A scientist’s eye view of how the iconic Turin Shroud image could have come into being – a happy accident of thermographic and photographic inversion?

Step 1: get yourself a stick of artist’s charcoal, do a quick sketch of the Man on the Shroud.

OK, so it’s a crude cartoon. But this post is about the mechanics of turning an image – any image – into a luminous, haunting end-result …

Next step: reverse light/dark tonal contrast (I used ImageJ software)

Picture 2 was too black/white. So I used photo-editing software to adjust contrast/brightness to get a softer grey image.

Now put the image back into ImageJ software for 3D enhancement.

Ring any bells?  Certainly it’s crude, but it shows how a quickie drawn image can produce a ‘ghostly’ end -result.

Before and after. But is the above kind of image manipulation still being employed on a grand scale for mind manipulation? Ah, now there’s a thought to conjure with…

A much better Shroud-like image can be obtained with scorching instead of charcoal sketching, using a hot iron applied free hand  ( I raise my hat to pyrographic artiste  Irene Corgiat) or, better still, by imprinting off a hot bas-relief template.

Making the “scorch” image from the hot template produces ‘thermographic inversion” (the prominent parts of image like the nose which appear light in a photograph register instead as  dark due to better contact with linen). The result is a ‘negative’ image.

Inverting the negative image back to a positive produces a luminous ghostly image, unlike a normal photographic positive? Why? Because the features that were imprinted and thus emphasised in the original imprint end up ‘de-emphasised’, and those that were left un-imaged – as white space – end up emphasised.

Is it any wonder why the iconic Shroud image looks so much better than the original negative imprint? IT IS – because the inversion/reversion cycle produces a unique ghostly effect that the world of art and photography has largely overlooked and/or ignored.  Maybe there is a limited market for luminous ghostly images – no matter how much artistic value is added  to crudely drawn images.

Finally, on a lighter note, assertions that the Shroud image, and that image  alone, uniquely contains encoded 3D information is what I call Mickey Mouse science, and is perhaps best  answered with the following:

And it’s not just my ‘cartoon’ that responds to the 3D treatment (thanks ImageJ).

Addendum: added 14 May.  I have received an email from an image-researcher regarding my 3D techniques (using ImageJ software). Without stating chapter-and-verse, here’s a screen grab that shows three stages of smoothing, i.e. from zero through 12.0 to 33.0.

3D imaging with three levels of smoothing (ImageJ)

It shows how the 3D image starts as the addition of a vertical z axis, and then converts each pixel from 2D to 3D by elongating along the new vertical z axis in proportion to the pixel density (zero smoothing, first on left). Smoothing then …  smooths.

A comprehensive new theory detailing a medieval origin for the Turin Shroud: a scorching onto linen – and human consciousness – of the last of the Knights Templar.

Update: see also the two recent postings on my other Shroud site, strawshredder.wordpress.com

 

SUMMARY: Hypothesis: the scorch-like image on the Shroud of Turin, at least the initial Mark 1 version, was not of the crucified Jesus Christ, nor 1st century AD. It was of much later medieval origin, in agreement with the carbon-14 dating of the linen, and was that of a Knight Templar, probably Geoffroi de Charney, reputed to be the uncle of the similarly  named Geoffroi de Charny, first known owner of the Shroud, which he displayed in the small village of Lirey.

De Charney-with-the – “e”was hideously and slowly tortured and executed by slow roasting in 1314 on the orders of King Philip IV of France, along with other Knights Templar, notably Jacques de Molay.  The evidence is to be found by closely examining the Lirey badge, a pilgrim’s  lead-cast souvenir, recovered from the Seine in 1855 close to the site of the Templars’ execution. The badge shows a Shroud-like depiction of a man who bears little or no resemblance to Jesus Christ, and who appears on close scrutiny, the knees especially, to have been roasted to death, not crucified, with a grill-like structure on the edge of the badge previously (mis?)interpreted as an “open tomb” (see Ian Wilson’s Historical Notebook). The artist who produced the Mark 1 version of the Shroud on which the Lirey badge was closely modelled was probably commissioned by  (?)nephew Geoffroi  de Charny  to find a way of  pointedly marking his uncle’s gruesome death and the extinction of his Templar line in a deliberately  ambiguous manner, one that could be mistaken by the casual observer for crucifixion, and not bring further retribution to the holder. To do that he chose an unusual but not unknown pyrographic art form – scorching an image onto linen using hot metal or ceramic templates, probably bas-relief as a visual metaphor for death by slow incineration.

In 1314 the last of the Knights Templars, whom some now see as the medieval precursors of today’s Freemasons, were hideously executed in Paris at a site that is now the western prow on the boat-shaped Isle de la Cite. It was done on the orders of Philip IV and had the tacit or even explicit consent of the Church which saw the Templars as religious heretics, although Philip was probably more interested in relieving himself of the debts he had accrued with the rich Templars.

The 2 most prominent Templars –  Jacques de Molay and Geoffroi de Charney (not to be confused with his reputed nephew,  Geoffroi de Charny-without-the- “e”, the latter being the first definitively-identified owner of the “Shroud of Turin”)  were, not to put too fine a point on it,  brutally barbecued, a combination of slow torture culminating finally in death.  It is said they were finally reduced to ashes. One can only imagine what they must have endured and looked like before their final death.

Jacques de Molay, Geoffroi de Charney et al, last of the Knights Templar, prepare to meet their fate in 1314 - by slow grilling (note atypical pyre of rectangular platform-like construction).

The Shroud was commissioned by de Charney’s reputed nephew, also called Geoffroi, as a means of gaining “closure”, to use that ghastly modern term, i.e. to mark that chapter in French history and at the same time to “move on” as we traditionalists would say. The way that was done was both subtle and ingenious.

What the nephew did was to say  “Let’s present  Uncle Geoffrey as a Christ-like figure who was also  crucified, in a manner of speaking, but who died slowly from scorching heat instead of being nailed to a cross. How can we get across that idea?

That was how Shroud Mark 1 came into being. It was to represent a man who instead of being reduced to ashes,  was portrayed as he might have been if taken still relatively recognizable from the scaffold, as Christ had been taken down from the cross, and who, while still hot, had been placed on a long (14 feet) rectangle of linen, and the free end then pulled over the face and top of the body too. One could then imagine the body as leaving two scorched imprints on the cloth, one dorsal (the back), the other frontal, with the two images head-to-head, as per Turin Shroud.

That was the task that Geoffroi the nephew set his artists and craftsmen.  It was achieved using one or more heated bas-reliefs for the head and rest of body, either cast in metal or moulded/baked in clay, the precise technology for which I have explored earlier in this series of postings, e.g. using heated horse brasses as a model.  Having achieved the desired result  – a superficial but permanent scorched negative image -  he then let it be known that he was in possession of the burial shroud of the “Christ”. Soon he attracted pilgrims to his home village of Lirey who took home with them an enseigne de pèlerinage” that we now know as the Lirey Pilgrim’s badge.

The Lirey Pilgrim's badge, depicting the (then) Shroud of Turin, pre 1532 fire, dredged up from the Seine in 1855, and the subject of a highly misleading doctored drawing published 10 years later which is still highly promoted to this day -one in which the figure is rendered more Christ-like. Try googling Lirey badge and look at the first return.

