Pro-authenticity Shroud investigators should have considered the body image as a SIMULATED sweat imprint – before rushing to their pseudoscience (‘resurrectional incandescence’ etc).

Summary: STURP tested body image fibres from the Shroud of Turin for natural body biochemicals (see 1981 Summary) and failed to detect any. Yellowed body sweat was accordingly eliminated as the image chromophore, and said to be contraindicated on numerous other grounds e.g. lack of dried capillary fluids, no cementation of fibres, plus a barrage of highly dubious claims  against any kind of contact imprinting based on assumed air gaps between body and ‘loosely-draped linen’  (biblical authenticity being taken for granted), totally inaccurate claims re  the body image having “unique 3D properties” etc etc. The entire area of contact-imprinting was totally abandoned, starting in the 1980s, and the rush began towards imaging via radiation and other pseudo-science. More than 35 years later, sindonology still finds itself in the grip of ‘resurrectional incandescence’ as the mechanism of imaging, as was recently seen from the program of the recent International Shroud Conference in July at TRAC, Pasco, Washington State, sponsored by two confirmed ‘radiationists’ giving themselves a shop window and captive audience for what can only be described as semi-religious fervour dressed up as theoretical physics. Conventional mainstream science, as practiced by this Shroudie investigator of nearly 6 years standing (currently testing and evaluating his flour-imprinting/simulated sweat Model 10) is simply ignored as if it did not exist. Resurrectional incandescence cannot be regarded as sound scholarship for as long as it essentially excommunicates all contrary non-authenticity model building – to say nothing of years of  detailed experimentation. The latter has been  reported here and on other sites  (Dan Porter’s retired site especially) since early 2012 in real time, open to all for comments and criticism (a far cry from much overhyped ‘peer-reviewed’  publications, especially those in  researcher-billed-for open-access journals where little if anything is known about the identity or fitness-for-purpose of the referees.

More to follow. Expect to see some 20 reasons listed over the coming days for regarding the Shroud body image as a simulated sweat imprint of medieval manufacture, starting with two early documented references to bodily sweat (and of course blood as well) in the early 16th and 17th centuries from distinguished figures in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, one of them canonized.  Their commonsensical words are now scandalously ignored, thanks to sloppy 20th century so-called science, read wishful-thinking sci-fi fantasizing, STURP’s included, nay, STURP’s especially.

derailed train

Something similar happened to STURP, circa 1983, but worse, much worse. STURP not only left the tracks but went clean over the side of a cliff…

Yes, STURP began its journey so well, but ended by going over a cliff side.  John Heller’s 1983 book “Report on the Turin Shroud” shows precisely  how, why and when that disastrous turn of events took place. (One has to read to a few pages from the end to see the author himself reject contact-imprinting – although to his credit he also distances himself from fanciful radiation, quite unlike any other radiation known to physics, able to align itself with the Earth’s gravitational field to give collimated orthogonal projection to explain sharp imaging (allegedly) across air gaps! Sound of Einstein turning in his grave…).

Expect next instalment tomorrow, October 10, pm (UK time). Comments, preferably short, preferably relevant, are welcome.

Tuesday October 10

Newsflash:  The Fall issue of STERA’s shroud.com has just appeared, inside of which is Hugh Farey’s last Newsletter (No.85 ) for the BSTS, his place as Editor now being taken by Shroud (pro-authenticity) TV documentary maker David Rolfe. I normally provide links to Shroud-relevant sites, but decline to do so in this instance. Linking to others’ sites, whether pro- or anti-authenticity, has to be a two-way affair. If not, one is assisting others’ positions in those crucial search engine rankings while getting no quid pro quo (or vice versa).

Nuff said on that score. Now back to the business of the day:

More on that book by John Heller MD, taken from the end of the book (Page 209 onwards):
Extract 1 of 2

“Sam Pellicori, a champion of the body contact hypothesis, had done some interesting experiments. In three separate experiments, he had placed oil, lemon juice, and perspiration on his fingers. Then he placed linen on top of his hand and pressed it gently to his flesh. He then placed the cloth samples in an oven at low temperature to produce an accelerated ageing effect. In each case there was indeed a yellowing of the contact area. He had brought the linen samples with him. The team examined them and, although there was a surface effect, several of us insisted that we could see some capillarity in several of the fibrils, which is not the case on the Shroud. We all agreed with Sam that the torso of the man had had to be in contact with the Shroud, or the transfer of the scourge marks would not have appeared as they did. For example there were many such lesions that were invisible in white light and could be seen only in the UV. However, the recessed areas of the face could not have been in contact with the cloth, as proved by the VP-8 images and the Shroud-body distance data. Pellicori agreed that that was still a problem for his hypothesis. It was not a problem but the problem …”

(we’ll skip the next 7 dispensable sentences re the role of hypothesis and generalization).

Extract 2 of 2:
“How were the images of the man conveyed to the linen? Virtually the only mechanism left was radiation, which we then examined.”
Here we see John Heller finally displaying his true pro-authenticity colours, or at any rate epiphany moment just 6 pages before the end of the book, having previously projected himself as an objective commentator on that key question. No, radiation was NOT the only mechanism left if proper consideration had been given to medieval forgery scenarios, and uncritical resort had not been taken to Jackson’s modelling studies with loosely-draped linen. They also presupposed authenticity, generating Jackson’s erroneous conclusion that there could, indeed had to be imaging across air gaps (which is NOT the case in forgery scenarios where linen can and probably was manually pressed down onto body relief). Cue ‘resurrectional incandescence’, later fine-tuned by Jackson as his ‘collapsing cloth’ hypothesis.
In short, Heller and fellow STURP-team members, having taken immediate exception to Sam Pelllicori’s naturalistic model of sweat-imprinting, indeed appearing to snuff it out without wasting a further second, failed to consider the alternative of non-naturalistic, i.e. simulated sweat-imprinting that did not require the human body’s own biochemicals.

That was an omission of monumental proportions, given the build-up and prestige accorded to that 35-strong team of diverse high-powered specialists who were supposed to be totally objective, detached, SCIENTIFIC, testing ALL feasible hypotheses, not just their own pet theories.
If one is seeking the point at which science turned into pseudoscience, when STURP’s train left the tracks, proceeding merrily over a cliff side, gravity-assisted like that faux Jackson radiation, then one need look no further than Heller’s homespun advocacy combined with uncritical support of Jackson’s biased unscientific modelling, both wedded to authenticity, as distinct from keeping it constantly under critical review. Neither could be bothered to engage in detailed ‘what-if’ modelling that began by pre-supposing medieval simulation (aka ‘forgery’) as well as, or instead of 1st. century authenticity.

It’s not as if Sam Pellicori, for all his commendable ability to fasten onto essentials, was the first to flag up “sweat imprint”. How about this section of an essay from the late and gifted Shroud historian Dorothy Crispino, detailing the immediate aftermath of the 1532 fire that came close to destroying the Shroud.

The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns, 1534
(link to Dorothy Crispino)

In April of 1534, Pope Clement VII sent his envoy, Louis Cardinal Gorrevod, to make an official recognition of the Shroud and have it repaired (ed., following the 1532 Chambéry fire).
Card. Gorrevod knew the Shroud well. For over four decades, he had been intimately associated with the Savoy family, and profoundly devoted to the Shroud. Many times, his hands had held it at expositions and ceremonies. It was he who first suggested that the image was formed by sweat and blood. And it was he who, in 1506, successfully intervened with Julius II to grant Carlo III’s petition for a liturgy and feast of the Shroud.
On the 15th of April, 1534, a Wednesday, Card. Gorrevod sent word to the Sisters of St. Clare that they were to undertake the delicate task of mending the Sheet.

Or how about this personal letter which Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva (later St.Francis) sent from Annecy to his close friend,  one Jane  (later St.Jane)Frances de Chantal, a Mother Superior or similar in 1614:

francis de sales and jane de chantal

Annecy, 4 May 1614
Whilst waiting to see you, my very dear Mother, my soul greets yours with a thousand greetings. May God fill your whole soul with the life and death of His Son Our Lord! At about this time, a year ago, I was in Turin, and, while pointing out the Holy Shroud among such a great crowd of people, a few drops of sweat fell from my face on to this Holy Shroud itself. Whereupon, our heart made this wish: May it please You, Saviour of my life, to mingle my unworthy sweat with Yours, and let my blood, my life, my affections merge with the merits of Your sacred sweat! My very dear Mother, the Prince Cardinal was somewhat annoyed that my sweat dripped onto the Holy Shroud of my Saviour; but it came to my heart to tell him that Our Lord was not so delicate, and that He only shed His sweat and His blood for them to be mingled with ours, in order to give us the price of eternal life…  (ed. with still more references to sweat).

Francis, Bishop of Geneva

Can there be any doubting that the Shroud was seen all those centuries ago as a sweat/blood imprint, with no indications that I’m aware of that it was ever seen as anything else? Why think otherwise? Wouldn’t the pilgrim to Lirey, approx 1355 give or take, casting eyes for the very first time on Geoffroy de Charny’s mysteriously acquired Shroud immediately conclude that he was looking at some kind of imprint, certainly in blood, and probably therefore in some other bodily secretion as well, one that had left behind a faint scarcely visible yellowish body imprint of a man. Now then, what might that other secretion be? Could it possibly be divine perspiration, i.e. SWEAT? If so, was it real sweat – or a clever rendition thereof on linen of what approximately 1300 year old sweat from  1st century Palestine, dried and yellowed, might look like?

Next instalment, tomorrow, Wed Oct 11. It will discuss the link between the Shroud and Joseph of Arimathea’s ‘fine linen’, deployed in the first instance as an imprint-acquiring TRANSPORT (not burial) shroud. Would so quickly-acquired an image in sweat and blood (en route from the site of crucifixion to a nearby rock tomb) be likely to be 1st. century authentic?  Or, seen through the modern eye, aided by photography and image-processing, to say nothing of the disputed radiocarbon dating,  is it simply  ‘too-good-to-be-true’ and  more prudently judged to be of medieval provenance – an ingenious simulation? My own take on this should be clear. Why so few other takers?

Wed Oct 11

Here’s today’s text.  (Yes, what follows might seem like a sermon. Yes, I guess it IS a sermon of sorts,  arguably a long-overdue one, with no disrespect intended to the dead, merely a respect for the SCIENTIFIC FACTS!).

The chunks of text (blue font) are  taken as before from  the 1983  “Report on the Turin Shroud” by the late John Heller MD (1921-1995). It’s from quite early in the book (pages 38/39) but already the keen-eyed observer (well, me at any rate) may see the shoddily ill-designed pre-STURP locomotive showing ominous signs of erratic behaviour with intimations of later derailment. That was soon to be realized post-STURP with engine driver Jackson’s precipitate  plunge over cliff edge.

(Why “ill-designed”? We’ll come back to that later. Suffice it so say, yet again, that STURP’s prime focus should have been on that negative tone-reversed image, not its absurd and misdirected PRIMARY goal of disproving a conventional painted image, what in contemporary internet jargon was a “straw man”  hypothesis if ever there was. Since when has a negative image been conventional in the world of  medieval or even current illustrative art?…)

Incidentally,  re the above link, , here’s a note of caution for those concerned about accurate chronology.  Don’t be misled by the 2014 date on that Jackson pdf: see the footnote where it states the first appearance of the paper was in September 1989 – just 6 years after the appearance of Heller’s book, or some 8 years after the appearance of the STURP team’s “sorry, we’re still totally mystified by the TS body image” summary (while totally taken in with Robert Bucklin’s laughable, nay hilarious “autopsy” on a 1931 B/W photograph of the TS, the one where he sees “wounds”, “abrasions”, “puncture  marks” etc etc. as if viewing a real corpse, or even a photograph of a real corpse, as distinct from a faint centuries- old vanishingly-faint image captured via an totally unknown process, ignorant of whether  natural or forged).

The extract begins by describing John Jackson’s first contact with Bill Mottern (physicist, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque). It was ostensibly in the first instance to discuss colour filters, but was quickly overtaken by Mottern’s  keenness to  show off his gee-whizz 3D-rendering VP-8 machine. That if you ask me was the blackest day in the entire history of  sindonology, taking the attention away from the REAL ISSUE –  namely  the NEGATIVE  tone-reversed IMAGE, viewed with or without Bill Mottern’s computerized  and largely IRRELEVANT box of artefact-generating tricks
… Jackson made contact with Bill Mottern, a Sandia physicist. Mottern had a set of Wrattens (colour filters) but he had something else as well. That “something”, by coincidence, put the whole project into global high gear. It was a VP-8.

(Skip some sentences)

Jackson had never heard of a VP-8, but when he drove over to Sandia, he took photos of the Shroud with him.

(Apparently Shroud as-is ‘negatives’ and tone-reversed (pseudo-) positives as well, that aspect having been sadly neglected throughout the entire book – about which more later – MUCH MORE!)
“Why,” he (Bill Mottern) suggested, don’t we put the photos of the Shroud into the VP-8?”
All in all, it should have been a stupid waste of time, for a flat photo will, and can, only give a warped picture.

(But it’s not a primary photo – it’s a photo of the Shroud image, which itself is/was not a photo, though precisely what it is anyone’s guess (‘impactograph’ simulated sweat imprint?)  If an imprint, then a photo of an imprint that has even overhead illumination creating light but no obvious patches of shade, would NOT behave like the kind of photo to which Heller refer, and indeed  the misleading kind  with patches of light and shade which he includes as a plate in his book – more later)

They placed the Shroud photo in the VP-8 and twiddled the dials, focus and rotation. Suddenly both men saw, swimming up from the electronic fog of the screen, a perfect three-dimensional image of a scourged, crucified man.
(Show my 3D-rendered ImageJ renderings of scourge mark blood as a protest against the entirely unhelpful inclusion of blood into a discussion of body image?).
Impossible! Ridiculous! Outrageous! Yes. It was there. The two scientists just stared.
The positive photograph of the man in the Shroud had the appearance of a two dimensional face. The VP-8’s three dimensional image was as stunningly different from the photograph as a statue is from a painting. The long hair, full beard and mustache, the serenity on the face of a badly battered, crucified man, came alive, giving Jackson and Mottern the eerie impression that they were gazing at an actual face of a man, not at a painting or a sculpture.
Finally, Jackson took a deep breath. “Bill,” he said, “do you realize that we may be the first people in two thousand years to know exactly how Christ looked in the tomb?”

