide were admissible evidence, for which no assurance is offered, the evidence for that was from Adler and Heller. One CANNOT GO BASING MAJOR CLAIMS (as Roger’s "starch fraction/Maillard hypothesis" has become a major claim) on evidence from other workers, in other laboratories, that is little more than anecdotal.


Colin Berry: The Scourge Marks are Frankly Not Credible

When someone is flayed with a Roman flagrum, one expects to see the skin ripped to shreds,
with blood flows to match. One does not expect to see neat imprints

imageIs that so?  Has this idea been investigated?

Colin had written a comment:

The crucial point surely is that there is no imaging of “wounds” or “injuries” as such on the sepia body image of the TS – absolutely none. The evidence for “wounds” and “injuries” rests entirely on the position of bloodstains at various locations. Even the “scourge marks” showing the dumb-bell shapes etc of skin-lacerating or indenting metal or bone tips are (we’re told) solely blood imprints – there’s no corroborating evidence in the body image.

The reliance on bloodstains alone to support the biblical narrative (scourging, crown of thorns, nails wounds, lance wound) with no supporting evidence whatsoever in the body image is entirely consistent with medieval forgery. Indeed, it’s hard to think of an alternative explanation – unless one’s view of the TS is “authentic until proven otherwise” (an authenticity-endorsing or promoting ‘sindonological’ position, as distinct from one that is strictly neutral, dispassionately scientific).

Thibault Heimburger replied:

I never understood what you mean by “imaging of wounds …”  What do you expect to see on a linen on contact with a bloody wound? I would expect to see exactly what we see on the TS.

Can you explain?

Colin then writes:

Maybe nothing. But I’m not the one who constantly refers to “wounds” or “injuries” for which there’s no independent and corroborating evidence in the body image, merely blood that is in locations that fit the biblical narrative. It’s to do with the burden of proof.

When someone is flayed with a Roman flagrum, one expects to see the skin ripped to shreds, with blood flows to match. One does not expect to see neat imprints correspondingly exactly with the shape of the metal or bone pellets, as if all they did was to produce contusions with just the right amount of weeping blood to “imprint” an image, with no surplus to obscure and thus ‘spoil’ the image. The scourge marks are frankly not credible, except as the work of a forger intent on creating over-simplified neat and geometric patterns that lack both realism and credibility.

Yannick Clément on Colin Berry’s Latest Hypothesis

imageHe writes in an email:

If we take the question of the image formation without also taking into account the rest of the important data coming from the Shroud, I would say that even if Colin Berry could really produced an image on linen that would show ALL the chemical and physical properties of the Shroud image (I’m 99% certain that he can’t because, among other thing, there is absolutely no color penetration anywhere on the Shroud, which is something no medieval forger using the kind of chemical process he proposed could have rationally achieve), his result would never prove that this is how the Shroud image was formed.  This would only show that the kind of "artificial" process he proposed can produce an image on linen like the Shroud, which is very different than claiming this MUST be the way it was done.

And more importantly, the evidence coming from the bloodstains (which I have summarized in this paper:ément-The-evidence-of-the-bloodstains.pdf) would still be there to contradict the idea of a false relic that could have been "artificially" created by a forger.  As I showed in my paper, the blood evidence coming from the Shroud is enough to prove that this cloth is a real burial cloth that has enveloped only for a short period of time a real scourged and crucified man that has been executed with the known historical method that was used by the Roman Empire before the reign of the Emperor Constantine.  In such a context, the ONLY rational hypothesis that could involve a forgery is the one I summarized in the point #1 you can find in page 6, which goes like this: "It is a real burial shroud of someone other than Jesus of Nazareth who suffered the same tortures as he with a forged image done by someone without using any art technique. In this case, a forger “naturally” produced the image while using a real human corpse. Because of the great resemblance between what happen to Jesus in the Gospels, we must assume that this forger did it in order to produce a false relic of the Passion of the Christ. Also, because of the presence of many differences between any known artistic depictions of the Passion of the Christ prior to the first known public exhibition of the Shroud in the 14th century and the bloodstains and the body image that are on the Shroud (for example, the nailing in the wrist instead of in the palms, the wearing of a cap of thorns instead of a crown and the very distinct dumbbell shaped marks of scourging coming from a Roman flagrum), we must assume that if he tortured and crucified himself (with the help of some collaborators), this forger was well aware of the Roman procedures concerning scourging and crucifixion. In fact, it is even more rational to think that this forger used the body of a real crucified victim who was put to death by the Romans, before the crucifixion was banished by the emperor Constantine, in the last years of his reign that ended in 337. We also have to assume that this forger took the dead body out of the shroud before it started to corrupt in such a way that this extraction did not disturb the bloodstains, never broke the linen fibrils under them and did not disturb the body image. In sum, this scenario can be described like a “natural” forgery using a real tortured and crucified body. And whether or not the forger knew that he would obtain a body image on the cloth, along with the bloodstains, is not completely clear. In fact, the formation of an image like that could have well been just an accident."