But if you look at it closely you will see that despite the supposed symbols of Crucifixion and its aftermath, it portrays a non-Christ like figure (no beard, no long hair, no halo) with no obvious signs of being, or having been, crucified, and who in fact is chained (at least in rear view) to something or other and who appears to have knees and legs that have been burned to the bone – see my previous post.

The Man on the Lirey badge.Victim of crucifixion or slow grilling (look at those knees)? There is no obvious nail wound as one might expect. Indeed, the subject's left foot looks distinctly unusual (charred as per knees??). Reminder: images can always be enlarged or reduced on screen with Con+/Con-

Update: 29 April: downloaded “The Second Messiah:Templars,The Turin Shroud,and the Great Secret of Freemasonry, by C.Knight and R.Lomas “ yesterday to my Kindle. It has some eye-watering detail as to the precise manner in which those Templars (with focus on Jacques de Molay) were tortured first while imprisoned (with make-shift crucifixion) and then at the stake, by slow-roasting over charcoal. Turn away now if you wish to be spared the detail, but it says the feet were done first, and then the unmentionables. Now look again at that Lirey figure (whether it be De Molay or De Charney). Are you thinking what I am thinking?

Take a closer look at the rear view as well. Am I the only one to detect an artist's attempt to portray someone who has been roasted and shows extensive burn damage, right up to shoulder level. Look at the feet - are there not some flickers of flame there (front view too)? And there's that otherwise unexplained chain ("blood stains"according to some) - an essential tool in burning at the stake...

In fact his entire alive or post-mortem posture and facial expression is arguably that of someone whose feet are – or had been – over a hot grill (but see update above). Indeed the badge shows an ambiguous  feature previously interpreted by Ian Wilson and others as an  “open tomb” but which I maintain may in fact depict a ‘barbecue’  with its grill-like covering and make-shift ventilation hole in the side.

Note the box-like structure on the Lirey badge (left) and Arthur Forgeais' still widely circulated drawing thereof of the right. Ian Wilson and others interpret the box as an "open tomb", which is understandable if they were viewing the 1865 Forgeais drawing. I see it not as a tomb, or even sarcophagus, but as a barbecue, for the slow roasting of a medieval heretic, as in Paris 1314, with a metal grill over the top, and a make-shift ventilation hole - triangular-shaped- in the side. Enlarge the image (Con+) and there is even a suggestion of packed logs that match those in the execution scene above.

This grim memento, which represents a medieval form of black humour, could hardly remain ambiguous in its art and symbolism for very long.  Once the Church and monarchy so much as suspected there was still a flicker of Templar defiance on show in a remote French village, one that was attracting  thousands of pilgrims with their spending power, then the Shroud had to be quickly re-invented, or at any rate re-vamped to make it unambiguous, and stripping out the Templar allusions.

Thus was born Shroud Mark2, with Geoffroi de Charney, the uncle replaced by the classic image of the bearded, long-haired Christ, at the same time removing the chain and other accoutrements of burning/grilling at the stake, and then adding the touches essential for depicting a victim of crucifixion – the blood stains, the crown of thorns, the nail wound etc etc. This would have required starting from scratch, since we know the blood stains, or at any rate those that are real blood, are underneath, not on top of the image.

So when did this switch take place from Shroud Mark 1 to Mark 2? Probably after the Shroud had left the de Charney/de Charny family , having been acquired by the House of Savoy  in exchange, it is said, for a castle or two (testimony to its crowd-pulling power and the income it could generate from the sale of those badges etc). See what I wrote two months ago as  a series of afterthoughts on my own postings to suggest when Shroud  Mark 1 was refashioned, i.e. 1532, the date of that mysterious Chambery fire (which some say was arson, but which I suspect was more than that, i.e. an ‘inside job’)

http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/the-turin-shroud-man-is-a-scorchograph-and-i-challenge-anyone-to-prove-otherwise/

What is there left to say, except sorry to all those, who like me, were captivated by the publication of those positive and 3D-enhanced images of the Man in the Shroud back in the 70s, pre –C14-dating, and with the persuasive detail about “gravitationally-correct” blood flows etc etc. Who could or would have gone to all that that trouble and expense of producing a medieval hoax (‘sacred hoax’ as some prefer to call it) and why? The answer, as others before me have also suggested, lies with the remnant of  what was arguably one of the most rich and powerful secret societies  the world has ever known, one that inspired and financed the Holy Crusades. In my version here, the hoax was not born of deception, so much as assertion of that particular knightly creed and lifestyle,  latterly deemed heretical, combined later with self-preservation. All this took place during a turbulent period of French history when one wrong word, one ill-judged gesture, could result in the most hideous punishment – as hinted at – surreptitiously and ambiguously-  in the Shroud Mk1 image that survives to this day – on a small Lirey badge dredged up from the Seine close to the spot where the Templars were slowly scorched to death. A heat scorch on a length of linen in Turin Cathedral marks that event. Forget about those miraculous flashes of uv light, that will no doubt dominate discussion at this weekend’s Shroudie gathering in Valencia, with all those ageing ‘rock stars’ of Shroudology still intent on milking that piece of linen in Turin for all its worth.

Comparison of Lirey Badge (Cluny medal) depicting the Shroud of Turin in the14th century with the 1865 Forgeais drawing – for open discussion

Lirey Pilgrim's Badge aka Cluny Medal (left),undoubtedly of 14th century provenance, recovered from River Seine in 1855, depicting the Shroud of Turin, as now called, then in possession of Geoffroi de Charny of Lirey, France versus (right) the 1865 drawing by celebrated Parisian merchant/collector/publisher Arthur Forgeais. Note the differences especially re face, chain on waist, feet and tomb(?) to be discussed shortly.
Points for discussion: why is the original shown without a beard or obvious signs of crucifixion? Why the chain (not a recognized feature of the Shroud)? What is at or immediately under the feet? Is that really a tomb as commonly assumed, whether open or closed? Is that a crown of thorns above the "tomb" or something else? And does the badge or drawing really show trickles or pools of blood on the back,feet etc as is often claimed?

1. The crucial difference, apart from the face which I mentioned yesterday (with or without the Jesus-identifying long hair, beard and moustache, is that “chain”  (if indeed that is what it is) that spans the waist region. One the Badge one sees it clearly on the dorsal side only.

Here's that chain in close-up (dorsal view, needless to say). There can be no doubting that the image here denotes a chain, not blood as suggested elsewhere. If it were blood, then it would be a hugely unsubtle depiction that would be out of keeping with the restraint exercised elsewhere.
So the artist commissioned to do the badge saw something that he interpreted as a chain, extending it laterally beyond the torso - and no one in the family took issue with that. Ipso facto, the Shroud from which he was working showed something that was almost certainly and unequivocally a chain - present on the frontal as well as as rear views. Either the present Shroud has been doctored to remove the obvious appearance of a chain (assisted by the damage from the 1532 fire) OR the present Shroud is a later Mk2 version that is different from the one we see here on the Lirey badge. I tend to the latter view - with the 1532 fire - accidental or deliberate- having perhaps presented an opportunity/pretext to make a switch (as I have suggested previously on one of my own comments threads)

It’s not visible on the frontal side – the one that attract most interest – but there are suggestions it was there and has been gouged or filed away. Interestingly, the drawing has a clear chain on the frontal side too. Is that because the chain was there, on the front, in 1865 when the drawing was published in one of Arthur Forgeais’ books, or was it not? Did Forgeais spot the gouge marks and “improve” so to speak, the way he “improved” the face by making it more Christ-like?