(Note ref to “tomb”).

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Where does one start? What’s the first step in restoring a semblance of order to a train crash?

This blogger/investigator has zero experience in putting clocks back to pre-disaster state-of-affairs. But since others are not doing it, or showing any inclination to do so, whether in the peer-reviewed domain or even informal blogosphere, then I guess the task falls to me, thankless though it is.

Order of business? Start with the negative, tone-reversed image, and reasonable hypotheses that can-  or should-  have been been entertained  – notably by STURP – to account for what surely has to be seen as the defining characteristic of the Shroud body image. Then look at the manner in which the debate was hijacked by those allegedly “unique” 3D properties.  No, not properties, but entirely predictable pre-programmed response in  computer software specifically designed to elicit PSEUDO- 3D response where it may or may NOT (in reality) exist initially.

Sindonology should by rights have put its house in order years, nay decades ago – and not going expecting retired scientists like myself to go reversing its spectacular train crash.  OK, so the latter was the work of a frightfully-senior initiator, aided and abetted by top members of STURP no less way back in the 20th century.

But others have now picked up the baton and foolishly followed in their footsteps to this day (like that hugely self-indulgent Pasco conference in July, with prime organizers pushing their imaging -via-outburst of  subatomic nuclear particle fantasy, or as I prefer to call it, “imaging via resurrectional incandescence”,  oh-so-conveniently generating an allegedly erroneous, excessively young radiocarbon-dating age we’re asked to blithely – and uncritically accept. Yup,  an ingenious but desperate attempt – if ever there was – to keep their pro-authenticity show, correction,  TRAVELLING CIRCUS, on the road).

Sindonology (the mainstream pro-authenticity kind) has never lacked ingenuity.  It’s a kind of metaphor one might say for the human condition (correction – one acutely fascinating (though somewhat unsettling) facet of the human condition that habitually resorts to high-IQ pseudoscience in order to press its case).

Sindonology? All life is there, warts an’ all – as much a source of fascination to we ‘slow-to-judge-life-as-we-find-it’  observers as the Shroud enigma itself…

But there comes a time when thoughts – in this instance some 6 years in the making – begin to crystallize…

Conclusion, albeit sad to say:  sindonology, is 95% wishful thinking  aka bullsh*t, given it’s become a vast repository of pseudoscience.

That’s thanks largely, indeed almost entirely, to that priming intervention by STURP, officially the Shroud of Turin Research Project.  Or, as this profound sceptic recently rechristened it,  unflatteringly,  acronymically redesignated it,  a vast input of Space-Age Technology-Unleashing Religious Propaganda…

Thank you authenticity-proselytizing John Jackson (“PhD”- military academy). Thank you (to a lesser extent)  the rather-more-subtle,  late convert-to authenticity -courtesy-of- medical- and- computer-generated pseudoscience – John Heller MD (RIP).

Sorry about that. Someone had to say it…

Thursday October 12

Have just re-read Heller’s book from cover to cover, this time not looking for what’s there, so much as looking for what’s NOT there. A growing suspicion has been amply confirmed. There’s scarcely any mention of the negative, tone-reversed image. Where there is, usually in passing, scattered here and there throughout some 220 pages, it displays no curiosity whatsoever for this unusual feature. Worse still from a scientific standpoint, it attempts to pass it off as a trifling detail, namely as some kind of concomitant of John Jackson’s blinkered model-building (which in turn plays down cloth-body “contact” , instead talking up his entirely hypothetical imaging across air gaps which Heller later refers to as if established fact.

That is one truly bizarre omission, especially as the negative image does get briefly spotlighted  on Page 1 of the book, Chapter 1 (Title: “The Physics of Miracles?” Ouch! ).

“In 1978, I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin, let alone seen a picture of it. When I did, I was surprised. I thought I would see something analogous to all the paintings and statuary of Jesus that I had ever seen… (Skip sentence re other portrayals from history and worldwide).

This was different. It was anything but artistic. In addition everything was reversed. Its images were like photographic negatives, with black and white, left and right, reversed. The cloth was also very bloody…” (My bolding)

As I say, bizarre – to flag up a distinctive feature of the TS body image, one that when reversed, as done initially by Secondo Pia in 1898, produces a spectacular result, an image with near-photographic quality, arguably with some additional hard-to-pin-down allure (sometimes described as serene, luminous, ghostly etc), and fail in 220 pages to give that negative image the attention it deserves. Instead we see a fixation with the so-called “3D properties” in Mottern’s VP-8 which I say, from years of hands on experience with its modern day equivalent (ImageJ) are 100% artefactual, the result of digitally re-mapping 2D image density (acquired by goodness knows what process) to an entirely artefactual man-made impression of vertical relief.

I’ll return later today with a brief summary of what I would wish to say to John Heller, were he still alive, regarding the likely origin of the negative tone-reversed image. It will feature a neologism I introduced here yesterday: “impactograph”.  Yes, the TS is not a photographic negative (Stephen E.Jones please note) or indeed any kind of photograph, protophotograph etc that required visible light or indeed any other kind of electromagnetic radiation or stream of subatomic particles etc etc. It’s almost certainly an “impactograph”, the result of interposing an imprinting medium between cloth and body (or bas relief), applying manual pressure to capture an imprint off the flatter more elevated planes only, NOT the sides, followed by a secondary image-development step that converted the imprinting medium to a faint yellow chromophore, probably with conjugated double bonds, probably a melanoidin (on that I’m in agreement with the late Raymond N.Rogers – it’s a polymeric melanoidin, bleachable with Adler and Heller’s diimide reagent which selectively hydrogenates C=C double bonds).

Why go to all that trouble? See title of this posting, with its reference to an entity I unleashed upon the bored, indifferent, know-all world of sindonology back in November 2014: the simulated sweat imprint. Those early custodians and viewers of the Shroud mentioned here, from the 16th and 17th century, probably recognized an IMPRINT when they saw one,  conscious of and unphased by an imprint’s tell-tale reversal of light/dark tones seen in a conventional painted image.

TS negative face v positive photograph and pencil sketch

Two positive images, one photographic, the other pencil-drawn versus the  tone-reversed  TS negative image.

 

Instead, they briefly- and in my view correctly-  interpreted the body image as a sweat imprint.. whether real or simulated.

John Jackson tried to kid us there was a “simple and global mathematical relationship” connecting image intensity with presumed length of (entirely imaginary) air gap between recumbent body and loosely draped linen. Shame there was not a shred of evidence or even theoretical physics for imaging across an air gap.  Pseudo-science does not get much worse than this! What Jackson was doing, needless to say, was dreaming up his preconception first, then arranging the evidence  to fit, which is about as far removed as one can get from the scientific method. But then what can you expect from someone who flaunts his  scientific so-called “doctorate” awarded by a military academy (which should have confined itself to awarding military ranks).?

Jackson (and those who followed) should have experimentally modelled not just pro-authenticity “loosely draped linen” if investigating a contact model, but linen that was forcibly impressed against a recumbent body to close up all but the most-difficult-to-access hollows and crevices in a medieval ‘simulation’ scenario.

Too many  sindonologists’ insistence on seeing only what they want to see, of ignoring or spurning anything and everything that fails to conform to their blinkered view, while professing to be “scientific”, flaunting  their supposed research qualifications, is a major insult to genuine science. Shame on the new BSTS Newsletter editor (David Rolfe) for having previously followed them around with his movie camera, attentive to their every word, treating those words as if gold dust…

I’m hoping that someone will point out the anomaly of the supposed ‘negative tone-reversed image’ of the Shroud face shown earlier. Be prepared for an unconventional opinion regarding a facial feature that is not skin (hint hint). 

“Impactograph”?  Neologism?  Oops – I was deploying that term well over 3 years ago. See this posting on Dan Porter’s retired site, with its link to a discussion on another of his postings.

Friday October 13th

(Noting the date, it’s just as well I’m not superstitious by nature!)

In passing, am I the only one to think that (the amazingly youthful-looking) Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford University continues to be hideously misquoted, most recently by STERA’s front man – Barrie M.Schwortz in his current (October) shroud.com update?

Ramsey has made it clear that he cannot conceive of any mechanism whereby the 1988 radiocarbon dating (1260-1390) could be wrong by some 1300 years (which considers and rejects among other things Jackson’s carbon monoxide theory,  having himself failed to find a scrap of experimental evidence to back it up). Ramsey – a committed Christian  btw- ends his statement with these charitable words (my bolding):

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/ramsey-on-shroud.html

” There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information.”

Now compare with Barrie Schwortz’s truth-bending words in his current (October 2017) shroud.com update:

(My bolding)

This issue also marks the last issue from current Editor Hugh Farey, who is retiring from the position he has held since December 2013 and handing it over to long time BSTS member, David Rolfe. David is best known in Shroud circles for his films on the Shroud which include The Silent Witness, the BAFTA-winning production from 1978 which introduced so many to the subject for the first time. His second film for the BBC in 2009 – Material Evidence – included Prof. Christopher Ramsey, Head of Oxford’s Radio Carbon Center, who conceded, memorably, that in the light of the new evidence and the lack of any substantive explanation for the Shroud’s image, the C14 should be looked at again.

Ramsey has conceded nothing! He’s merely noting the existence of a powerful lobby, seeking any and every opportunity to dispute and discredit his data, not just on radiochemical grounds, but highly suspect so-called ‘historical ‘ evidence.  In short, he was merely being polite and civilized in ending his statement in the (overly?) accommodating the way that he did.

Late insertion (14 Oct): see also this posting on Dan Porter’s site from as long ago as December 2011 asking why Ramsey had ‘changed his mind’ and whether it was due to failing to find evidence to back up the C-14-O hypothesis.

Incidentally, where in the whole of recorded history pre-1355 (first recorded appearance of the Lirey-displayed TS in the written record, tallying needless to say with the radiocarbon dating) is there a single image of the iconic two-fold dorsal/frontal head-to-head configuration of a crucified man?. There isn’t needless to say, since it doesn’t exist… The TS is almost certainly a simulated sweat imprint onto a mid-14th century mock-up of Joseph of Arimathea’s fine linen, intended to rival, nay trump, the immensely-lucrative pilgrim-attracting Veil of Veronica. Indeed, one suspects the Veil provided the inspiration for the imprinting-technology – an initial “sweat” imprint drying, yellowing and morphing into something rather more impressive and eye-catching – while retaining a modicum of credibility as ‘authentic’. But that is/was only the case if there’s perceived to be simultaneous imprinting of newly-shed blood and sweat. It loses all credibility if the body image is attributed not to sweat but to  ‘resurrectional incandescence’ days after the clotting and drying of the blood, unless, that is, one suspends all critical judgement and buys into one or other of the various re-bleeding/remoistening scenarios

Sorry to repeat myself, which I’m forced to do for reasons I’m minded shortly to address.

Moving on, I was reading (Christian) Hugh Farey describing  (BSTS Newsletter No.85) his position on the TS (pro-Resurrection/anti-authenticity) vis-a-vis that of  (Jewish) Barrie Schwortz’s (anti-Resurrection/pro-authenticity).

It occurred to me that what we see there are just two of four possible overlap areas in one of those handy Venn set theory diagrams (5 if one includes a background grey area for total DON’T KNOWs!).

Venn diagram - positions on TS authenticity and Resurrection

Where do you stand, dear reader?

A= pro-authenticity/pro-Resurrection (John Jackson, Giulio Fanti, Paolo di Lazzaro, Stephen E.Jones etc etc)

B = anti-authenticity/pro-Resurrection (Hugh Farey, Christopher Ramsey)

C = pro-authenticity/anti-Resurrection (Barrie Schwortz)

D = anti-authenticity/anti-Resurrection (moi and millions of other free-thinkers who refuse to be brain-washed, especially by the likes of Group A true-believers who persistently abuse the scientific method and/or principles)

Saturday October 14: there’s another significant, generally well-informed  sindonologist who could be mentioned in that Group A – namely Thibault Heimburger MD. But he seems to have disappeared from view – his most recent comment on this site – one of many – being February of last year! Has anyone heard from him of late? Has he maybe given up on the Shroud? That would be a shame – he being a rare example of a pro-authenticity sindonologist who at least until some 20 months ago was prepared to interact with the likes of me and fellow sceptics. It makes a welcome change from the more typical sindonologist (Barrie Schwortz, Mark Antonacci,  Giulio Fanti etc etc) who tries to pretend one does not exist!  That’s not restricted to pro-authenticity scientists, mind you –  Professor Luigi Garlaschelli never responds to my emails, sent to his listed Milan address.

It is counterproductive to scientific progress, needless to say, to operate as if contrary voices with contrary ideas, repeat IDEAS, do not exist. Science is essentially about the world of ideas – not people and their good or bad points… Isaac Newton was for the most part a pain in the butt in his dealings with fellow scientists, but still had a few useful things to say…

Sunday October 15

I’m realizing that my abject failure to get recognition for what I consider a simple and coherent theory for the TS – a scientific alternative to the fanciful pseudo-science alternatives that dominate the media – is lack of a memorable shorthand name or tag. What’s in a name? Everything, one suspects.  Coin a memorable name, and that’s probably half the battle where achieving visibility is concerned.