If Berry (or anyone else) still wants to defend the idea of a forgery while remaining rational, I urge him to think seriously of what I just said and to try to find a way to produce a Shroud-like image with the use of biological products that could have been released inside the Shroud shortly after death by a highly-traumatized human corpse that had been scourged and crucified. In my mind, that would certainly be much more interesting than seeing him constantly trying to produce at all cost a Shroud-like image with the use of a man-made technique, while completely leaving aside (or at the very least, not considering seriously) the crucial evidence coming from the bloodstains…

Colin Berry Has It All Figured Out, Sort Of, Maybe

You’ve got to love the experimentation and impressive results so far

imageColin Berry gives this lengthy title to a blog postings over at his Science Buzz blog: The chemical principles behind the iconic Turin Shroud can now be explained. All that remains is to produce a look-alike copy. Then he goes on to say:

It’s taken over 3 years of almost non-stop experimentation, but this blogger/retired science bod is now able to explain how the faint negative image of the Turin Shroud was obtained (as a feat of medieval technology, aided by alchemists).

The task: produce a contact image that could be claimed to be that left by the crucified Jesus on Joseph of Arimathea’s ‘fine linen’.

It’s incredibly simple in principle (why didn’t I think of it sooner?):

1. Paint an adult human male (alive or dead) with an organic paste …

2. Press linen against the subject (or subject against linen) …

3. Develop the image chemically….


So I maintain that the plausible science is established – at least in principle-  so far as producing a negative  sepia 2D image from imprinting off a 3D subjectis concerned.  Whether it matches all the additional or peculiar characteristics of the TS image (extreme superficiality, lack of reverse side image, lack of uv fluorescence, microscopic characteristics etc.) remains to be seen. However,let’s insert a note of caution: not all those listed characteristics were necessarily there immediately after image formation, regardless of age – centuries or millennia. Some of those characteristics may be a result of ageing. At present it seems sensible to adopt a broad-brush approach, attempting to accommodate  only those ‘headline’ characteristics of the TS that have led to its being described as iconic or enigmatic. Where the latter are concerned, the prize for the most ‘iconic’ must surely go to the pioneering 1898 photography by Secondo Pia, which converted the Shroud negative back into a positive (by innocently treating the TS as a positive and convereting to a negative!).

New Book by Stephen Mattingly Proposes Image Mechanism

imageA newly published book by long-time shroud researcher Stephen J. Mattingly was released yesterday, May 7, 2015. It is available at  The paperback book, How Skin Bacteria Created the Image on the Shroud of Turin is available for $15.00. No other formats such as Kindle have been announced.

The description of the book on Amazon reads:

The hypothesis is that bacteria from the skin of Jesus grew at unusually high levels during his crucifixion and left their excess on the linen surface after the Shroud was removed from the body. Everything that occurred during the crucifixion was essential to producing his image on the Shroud. All the pieces had to fall in place at just the right time. Science and Scripture agree beautifully with the crucifixion of Jesus. They seamlessly weave their combined data points into the linen fabric that we know as the Shroud of Turin.

Book Details:

  • Paperback: 84 pages
  • Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (May 7, 2015)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1511663588
  • ISBN-13: 978-1511663588
  • Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.2 x 8.5 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 5.8 ounces

image  Hat tip to Joe Marino

Comment by Hugh Farey on Aging

imageHugh writes in Might tactile chemography prove to be the super-model?:

Some people think that the “effects of aging” are that an originally bright clear image has faded/flaked to what it is now; and others that an originally completely invisible image became visible by darkening – those who habitually place their experiments in an oven for “aging.” We need to be clear about what “aging” really does.

What happens to non-modern linen bleached by different methods, over time under many different conditions: light, temperature both normal and extreme, moisture, natural radiation, all manner of pollutants in the air or in reliquaries and so forth.

There are the questions: do some or all of these things act differently on “imaged” fibers and non-imaged fibers?  How does age act on banding, whatever that is, because it has a visual affect on the image. In fact, is banding a symptom of aging? Why?