It would be entirely understandable for a pilgrim or someone later to have removed the chain from the frontal image if they had no idea why it was there, and could see no connection with the Gospel accounts.

So why was a chain there? I’m assuming now it was a chain. Could it have been intended to represent something else? Blood  flows – hugely exaggerated ones that spurt from both sides of the body?  It is Ian Wilson no less who said he saw pooled blood on the back that corresponded with that on the Shroud image.  But why would the person who commissioned the badge, presumably Geoffroi de Charny (the later one with no “e” in the surname),  the first known owner of the Shroud in Europe, have wanted the badge, his badge with his and his wife’s coat of arms, to carry a detail that was not present on the Shroud?

Maybe the Shroud from which the badge was copied did have real, not imagined chains showing front and back, ones that looked unmistakeably like chain links, extending left and right. Maybe the Shroud at that time did have an image of an un-Christ like figure with no beard etc. Maybe the Shroud had a strange muscular build that made it seem as if he were naked, but bearing medieval armour, especially on the shoulders and chest. (I shall offer an alternative to “armour” later).

Heretical thought: maybe the Shroud from which that Badge was copied was a Mark 1 version which bore the image of a man, a knightly man, who had NOT been crucified (despite the prompts elsewhere) but who had endured a different kind of torture and execution, one that involved being initially chained, rather than nailed. Was there a Mark 1 Shroud with an image of a de Charny family predecessor who had been chained  to a stake for a different kind of execution current at the time – namely “burning at the stake”?  How about someone with a name almost identical to Geoffroi de Charny, said to be his uncle, namely the Preceptor of Normandy, Geoffroi de Charney (note the “e” in the surname)  who was famously dispatched in a hideous manner to meet his maker along with Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar in 1314. And how? By being burned at the stake, quickly or slowly, a method of execution that DID require a chain .  If so was it rapid burning,  perhaps with mercifully quick release by asphyxiation, or was it another altogether nastier variant that involved slow grilling, as I learned yesterday was famously applied to Saint Lawrence, aka St. Laurent?

So let’s now take a look those feet. Are there any clues there that the Man on the Badge had been burned at the stake, and NOT crucified? Why not? Because he was not Jesus Christ but someone else, shown on a deliberately ambiguous Mark 1 Shroud. Was he in fact  Geoffroi de Charny’s alleged uncle, Geoff’ de Charney-with-an -”e”, as I sussed out a couple of days ago, and have since learned  am by no means the first to have arrived at that conclusion. Sceptical minds occasionally – and mercifully – think alike…

2.  Regarding those feet:

There's something somewhat curious here. The Lirey badge shows both feet here (frontal view) far more clearly than one sees on the Shroud. But there is a C-shaped area that extends from the left foot in a semi-circle to end up back below the left foot inside which most of the detail and definition has been lost. One might imagine it to be a defect in the casting, or maybe post-production corrosion and pitting. But when one looks at the drawing, one sees an altogether more complicated and difficult to interpret picture. See text below for a possible interpretation.

Just look at those peculiar knees and legs on the original, and then compare with more idealized ones in the drawing. Are you thinking what I am thinking?  Those knees and legs are severely burned -  right down to the bone, especially noticeable at the knee caps. Now look closely and you will see some detritus-looking material at feet level in both original and drawing. Might that represent twigs and branches – for the burning thereof (seen more clearly in the drawing)?  And what about that cross-hatched area below the feet? I’ve read that’s supposed to be part of an architectural feature if the badge is turned through 90 degrees. But might it not be there for a more sinister and hinted-at  purpose – to represent a grill for the slow roasting of the feet, shins and thighs of a human being? Are we seeing an alternative reason for the entire body looking puffed-up, reminiscent of joints of meat in a butcher’s shop: it cannot be explained away as poor craftsmanship – given the attention to detail elsewhere with heraldry etc. Neither is it due to assorted pieces of armour – breast and shoulder plates etc.  (though the Badge-makers of a knightly family would be relaxed about some arriving at that conclusion). Nope, the bloating is to convey an impression of someone who has not just been burned at the stake, but slow-roasted, as de Molay and de Charney were slow-roasted, and before them Saint Laurent!  Might we at last have a credible  explanation  for those bony elongated fingers on the Shroud. No, nothing to do with miraculous X-rays or gamma rays emanating from inside the body – but another hint of a severely burned victim, with the fingers especially susceptible to being burned down to the bone (the victim’s hands  probably being used initially to shield each new part of the body from ever increasing, ever rising heat)

3. What about that so-called “empty tomb”?

What are the grounds for thinking that the box-like structure with that triangular opening in its side represents an "empty tomb"? Might there be a better alternative explanation?

Yes, Ian Wilson and others have described that box-like structure as an “empty tomb”. But why? It is hardly redolent of the Biblical description of the sepulchre as being hewn out of rock. Since none of the Gospels describe the cave interior, why assume a sarcophagus, if that is the appropriate term? The clearest description of an empty tomb would surely have been a cave entrance with a large stone rolled back, and maybe an angel, or a glimpse of linen?

There is an opening in the side, granted, which the artist has played down, perhaps because he was at a loss to understand its significance (might it not have given the wrong impression, i.e. that one or more disciples had broken into the “tomb” and removed the body, i.e. no Resurrection (heretical stuff indeed – folk were burned at the stake for less!). Or maybe he wondered if the missing triangular portion was simply lead metal that had broken off the badge. Who knows? But there is another detail that needs addressing. It is that criss-cross structure at the top, which looks for all the world like a grid across the top. Again, the artist has de-emphasised something he perhaps does not understand, while making the white border more prominent so as to strengthen the appearance of it being an open sarcophagus.

Might the Badge designer really have wanted to represent a grid, and if so why? Building on what has been said previously here, I suggest that what might indecorously perhaps be described as a large barbecue, the purpose of which should be obvious. The triangular hole in the side? That was  a make-shift access for admitting air and more timber.

Remember, if the aim is roast the victim slowly as a form of extended torture – one that might last hours before death, then one does not construct the conical pyre of popular imagination, with flames licking around the victim. One has something more akin to a horizontal grill with glowing charcoals and muted flame.

Now take a look at a artistic portrayal of the “barbecue” that was used to roast Jacques de Molay and Geoffroi de Charney-with-an-e in 1314. Notice any points of similarity with the “empty tomb” above?

Knight Templars, having first confessed to heresy under torture, then renouncing, are immediately sentenced to a special slow burning at the stake on the orders of Philip IV. Note the atypical box-shaped arrangement of the pyre. Ring any bells?
That's Jacques de Molay about to be secured to the stake with a chain (sense of deja vu?). Geoffroi de Charney is one of the other three, perhaps the one already at the stake, side on to the "camera".

Finally, for today at any rate, take a look at this one again – the Man on the Badge. Jesus Christ in death repose, or someone else, still alive,  in excruciating pain, having his feet and legs roasted?