But what tags have been suggested thus far? Just a handful, by me alone, and no one else. But “simulated sweat imprint” or “impactograph body image” don’t really do the business, do they?

Time to put on one’s thinking cap, and come up with a snazzier alternative. Suggestions invited.

The first outside suggestion has just been provided at the breakfast table (from spouse):

1. The Truth.

Other ideas:

2. The MOTSI model (Miss-Out-The-Sides Imprinting model)

DSC07540 slightly cropped

3. The PXBF model (Pre-Xerox Body Fax model)

4. The CAGI model (Create A Good Impression model)

But acronyms are better if they spell a real word, preferably with some connection or mere connotations with the given subject?

5. As per:  the TRIFLE model (Topical Relief Imprinted, Flour/Linen Enabled)

6. The FRIGHTFUL model (Forget Resurrectional Incandescence, Ghostify Human Topography, Flour Upon Linen)

7. The FOSSIL model (Flour-Obtained Simulated Sweat Imprint – L-ementary my dear Watson)

8. The NONSCIFI model (The NoNonsense Scattered- Inventively Flour- Imprinting) model

9. The ICONIC model (Imprinting, Contact Only, No Image Cinematography)

Well, the problem now seems clear – namely the inability to express in a few words the essence of what’s being proposed, and/or to do so in a manner that is not instantly yawn-provoking.

Yes, how can an explanation for the TS as a product of medieval inventiveness, intended to reconstruct in material terms a particular brief narrative of the Gospels  – namely Joseph of Arimathea’s collection of a crucified body from the cross to a place of burial – possibly hope to compete for attention with the notion that the body  image only arrived later, after bloodstains – in a miraculous flash of resurrectional radiation.

It can’t, obviously, and pro-authenticity advocates of imaging-via-resurrection know it.

All they have to do is to carefully drip-feed the media, month by month, year by year, with their own agenda-promoting narrative, and scrupulously avoid giving so much as the slightest reference to more mundane, down-to-earth explanations for the TS, mine included. Chief culprits? Do I really need to name names?  Most are US or Italy-based.

Welcome to the 21st century, where control-freak fanatics attempt – and largely succeed -in exercising mind-control over the gullible and impressionable, keeping their tawdry little pseudo-science show on the road.

They know the media will lap up each and every one of their sensation-seeking pronouncements.

Monday October 16

Hugh Farey’s replacement as Editor of the BSTS Newsletter  (David Rolfe) is introducing an online forum, but apparently for subscribers only (shame it’s not open to all, but ours is not to reason why). So I’ve submitted my application which provides two years membership for a very reasonable £20. It asks one to say a little about oneself, how one came to be interested in the Shroud etc etc. I’m taking the liberty of reproducing my short submission here (blue font):

I have maintained my specialist Shroud website, http://www.shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com since Feb 2012, reporting hands-on modelling of the TS body image in real time.

Hugh Farey did a report on my investigations in a BSTS Newsletter up to and including Model 9 in June 2015. Current Model 10 is a variant of Model 9, using solid white flour as imprinting medium onto wet linen instead of flour slurry onto dry linen, and using a hot oven (including its infrared radiation) for thermal development of the flour imprint in place of nitric acid.

I believe the TS body image to be a simulated sweat imprint of medieval design and manufacture, the technology having probably been inspired by the legendary Veil of Veronica. I am frankly amazed (and indeed appalled) that what I consider to be a commonsensical interpretation of the TS has achieved virtually zero penetration of sindonology, excluding the brief mention in Hugh Farey’s report. There be something rotten in the state of sindonology if it cannot bring itself to acknowledge the existence of an hypothesis, nay comprehensive theory, one that ticks so many boxes.

.

Here’s a C&P of what Hugh wrote in 2015 (BSTS no.81). (My bolding)

LOTTO V. LUWU
A LONG RUNNING INVESTIGATION BY COLIN BERRY
Hugh Farey
For several years Colin Berry has been investigating ways by
which the image on the Shroud could have been manufactured, and he
has finally arrived at what he hopes is a satisfactory explanation. In many
ways, though, the journey has been more valuable than the final
achievement, as the variety and imagination of his experiments have
enhanced our understanding of many of the characteristics of the Shroud,
and demonstrated inaccuracies in long held beliefs.
His exploration began with the idea that the image on the cloth
was essentially a scorch, produced by the imposition of a hot statue. The
image was described as looking very scorchlike by almost all the scientists
of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STuRP), although its failure to
fluoresce under ultraviolet light, unlike the marks of the known scorches
from the 1532 fire, led them to reject scorching as a valid hypothesis. Berry,
however, investigated whether there might not have been a process which
could produce a scorch which didn’t fluoresce, and began work using
heated horse-brasses, and later a brass crucifix picked up in a French street
market. He soon discovered that, contrary to accepted credo, it was easily
possible to scorch only one side of a linen thread, and even only one side
of a flax fibre, and began to quantify the distance at which heat radiation
was essentially ineffective. This proved to be very small, much less than
the 4cm or so required by the hypothesis that a life-sized statue could
have been the heat source, but he also showed that difference in contactpressure
produced difference in scorch intensity. He demonstrated that
almost any scorch will produce both an effective ‘negative’ image, and can
be converted into a ‘3D image’ using similar software to that of the
famous VP-8 Image Analyser, demolishing any miraculist claim that only
the Shroud was capable of such effects.

Along the way, Berry, whose principal research job has been into
dietary fibre, explored exactly what components of a flax plant cell (such a
cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin or lignin) were likely to be most easily
discoloured by heat, and how it might be transmitted through and along a
fibre. He also experimented with methods of producing the most
‘realistic’ image, as simply laying a hot model on cloth, or even simply
laying a cloth on a hot model, had not been satisfactory. To ensure a good
image, good contact is required, and some form of soft underlay or
overlay is needed for the cloth to mould slightly around the model. This
led to Berry’s two designs to test: LUWU (Linen Underneath the model,
With an Underlay beneath the linen) and his currently preferred LOTTO
(Linen On Top, Then Overlay).

Although all this led to numerous peripheral investigations,
including attempts to scorch linen in oxygen-free environments, the
fluorescence problem remained, so Berry turned his thoughts towards
chemical, rather than thermal, scorches, rather as Luigi Garlaschelli
hypothesised when he painted a shroud with a small percentage of
sulphuric acid in the pigment carrying medium. Tests involving various
acidic extractions from pomegranate rind in conjunction with possible
mordants like alum were not very satisfactory, so Berry turned his
attention to nitric acid instead.
Alongside all the chemistry, Berry was considering the rationale
that might lie behind a forger’s technique. If the image was a scorch, it
may have been an attempt to represent an image made by a man who had
been burnt to death, such as the Templar Jacques de Molay, and if it was a
chemical imprint, it may have been an attempt to represent the action of
sweat on an enveloping sheet. The word ‘suaire’ on one of the Lirey
pilgrimage badges, and the legend of Veronica’s ‘sudarium’ were
indications that this was not unreasonable. He also wondered if, since
there were certainly other ‘authentic’ burial shrouds already in existence,
this one might have been an attempt to represent the one Christ was laid
in as he was lowered from the Cross. There is some biblical justification
for this, and it was certainly used as an apologia for the existence of at
least two ‘shrouds’ in later centuries.
Covering a live model in acid was always likely to be unpopular,
so Berry now proposes a two-stage model, in which something
representing sweat is imprinted, colourlessly, on cloth, and the image
developed on the cloth with nitric acid. To get the best impression, it turns
out that a more viscous medium than sweat itself is required, so Berry
experimented with various things such as milk, egg-white and starch
before settling on a slurry of flour and water. This can be smeared over a
volunteer and the linen cloth applied, LOTTO, to achieve the imprint. If it
was appropriately viscous, the flour would not touch anything but the
crowns of the threads, as observed on the Shroud. The cloth can then be
heated with an iron to develop the image, or treated with nitric acid,
which turns the gluten in flour yellow in a xanthoproteic reaction.
The full story of Colin Berry’s research is quite difficult to follow
on his two websites, but he has recently assembled it all at https://
shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/ to which readers are
directed if they want to find out more about his ideas, his experiments, his
conclusions, and his answers to opponents. His other site is http://colinbsciencebuzz.blogspot.fr.
Although Berry says he has hung up his test tubes for the present,
several loose ends are still available for tying up. Although Ray Rogers
was convinced there was a thin starch coating all over the Shroud, Heller
and Adler, in 1988, didn’t find any. And if the image relates, as the STuRP
team suggested, only to the material of the Shroud and not to any coating
or imprinting medium, then some interaction between the xanthoproteic
events on the medium and the underlying linen should be investigated.

More to follow.  Comments invited (though I can’t guarantee to respond to all of them)…

 

Advertisements
Posted in Shroud of Turin | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

A solution (at last!) to the Turin Shroud – based on my 5 years of continuous experimental research.

 

Note added 28th September, 2017:

Here’s in blue font below is a copy of the final two paragraphs of this posting, which serve as Summary of my TRANSPORT (NOT burial!) Shroud hypothesis. Correction: medieval simulated TRANSPORT “Shroud” …

Well, I’ve said it many, many times before these last 3 years or more, but the message for some reason is failing to sink in. The Shroud of Turin is a 14th century simulation/modelling/reconstruction/mischievous forgery (take your pick)  of what a whole body imprint in sweat and blood of the crucified Jesus onto Joseph of Arimathea’s fine linen, supplied to the cross, formed en route to the rock tomb place of burial, might have looked like some 13 centuries later. It was inspired by the Veil of Veronica, an alleged imprint of the face of Christ onto a proffered piece of  bystander’s cloth acquired en route to the cross. Note the symmetry: first, a facial imprint formed en route to the cross, then, a few hours later, a whole body imprint formed en route from cross to tomb.

There you have it folks. Note that the explanation offered does not require that one accurately models or reproduces the TS blood/body image for it to be true. I regard my flour-imprinting procedure merely as a reasonable approximation, one that can account for several features of the body image especially. But I repeat: acceptance of the ‘transport-shroud’ hypothesis, with rejection of  any significant imprinting post-interment (whether in a 1st or 14th century time-frame) does not depend on getting the image modelling 100% right, or even 10%.  What matters is that medieval artisans set out to ‘trump’ the Veil of Veronica, producing a bigger and better image of the founder of Christianity, and despite the initial setbacks at the hands of the local bishop and Pope, could be said to have been phenomenally successful, given the millions today who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud, thanks to 20th/21st century agenda-driven pseudoscience (groan!).

Start of original posting:

Here’s a new image-modelling result for starters, obtained this very morning:

DSC07540 slightly cropped

 

 

It shows my own hand, sprinkled with an imprinting medium (plain white flour) from above. First, there was  addition of  two enveloping  circles of black adhesive tape (wrist and finger) to show where the flour settles and (more importantly) where it DOES NOT (the vertical sides, as distinct from higher flatter planes).  Note the fairly abrupt transition from horizontal planes – where the flour settles – and the vertical planes – where it doesn’t, with a fuzzy boundary separating the two.

Relevance to the Turin Shroud? One would have needed to read some two years worth of postings on this site since August 2015 to know why I think, and indeed KNOW the relevance. One would need to know that the flour one sees in the above photos can be imprinted onto wet linen, draped over the top of the flour-coated-hand and pressed firmly.  One would need to know that the flour imprint can then be thermally developed in an oven (or glowing charcoal embers?) to produce a resistant yellow or brown NEGATIVE (tone-reversed) image, displaying a 3D-response in the appropriate computer software.

Here’s the initial imprint of my hand from the above pressing, first as seen when removed from the oven.

DSC07576 roasted hand imprint no oil as is

Shroud-like?  Yes, more so after washing, but let’s put the above image into ImageJ (3D-rendering software that converts image density to image height plotted onto an entirely artificial vertical z coordinate):

roasted hand imprint no oil pre wash 3D

 

3D-rendering

 

Yes the contact flour imprint on exposure to heat (radiant heat especially) produced a Shroud-like NEGATIVE (tone-reversed) image with 3D response in the appropriate software! Coincidence? I think not. The Shroud image is also a contact imprint, made with white flour (probably) and not a miraculous ‘selfie’ of the crucified Jesus! Clever these medievals!

More to come, much more. (John Jackson and other proponents of imaging via mystery corpse-generated radiation via one-off  ‘resurrectional incandescence’  I say simply this: BRACE YOURSELVES! The time of reckoning has finally arrived (after some 35 years of your fairly non-stop, self-indulgent blitzing of the media with your fanciful PSEUDOSCIENCE!).

Friday Aug 25

I repeat a question made on this site a few days ago.

Where is there a single shred of evidence that the Shroud body image is anything other than one formed by physical CONTACT alone between  linen and a  human body (or inanimate version of the latter, 3D or bas relief)?

None of the evidence I have encountered thus far for imaging across air gaps (requiring uv, x-ray radiation  or bombardment via sub-atomic particles etc) stands up to close scrutiny. Maybe my scrutiny  has been too close – in which case, please disabuse me quickly of my lack of understanding.

In the meantime, I say this to all you ‘radiationists’  out there and your ilk.  Fantasize by all means. But kindly desist from resorting to pseudoscience. You risk damaging the reputation of  science (real science that is).

The laws of physics and chemistry are just that – laws. They are not there to be re-fashioned to suit your own convenience, far less to pander to the over-impressionable or gullible…

Saturday 26th Aug

Here’s an image that appears in the highly proactive  lawyer (“Test the Shroud”)  Mark Antonacci’s 2000 book entitled “The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical and Archaeological Evidence”. It’s on Page 7 no less, one of the first images to appear in the book:DSC07599 yellow arrow

 

Notice anything unusual, dare one say overlooked, maybe studiously ignored? The pictures are 3D-renderings (VP-8 Image Analyser), dorsal body on the left, frontal on the right.  What’s that to the left of my yellow arrow?  What’s image density doing there, one might ask,  immediately beneath the chin, indeed beneath the recognized ‘beard’,  image density that responds so well to 3D-rendering? Has there been any comment and speculation about so prominent a feature? If so, then this investigator has missed it completely, despite nearly 6 years of continuous reading and research.

