Late addition (July 2019)
Please forgive this postscript, correction, “prescript”, correction, intrusion, added many years later – based on some 350 and more postings here and elsewhere.
That’s including some 7 years of my hands-on investigation into image-forming techniques, chosen to be credible with simple, indeed crude, medieval (14th century) technology etc etc.
(Oh, and yes, I accept the radiocarbon dating, despite it being restricted to a single non-random corner sample, making all the oh-so-dismissive, oh-so-derogatory statistics-based sniping totally irrelevant – a ranging shot being just that me dears- a single ranging shot, albeit subdivided into three for Arizona, Oxford and Zurich).
Sindonology (i.e. the “science” , read pseudoscience – of the so-called “Shroud ” of Turin) can be simply summed up. It’s a re-branding exercise, one designed to pretend that the prized Turin possession is not just J of A’s “fine linen”, described in the biblical account as used to transport a crucified body from cross to tomb.
Oh no, it goes further, much further, way way beyond the biblical account. How? By making out that it was the SAME linen as that described in the Gospel of John, deployed as final “burial clothes”. Thus the description “Shroud” for the Turin Linen, usually with the addition “burial shroud”. Why the elision of two different linens, deployed for entirely different purposes (transport first, then final interment)?
Go figure! Key words to consider are: authentic relic v manufactured medieval icon; mystique, peaceful death-repose, unlimited opportunity for proposing new and ever more improbable image-formation mechanisms etc. How much easier it is to attach the label “Holy” to Shroud if seen as final burial clothes, in final at-peace repose – prior to Resurrection- as distinct from a means of temporary swaying side-to-side transport in an improvised makeshift stretcher !
As I say, a rebranding exercise (transport to final burial shroud) and a very smart and subtle one at that . Not for nothing did that angry local Bishop of Troyes suddenly refer to a “sleight of hand” after allegedly accepting it when first displayed. Seems the script was altered, or as some might say, tampered with! It might also explain why there were two Lirey badges, not just one. Entire books could be written on which of the two came first… I think I know which, with its allusion (?) to the Veil of Veronica… yes, there are alternative views (the face above “SUAIRE” a visual link to the face-only display of the Linen as the “Image of Edessa” or as that on the then current “Shroud” per se.
Face shown (left) on mid- 14th century Machy Mould (recently discovered variant of the Lirey Pilgrim Badge) above the word “SUAIRE” (allegedly meaning “shroud”). Inset image on the right: one version among many of the fabled “Veil of Veronica” image. I say the two are related, and deliberately so, but this is not the time or place to go into detail.
No, NOT a resurrectional selfie, but instead a full size version of, wait for it, the legendary VEIL OF VERONICA , product of inital body contact – no air gaps- between body and fabric, but with one important difference. The Turin image was intended to look more realistic, less artistic.
How? By displaying a negative tone-reversed image implying IMPRINT (unless, that is, you’re a modern day sindonologist, in which case ‘resurrectional proto-photographic selfie” becomes the preferred, nay, vigorously proferred explanation assisted by unrestrained imagination, creation of endless pseudoscience etc etc, with resort to laser beams, corona discharges, nuclear physics, elementary particles, earthquakes etc etc – the list is seemingly endless!
Welcome to modern day sindonology.
Personally, I prefer no-nonsense feet-on-the-ground hypothesis-testing science, aided by lashings of, wait for it, plain down-to-earth common sense.
Start of original posting:
“Anonymous” on Dan Porter’s site put a question to me earlier re the new geometry I’m using to imprint images of heated templates, which I consider produces results that are closer to the Shroud at the microscopic as well as macroscopic level. He wanted to know how individual fibres from high and low intensity image areas compared under the microscope.
**************************************************
In the image you created, there are obvious zones real dark and other zones much more pale. This microscope photo came from which one? And is it possible to have 2 photos side by side to compare the result at fiber level of a very dark zone and a much paler zone? In my mind, it is theoretically impossible for a technique like that, to produce the same very subtle coloration at fiber level in both a dark zone and a pale zone. Remember that on the Shroud, that’s exactly the reality of the coloration at fiber level. No more penetration and the same kind of subtle yellowing of each colored fiber, no matter if this fiber come from a dark zone or a much paler zone.