The Man on the Badge

Then compare with this idealized 1865 version, in which our Arthur  Forgeais has “seen what he wants to see”. How many commentators, one wonder, have inadvertently or otherwise been using this drawing, rather the actual non-Christ-like image on the badge  – with no real evidence that the Man on the Shroud (Mark1 version?) was the crucified Jesus?

The drawing - a doctored version of the Badge image. Note too that pear-shaped area that obscures the subject's left forearm. I've been puzzling it for a while, since it does not correspond with anything on the badge (where the forearm and hand appear to have become broken off or prised away). I do believe that it is further evidence of doctoring the image to fit a preconception - that it is intended to represent a puddle of blood from the spear wound in the side.

Addendum (added 29 April): some call it the Cluny medal, for reasons that are not clear. Why name it after the museum in which it is housed, least of all when that same museum makes no effort to promote this item, despite its bearing on the Shroud of Turin?

Here’s a link to the Cluny Museum site.  Go to Collection, then enter Lirey into the search box and you get no returns whatsoever. If in desperation, like me you enter “enseigne de pelerinage” (pilgrim’s badges, roughly translated) then you get an intimidating table, where finally there is a mention of (“amateur”) Arthur Forgeais’ retrieval of 700 pilgrim’s badges dredged up from the Seine, BUT NO MENTION OF THE LIREY BADGE.  The missus thinks this is just inertia on the part of State-employed  fonctionnaires but I do wonder if it’s more than that. Have the Cluny curators also cottoned on to the fact that it is not Christ on the badge, and not someone who is being /has been crucified, but someone completely different – a Templar -  who is not being crucified but slow-grilled? See the next post in this series for more interpretation, laced inevitably with a little speculation (but then one has to speculate to elucidate…)

A reply to Dan Porter and his Shroud of Turin associates re the significance of the Lirey Pilgrim’s Badge

Dan Porter, you make it seem as if I have confused one Geoffrey with another  “completely different person, perhaps related, perhaps not” . What complete poppycock, Dan Porter.

I have to say that for some time this has become a routine tactic of yours, which is to portray me as  some kind of dim-witted innocent abroad in your suave sophisticated  land of Shroudology. (Well, it’s foreign alright, but I’m fast finding may way around, and finding the  STURP tourist guide book is inaccurate in a whole number of respects).

(Re that wiki link to STURP:  it ends with “STURP ended its activities in 1981″. Ho,ho.  If you believe that, you will believe anything, especially if you look at the participants in the Valencia Shroud shindig -  starting this coming Saturday, just the latest in the never-ending Shroudology circus)

No, I did not confuse the two Geoffreys. In fact I went to some trouble right at the start to distinguish between the two, calling them Geoffroi Sr and Geoffroi Jr.  What’s more, I identified them as uncle and nephew respectively. That was based on the work of Noel Currer-Briggs, a big name here in the UK in genealogy and author of many books, the “Shroud and the Grail” included  until his recent death in 2004.

What’s more, Geoffrey Sr., the uncle,  did not just “die” in 1314 – he was hideously and slowly grilled at the stake  from the feet upwards along with Jacques de Molay,  last Grand Master of the Knights Templar and other Templars charged by Philp IV of France as being heretics ( conveniently wiping out the debts he had accrued with them).

It was that link between the nephew on the one hand and martyred uncle on the other that formed the basis of my post, the details of which you have chosen to ignore completely in your desire to  scoff at my research on your increasingly dubious site .

But it  is not just your site, is it Dan? You are the mouthpiece for something much bigger.  But what?  Why the coyness, Dan? Who are your backers who together have the resources to respond to criticism with lightning speed? I doubt if there was more than an hour between my post being read this morning  (yes, WordPress give me a site meter too) to be followed a few hours later with your magisterial put-down.

Anything else you write on that highly partisan pro-authenticity site of you and your associates  that warrants attention will be answered here, Dan, and nowhere else … I was on the point of doing that anyway, given your vetting of my comments before allowing them to appear (while giving carte blanche to the likes of the Frenchman to engage in mudslinging and abuse).

Might I suggest that you re-read my previous post, and then comment on the key issues I have raised, like the significance of the chain around the waist, like the finding of that Pilgrim’s Badge (no, not a medal, but a badge) in the Seine so close to the site of de Molay’s and Geoffroi de Charney’s slow torture and final execution.  I  repeat once more for the slow of comprehension, or more likely the spin doctor(s) of  Shroudology – that’s de Charney, the uncle note, not de Charny, the nephew. It was the uncle who was the martyr. It was the nephew who commissioned the Badge, and for all we know the Shroud too  – a scorched image serving as a visual and arresting metaphor for a then relatively recent and traumatic event in French history, one that culminated with his uncle being grilled alive from the feet up. But it was cleverly done, combining elements of the uncle’s fate with that of the crucified Christ, gradually morphing into the latter alone.

That’s why we are still discussing and debating today – or trying to -  given the strange, haunting  and powerful imagery based on a convulsive period in French history.  But you, Dan,  or rather  that site of yours, do not make it easy on us honest seekers after truth, ones with no personal axe to grind -  just fascination with a still unsolved mystery along with an enquiring mind as befits those  with a background in  research. Nope, I  admitted that I am not a historian,  nor do I have ambitions to become one. My post was focused on a physical artefact with an extraordinary amount detail that has survived centuries of Seine water (as lead/tin alloys do), and one that has been largely and strangely ignored by Shroudologists, judging by the paucity of returns in search engines.

I am interested (and curious) to know why at least two of your site regulars have apparently from their comments not encountered the Badge previously, or appreciated its historical and cultural significance. Maybe you did not either Dan, at least until reading my post this morning, and then  responded  as is your wont by swinging into fire-fighting mode…

Colin Berry  MSc, PhD

Previously Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at the Flour Milling and Baking Research Association, Chorleywood,  Herts, UK

Was the Shroud of Turin intended as a visual double entendre – with an martyred Knight Templar serving as proxy for the crucified Christ?

The starting point for this hypothesis is that remarkable artefact known as the Lirey Badge, retrieved from the Seine in the 19th century. (Provisional link, light on detail, and inaccurate too . Why is information on this artefact not easily googleable, with this 12 hour old posting already in the top ranking?)

Recently edited: The Lirey Pilgrim's Badge, cast in lead, recovered from the Seine under one of the bridges of the Isle de la Cite.(I initially stated that to have been the Pont Neuf from the first source encountered, but it was probably the next one along, the Pont au Change, according to another, still close to the site of the Templars' burning at the stake - see below.) Is the closeness of the two locations a mere coincidence? I doubt it ... read on.

Those familiar with the Shroud will have no problem in identifying the badge with the Shroud, given the herringbone weave on the fabric, the dorsal and ventral view, the crossed feet on the frontal view (just one of many signs of crucifixion – or so we imagine).

However, there are several curious features about that badge that caught the eye of this old science bod some weeks ago, and all of a sudden things are coming together.

Oddities: firstly, the figure on the badge looks nothing like the usual image of Christ, despite being a pilgrim’s memento that is taken home and proudly shown to friends and neighbours as a memento of a  pilgrimage to see the Shroud. Where’s the distinctive long hair or moustache?  OK, it’s small, and not of the highest quality, but one would have expected that someone going to the trouble of depicting a herringbone weave would have taken the trouble to get the right “Jesus” look, even if the Shroud model was a negative image.