It’s the neck of the Man on the Shroud, right? So what’s image density doing on the neck? Isn’t the neck supposed to have been too far below loosely draped linen that ‘tents’ from the tip of the chin to the chest?

Isn’t that what we have been told repeatedly by the ‘radiationists’, promoting their imaging via ‘resurrectional incandescence’, namely that image formation does not require physical contact between body and linen, that imaging can occur across air gaps, decreasing rapidly with distance, ceasing altogether at about 4cm separation?

Would one expect imaging of the neck? Here’s another figure: it’s from Page 39 of Antonacci’s book.  It would suggest there should be little if any imaging of the neck:

DSC07596 cropped

 

Yes, there’s that sizeable gap between linen and body in the neck area, surely at least 4cm in height. Look too at the ‘microdensitometer intensity plot’ above the recumbent figure. Note the way that image intensity falls precipitately from chin, moving left to right, and only starts to re-build when the linen meets the chest.

So why the “ruff” on the 3D-image of the neck region?

What about the Shroud body image prior to 3D rendering? Does it show zero, low or high image intensity in the neck region, relative to chin and chest?

Again. let’s look at a third image from Antonacci’s book:

DSC07598 yellow arrow

 

So what’s that region of high image intensity doing on the neck for the ‘as is’ negative image shown on the right, to the left of my yellow arrow?

It should surely not be there, based on the ‘loosely draped linen’ model of John Jackson and others. based on his “correlation paper” of 1983, based also on that microdensitometer plot above. But it is, and it’s  plain for all to see  in the 3D rendering, yet seems to have been ignored completely (ah, those inconvenient facts!).   But it wasn’t ignored by this investigator some 4 and a half years ago. Indeed, it was the subject of a posting all to itself in Feb 2013.

Here’s a pair of side-by-side images from that paper:

The right side side shows a Shroud Scope image of the face (added contrast). Note the dark zone (labelled “neck?”) with a paler zone separating it from the chin (and ‘crease’).

The image on the left is a doctored version of the same, showing what one might have expected, given the size of the air gap in the ‘loosely draped linen’ model.

Why the discrepancy between model and actual image? The answer should be obvious: the model is wrong, and even the data supporting it, which fails to flag up the ‘neck anomaly’

There was NO loosely draped linen, at least in the neck region. Regardless of whether the subject was a real face, living or dead, or an inanimate facsimile thereof , the linen did NOT drape loosely. The nature of the image suggests that the linen was PRESSED firmly onto the neck, and less firmly to the underside of the chin to account for the pattern seen.

Manual pressing of linen is not totally inconsistent with authenticity. One could (idly) specuate that a band  had been manually secured in place at neck level to prevent sliding of cadaver within shroud during transport from cross to tomb.  But there’s another scenario that needs to be considered, nay SHOULD have been considered before settling with indecent haste on the ‘loosely-draped’ model, namely medieval ‘forgery’ (or as I prefer to say, medieval simulation of a body (sweat/ newish blood) imprint acquired on Joseph of Arimathea’s linen en route from cross to tomb. The notion of imaging across air gaps via some kind of (still undefined) electromagnetic radiation, corona discharge, sub-atomic particles etc is totally, and I mean TOTALLY unscientific!

Tomorrow I shall take a brief look at that splendid but much-neglected pdf produced by Bernard Power in 2002 which, despite an error in the author’s  asides on chromophore chemistry, frankly puts the Shroudie ‘radiationists’ to shame for its attention to the detailed SCIENCE  requirements and limitations of imaging across air gaps via radiation.

Sunday Aug 27

I’ve changed my mind. Sindonology is just one vast echo chamber, with scarcely anything coming back, except one’s own voice.

Yup, I could summarise some of the key points raised in that  Bernard Power analysis, and request that today’s  radiationists respond to the points he raised. But they won’t. They simply deliver their set pieces, ignoring the detailed physics and chemistry, ignoring the voices of sceptics and critics. I could also pick up on Power’s recognition that a form of electromagnetic radiation (microwave) that of itself has insufficient energy to break chemical bonds could (theoretically at any rate) still play a role in image formation via its generalised thermal effect, triggering chemical reactions that would not otherwise take place at ordinary environmental temperatures on account of the absence of the necessary ‘activation energy’ needed to surmount the energy hump. I could then cross-reference with my own modified Model 10 that features the more energetic infrared radiation – incident radiation I hasten to add from a medieval bed of hot charcoal or similar –  and give hints as to my latest thinking re ‘hotspots’ on the flour-imprinted linen that preferentially absorb rather than reflect infrared radiation (wheat bran particles?). But I’m now minded not to bother. Sindonology frankly does not give a toss for the detailed science, being entirely about promoting its ‘resurrectional incandescence’ agenda* to the general public via a cooperative or compliant media. Science and pseudoscience do not mix. Internet debate and the general mass media do not mix. As for Google’s so-called search engine, read systematically-biased pro-authenticity click-bait e-commerce directory, words fail me…

If there’s anyone out there who wants to discuss or debate the detailed science, then I’m here, ready and willing to participate. But I’m no longer willing to talk to myself (excluding sole respondent Hugh Farey,  Editor  of the BSTS Newsletter – see most recent comments).

*  Am I the only one to think that incandescence/dematerialization would make a lot more sense in the context of the final one-way Ascension (to heaven) than Resurrection, given there would need to be energy-ABSORBING reversal of resurrectional dematerialization? (See Gospel accounts of the various post-resurrectional encounters between the Risen Christ and his disciples etc). 

September 17, 2017

IMG_0015 The Shroud Conspiracy with my markers of Veronica Veil induced 'miracles'

 

See my own comment regarding this crass so-called novel, which I’m loath to advertise (given its conjuring up THREE modern-day miracles no less enacted by a Vatican archive employee, into whose hands has fallen (allegedly) the  entire Veil of Veronica, tucked into a pocket of a long-lost volume).  Shame on  Simon and Schuster for publishing this tosh…

Tuesday 19th Sept, 2017

Some folk have asked if I’m bothered by the slow (or, as some would say, non-existent) take-up of my modelling studies on the Shroud. Answer: yes, but not unduly. Why not? Well, here’s a clue – the second paragraph in the Introduction to a paper that appeared last year, addressing  “resistant starch” a subject this retired biochemist/food scientist worked upon years ago – some 30-40 years  to be precise while Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at the (then Chorleywood-based) FMBRA:

 

The debranching enzyme, pullulanase is gaining popularity in the processes of starch conversion. Berry (1986) reported that amylopectin of potato starch when debranched using pullulanase before applying heating and cooling cycles considerably improved the RS3 content. The increased degree of debranching would give chains a more opportunity to align and aggregate to form perfect crystalline structure, thereby leading to the formation of more RS.

Yup, a finding I reported back in 1986 is only now “gaining popularity”!

Here’s a screen shot of the 2016 paper in question, coming from a Saudi institute.

 

saudi paper 2016 resistant starch pullulanase

And here’s a screenshot of my 1986 paper:

 

Berry 1986 resistant starch pullulanase

 

Here’s my current listing on a Google search under (dietary fibre resistant starch):

 

screen grab from google my resistant starch paper 1986

523 Citations?  Peanuts – given they have accumulated over a mere 30+ years !  Or there again… What’s the opposite of ‘ephemera’, that eternal blight  (oops) of sindonology?

Yup, one needs to take a long-term view where scientific research is concerned!  Anyone who expects instant attention and interest in their latest thinking is definitely in the wrong line of business! If not pearls before swine, think shiny semi-precious stones before blinkered mules…

 

Thursday Sept 21

Might there be a way of  chemically testing my medieval-era flour-based “toastograph” hypothesis for image formation? Answer: yes, in principle, though it would need some excised body image fibres from the Shroud, and would regrettably be destructive.

Would such a test, based on confirming the presence or absence of  high molecular weight melanoidins  (NOT chemically modified cellulose!) as the image chromophore,  allow one to distinguish my flour-derived end-product from that of the naturalistic 1st century purified starch/volatile amine-derived product proposed by STURP’s Raymond N.Rogers in his post-mortem putrefaction model – he being the first to propose melanoidins as body-image chromophore ? Answer: probably yes, at least in principle.

Experimental details can be provided here (on request). 

In the meantime, here’s a link to a 1984 paper (Dutch/Israeli authorship) that provides a clue to the promising ‘chemical-fingerprinting’ technology.

curie point pms 1984

Saturday 23rd September

A unique feature of my flour imprinting/melanoidin Model 10 is the ‘mobile chromophore’ hypothesis, with migration of the yellow pigment as a LIQUID initially, probably within rather than merely on the surface of fibres.

It was mooted as long ago as August 2015 on Dan Porter’s now retired shroudstory site. (See comments especially).  Experimentally it’s tricky, very tricky as I’ve found to my cost, needing a lot more work, but will be aided hopefully (a) by my two new microscopes and (b) with a new Canon digital camera that is proving better at capturing what one sees down the eye piece. (The image-capture software that came with one of the microscopes is simply dreadful!).

The main challenge will be to see how image chromophore is able to migrate from one side of the weave to the other, leaving little trace of its whereabouts en route between contact and non-contact side of the linen. I shall shamelessly make full use of the contrast-enhancement tool on my graphics software, notwithstanding the uneasiness expressed by Dan Porter as regards artificial contrast in the link to that 2015 posting! One is dealing with an exceedingly faint yellow chromophore,  at least when seen at the individual fibre level – so adding contrast – making it progressively darker tones of brown – becomes a no-brainer!

The ultimate aim is to arrive at a further diagnostic tool with which to implicate a Model 10  imprinting mechanism for the actual Shroud of Turin. That depends needless to say on there being a return visit to Turin by STURP ensemble Mk2, not restricted next time to Stateside researchers only! Far too many of the latter were not true (i.e., ideas-driven) researchers, but mere instrumentation specialists, unconcerned about having no hypothesis to test, apart from the tedious “it’s probably just a painting”).

Sunday 24th September: Can someone please explain to me how a team of 30+ physicists, engineers, chemists, photographers etc could have closed their eyes to the obvious – namely that a tone-reversed, i.e. “negative” image that predated photography by hundreds of years should have been seen in the first instance as a CONTACT imprint, NOT a painting or proto-photograph. That’s especially the case, given the artefact is life-size, both frontal v dorsal surfaces of supposedly the same subject, and bearing biological material suggestive of contact, namely blood (or “blood”) even if that latter ingredient had been painted rather than imprinted. The working assumption that the body image as well as blood was acquired from a free-hand artist’s paint brush – without serious consideration being given to a more obvious alternative – doth simply pass all understanding! Talk about closing one’s eyes to the obvious – or being blinded by minimalist overhyped “science” as it existed back in 1978.

Wed 27th September

Realization (unflattering  I have to say to  mainstream sindonology)  has set in where current and past promotion of the TS is concerned.

I’m thinking of the supposed conceptual links – as one might reasonably take for granted – between the Shroud on the one hand and the biblical Joseph of Arimathea’s “fine linen”on the other, delivered to the site of crucifixion to receive  the body  directly from the cross as temporary transport stretcher, No,  NOT delivered to the the final resting place (rock tomb) as if the biblical linen had been intended  to serve as the permanent burial shroud. Sorry to have to repeat myself…

I’m working my way as we speak through two  previously highly quoted  pro-authenticity text books , seeking out those rare mentions of J of A.

I say, if you want to understand  the TS, then THINK JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA if it’s biblical authority you seek or insist upon.

There is now no doubt in my mind whatsoever that  pro-authenticity ‘sindonology’ has been a huge smoke-and-mirrors distraction  exercise, one that can’t even be bothered to acknowledge, far less  respect, the biblical account regarding J of A’s ” fine linen”, despite the Shroud’s expensive herringbone weave).

Sindonology tries to fast-forward from delivery of a crucified body from the cross into J of A’s linen quickly onto that aforementioned  rock tomb,  and then (pause for further fast forward) to that supposedly whole-body imaging  via ‘resurrectional incandescence ‘ on the third day.

Shame about those pre-existing blood stains complicating the narrative! Cue that little known branch of medicine known as sindonological post-mortem bleeding…

More to come when I’ve finished searching those  two books for references, however slight, to Joseph of Arimathea. One thing’s for certain – he was clearly no star turn where sindonology is concerned.  I wonder why …

Thursday 28th September

Task 1:  have just re-read John Heller’s 1983 “Report on the Shroud of Turin” from cover to cover (all 225 pages, sadly no index).

john heller report shroud turin

Care to guess how many mentions are given to that Joseph of Arimathea (you know, the respected elder who supplied the “fine” or “clean” linen that is the sole biblical corroboration for the involvement of a single sheet of fabric?) One would expect at least one, correct? Indeed, one might expect more than one if there were some discussion as to what would have been considered fine linen in the 1st century, maybe with some information on then current weaving technology (herringbone weave etc).

Be prepared for a surprise. There are NO mentions, not a single one. There was no attempt to fit the pro-authenticity narrative – one that ever so gradually  makes its appearance towards the end of Heller’s book – with the biblical narrative, notably the involvement of that key figure with his strategic purchase.

Why not?  Maybe someone can someone explain to this dullard why that should not have been considered desirable, indeed essential, if writing a book ostensibly on the SHROUD of Turin.?

Task 2: re-read Mark Antonacci’s  (2000) “The Resurrection of the Shroud” from cover to cover, all 328 pages no less.  This later book looks more promising, given the reproduction on the front cover of the Deposition from the Cross of the crucified Jesus into Joseph of Arimathea’s linen. (credited as 16th century, by Della Rovere).

antonacci resurrection of shroud

And there’s an Index this time, which should surely have at least a few entries by name to the supplier of the fine linen in that painting.