*************************************************
I decided to oblige, recalling Oscar Wilde’s candid observation: “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about… ” despite the implicit assumption that the “half tone effect” of the Shroud image is an established fact (not so, in my view, but that can wait).
So first I had to produce some images from a 3D template that differed in intensity – but not too much since that would detract from the new methodology that can reproducibly produce scorched-on images that are not too intense, not too obviously scorch-like as to leave medieval pilgrims feeling the journey was wasted.
So here are the preliminaries – a series of pictures showing the way the images for microscopy were prepared and selected. I make no claim that this was the optimal procedure for answering the question – but it gives a rough idea.
Thermal imprint and template, side by side
Close up of thermal imprint
Select chest on right as the more intense image, arm on left for less intense (insert picture later of precise sampling areas).
Opposite (non-image) side of linen, showing essentially no imprinting , despite the moulding effect of having imprinted manually off the contours of the template for optimal contact.
Two regions of image excised for micrsocopic examination: arm (low intensity); chest (higher intensity).
Typical field from more intense chest area, x4o mag. Apologies for the adventitious blue fibre – it is not on the slide – but inside the sealed (!) USB “eyepiece” unit.
(Sorry, a big section seems to have disappeared during the last edit. I’ll try and reconstruct. The first priority is to replace the missing photograph of the less-intense arm area chosen for comparison):
Typical field from the fainter image zone of the arm. The fibres merely seem a fainter colour then in the above picture, i.e. failing to demonstrate a half tone effect. But is the alleged half-tone effect of the Shroud real? Can anyone show a photograph that demonstrates it convincingly?
Discuss. Is there the much trumpeted and ‘mysterious’ half-tone effect? Or is there merely a gradation of intensities, maybe with a saturation effect (dehydratable non-cellulose carbohydrates being in short supply?). I’d say the difference in image intensity in the two pictures was due merely to differential coloration of the fibres. I’m far from convinced that the Shroud micrographs show a different picture, one allegedly with all image fibres having the same intensity in high and low darkness areas, with darkness a function of number of equally-intensely coloured fibres per unit area i.e. the half tone effect. I thought that (and said so) on Porter’s site before being asked the question by “anonymous”, merely from looking at the Mark Evans/Schwortz Shroud pictures, with no obvious “half-tone” effect that I could see, merely a low level “saturation effect” that is easily explained (limiting hemicellullose substrate).
My answer to the steeped-in-mystique Turin Shroud - evolving gradually from some 10 years of science-based experimental modelling. 
Hi Colin,
I’m just running up to an end of term, so a bit busy, but I’ll certainly carry out the UV experiment before Christmas. As for the Evans photos, I see the “toasted” area as a conduction (contact) scorch, and the general yellowish background as a convection and/or radiation (non-contact) scorch. Does that seem reasonable? Incidentally, for a true “topmost fibres only” illustration, there is an Evans photo of some rust on the shroud among Barrie’s collection, and the unchanged blue-white silky background is very visible there.
Thanks Hugh. I look forward to hearing the result on that “steam distillation” hunch, It’s a long shot, and would be amazing if one could get rid of the fluorescence by letting steam escape easily (it comes up through the damp overlay after a minute or two) but I won’t be surprised if it turns up negative.
Yes, I agree completely re your reasoning for the toasted v yellow colour. This is why I think the reversed geometry is so important. It reduces toasting by conduction and increases generalised cooking and diffuse yellowing by forced convection. In fact, when linen is laid over a hot template there may be very little conduction, because the first formed steam (linen is said to be approx 8% free water) will create a steam cushion that prevents atom to atom contact, so most of the heat transfer is then by the action of superheated steam and later by additional pyrolysis gases.
Thanks for the tip re the rust pictures. I’ll take another look.