(Beware the drawing of the Lirey badge by one Arthur Forgeais in 1865, which makes the man look more Christ- like, with definite beard and moustache. And why is this first return when one googles lirey badge?).

Secondly, what on earth are all those puffed-up areas  around the shoulder and chest? Even if the crucified Christ was assumed to have been muscular, why make it seem almost as if the figure was wearing armour (hmmm)? Why make Christ look so grotesque?

Thirdly, why is there no attempt to show a single feature (ed.  on the figure itself)  that signals crucifixion. Again, the scale is small, restricting detail, but surely there could have been something? A halo? A crown of thorns?

Ian Wilson in his History Notes claims that it is the circle on the cross that represents a crown of thorns, but John Beldon Scott in his 1946 book offered a different view – saying it is a  “laurel crown of victory”. I must say I tend to the latter view(see close-up view below).

Detail from the Badge of Lirey. The box-lke structure at the base is assumed to be an empty tomb. But what does the circle above represent? Ambiguity abounds...

Both are agreed that the cross stands above an empty tomb – which is interpretation if you ask me – not established fact – but  if it is indeed a tomb, then whose? More to the point was it one that was vacated, or one that pointedly was never occupied, due to the manner of death? Was it crucifixion – which leaves a recognizable body – or burning at the stake – that leaves ashes, scooped up after the event by bystanders as souvenirs….

Most important of all – for what follows- what on earth is that chain doing around the waist?

Close-up of chain, dorsal view, Badge of Lirey. What's a chain got to do with crucifixion? But it plays a key role in burning victims at the stake...

Some say that some markings on the Shroud were interpreted as a chain. But a chain has no part in the Gospel account. And why does the chain extend both sides of the person in the dorsal view, even if the anchorage points are not specified.

The clue to all of this lies in looking at the first known owner of the Shroud, at least where its appearance in European history is concerned – one Geoffroi de Charny, 1300?-1356 .  He is described a knight returned from the Crusades. It was presumably he who commissioned the Badge for visiting pilgrims, and would have wanted every detail shown (or not shown) on that badge to convey a message to the outside world. But what message, and is the same one we get today from the world of Shroudology that sees the Shroud purely as holy relic of 1st century AD (not medieval) origin?

His not-much earlier ancestor is someone with a confusingly similar name, Geoffroi de Charney aka Charnay (?- 1314) . Some say they were uncle and nephew, indeed Noel Currer-Briggs no less, who is apparently someone big in genealogy.. Let’s call them Geoffroi Senior and Junior. There is a wiki page on G. Snr . Indeed, entire history books have been written on him and the convulsive period he and his  powerful Knights occupied in history.  Geoffroi de Charney/G. Sr. was one of the last of the Grand Masters of the Knights Templar, described as an order of warrior monks. Having initially been sponsors of the Crusades, representing militant Christianity as its peak,  G. Sr. was seen by both Church and monarchy (Philip IV) as a member of a rich, money lending elite, essentially no different from the money-lending Jews of that period.  It was Geoffroi Senior’s  misfortune to be born at the wrong period of history. He and his fellow Knights Templar were the subject of a vicious pogrom, at the behest of Philip IV of France.. It ended with he and Jacques de Molay being burned at the stake. Where?  As indicated earlier, it was on  small island on the River Seine in Paris, the so-called Isle des Juifs (Isle of Jews). You won’t find that island now in a map of Paris. Why not? Because it disappeared as a separate island when the Pont Neuf was built in Paris, being joined on to the Isle de la Cite. And guess where that Lirey Badge was found in the Seine?  And guess where.  At the Pont Neuf  (according to the first source I consulted, or the next bridge along, the Pont au Change). Whichever (I shall try to get a definitive answer) either would be a logical place for a Templar Badge to be deposited as a mark of respect to the last of the Order, those who chose the path of martyrdom  when ordered to renounce their heretical beliefs and practices and who defiantly refused to do so.

This is the western end of the Isle de la Cite on the Seine in Paris where Geoffroi de Charney and, perhaps better known,Jacques de Molay were executed - which at the time was a separate island - the Isle des Juifs, which was joined to the main island when the Pont Neuf was constructed. It is near here that the Lirey Badge was found in the river, presumably having been thrown in at that carefully chosen spot centuries ago.

Why would that memento of a pilgrimage have been recovered from the Seine at the precise spot that Geoffroi de Charney Sr. was burned at the stake? Answer: because the figure depicted on the Badge  and indeed the Shroud is not really that of Christ – even if  most casual observers assume  that -  but Geoffroi de Charney, being portrayed as a Christ-like figure who shared a similar fate. And it was his nephew (?) who commissioned the Shroud as a memorial to his uncle (?), given he had no body to place in the family tomb. He commissioned an artefact that would combine two powerful ideas – martyrdom for having the wrong ideas, punished by burning at the stake, and Christ’s crucifixion.

That explains of course why the figure looks nothing like Christ – no long hair, beard  etc. because it’s a proxy for Christ – a martyred Templar. It explains why he looks as if  he were wearing armour around the shoulders and chest.   But here’s the clincher – that chain around the waist, and possibly  the ankles too (or kindling?) It has nothing to do with crucifixion – obviously, but everything to do with being burned at the stake.

The victim had to be secured with something fire-proof. What more obvious way of doing that than to use a chain?  The Man in the Shroud  – at least the original Shroud to which pilgrims flocked to Lirey – was not Jesus Christ but the “martyred” Knight Templar Geoffrey de Charney. And guess what? There are paintings of  Jacques de Molay, de Charney and other Templars,  waiting to be secured to the stake with …  yes, a chain.

Jacques de Molay at stake with a chain. Geoffroi de Charney was suffered the same fate that same day, at the same spot. He may be the one on the right with his back turned, or one of the other two Templars on the left.

This hypothesis if true can account for a number of details. I have argued previously that the Shroud image is a superficial thermal scorch. What better way of symbolising the fate of a Knight Templar burned at the stake than to depict him in the form of a HEAT scorch? Look no further if one is wondering why anyone would dispense with painting, and resort to burning on an image with heat.  It also explains why  expensive linen was used for a “burial shroud”  The  Knights Templar and the  de Charney family were rich.  There is one other clincher – what is it?

Answer: the Badge could be used as a bas-relief, given all those knobbly bits. Either do a rubbing,  as with brass rubbing, or heat it, press onto linen, as if a rubber stamp, and one gets a negative scorched imprint, hey, just like the one on the Shroud. The ability to use the badge as a printing template may have been pushed as a “selling point”.  (OK, that one’s a bit of a long shot, but I have been pondering for weeks why those shoulders etc look so plump  and bloated – seeking an alternative to the “armour” hypothesis – it was to ensure a good impression).

So at what stage did the scorch image of a martyred Knight morph into that of the crucified Christ with all the extra details – the blood stains, the spear wound in the side, the nail wound in the wrist? And was it done on the same image, or was it done starting with a clean sheet (of linen) so to speak?