Oh dear. Joseph of Arimathea does not appear in the Index!  So, once again, it’s a case of laboriously  (re-) reading Antonacci’s book from cover to cover, marking any and all pages that mention our man.

There are just 4 mentions: Pages 117,119, and Pages 261/262 (Appendix B).

Let’s just make a brief aside before quoting the actual words. One the back cover, there are recommendations from various folk. Here, verbatim, blue font, is the first (my italics at the end):

“What a splendid irony it would be if science, after opposing religion for centuries, should finally provide the strongest confirmation of biblical claims! Mark Antonacci, a lawyer trained to evaluate evidence, uses science itself to rebut the arguments against the authenticity of the Turin Shroud (including the widely publicized carbon dating), and also to show it corroborates not only the crucifixion of Christ, but even his resurrection

-E.La B.Cherbonnier, Professor of Religion Emeritus, Trinity College, Hartford, CT

Er, yes, but let’s not forget that resurrection did not follow instantly from crucifixion. There were those intermediate steps involving J of A’s linen – deposition from the cross, transport to the rock tomb, preliminary preparations for burial etc. Presumably Mark Antonacci would have addressed those on one or more of the 4  of 328 pages where Joseph of Arimathea gets a specific mention, not only as supplier of the linen, but using it personally to receive, transport etc the crucified body from cross to tomb.

Does he?

The two mentions in the Appendix B can safely be ignored, being simply biblical references linking Joseph of Arimathea with “myrrh and aloes”. Folk have looked for traces of those on the Shroud and drawn a blank. So we can now proceed to focus our beady-eyed gaze solely upon what Mark Antonacci has/had to say on Pages 117 and 119.

Verbatim cut-and-paste – Page  117  (blue font):

Several very convincing arguments refute assertions that Jesus’ body was washed. In the first place, the burial that Jesus received was hurried and incomplete. It was the Day of Preparation and the Sabbath was approaching, and all work had to cease before sundown. Not only was this the Sabbath, but this particular Sabbath was also the Passover, one of the holiest of all Jewish occasions.
It was already evening when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-58, Mark 15:42-43). This would have been at least a 10 minute journey (and possibly longer because of the crowds gathered for the Passover). There most likely would have been some additional delay in gaining an audience with Pilate, and even further delay as Pilate awaited confirmation of Jesus’ death from the centurion (Mark 15:44-45). Since the release of the body would have involved a legal act of some importance, more than likely a document of release would have been prepared as well, especially since the Jews had sought permission a short time before to have the bodies of the crucified taken away (John 19:31). Joseph of Arimathea then had to proceed back to Golgotha, purchase a linen shroud along the way, take the body down from the cross, and transport it to the tomb…

So, here we are regaled with all the time-consuming steps involved in getting a body from cross to tomb (for reasons that do not concern us for now). Suffice it to say that no mention is made of the importance of that step from cross to tomb, one where an unwashed  body was transferred direct from cross to J of A’s fine linen, when there would have been what might have been at least Stage 1 imprinting of shed blood and probably much else besides, notably body sweat. Yet neither John Heller (earlier) nor Mark Antonacci considers that early imprinting opportunity to warrant attention, merely glossing over the transport step, loading the narrative with other distracting detail.

Why this black hole at the very start of the process that led from real body on cross to image of body deposited on a sheet of linen?  It simply beggars belief that folk would take the trouble to write lengthy books that skim over the first few hours of the most crucial period where the alleged history of the Shroud is concerned. Why have both authors failed to do justice to that crucial part of the narrative? Was it by accident, or was it by design?

It’s time to put my cards on the table. No, correction: my cards were put on the table almost 3 years ago when first articulating an alternative to the TS as a “burial shroud”, suggesting instead what I described as a ‘new paradigm’, namely that it should be seen as a ‘pre-burial’ TRANSPORT shroud, with image as sweat/blood imprint being acquired, whether authentically (or more probably via medieval simulation) in the course of TRANSPORT between cross and tomb.  Needless to say, that notion did not come as music to the ears of those who make their living from claiming that the Shroud body image defies scientific explanation, that ipso facto it did not arrive until the instant of Resurrection!

Yes, it’s nigh on 3 years since this researcher first proposed that the TS was a medieval simulation of a sweat/blood image left on Joseph of Arimathea’s linen while being transported from cross to tomb (indecorously referred to as a ‘body-bag’).

The Makeshift Body Bag of Turin

Sindonology does not challenge it, and indeed ignores it, hoping it will reach as few eyes and ears as possible. Body imaging during transport, whether real (1st century) or as I prefer to say, simulated (14th century) deflates sindonology’s  garish party balloon, the one labelled resurrectional incandescence.

My transport model is testable. Indeed, the flour-imprinting model is/was an attempt to think like a medieval, asking how best to simulate an ancient sweat imprint onto linen, to produce a negative, 3D-enhancible image with the peculiar microscopic properties at thread and fibre level matching those of the Shroud.

Yes, the flour-imprinting model is testable, unlike resurrectional incandescence which isn’t, and indeed is pseudo-science posturing as science. That pro-authenticity sindonology should totally ignore rival models tells one all one needs to know about sindonology. It’s the preserve of closed minds, intent on pushing an agenda that is about mystifying things that are in principle, practice or both capable of rational explanation. Repeat: sindonology has a self-imposed mission to mystify.

Well, I’ve said it many, many times before these last 3 years or more, but the message for some reason is failing to sink in. The Shroud of Turin is a 14th century simulation/modelling/reconstruction/mischievous forgery (take your pick)  of what a whole body imprint in sweat and blood of the crucified Jesus onto Joseph of Arimathea’s fine linen, supplied to the cross, formed en route to the rock tomb place of burial, might have looked like some 13 centuries later. It was inspired by the Veil of Veronica, an alleged imprint of the face of Christ onto a proffered piece of  bystander’s cloth acquired en route to the cross. Note the symmetry: first, a facial imprint formed en route to the cross, then, a few hours later, a whole body imprint formed en route from cross to tomb.

There you have it folks. Note that the explanation offered does not require that one accurately models or reproduces the TS blood/body image for it to be true. I regard my flour-imprinting procedure merely as a reasonable approximation, one that can account for several features of the body image especially. But I repeat: acceptance of the ‘transport-shroud’ hypothesis, with rejection of  any significant imprinting post-interment (whether in a 1st or 14th century time-frame) does not depend on getting the image modelling 100% right, or even 10%.  What matters is that medieval artisans set out to ‘trump’ the Veil of Veronica, producing a bigger and better image of the founder of Christianity, and despite the initial setbacks at the hands of the local bishop and Pope, could be said to have been phenomenally successful, given the millions today who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud, thanks to 20th/21st century agenda-driven pseudoscience (groan!).

 

End of posting. 

The final two paragraphs,  constituting a summary of sorts, have been copied/pasted to the start of the posting by way of Introduction.

 

Posted in Shroud of Turin, shroud of turin,, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Does an imprint of my unquestionably human hand onto fabric possess UNIQUE 3D properties (like, er, that supposedly ‘supernatural’ Turin Shroud) ?

Yes, my ageing hand DOES have (seemingly) unique properties, ones that match the “unique” 3D  properties of the Turin Shroud (TS).

(OK, my hand and the TS can’t both be unique, so let’s qualify by saying  my hand and the Turin Shroud must now be considered ‘co-unique’.  Others reading this seditious nonsense are invited to do the following experiment to see if they too get the same result as mine.

Here’s what you newcomers have to do, in pictures.

First, get some dark-coloured fabric. I used a pair of old jeans. Then sit a supply of tap water alongside. Do when the rest of the family is out of the house to be spared worried inquisitions.

DSC07416

Then immerse one’s hand in the water:

DSC07417

Then press palm down onto the dark fabric:

DSC07419

Then remove hand to view dark imprint:

DSC07420

 

It’s obviously an imprint, right, not a painting. The non-imprinted parts are the giveaway, to say nothing of lack of detail, depth, form etc: they tell one immediately that it’s an imprint, not a painting (Charles Freeman and others, still living, please note).

DSC07426

Optionally. one can wet the back of the hand and try imprinting that too alongside, as shown above, though it’s not as easy as simply pressing the palm down (having to turn the wrist etc).

Now download ImageJ (3D-rendering) software onto one’s laptop, as I did some 5 years ago (successfully) while having difficulty doing so onto a new  Windows 10 computer (which tries to get me to sign up to a WinZip “free trial”, “limited period” etc  etc.).

First, upload your  ‘as is’ image of your hands into the 3D section of the software (not  especially easy to find if a newcome , details later).

Here’s what you see using what I call, ‘minimalist’ settings, visible on the surrounding frame:

front v back hand pre-inversion then 3d tick in box cropped

3D rendering in ImageJ of water-imprinted hand onto dark fabric, palm (left), back hand (right)

So, with the simplest of imprinting medium (plain water from a tap ) one gets apparent (entirely IT-created)  3D images from one’s  hand, both palm side down, or back of hand.

Decoding of “encoded 3D information” from one’s hand, as claimed for the Turin Shroud body image?

Nope. It’s the IT photo-editing software that does the  3D imaging, correction VIRTUAL 3D imaging, not, repeat NOT,   the 3D subject itself  (unless able amazingly to survive flooding with water!).

More to follow shortly  (like response in ImageJ  of the Secondo Pia-style tone-reversed ‘negative’ images –  and much else besides.  It really needs saying – time and time again – if only to counter the steady unending stream of sindonological misinformation, most recently from one paper in particular, as yet abstract only,  from the Stateside Pasco, Wa,  International Shroud Conference, July 19-22, 2017 ) to the effect that the Shroud body image has unique ‘encoded’ distance information, responsible for it’s so-called “3D properties”.

No, the Shroud image responds to 3D-rendering software programs in essentially  the same way as other entirely man-made imprints, whether or not the latter have a 3D history.

Sunday, Aug 13

How many have spotted another point of similarity between the Shroud body image  and that of the image left by a wet hand on a dark fabric?

Answer: the body image is a slightly darker yellow than the linen. My hand produced a darker grey than the dry denim. So the latter can be thought of as a grayscale (US spelling) version of the Shroud body image. So how does it respond to a Secondo Pia-style  tone inversion i.e. treating a photograph of the Shroud as if a negative image on a photographic plate, and converting to a photographic positive by tone-inversion? (It was the result of SP’s tone inversion that was largely responsible for the 20th century fascination with Shroud and resort to notions of miraculous ‘photographic’ imaging not just by contact but across air gaps via a one-off outburst of some kind of energetic radiation. (The precise nature of the latter  is rarely if ever specified even when the theoretical need for air attenuation is recognized to produce so-called “distance” information!).

front v back of hand inverted 3d no tick invert box cropped

 

So, my hands now look slightly more life-like now, one might reasonably think, at least in terms of tones (I hesitate to say colour) with pale skin against a darker background, closer to what one might see if one had taken a black-and-white photograph of white Anglo-Saxon hands against a dark background. (Shame about the bulbous ends to the fingers on the complete left image, imprinted palm-side down – more on that later).

Two questions need to be addressed:

1:  Is the 3D response due in whole or in part to the ‘template’ (my hand) having 3D character?

2:  How was the Shroud image formed , with its so-called “unique encoded 3D properties”, that description now comprehensively debunked. Could it have been via simple imprinting, with a wet imprinting medium more advanced than simple tap water? Or do those theories of “resurrectional incandescence” producing the world’s first photograph,  correction, negative proto-photograph, still need to be given serious consideration?

No. 1 can be dealt with very quickly. A simple exercise with MS Paint shows that 3D character is NOT required of an imprinted subject to produce a 3D response, at least in ImageJ:

1. stars with increasing brown

The above image was created in MS Paint, so has no 3D history or character whatsoever.

Here’s the same after uploading to Image J, with default setting of the height control (z=0.1) with oblique angle viewing , and adjustment of the “Lighting” control to produce virtual shadowing:

 

stars optimized 3D in imagej

 

Added note: I have a small photoarchive showing what ImageJ does to even simpler shapes – circles, squares, triangles etc – with varying degrees of adjustment to the key controls (smoothing, lighting, viewing angle especially). I’ll display them as an Appendix to this posting if anyone’s interested.

It cannot be said too often: the so-called “3D properties” of the Shroud image  is a misnomer if referring to the 3D response in computer software that is specifically designed to give 3D character to 2D images. The 3D response is no “miracle”. It’s the result of projecting  a map of 2D image density onto an entirely artificial z scale (perpendicular to the xy plane) where each pixel is raised to a height in proportion to its image density. ImageJ creates 3D. It does not seek out and decode entirely conjectural  ‘encoded 3D’, the latter being a sindonological flight of fancy that has no scientific basis whatsoever as the above experiments demonstrate. Yet still we hear the “uniqueness” of the Shroud’s 3D response being trotted out at international Shroud conferences as if a given, one that must never be challenged. Did the original sponsors of that view ever experiment themselves with 3D imaging software, providing it with simple shapes and imprints as I have done, learning to distinguish between subject and software?   Probably not. They read too much into other people’s claims based on first impressions rather than hard data, coloured by preconceptions, not objectively assessed and interpreted.  See especially John Heller’s post-STURP 1983 book for glaring examples either in text or picture captions.  More on that later.

2:  The Shroud a “photographic negative”? Who says (currently). Well. there’s Stephen E .Jones on his true-believer site, but since I’m a non-person in his book, I shall not link directly, adding to his prominence in search engines, and suggest that those interested in his highly partisan line of reasoning enter the following into an internet search:

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2016

Negative #19: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

Yes, there he states categorically that the Shroud image is not just negative but a PHOTOGRAPHIC negative.

