Teeth Reconsidered

imageO.K. writes in an email:

Hello Dan.

I know you don’t see teeth on the Shroud image -but maybe this will change your view.

And he attached a PDF file with several images.  In it he writes:

Discussion: Of course one can be very careful when assessing so vague images. Although they are not clear as there are several background impurities, which make discerning most individual teeth impossible, yet it is possible to localize 4-5 of them along with some breaks between them. Adding a fact that they are in the proper place, I am now 99 % convinced that those are indeed teeth (and not for example a band of darker yarn).

Sorry. I remain 99% unconvinced.  What say you all?

It’s everything to do with an unyielding structure called the upper rib cage

imageThere is a fascinating bit of reasoning going on in the mind of Colin Berry. You need to click into Does the Man on the Turin Shroud really have a beard and moustache? (Or is the image an ‘impactogram’?).

“I’ve been there and read that posting,” I hear you say. Me too. That is why I missed an interesting bit of analysis until a reader pointed it out in an email. Colin has a strange way of adding to posts already dispatched to the servers in the clouds as new thoughts come to him. In the meantime, I’ve read his posting and the search engines, typically, have done whatever it is they do.

image— should have been a posting in its own right. But then again, who am I to tell Colin how to post. So go back to his blog and this time scroll down to the new addition. Here is enough to entice you to do so:

The picture on the right is a Durante 2002 "positive" from Shroud Scope.The one on the left is the much earlier (1931) Enrie black/white negative, but I’ve edited it to make it roughly comparable with the Durante image, first by reversing it, left/right, and then "inverting" the tones in ImageJ.

[ . . . ]

Why reiterate the distinction between the two types of  -graph in the context of the chest region?  Because there are no obvious reasons for expecting a large difference in image intensity in a photograph that shows chest and upper (solar plexus) abdomen in the same field of view. Why are we seeing it – especially in the contrasty Enrie pictures? Because the elevated, rigid chest region, whether of a real person or an effigy thereof impacts more on linen, suitably supported, than does the contiguous softer, lower lying area.

. . .  It’s everything to do with an unyielding structure called the upper rib cage, and its impact qualities when pressed against linen.

The next region to consider is the groin with those crossed hands. I believe it’s providing strong clues as to the mechanism of imaging, and no, it’s not dependent on any kind of radiation. Clue: look at the region where one hand overlaps the other.

More later (maybe not today) 

Hopefully, more later will be a new posting so it gets noticed and I will get a bell tone on my iPhone from Google telling me Colin has something new up. Then I could focus on the right things like what Colin has to say which is really interesting and I think meaningful in the greater context of image formation theory.

Until man can explain how the image got on the Shroud using his own technology, he really won’t believe it wasn’t his technology.

imageIt is long:  A Spiritual Analysis of the Shroud by Hannah Michaels. It took me awhile to figure out what to say. I wish I could have been kinder. But then, again, in fairness it is a meditation and I’m not good at reading such things.

It seems a bit strange, as when we read about the carbon dating in 1988 and I began to wonder if this was a Turing Test of some kind. It’s me. I know that. My wife is always saying to me, “Don’t you see the symbolism?”  No, I don’t:

April 21, 1988 – The test begins. This date marks the anniversary of Jesus’ crucifixion and the Second Passover, . . .

April 22, 1988 – The news of the taking of the sample is released to the world. This relates to the crucifixion because symbolically April 21st became “the day as to which you put the sickle to the corn”; and the next morning, April 22, was when the first perfect sheaf would have been presented. This date correlates with birthdates. For example, this is the 40th birthday of the State of Israel – when the Fig Tree officially took possession of the Holy Land in 1948, but would not bear fruit, as Jesus prophesied. This date sets a mark, linking the Roman Catholic Church to the Jewish Synagogue. For some, this may sound far-fetched, but according to Myron C. Fagan’s famous transcript about the Illuminati, it might not be. He said the Grand Sanhedrin instructed Jews to convert to Christianity in 1492, telling them to become doctors, lawyers, Christian clergy, and such, in order to bring the Christian world down. Biblically, 40 is a significant number, such as Israel wandered in the desert 40 years; “After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, [even] forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, [even] forty years, and ye shall know My breach of promise (Numbers 14:34).” Each-day-for-a-year is a prophetic code, because sometimes the number of days means the number of years. With the Church’s recent clarification of the upcoming 2015 Shroud Exhibition, does this mean that she recognizes the code? Beginning April 19, she will hold the longest exhibition to date, being that of 67 days. Interestingly, this would correspond to one day per the 67 years of the modern State of Israel. It seems they are celebrating the State’s birthdate too, along with John Bosco’s Feast, a priest, popularly known as “Don”, who helped underprivileged boys and poor girls.

I’m not very knowledgeable when it comes to the Gospel of Thomas. Is that what it means, that quotation?

But the reality is that there’s a large amount of evidence to prove its authenticity, including spiritual markers, like the thistle. If we were to divide the evidence onto a set of scales, with one side containing evidence of forgery and the other side containing evidence of authenticity; the only item with any apparent weight on the forgery side is the radiocarbon date. Yet, has the balance in anyone’s mind been tipped? “You test the face of the sky and of the earth, and him who is before your face you have not known, and you do not know how to test this moment.” This is a verse from the Gospel of Thomas, a book rejected by the Church, yet is probably the most revealing book into the mystery of being human, and man’s discovery of being more than a body. Perhaps man’s study of the Shroud parallels his desire for knowledge, “because the spirit does search for all these, even the deep things of God”, as Paul put it. (emphasis Michaels)

And what is this?

When things don’t add up, people tend to keep looking for answers. As for the Shroud, there are some who adamantly support the 1988-study, literally putting all their eggs into that radiocarbon-dating basket for confirmation. Surprisingly, the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church falls into this group. Her official statement from John Paul II in 1988 was, “Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet (Wikipedia: Shroud of Turin).” This is an oddly-crafted statement, because, wouldn’t all things concerning Jesus touch on faith, especially one that dealt with a burial cloth thought to be His? The pope mentioned “continuing investigation”, but so often the Church has rejected them. . . . With all that’s been presented to the Church about the possibility of it being authentic, she ought to be appreciative, but instead she’s ignored a great deal of evidence. A layman might not expect the Church to play Devil’s Advocate, but this seems to be the case. (emphasis Michaels)

But John Paul II said that in 1998, not 1988. And he was not saying what Hannah said he was saying, at least not as I see it. Read the full paragraph of item 2 in the Address of His Holiness Pope John Paul II on the occasion of a pastoral visit to Vercelli and Turin, Italy, in May of 1998. In fact, read the entire address. And it was not an official stance of the Roman Catholic Church, anyway. Ian Wilson discussed the pope’s message in his 2010 book, The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved.

imageThe many photos of the Pope, in simple white, praying on his knees before the Shroud . . . speak louder than any words that he was far from persuaded by the carbon-dating findings. And the words of his homily reinforced this.

. . . and they do. Read them.

The second sentence in this following quote perhaps saves the day. I think so.

Man keeps trying to explain his existence with unproven hypotheses. Part of him refuses to accept the obvious. And until he can explain how the Image got on the Shroud using his own technology, he really won’t believe it wasn’t his technology that did it.

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!