There are as many questions as answers. But irrespective I  think the Shroud image is a scorch – and now have a rationale that is not just scientific (accounting for the negative image, 3D-encoding etc) but one that is in keeping with the temper of the times – 14^th century France. The Shroud was  intended as a memento and memorial to a warrior-sponsoring elite cum secret society, one  that ended up being envied, despised, persecuted and burned at the stake – all in the name (supposedly) of religion, while in reality a pretext on the part of Philip IV  to settle his war debts and finance further wars. But at the same time it was a holy relic – reminding the pilgrim of the Passion.  The Shroud was intended to be deliberately ambiguous… which added to its mystery and pulling power, as indeed it does to this day.

One could describe the Shroud as the visual equivalent of a double entendre  (say one thing but mean another).  Only those in the know  – the few remaining members of a powerful but persecuted  fraternity – may have been aware of its true meaning and significance.

Late addition (23 April): as indicated earlier, I am not entirely certain about the exact bridge under which the Lirey badge was found in 1855 (and that date needs independent corroboration too).

The left circle shows the "prow" of the boat-shaped Isle de la Cite, which used to be the separate Isle des Juifs, the site of the Templar burnings, adjacent to the present Pont Neuf. The right circle is the Pont au Change under which the Lirey Badge was found, according to a wiki reference that needs confirming.

The difficulty this non-historian has in devoting a post, and indeed an entire hypothesis for a medieval origin for the Shroud, is the sheer paucity of information that is readily available on the internet. If you google (lirey badge shroud turin) you get a tiny handful of returns, the first of which is an image file from wiki with just a short caption. The main wiki page on Shroud of Turin History has a brief section on the Lirey Badge, but with that highly misleading image, mentioned earlier which is NOT the original badge that is in a Paris museum, but a drawn copy which has been doctored to make the man more Christ-like.

The link I gave on the first mention of the Badge here is provisional. While it provides a little background, some of the other information there is inaccurate, notably the wrong spelling of G.Junior’s surname (confused with G.Sr.), and I seem to recall that the image shown is not that of G.Jr, but of a son(?), which again I need to check. Confirmed – see under Brass Effigy.

Why is there such a dearth of information on the Lirey Badge,given it is supposed to be vital evidence in linking the Shroud to a particular family and a particular period? Is it because of the puzzling features I have listed that seem at odds with the idea of a holy relic, and which come across as much if not more as a knightly keepsake?

Further reading:  The Templars and the Shroud of Turin

It’s clever, some might say pretty, but is it science?

Updated 21st April with an “annotated” version in which I imagine myself to be Alan D Adler explaining his ideas in simpler terms, as if to someone on a web forum, while still trying to stay as close to his original version as possible in terms of content and interpretation  (not always an easy task, even for this PhD biochemist).  But first, the original version, with the annotated one tagged on the end:

Here is a passage from the revered STURP scientist Dr. Alan D. Adler (1931-2000). He is credited with having convinced many a wavering sceptic that it really is blood on the Shroud – albeit degraded blood in an unusual conformation, complexed with bilirubin.  He proposed the latter to  account, perhaps among other things, for residues still retaining their red colour after centuries of exposure to oxygen, moisture , microorganisms etc.

Alan D Adler

Alan D. Adler  is, or rather was, an acknowledged expert in the field of porphyrins, which, when  complexed with ferrous (Fe++) iron and linked to globin proteins, constitute the red pigment of oxygen-transporting erythrocytes (red blood cells).

His daughter’s refreshingly candid obituary.

I do not intend to comment here on the post, but invite those with some knowledge of blood chemistry and trauma physiology to ask themselves the question posed in the title. Is this science? In other words, I intend to take a back seat for now, but welcome questions, discussion and,  most of all, informed comment.

“… The next test we did was to take micro-spectrum photometry of the non-birefringent red-coated fibrils from the Shroud. It was obvious that the spectrum it produced did not match the spectrum of methemoglobin, at least as it is given in the standard references, which is a solution spectrum of blood. But in a film of hemoglobin there is a confirmation (sic) change ;it no longer remains in the “met”form but goes to the para-hemic form. It is  known now that there is a certain species which will spontaneously go the para-hemic form if there is not enough turnover in the spleen and liver to process the blood fast enough. We found a spectrum that was characteristic of only one known group of compounds -the so-called high spin, high iron porphyrin. So instead of being wrong, the spectrum peaks were in the right place. What we were seeing was the breakdown products of hemoglobin – bilirubin and biliverdin. And one began to make sense out of all of this. There is an extraordinarily high bilirubin count, almost as high as the methemoglobin. Now how does one account for such a high bilirubin  in a person? One possibility is that the person had a severe malaria, but this does not seem very likely. But a torture, scourging and crucifixion leading to shock – that would produce a tremendous hemolysis. In less than 30 seconds the hemolyzed hemoglobin would run through the liver, building up a very high bilirubin content in the blood. If that blood then clots, an exudate forms, and all the intact cells with bilirubin stay behind, only the hemolyzed hemoglobin goes out along with the serum albumin which binds the bilirubin. So what one ends up with is on the cloth is an exudate which has an enhanced bilirubin with respect to the hemolyzed hemoglobin.You now mix bilirubin which is yellow-orange with methemoglobin in its para-hemic form which is an orangey-brown and you get blood which has a red color.

In fact, we have been able to simulate the spectrum in the laboratory by the process described above. This very strongly suggests that the blood stains are of a man who was severely beaten. No one would have ever dreamed when we first started doing the analysis that the chemistry would provide corroborating evidence to what the pathologists concluded long ago about the Shroud figure. The blood has no cells, is very low in potassium, and has the right color and composition for the blood of a man who was severely flogged and crucified. This is entirely consistent with the forensic evidence…”

From Alan D Adler : the Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud

Now for that annotated version (see preamble added 21st April):

“… The next test we did was to take micro-spectrum photometry of the non-birefringent red-coated fibrils from the Shroud.

We selected for study the smallest fibre components of the Shroud that were red, in other words stained with what one assumed was blood. (Some have asked why ancient blood should still be red – instead of black).  We applied a scanning technique that measures characteristics like absorption spectrum of near uv and visible light, since blood components have characteristic spectra (e.g. the so-called Soret absorption band of heme proteins  at 400nm).

(ed: it’s not immediately clear to me why the selected fibres had to be non-birefringent, since birefringence is simply a property of highly ordered arrays of  cellulose, and I don’t see why a fibril cannot be blood stained and have ordered cellulose).

(ed: The birefringence test was a reference, I now realize, to the  iron oxide debate, not cellulose)

It was obvious that the spectrum it produced did not match the spectrum of methemoglobin, at least as it is given in the standard references, which is a solution spectrum of blood.

In fresh blood which is usually bright red (a little darker if de-oxygenated) the hemoglobin (ed: I shall stick with Adler’s US spelling) has iron in its ferrous form , i.e. Fe ++. On ageing, the iron oxidises to the ferric (Fe+++) form, and the blood stain becomes dark brown. The hemoglobin is now in the “methemoglobin” form. So why did the “blood” from the Shroud not show the expected absorption spectrum of methemoglobin?  How can one hope to convince anyone that it is blood if it does not look and behave like textbook methemoglobin, i.e. oxidised blood?

But in a film of hemoglobin there is a confirmation (sic) change ; it no longer remains in the “met”form but goes to the para-hemic form.