He of course is not alone in applying the same flawed logic –  namely that if an image behaves like a photographic negative, i.e. one that can be tone-reversed to make a more life-like positive, at least for white Caucasians, then,  ipso facto,  it MUST be a PHOTOGRAPHIC negative, that then providing the green light for OTT speculation re ‘resurrectional incandescence on the third day.  (That’s conveniently assuming that the crucified Jesus was still in Joseph of Arimathea’s ‘clean linen’ used to transport the newly deceased sweat/blood laden body from cross to tomb, ignoring the indications from the fourth Gospel that the body was then transferred from J of A’s impromptu stretcher to more specialized burial garments. )

AsI say, it’s flawed logic. Negative images have existed for as long as wet or dust/mud laden skin has been pressed against cloth. They weren’t described as such, merely as “imprints”. Sindonology does not reject the idea of actual contact between skin and fabric, just as long as it’s still photography across a zero air gap, not requiring a physical imprinting medium (unless blood!). Bodily sweat rarely if ever get a look in, despite it being the common-sensical interpretation of a life-size double-body imprint onto expensive herringbone weave linen, one that looks like an imprint (NOT a painting) with upper and lower surfaces but no sides. The idea that the Shroud body image is a contact imprint ONLY (no photographic imaging) is simply not on sindonology’s radar screen – it doesn’t allow for speculation on resurrectional incandescence or other one-off supernatural inputs that enhance the relic’s credentials as the real “burial” shroud.  (Shhh, don’t mention my assertion above that an ad hoc transport shroud  – intended to confer post mortem dignity while the body – probably naked, certainly bloodied – was still on open display  to the public –  need not have have doubled as the final burial shroud as well, and thus have been handily available for single-sheet resurrectional imprinting followed by 20 centuries of near-perfect storage, free of mildew, insects etc, bar the occasional outbreak of fire).

 

More to follow, the following topics especially:

(a) The shroud non-spread fingers – supportive evidence for imprinting by contact only – no protophotography across tiny air gaps AND evidence for a dry imprinting medium, not wet.

(c) evidence via photoediting software for a heterogeneous/microparticulate nature of the Shroud body image, hardly consistent with protophotogaphy via any kind of uniform radiation, but entirely consistent, indeed predictable, from imprinting with a particulate medium, whether used wet or dry.

Still Sunday am

Let’s address point (a) above – those fingers on the Shroud, usually commented on for their bony, spindly nature, with OTT speculation regarding X-ray imaging etc. My treatment will be more down-to-earth, based on imprinting by direct contact, no air gap.

Here first is the as-is image of those crossed hands from Shroud Scope, i.e. no added contrast (or, as I prefer to say, no restoration of removed contrast – don’t ask):

1. shroud scope hands higher of two mags

 

Here’s the same after tone-inversion in ImageJ. (I guess I should really be using grayscale photoediting  for comparability with Secondo Pia’s spectacular  negative-to-positive conversion, but prefer to stick with what I’m familiar with which gives at least qualitatively the same result).

2. shroud scope hands higher of two mags then invert imagej

 

Now let’s put the two side by side, and upload to ImageJ, using  minimal smoothing and optimized lighting and image orientation:

 

comapre my hand v shroud hands both inv after 3D

So, there were no major differences as regards “3D-ness”, not that it was the principal purpose of the exercise, though maybe surprising nonetheless, given the Shroud Scope image was being compared with a simple water-imprint of my hands!

No, the purpose of the exercise was to enquire what the hands on the Shroud body image might suggest as regards the mechanism of imaging. Clearly there’s nothing so far that would or should immediately discount simple contact-imaging, and certainly  no need to go invoking  supernatural mechanisms that require protophotography via ‘resurrectional incandescence’. Indeed, the opposite might be said to be true. Why?

Monday Aug 14

To those fingers – and what they can maybe tell us about mechanism of imaging – direct contact-only imprinting or radiation scorching, whether in contact OR across air gaps

Here’s a simple diagram of 4 non-spread fingers in cross section, showing the hard bony interiors (white centres), pressing onto dark fabric,

bony fingers 1 underlying black fabric

Now observe the tiny unoccupied air gaps, shown in red:

bony fingers 1 underlying black fabric red infills for air spaces

Now consider the imprint those fingers would leave on the fabric, whether using plain water or a more sophisticated imprinting medium. There would be gaps in the imprint, needless to say, corresponding with those unoccupied air gaps in the crevices between the fingers, as shown in the higher of the two schematic diagrams below, labelled “contact imprint”.

bony fingers 1 underlying black fabric red infills for air spaces final labelled

But would that be the image deposited if the image were to be scorched onto the fabric by some kind of radiation emanating from the fingers?

 

It’s not for this sceptic to stipulate what would happen in a model that he simply cannot accept as scientific (which doesn’t make it wrong, merely unscientific). But we’re told that the image density of the Shroud is consistent with imaging across air gaps. Moreover we’re told those gaps can be as long as 4cm approx (without the wavelength being specified!). So there should be no obvious reason for thinking there would be negligible imaging across those tiny air gaps shown red, given they are a few mm deep at most, right (?), especially as they have the man’s stomach  pubic region lying immediately underneath, presumably radiating  energy into and through those crevices between the fingers.

See then the second schematic in the above diagram, the one labelled “radiation scorch” where there IS imaging between the fingers, albeit less intense, maybe getting fainter towards the centres of the gaps.

Now look at the hands and fingers on the Shroud body image.

First, here’s the Shroud Scope image, “as is”,  with no additional contrast:

hands scope

There are obvious gaps between those fingers!

Here’s another view with a high degree of added contrast (MS Office Picture Manager):

hands as is for non-zeke enhancement, 0,100,-40,100,-100

 

So, the TS image of the fingers is precisely what one would expect to see as a result of imprinting via physical contact only. One could go further: some have described the fingers as being “too long, too spindly”. The latter of those is easily explained: the underlying metatarsal  bone in each finger is hard and unyielding, so it may be mainly the skin that directly overlies the bone that gets preferentially imprinted.

Can the radiationists account for the appearance above? Maybe, maybe not, but if rhe existing literature is anything to go by, layfolk may find they get quickly lost, with references to collimated radiation, orthogonally-projected from the body in a manner that is aligned with the Earth’s gravitational field!

Yup, see this abstract from Bob Rucker, co-organizer/speaker at the recent Pasco WA conference, presented Saturday July 22 this year. (My italics):

10:15 am to 11:00 am “Role of Information and Radiation in Image Formation” by Bob Rucker.

To understand the image on the Shroud, it is necessary to understand the role of information and radiation. Three things were required to form the image on the Shroud: a discolorization mechanism, energy to drive the mechanism, and information to control the mechanism. The information that defines the appearance of a naked crucified man must have been deposited on the Shroud to control the discolorization mechanism. This information must have come from the body. The only option to transported or communicated this information from the body to the Shroud appears to be radiation. Other options for communicating information from one location to another would not work for the image on the Shroud. The radiation that communicated the information to the Shroud regarding the appearance of a naked crucified man could also have provided the required energy to drive the discoloration mechanism. The presence of bones in the Shroud image indicates that the radiation was evidently emitted from within the body. The good resolution images of the front and back of the body, without side images, indicates the radiation was evidently vertically collimated both up and down, like a million vertically oriented lasers going off at once in the body.

**********

Sorry, Bob. I prefer my imaging by direct imprinting only, and am still waiting to hear a good reason for discounting that simple and dare I say SCIENTIFIC explanation.  (Scientific because it’s testable in the laboratory – or even, dare one say, kitchen or garage).

 

Tuesday Aug 15

oscilloscope you tube

Here’s a video-still with (among other things)  Pete Schumacher twiddling the knobs on his VP-8 machine. In the YouTube clip (not his, but a visitor’s to his Alamogordo dedicated  Shroud exhibition) we see a 3D-rendered image made to rotate on what looks like a TV monitor -though it’s really the electron-gun/phosphor-coated screen hardware of a TV – the oscilloscope/CRT that is is being utilized for image display.

Why am I showing it here and now? Well, there’s the resort to another  VP-8 (frankly a museum piece in my view) by retired forensic scientist Janis Winchester in her Pasco paper – see earlier- and Hugh Farey has just come in on Comments (to an earlier posting) making reference to that oscilloscope (pointing out its independence from the computer). So I’ll shortly C/P the above image to my reply.

Tip for VP-8 tourists/historians: Pete Schumacher  had to vacate the shopping mall which first hosted his Shroud exhibition. He’s now in a new home, still in Alamogordo, NM.

Sill Tuesday 15 Aug

It’s time now to move on from that simplest of imprinting media – plain tap water – and return to this investigator’s preferred one, developed in Model 10 (Aug 2015) – namely dry white flour, imprinted onto wet linen, then irradiated with infrared (“heat waves”).

Why? Because I am not quite finished with that comment in the Pasco abstract from Janis Winchester, the one that read:

The unique feature is the 3D appearance from the 2D photograph of the Shroud of Turin. No other photograph shows this characteristic.

To which my response bears a pantomime quality, namely “Oh yes there is!”. What’s more, it’s seen in my current experimentation with flour imprinting, as the following series of pictures will I hope demonstrate to the satisfaction of all but the most diehard pro-authenticity fanatic.

Let’s start with a photo of my hand alongside a final washed  irradiated flour imprint of the same (dare one say Shroud-like as regards colour, fuzziness etc?)

1. DSC07355 washed hand imprint

 

Now let’s do a tone inversion, which converts the imprint from negative to positive (but NOT a photographic positive, being derived in the first instance from an imprint, not a photograph, whether real, proto-, quasi, crypto, faux, pseudo etc etc).

2. DSC07355 washed hand imprint inverted

The image on the right now looks arguably more like a photograph, albeit somewhat blurred (it would benefit from some additional contrast)  than does the imprint, but let’s not go wild.

Here are the two previous pictures  enlarged, side by side, which may assist with interpreting what follows.

3. hands

Now let’s apply 3D rendering in ImageJ, with and without  tick in the box top right labelled “Invert”.

4. hands invert in 3D rendering tick in box

(a) with tick in Invert box

5. hands no invert in 3d rendering

(b) minus a tick in Invert box

(Technical note: the tick is needed in the box when one wishes to promote the darker tones of a negative imprint – or any other image for that matter.  If it’s not ticked the software not only promotes the lighter tones, but pushes darker ones into a sunken well below the plane of the image!

One leaves the box unticked for non-negative images.

So, with two kinds of image – positive photograph AND negative imprint –  it was necessary to test with box ticked and unticked, albeit with production of two sunken images (No 4 and No 6, reading left to right.).

No.2 and No. 8 show 3D rendering of the imprint, either “as is” imprint with tick in the Invert box, and tone-reversed imprint without tick (think self-cancellation in the second instance).

None of that comes as a surprise, essentially reproducing what one can obtain with the simplest water imprint. But look at No. 3 and No. 4. There one sees 3D enhancement of the photograph of my hand, not the imprint. No.3 is the tone-reversed photo, with a tick in the box, since it’s now a negative, and No.4 is the photo of my hand without a tick in the Invert box.

In other words, one CAN obtain 3D rendering of a simple photo of a human hand, as distinct from rendering, provided one ticks the right boxes in one’s 3D-rendering program.

So how did the idea arise that ordinary photos don’t respond, or, if they do, are hideously distorted?

John Heller (RIP) may be partly to blame on account of what he said in his 1983 book (see below). But note too that No.1 in my series does indeed show a poor 3D response, obtained when a photo of the hand is uploaded to ImageJ with settings (including a tick in that Invert box) that are optimized for the Shroud image – a negative. Those settings are NOT optimised for the much brighter photograph of a light-reflective hand, a situation that can be rectified, as shown here, either by tone-reversal of the photograph (making it a pseudo-negative) or by  unticking the Invert box as appropriate.

I’m sure this could have been said in fewer words.  Apols for your time and patience. Hopefully the meaning is clear.

Incidentally, one obvious reason why photos respond badly unless tone-inverted is as follows. The photos were taken with angled incident light, such that apparent form and 3D-ness  become  accentuated by shadowing, making a more photogenic image. But the software has no way of distinguishing between darker skin tones and shadows of lighter skin tones – both get promoted when there’s a tick in that Invert box optimised for  the Shroud and other negative images. Result: image distortion, rather than convincing 3D.

Still Tuesday:

My photo of a plate/accompanying caption  (page unnumbered) from book by John H.Heller “Report on the Turin Shroud, 1983, Houghton Mifflin, Boston):

DSC07429 Heller photo and caption

 

Yes, there’s distortion, only to be expected  from uploading a photograph pure and simple into the 3D-rendering software, given a snapshot’s pre-existing light and shade. But it was incorrect of John Heller to say the image above has “two-dimensional quality” only. It has the characteristics of a bas-relief, i.e. flattened 3D.

Still Tuesday:

Here’s the image that I consider should be first on the screen at any future Shroud conference, and indeed should be shown and re-shown as soon as anyone makes reference to the linen as a “burial” shroud:

deposition cross

 

To those who consider the Shroud represents a “burial” shroud, actual or simulated (“forged”) than I say: read the account in the Gospel according to Mark first, before reading the other three:

Mark Chapter 15:

Verse 44: And Pilate marvelled if he (Jesus) were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.

Verse 45: And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph (of Arimathea).

Verse 46: And he bought fine linen, and took him down (from the cross) and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of a sepulchre.

Note there is no indication that the “fine linen” was ever intended as final burial clothes, referred to in other Gospels. The linen was “fine” because it would be on view to remaining  spectators at the site of crucifixion. It was intended in the first place for dignified transport of a recently deceased man – naked, bloodied – to place of interment (“burial”). Pick up the story re Jewish burial practices,  “winding” clothes, spices etc  in the 4th Gospel (John).