Let’s emphasise that we are restricting comment now to a “film” of blood, so that what follows should not necessarily apply to what you may read about the “typical” properties of blood in situations where it has not dried out to a thin film.  Oops., “confirmation” is a typo. That should have read  ”conformation”. So, when blood dries to a film, the methemoglobin undergoes a further change to what I call the para-hemic form. It’s a subtle change, and one that you may have difficulty in finding elsewhere in the literature, since it is  a species of methemoglobin that I have discovered through my own extensive researches, and have decided this is the appropriate time to release into the public domain.

It is known now that there is a certain species which will spontaneously go the para-hemic form if there is not enough turnover in the spleen and liver to process the blood fast enough.

In fact, it’s a little more complicated than that. The change from methemoglobin to my “para-hemic” form is not just because blood has dried into a film, as my emphasis on “film” might suggest (ed: film being the only italicised word in the original). This para-hemic entity is something that is generated even before the blood escapes from an external wound. It is produced when the spleen and liver, which break down old red blood cells, are overloaded, giving time for methemoglobin to adopt this new conformation that I have christened the “para-hemic” form. You may ask why physiological considerations are intruding on what initially seemed a straightforward business of deciding if red stains on the Shroud were those of blood or not. But I want you to understand that there is “blood” and  there is “blood”. The blood on the Shroud would be different from just any old blood, as I am about to describe.

We found a spectrum that was characteristic of only one known group of compounds -the so-called high spin, high iron porphyrin. So instead of being wrong, the spectrum peaks were in the right place.

The spectrum was wrong for blood. But there is an extensive chemical literature on the components of blood porphyrins in different oxidation states with which I am intimately familiar, and I was able to find a class of porphyrins in which the central iron atom was in precisely the right kind of electronic configuration to match, or at any rate resemble,  the “wrong” spectrum in Shroud blood. Ipso facto, the Shroud blood was not just any old blood, but a very special kind that I call “high spin, high iron porphyrin”. (The literature is highly specialized, so do not imagine you can simply google that term and find pages full of returns. In fact you may find none at all, given the abstruse nature of porphyrin chemistry).

What we were seeing was the breakdown products of hemoglobin – bilirubin and biliverdin. And one began to make sense out of all of this.

Apologies for introducing an extra dimension of clinical chemistry so abruptly. You see, one has now to consider what the body does to get rid of oxidised haemoglobin. Well, it’s a long story, but basically what happens is this. The haemoglobin is stripped of its globin and iron to leave the porphyrin, which is a cyclic tetrapyrrole. The ring is then opened, first to make a green linear tetrapyrrole called biliverdin, and that is then reduced to bilirubin, which is yellow or orange, depending on concentration.

There is an extraordinarily high bilirubin count, almost as high as the methemoglobin.

There’s a lot of bilirubin in those blood spots, based on the purple color one gets with the Ehrlich diazo reagent. But please don’t ask me to put a figure on it. (Or waste time in discussing the units for bilirubin and methaemoglobin, whether in old-fashioned milligrams, or the SI (molar) units which are supposed to be standard in clinical chemistry in order to make any kind of sense to a chemist, but which are still slow to be adopted in certain parts of the world). Let’s not forget either that one is not dealing here with blood by the syringe- full, as normally arrives at the path lab,  but tiny scrapings of blood that have had to be made soluble with specialist chemical reagents like hydrazine. There is also a tiny question mark over the specificity of the Ehrlich reagent – substances other than bilirubin can also give a purple color – but let’s not get too bogged down in detail.

Now how does one account for such a high bilirubin in a person?

I trust I have not lost you there. I suppose I should have said a “hypothetical” person who has left a stain on fabric that has a special kind of methemoglobin which arises when red blood cells are  being broken down faster than the liver and spleen can cope with, producing an excess of bilirubin that in turn is being produced too fast for the liver and kidneys to excrete. Remember: we are dealing with some scrapings that are being related to a hypothetical scenario – one that might be described as acute haemolytic trauma. We are into new territory here – going boldly where no man has gone before – at least in the context of the Man on the Shroud….

One possibility is that the person had a severe malaria, but this does not seem very likely.

There may be any number of reasons why a blood sample has an elevated level of bilirubin. Malaria, a disease in which red blood cells are destroyed by parasites, is just one of them. Let’s discount that straight away.

But a torture, scourging and crucifixion leading to shock – that would produce a tremendous hemolysis.  In less than 30 seconds the hemolyzed hemoglobin would run through the liver, building up a very high bilirubin content in the blood.

This is that hypothetical situation to which I was referring a minute ago.  Any insult to blood and red blood corpuscles can cause the cells to burst and release their haemoglobin “(hemolysis”) which for reasons stated results in a rise in plasma bilirubin levels. Let’s not get bogged down in figures for now: there are values in the literature for raised bilirubin (hyperbilirubinaemia) in a range of different haemolytic and non-haemolytic states. When I say “very high” bilirubin content I mean very high relative to normal healthy bilirubin content, possibly multiples, tens of multiples (who knows?)

If that blood then clots, an exudate forms, and all the intact cells with bilirubin stay behind, only the hemolyzed hemoglobin goes out along with the serum albumin which binds the bilirubin.

It now gets a little tricky, so bear with me. We are now trying to imagine a scenario that would result in a blood stain that had so much bilirubin relative to methemoglobin (the special variety) that the spectrum one would expect of methemoglobin is replaced with an entirely different one.

The first step is to have the liquid blood with its high level of bilirubin and special methemoglobin form a solid blood clot.  After that has happened, one can then envisage a separation process. Any red cells that are intact will stay put, along with their associated bilirubin. (OK, some would argue that most bilirubin in blood is attached to serum albumin, not red blood cells, but there are times one has to think out of the box). But there is an exudate that leaks out – which will be free hemoglobin that has escaped from busted red blood cells, and serum albumin with attached bilirubin.  Yes, I know, it’s getting a bit complicated now, but let’s soldier on…

So what one ends up with is on the cloth is an exudate which has an enhanced bilirubin with respect to the hemolyzed hemoglobin.  You now mix bilirubin which is yellow-orange with methemoglobin in its para-hemic form which is an orangey-brown and you get blood which has a red color.

I trust you see my point. You now have that high-spin methemoglobin – bilirubin complex that can explain why the blood still looks red after centuries of exposure to air etc. It’s the result of some very special physiology (trauma/acute hemolysis/liver overload etc etc) generating a very special and unusual kind of chemistry – special methemoglobin, masses of bilirubin – which under the mechanical straining influences of clot formation are forced together to make a chemical adduct that instead of looking brown, like old blood, is still bright red. (This adduct must also have exceptional chemical stability so as not to undergo further oxidation and degradation, but we’ll leave the details of that to another day).

In fact, we have been able to simulate the spectrum in the laboratory by the process described above.

We can reproduce in the test-tube what we think is happening in that sequence of events I have just hypothesised. Ipso facto, that sequence events explains why the ancient blood stains are red.

This very strongly suggests that the blood stains are of a man who was severely beaten.

It’s been a long and perhaps tortuous route between cause and effect, but we are now finally there. The ancient blood stains are red because they are from a man who was severely beaten.

No one would have ever dreamed when we first started doing the analysis that the chemistry would provide corroborating evidence to what the pathologists concluded long ago about the Shroud figure.

The Shroud investigators interpreted the markings as those from a man who had undergone severe trauma, but were unable to explain why the blood stains were still red.  I have explained why the blood stains are still red, by devising a physiological scenario that begins with a man who has undergone severe trauma. Begging the question?  No, there is a solid chain of reasoning here that depends on an intimate acquaintance with all possible oxidation states of free porphyrins, allied to a an enhanced form of jaundice physiology seen in athletes etc that causes mild elevations in bilirubin, greatly magnified here to take account of the multiple traumas of a flogged and crucified victim.

The blood has no cells, is very low in potassium, and has the right color and composition for the blood of a man who was severely flogged and crucified. This is entirely consistent with the forensic evidence…”

The explanation here can neatly account for some otherwise unexpected features of the blood stains, like their showing no red blood cells, like being low in potassium. It’s all to do with that complex clotting/exudation scenario I was talking about earlier.

******************************************************************

Did you know there is a high-definition image of the Turin Shroud (most of it still under wraps)?

Documentary-maker David Rolfe (he of “The Silent Witness’, 1978) has recently provided an intriguing glimpse of a still-under-wraps HD image of the Shroud of Turin. See his ‘Enigma’ website.

Update: 16th May 2012:  at some point, in the last few days, David Rolfe has removed the high-definition image that is the subject of this posting, and replaced it with something different. Yet my comment is still there, referring to what I consider a valuable and hitherto unavailable resource, where  I enquire as to its provenance, and ask why it is not more generally available. I do not know Rolfe’s reason for removing it, and cannot inquire openly, since he has blocked  me (and at least one other) from placing new comments on his “Challenge” site. However, I see no reason to delete this post, which is motivated by genuine research interest, with no commercial angle whatsoever (unlike Rolfe’s Challenge), and consider the use of that now disappeared image to fall within the realms of “fair use” where copyright is concerned, especially as I consulted with him before posting here. If he wants the HD image removed from this post, then he has only to ask.

 

Good stuff – shame there’s not more to see…

It is part of an unreleased 12.8  billion-pixel HD  (high definition) image of the Shroud that was taken in 2008 (or at any rate, that was the year in which Rolfe announced its existence to the world in a short documentary).

As much as I would like, I can’t say much about it at the present – it a relatively small part of the image – mainly the eyes and bridge of nose.  One would like to see a larger section before making generalisations. Sadly the latter requires a “release note” from its owners, with some minor but irritating strings attached, to say nothing of delay which I shan’t elaborate upon right now.

So for now I shall content myself with making a few cursory observations on what’s available, with the caveat that everything said here is provisional for the reasons stated.

Observations:

First, let’s convert that positive image in Rolfe’s banner back to an original pseudo-negative, albeit in monochrome, so that it resembles the Shroud as viewed  on one of its rare showings.

The above – but light/dark reversed to restore original Shroud (b/w monochrome)

The first thing to note is that the image is almost entirely confined to the diagonal ribs of the herringbone twill. Yet that image comprises diverse features that are or might variously  be described as eyelids, eyebrows, blood stains etc. Is it not strange that there is nothing in close-up that suggests hair (as on eyebrows) or blood (that one might expect to be in the furrows between the ribs)?

Enlargement of brow ridge region between the two “blood” spots

Yes, we know the image is not a painting, since there is no evidence of applied pigment – but an image confined to the ribs that is intrinsic to the fabric, e.g. through chemical modification of the linen fibres per se,  makes it highly probable that it is a superficial SCORCH, as I have maintained previously.

There are certainly no grounds for thinking that any kind of at-a-distance radiation  – heat, light, least of all ultraviolet – produced so selective an image, confined to the most superficial part of the linen, i.e. the diagonal ribs.

Given the absence of “eyebrows” except as a darkening of the image along the brow ridge – who is to say that there are eyebrows – as distinct from a pressure imprint off a bony prominence? What about the moustache and beard? Are they really there, or do we just interpret the darker image above and below the mouth as facial hair? Who is to say that they too are not mere prominences that are preferentially imaged.

Consecutive vertical planes (reading left to right) intercept features of this face in particular order

The first part of the face that impacts on a parallel plane (i.e. forcibly apposed linen sheet – NOT just loosely-draped) is the tip of the nose (v.prominent on Shroud). The next is the brow ridge – then  the end of chin/lips –then the cheekbones – again all v.prominent. Do I hear an objection that they would all be prominent in a photograph – through scattering more light?  Yes, that is true. But the Shroud is not any kind of photograph, given there is no directionality in the image as would be expected from uneven illumination. It is a pseudo-negative certainly – but that does not make it a photograph, any more than the branded image from a hot metal template is a photograph (while being a pseudo-negative).

“Brand” (thermal imprint, aka scorch) onto linen, taken from a heated horse brass

So where do we go from here?  The top priority is for the powers-that-be to release the entire HD image of the Shroud. I for one want to examine the “moustache” and “beard” closely.

You see, there is something not quite right about either of those  - at least in the low-definition images that we have to be content with so far.  The “moustache” looks too straight-sided geometrical:

Focus on the moustache

(This is my “optimised” 3D image – optimised using a model scorched image to ensure greatest correspondence with original template) – converted back to a pseudo-negative.

Note the “beard” is largely missing on one side (tugged out by Christ’s tormentors according to some scriptural scholars?), and shows up as white in parts on the positive image  (prompting some to ask what a grey or silver beard is doing on someone in their early 30s).

Optimised 3D image – positive version of above – showing what looks like a silver or grey beard (but is it really either of those?)

Note too the preferential imaging of one side to the left of the midline as viewed.

Am I the only one to find it incomprehensible that a HD image should have been taken of the Shroud in 2008, and made the subject of a  documentary – while here we are, over 4 years later speculating on what it might or might not show  – except for the small part that the documentary-maker currently uses as banner on his blog?

RELEASE THE FULL HD IMAGE NOW, PLEASE TURIN – WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED

It is totally unacceptable that controversy and speculation should continue to this day, when much of it is uninformed or pure guesswork – the result of commentators being ignorant of, or denied (easy) access to the facts.

Additional reading:  Did Jesus have a beard?

Important: have just realized, two days after posting this, that the image also has “hair” – it’s the darker band on the left that occupies about 1/5th the width of the image. Note that it too shows nothing in this HD close-up that would distinguish it as strands of hair. The darker image is essentially no different from what one sees, say, on the bridge of the nose.

As before, the caveat is needed that one needs to see the HD image of the entire face and head.  But some tentative conclusions are possible: while one can argue, as I have done above, that the “eyebrows” are not really there – that it is the brow ridge that could have been imaged by a kind of pressure imprinting (“barography”?) the same can hardly be said of the “head of hair”, given that the outer margin of the hair (at leas)t does not have underlying bone if viewed as a frontal image. So what would cause head hair, if indeed real hair,  to be imaged if neither photography nor “barography” can be invoked?  Certainly not vapourography either (see comments) given that hair does not putrefy to form those organic amines (putrescine, cadaverine) that Ray Rogers thought were instrumental in image formation via Maillard reactions. The plot thickens, as they say…