It’s the image above that properly conveys why the Shroud body image comprises  frontal v dorsal NEGATIVE IMPRINTS only, and NOT sides. By all means believe the two head- to- head imprints are genuine, not forged, or painted (14th century) as distinct from genuine non-artistic imprints.

But dispense  with the view, so important to those who hanker for explanations involving ‘resurrectional incandescence’, namely that the Turin Shroud represents a final intended burial garment, one that received blood only until arrival at the tomb, that the body image was only acquired later via  that flash of radiation.

Nope. The blood and body image represent a kind of enhanced whole body version of that fabled relic, the Veil of Veronica (long vanished) , the latter acquired shortly pre-mortem  according to legend,  i.e. en route to Cavalry. That’s  in contrast to the Shroud of Turin –  acquired immediately post mortem in transferring the newly crucified Jesus to Joseph’s clean linen, with little or no contact  between linen and SIDES of body  For the latter, take your pick between real versus simulated imprinting. I favour the latter, needless to say, seeing the Shroud as a work of precocious medieval genius, one that has entranced and,  dare I say, deceived subsequent generations right up to modern times as to how it was formed.

End of posting. (I was intending initially to say more about the non-homogeneous micro-particulate nature of Shroud image, but feel I need to do some more research).

Comments as ever are welcome (please try to remain civil if convinced of authenticity).

scope horiz 0,100,-40,100,-100 then 3d good result

PS This image is placed here, being needed for transplanting to Comments:

 

 

..

 

 

Posted in Shroud of Turin, Turin Shroud | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

My revised Model 10, proposing a key role for RADIANT (infrared) heat in generating image colour from a body imprint onto wet linen, using nothing but dry white flour.

I did consider calling my  new revised model for simulating the Turin Shroud “Model 11”, but then thought better of it. It still uses my domestic oven as a more convenient indoor model for a medieval bed of hot charcoal. But I’ve switched from using the fan heater at the back of the oven (with its inconspicuous electric element which scarcely glows, if at all) with the incandescent overhead grill with no fan operating.

oven cooker grill element

 

The emphasis as regards theory now switches from convected heat (hot air, requiring prolonged heating  up to 180-200 degrees C for optimal colour-development to RADIATED HEAT from the visibly red-hot  element, producing a much, MUCH quicker result.

But it’s still essentially Model 10 (development of a flour imprint on wet linen in a hot oven – probably over a charcoal fire too).

Distinguishing between effects of radiated heat from those of heated air is easy, as shown in the following experiments performed earlier today, a crucial one I believe (time will tell).

Continue reading

Posted in Shroud of Turin | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

My Model 10 – thermal imprinting with white flour onto linen – can account for the curious properties of the Turin Shroud body image

 

Summary: added Wednesday 12th July

See this image, taken yesterday, Tuesday 11th July (yes,  for me a RED LETTER DAY)  through my new stereomicroscope  (sadly lacking inbuilt image capture hardware) with a hand-held camera.

DSC05432

What’s so special about it? See final entry on this posting for why it’s very, VERY special, indeed, probably unique.

Clue: it shows how a very distinctive feature of the Turin Shroud body image, indeed one that has been described as “enigmatic” can be simply reproduced in the home using nothing more than a convenient portion of your anatomy  to serve as body-imprinting template (try using the back of your hand for starters), a bag of white flour, a flour sieve, a square of wet linen and a hot oven. It shows coloured fibres congregated on a  superficial (air-facing) side of linen threads!  But it’s NOT the side of the linen that received the imprint but the REVERSE side! Now how could that happen, one might ask? How can colour get from one side of the linen, the side that received the flour imprint,  to the other? What was happening in the hot oven that allowed transport to occur via  just SOME of the fibres within linen threads, arriving on the opposite side in the more superficial fibres only?  I say we have a key clue as to the nature of the Turin Shroud body image, and more importantly, how it was made using simple (albeit  somewhat quirky customised one-off) medieval technology.

Start of original posting (by way of an experimental diary, as indeed has been the previous 400+ postings from this retired scientist/Shroud investigator).

Models 1-9 were developed over an approx 3.5 year period between Dec 2011 and Aug 2015.

The final Model 10 (yes, FINAL!) which I now firmly believe explains the Shroud body image appeared in Aug 2015, first reported here and  a little earlier on Dan Porter’s pro-authenticity site, since closed,  (where, needless to say, it received scant attention).

The last two years or so have been spent patiently, laboriously and systematically addressing the details, ticking off the relevant boxes one by one. (This long-running project, reported in real time, has been largely ignored by  wider ‘sindonology’, but curiously not attacked as were my earlier models – notably direct scorching off a hot metal template (Model 2) now replaced by real human anatomy. Make of that what you will, dear reader).
The ticked-off boxes were as follows:

1. Yellow-brown, negative, i.e. tone-reversed image
2. Fuzzy image, no defined outline
3. Positive response of body image to 3D-rendering software, notably ImageJ
3. Heat and water-resistance, longevity
4. Superficial image, inasmuch as colour is concentrated on crown (loop-over) threads, though not exclusive to those locations
5. Bleachability (by domestic bleach) indicative of carbon-based chemical structure, matching diimide bleachabilty reported by Heller and Adler

6.  Curious microscopic properties, namely the so-called ‘half-tone’ effect and abrupt image-discontinuities on single fibres.

I have now successfully ticked the crucial final box, arguably the trickiest of all, namely to account for

7. The so-called ‘second face’ aka reverse side faint, scarcely if-at-all visible image.

Yes, that has been the trickiest of all to explain. I advanced a theoretical explanation two postings ago in response to articulate Canadian commenter Matt,  but was unable to provide experimental evidence to support that theory. That evidence is now available.

This posting will set out the latest evidence. It will be delivered in bite-size instalments, starting with the principle by which Model 10 (flour-imprinting) operates in conjunction with an input of classical thermal energy  currently using a fan oven as a poor substitute for what  was probably a medieval (14th century) bed of glowing charcoal embers, and how a minor change in experimental technique is able to promote or repress reverse-side imaging. Clue to answer: geometry – whether of not the imprint -or reverse side- directly faces the source of thermal energy or not…

Continue reading

Posted in Turin Shroud, Shroud of Turin | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

STURP: Space-age Technology Unleashing Religious Propaganda!

Posting under construction. More to follow shortly – much more. Watch this space.

Yup, this posting will be written in bite-size instalments, over days, probably weeks.

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

Late insertion: when reading this oh-so-long-and-detailed exposition, please bear in mind the Three Laws of Sindonology:

First Law: Sindonologists who look at the Shroud long enough will almost invariably find what they are looking for and call it science.
Second Law: What sindonologists can’t explain will be called a miracle.
Third Law: Previous job descriptors (engineer, photographer, lawyer, cleric etc) will sooner or later be shuffled off, and a new Teflon-coated identity adopted: Shroud scientist.

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

STURP?  Apols for the rejigged acronym in the title. Its real meaning was, of course,  the 1978 ‘Shroud of Turin Research Project’, manned mainly, perhaps entirely by Stateside personnel.  Think of it as a mainly technology-driven religion- driven Moon-landing enterprise (while trying to cast aside thoughts of the accident-prone Apollo 13!).

But see the 1981 STURP Summary, surely the most eloquent expression of ignominious failure ever, despite the invasion of Turin by a truckload of millions of dollars worth of hi-tech equipment and Ray Rogers sampling sticky tape.  (Meanwhile the local  medics and scientists  – Baima Bollone et al- were allowed to excise whole threads – more on that tiny detail later!).

See my recent exchange  (Recent Comments – margin)  with host-friendly commentator Matt listing at least  27 objections to STURP’s clunky modus operandi, then and now.

Yes, even NOW, nearly 40 years on, STURP’s legacy continues to generate a never-ending  series of so-called scientific conferences, invariably  promoting Shroud authenticity (in spite of all the evidence for medieval forgery via whole-body imprinting) claiming to be an image of the REAL crucified Jesus, despite the 13th-14th century radiocarbon dating).

Even the local bishop at Troyes (Henri de Poitiers) , circa 1357, recognized the then Lirey-based Shroud for what it was, describing it as “cunningly painted”. (Nope,  dear Bishop, not painted, but imprinted by DIRECT CONTACT between suitably imprinting-medium-encoated body of one, probably two head-to-head aligned  – and very-much alive – adult males and draped-over linen).

The latest so-called ‘International Conference’ is scheduled for an obscure hard-to-find-on-the-map location at a retail park/sporting/exhibition centre at Pasco,  Tri-Cities, Washington State, USA in July.  It promises in its prospectus to add still more to the Continue reading

Posted in Shroud of Turin, Turin Shroud | Tagged , , , , , | 15 Comments

Comment promoted: what are we to make of the second face on the reverse side of the Turin Shroud?

This comment was supplied by Matt a couple of days ago:

Good day Colin, I’ve been reading your blog and you’ve revealed things to me I never knew about the shroud given all the hype that’s out there. Just wanted your opinion on something. What do you make of the “second face” on the reverse side claim. I’ve heard even some pro-shroud people deny it. Do you have a post about it? Thanks.

From the Independent, April, 2004:

Independent April 2004 second face on Turin Shroud

 

Here’s my immediate (stalling!) reply:

Hello Matt.

No, I’ve never addressed the claim for partial  obverse reverse-side  images as yet, notably face and hands, feeling as I do that I needed to be better informed as to the nature of the topside image first. When I say images, I mean ones that can or cannot be seen with photographs alone, rather than those problematical computer-aided reconstructions reported by Giulio Fanti and his team.

Mario Latendresse put a couple of photos up on his sindonology.com site a while ago. I’ve taken the face, shown first “as is” and then after photoenhancement in my unsophisticated MS Office Picture Manager, using just the 5 controls in brightness and contrast.

Before:

After:

Durante-verso-face duplicate -45,100,-50,30,-100

 

What do you reckon Matt? Is there an image on the opposite side of the linen or not? Mario says there’s not…

(There’s probably no point our discussing THAT claimed image unless agreed on whether there really is one or not!).

PS: Beware: the photoedited one has also been left/right reversed, unlike the ‘as is’. Apols for that (it was done for future use, when comparing with topside image).

Matt came back with this:

Well if there is no image, where is the hair coming from unless the front image isn’t as superficial as they’re saying?  It’s hard for me to believe a lot of the pro-shroudies given the spurious nature of a lot of their claims. I saw your comment on Dan Porter’s site about the graphite background and the picture of the red painting on linen. Could this be a light phenomena? assuming the images are as superficial as they say. In any case, I’m convinced that the shroud is a fake. I think the image of the hair may come from the outlines of the painted blood and perhaps some oil substance staining through which adds to the paredolia.

In the big picture I think this is the last thing Christianity has seeing that they’ve lost when it comes to creationism, geocentrism and Adam and Eve. Seeing that all these things have been debunked. I think the shroud will follow.

What say you?

 

I replied with this (having to postpone for now comment on the “graphite and red painting” which has slipped my memory):

Yes, the pro-authenticity folk in general (Mario L a notable exception – see his site) seem to be relaxed about an image that is on both faces of the Shroud, albeit exceedingly faint on the obverse side, yet say there’s nothing in between! That takes quite a bit of explaining, wouldn’t you say, and I don’t recall seeing any attempts as yet to come up with a cogent explanation?

I have one, and it’s tentative, so am pleased to see your thinking is at least partly along the same lines.

Yup, we’re talking about OIL.

My flour imprinting works best when there’s vegetable oil present, not just to attach flour to the skin initially, but to help colour development in the oven too.

The oil helps to ‘micro-fry’ the particles of flour, which then proceed to turn brown due to Maillard reactions.  A small surplus of oil then acts as a liquid vehicle, allowing that cocktail of yellow/brown Maillard products to penetrate the weave of the linen. The likely route for capillary migration is the narrow channels BETWEEN the fibres, as can be easily modelled with ink ( I did a clip for YouTube back in 2015 , enter “dynamic penetration of ink” into your search engine), so the brown cocktail can get from one side of the linen to the other INSIDE the threads, out of sight, and then, if there’s sufficient, proceed to stain the opposite face where they emerge.

So why an image (of sorts) on the opposite face, rather than a mere oil stain?

Maybe the Maillard cocktail deposits solid polymeric highly-pigmented melanoidins on its short journey. The latter attach strongly to the fibres, so that the migrating oil gets cleaner and cleaner, finally scarcely visible in the cloth, leaving the pigmented image on the obverse side roughly the same shape and size as the topside, but not exactly the same (which might explain Fanti’s curious finding that the main and subsidiary image were not quite identical in his computer-assisted imaging).

Thanks for the interest Matt. Let me know if you have any further insights. Right or wrong they are all grist to the mill.

 

Thanks for the appreciative reply,  Matt, and for giving this  Shroud investigator an opportunity to finally grasp – after 5 long years – that particular nettle as regards the reverse-side face!   Feel free to call in again – anytime. Informed comment is especially welcome.

If I have any afterthoughts on that reverse-side face, I’ll tack them on the end here in the coming days or weeks.

Comments invited. ( Warning:  the site’s WordPress host requires me to vet a contributor’s first-time comment before it can appear. Thereafter they are displayed immediately).

Monday 20th March 2017

Rapid but short-lived transport of Maillard products also accounts for the peculiar  characteristics of image threads  and their fibres as seen under a low power microscope (see Mark Evans photomicrographs).

 

Yup, I refer to (a) the so-called half-tone effect and (b) abrupt discontinuities in fibre coloration.

The half-tone effect (an unhelpful – and probably over-simplistic term in my view) is shorthand for saying there are – or may be – only two kinds of image fibres  – coloured (full tone) and uncoloured (no tone) – with no in-betweens.  (Think of it as akin to the use of binary numbering  (o, 1 only ) in digitized imaging).  Discontinuites refers to the presence of cut-offs in coloration  along certain fibres for no obvious reasons.

Both these effects are explicable if it’s assumed that there’s a limited supply of hot, briefly-liquified  Maillard reaction products from the heated flour imprint that migrate rapidly for a short distance only along and between the fibres of linen threads. That results in even-staining of some but not all fibres (half-tone effect) with abrupt cut-offs in coloration (discontinuities) when the supply of liquid from the superficial thermal zone is exhausted.

Update : 17:00 hours, UK time, March 20

Here I am,  some 36 hours after posting, and STILL the major search engine has failed to spot this latest posting.

Had I posted it on my sciencebuzz site (Google -hosted) it would have appeared almost instantly!

Oops. Mustn’t  be seen to have a down on the internet Google giant, must I?

Nope. Microsoft’s Bing site  also fails to show it in its first 20 listings under a (shroud of turin ) search. (But then  Microsoft’s Bing has NEVER listed this site – to the best of my knowledge.

There’s something distinctly rotten (or at any rate, PC-obsessed) in the Stateside search engines  –  Google, Bing etc, something  we Brits and Europeans have to be content with, no local alternatives being available.

Musn’t offend your Stateside  Catholics, must we, Google, Bing etc?

PC-obsessed , ideas-stifling Stateside PC rules OK?  (Or should that be  multi-billion $ e-commerce income ?).

Update: Tuesday 21st March, 2017

07:30: Have just used the Feedback facility on Bing to send the following message:

Here’s a link to my specialist Shroud of Turin site.

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com

It has been running for more than 5 years, has well over 400 postings, advances new models and theories, yet continues to show up NOWHERE in your listings under a (shroud of turin) search. It’s currently listed on Page 5* of Google.uk returns.

Why are you effectively censoring me, preventing my original research and ideas from reaching Bing searchers? Is it because my views are anti-authenticity? Is it because you are keen to spare the feelings of those whose religion predisposes them to favouring authenticity? Since when has it been the job of a search engine to protect anyone from the real world?

*

s of t page 5 google- old post still listed 48 hrs after posting second face

 

 

Yahoo?  I’ve just searched the first 20 pages of Yahoo under (shroud of turin). No listing for this site, confirming previous experience over the years. Why not?  Who knows?

What I do know is that there was no mechanism for sending the same message to Yahoo as the one I sent Bing earlier this morning.  (There was a word limit – unannounced upfront!). What I did find was a page that invited me to “submit” my site as if Yahoo were doing me a favour  (nope, it’s web site creators who are doing YOU a favour, Yahoo) but that would require “registration”.

So I went back to the Suggestions tab, ignoring all the copious blurb about what they want and don’t want, and sent this short sweet message:

 

Yahoo

 

 

Update, Tuesday 15:00

Hey ho. Google has finally spotted this latest posting, which (for all its faults) says a lot more for Google than it does for the deeply-suspect Bing or Yahoo.

google page 4 listing of new post 21 march pm s of t search

 

Thank you Google. You came through for me (at last!).

Update: Thursday March 23

But there’s a downside to the world’s favourite search engine where this site is concerned, but it needs a sharp eye to spot it.

Search for (turin shroud) on Stateside google.com (enter http://www.google.com/ncr if outside mainland USA, “ncr” specifying “no country redirect) and here’s what you will  currently see – or something very similar:

google dot com turin shroud see page 5 my site 23 march 17

 

Yup, that’s this site, shown 3 entries down on Page 5 of returns.

So what would you expect to see if you had entered (shroud of turin), which I suspect a majority of folk will do, with or without the unnecessary “of”.  You would expect to get a similar or identical result, yes?

Well, you don’t. You will get the same result as the one I discovered and announced many months ago. You will find NO RETURNS FOR THIS SITE, at least on the first two dozen pages or so, even assuming the search engine allows you to access so many pages.

Yup, this site is invisible Stateside to anyone searching (shroud of turin) Stateside – which according to this site’s flag counter is where most of the interest in the Shroud resides –  way , way above my own largely Shroud-indifferent country (UK)

I’ve sent one final, despairing email to the search engine, using its Feedback facility, attaching my name and email address, asking it to correct this anomaly forthwith. If there’s no reply by the end of the day, I’ll reproduce the email here, and then think about acting on my threat to devote a full posting to the iniquity of being deprived of clicks, readers and  page-ranking by the perverse nature of what I’ve described above.

At least I get a listing of sorts, which is more than one can say for  Bing and Yahoo (see earlier), those two blights on the blogosphere who continue year after year to display their hugely suspect  -and I assume partisan – blind spot for this site. (Yahoo I’ve discovered currently lists 5 or 6  different postings from  a rival pro-authenticity  Australia-based Shroud blog scattered throughout the first 20 pages of returns  – which basically says all one needs to know about its impartiality and professionalism).

It’s now 2100 hours on Thursday March 23.  I’ve jusr rechecked the page rankings on Stateside google.com. No change. If one searches under (turin shroud) this site appears on Page 5. If one searches under (shroud of turin) my sciencebuzz site appears on Page 18, but this site appears NOWHERE. That’s despite logging a complaint many months ago. Nothing’s been done. Is it any wonder this site has near zero impact in the USA, since most folk there probably make “shroud” the first word in their search.

Here’s a copy of the communication that Google received from me first thing this morning UK time via its feedback facility:

Hello Google

Yet again, I see my UK-based site listed on Stateside google.com under (turin shroud) but curiously and perhaps significantly NOT under (shroud of turin).

This is at best bizarre, but it’s also deeply worrying, indeed suspicious, since you are depriving me of searchers and readers, which then means I don’t get the Stateside ranking that I believe my site deserves after hundreds of postings over 5 years.

I’ve made this same complaint to you before, via this Feedback facility and online, but nothing has been done.

I’ll wait 24 hours, and if I’m still not listed on google.com under (shroud of turin) then I’ll make a separate posting of this strange anomaly on the part of your allegedly algorithm-driven search engine. I shall be flagging up my strong suspicion of ‘dirty tricks’ by those who attempt to influence Google listings and rankings – Stateside especially – under (shroud of turin) but who have carelessly it seems overlooked the alternative (turin shroud) – arguably a smoking gun.

Please deal with it NOW, not next week or next year!

Colin Berry, UK

sciencebod01@aol.com

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/

 

Update: Friday March 24

Have discovered that this, my latest posting,  DOES appear on a Stateside search under (shroud of turin) but not under the default “Any Time”. One has to specify “Past week” or “Past month”, accessed via the Tools tab (which I suspect few general users ever deploy).

So the crawler and algorithm are picking up the existence of this site, and displaying it briefly, albeit to the cognoscenti wanting to know what’s new, but filtering it off from the main “Any Time” shop window.

Well, I’ve long suspected that Google goes in for window-dressing , correction, BIG correction, window-EXCLUSION, on entry-level searches, giving the lie to any suggestion that page rankings are determined purely by an algorithm  (at least an algorithm that is responsive to objective criteria only, making no value pre-judgments as to likely ‘mass  appeal,  special-interest appeal’, outside interest  credit-card flashing appeal  etc.).

Google etc claim to be search engines, not mere e-commerce trade directories, so should perform as such, and indeed should be made to do so,  via regulatory agencies, at least when ranking sites beyond their own shores, regardless of where those rankings are displayed!

In short, this site, MY site,  is being partially-discriminated against, failing to appear when a Stateside  searcher enters (shroud of turin) into his or her default-setting google.com. My own countrymen and women in the UK face no such filter. Big deal!

I accuse you Google of cyber-colonialism. You are wilfully  preventing my site from receiving Stateside attention and visitors  which I believe it warrants after 5 years and hundreds of postings. Indeed, I would be saying the same if my site were brand new! The Shroud of Turin is of international interest, whether seen from a religious or scientific perspective. No one should be denied the right to know what is being thought and said  online by folk in other countries that contributes to the worldwide debate.

As others have been saying in recent days in regard to other more serious matters to do with your modus operandi,  Google, notably your placing  UK taxpayer-funded ads onto anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi YouTube videos, it’s time you cleaned up your act, across the board.

I repeat: it’s time you cleaned up your act, Google, across the board. (As for Bing and Yahoo, words fail me).

 

Monday 27th March 2017

See this link to a BBC scrutiny of the mighty Google, and the way it has come not only to dominate search, but what folk are allowed to see and not see:

Just google it: How one company came to dominate search

Here’s a choice passage that says it all:

Trying to figure out how to please Google’s algorithm is rather like trying to appease an omnipotent, capricious and ultimately unknowable god.

You may say as long as Google’s top results are useful to searchers, it’s tough luck on those who rank lower – and if those results stop being useful, then some other pair of students at Stanford will spot the gap in the market and dream up a better way. Right?

Maybe – or maybe not. Search was a competitive business in the late 1990s. But now, it may be a natural monopoly – in other words, an industry that is extremely hard for a second entrant to succeed in.

The reason? Among the best ways to improve the usefulness of search results is to analyse which links were ultimately clicked by people who previously performed the same search, as well as what the user has searched for before.

Google has far more of that data than anyone else. That suggests the company may continue to shape our access to knowledge for generations to come.

See also in today’s Telegraph:

Professor Brian Cox: Can science survive in our post-truth world?

Answer: no, not when California’s control freaks are allowed to rig their search engines to get the e-commerce friendly “look” they want.

Opening para’ (my italics) :  In our post-truth universe, where facts kowtow to personal belief, where does that leave science? Professor Brian Cox thinks carefully before saying: “It is important for people in my position – by which I mean scientists that have some sort of public voice – to say that not all opinions are equal.” The 49-year-old physicist, TV presenter and all-round cheerleader for rational thought has seen long-held facts under fire of late. Last week, basketball supremo Shaquille O’Neill expressed his view that the Earth is flat;  Donald Trump’s former rival, now colleague, Ben Carson says he doesn’t believe in the Big Bang. ..

Update: Tuesday March 28

Still on my anti- (so-called) search engine rant, I got to wondering if it was just Stateside google.com that was preventing entry-level (shroud of turin) searchers from accessing this site.

Answer: NO!  The same applies to searchers on Canada’s google.ca and Australia’s google.au. That’s on the default “anytime” setting (I may be visible on past week, past month etc  which few will use).

I then had  a sudden thought (when using google.ca). Why have I never seen Mario Latendresse’s splendid sindonology.com  site with its invaluable Shroud Scope when searching on google.uk or even google.com, at least not in the first dozen or even 20 pages? Has Mario been given the same blackball treatment as this investigator, despite being pro-authenticity (indeed, a founder member of the Shroud Science Group)?

Answer: YES!. Search (shroud of turin) on his own country’s google.ca, and he’s not listed anywhere on the first 20 pages!

I was right not to entertain dark conspiracies about sindonology (aka shroudology) being at the root of this exclusion from All Time Google listings. If that were the case, Mario would be getting special treatment. He’s not! There now seems little doubt that it’s Google deciding what entry-level searchers under (shroud of turin) should be allowed go see, and not see. In short, Google is not acting as a search engine pure and simple. It’s either manually ‘curating’ what comes from its allegedly algorithm-driven crawler OR has cleverly programmed the algorithm to reject sites that fail certain Google-ordained criteria.  And what might those criteria be, one wonders?  Might they be an aversion to facts, to ongoing research, to (dare one say) SCHOLARSHIP, the latter having no part  to play in its e-commerce promoting business model, one that delivers billions of $$$$$$  each year via pay-per-click?

Yup, I suspect that to be the answer. Google (and its minor competitors like Bing and Yahoo) are all in the business of dumbing-down internet search, killing the true spirit of enquiry.

You are a disgrace to Western civilization, Google et al, founded as it is on a respect for free speech, for new thinking …

Something has to be done about these ethically-blinkered, greed-obsessed control-freak Californians, and soon!!!

This site is presently listed at the bottom of Page 5 listings under a (shroud of turin)  search on google.uk. That’s despite several hundred postings over the last 5 years. many highlighted on other sites, notably  Dan Porter ‘s shroudstory.com up till Dec 2015 and elsewhere, and many links to other sites (which Google says are crucial).

Yet when one looks at the top of current Page 5 listings, here’s the kind of site that Google decides to give precedence:

Shroud of Turin — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200275299

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Yes. a one-off posting by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with no long-term interest in the Shroud, or indeed any obvious reason to be interested, is allowed to push a specialist long-term interest site such as this down to the bottom of Page 5. Indeed, many such one-off ‘passing interest’ sites have been allowed to do this, thanks to the deplorable Google algorithm (with or without human intervention) making this and other more informed, on-the-ball sites scarcely visible.

This site was set up 5 years ago with the aim of reporting online, in real time, the progress of an investigation into the how and why the Turin Shroud could have been fabricated in such a way as to fool modern-day scientists (or “scientists”) into thinking it was authentic 1st century provenance, allegedly and mistakenly a genuine image of the crucified Jesus.

Thanks to Google and other California-based so-called search “engines” I now realize that the internet was not the hoped-for  means of delivering new research, new thinking, new ideas, new theories into the public domain. The page rankings are a cesspit of  accumulated human-deposited crap.

Yup, these last 5 years have been a complete and utter waste of this investigator’s time, thanks to his  trust and reliance on search engines to transmit findings under a simple straightforward (shroud of turin) internet search.

 

Goodbye sordid, disreputable Google et al.  I regard you as enemies of human enlightenment and progress, indeed of Western civilization.  You will henceforth be treated here with the contempt you richly deserve – and ignored completely.

If I do another posting, it will be negative in its take on all things sindonological, given the array of vested interests that refuse to LISTEN to opposing opinions.

Probable title for next posting: “Turin Shroud: so how come STURP managed to get it so COMPLETELY wrong?” 

It’s half-written already.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Shroud of Turin, Turin Shroud, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments