One picture they say is worth a 1000 words. Here’s a picture. It’s assembled from this investigator’s own recent photoarchive, so is not new.
It’s posted here simply to make a point – science can at least MODEL the Shroud image and its peculiar characteristics (negative image, 3D properties, microscopic properties etc). Indeed, I said as much over a year ago, here and on the (discontinued) Dan Porter site. Response from sindonology (generally pro-authenticity, indeed emphatically so with few exceptions) has been ZILCH (bar some unexpected and appreciative comment from Thibault Heimburger MD here on this site, see below, who previously expressed strong opposition to the Garlaschelli model, also deploying a powder (mineral-based) as imprinting agent).
I leave it to others to produce a full-size replica if they wish (science being about models that demonstrate the underlying scientific principles – not having to produce exact replicas of other people’s artefacts, least of all one that is centuries old with no accompanying documentation).
I say that the Shroud body image was fully within the capability of medieval technology, once it’s appreciated that the imprinting agent (flour/oil) is no longer visible or indeed detectable, a consequence of the oven roasting/soap washing regime. All that was left at the end was the faint, fuzzy, ghost image, deposited on the linen fibres by a coloured fabric-staining exudate seeping out from the imprinting agent when subjected to high temperatures (though insufficiently high, approx. 200 degrees C, to colour the linen per se).
Sorry to repeat myself, but the TS image is NOT a photograph, nor a proto-photograph, or indeed any kind of photograph. It’s a THERMOGRAPH, easily mistaken for a negative photograph.
I may add postscripts (like some acerbic comment on the prospectus for the Shroud conference planned for July next year in Pasco, Washington State, USA, it being like no other prospectus for a scientific congress I have previously encountered in a lifetime of scientific research and education). Sample (in red):
Clue: might something as simple and obvious as a jack and its human operators, neither visible in the photograph, have been the true agent of change, both having to be IMAGINED, not conveniently left behind at the scene to assist with investigation…
Still Sep 19: it’s now just past midday here in the sunny Sarf of France:
Back, briefly, very briefly, to that venue for the 2017 Shroud Conference: it’s the TRAC Center, Pasco, Washington State. Here’s a Google Street View of the stunning architecture one will behold on arrival:
Er, yes. A fine example of its style (post modernist, indeed post most things one might say).
On a brighter note, Hugh Farey’s BSTS Newsletter (No.83) has just appeared on the shroud.com site.
As usual, there’s some interesting and perceptive comment on a number of issues. I may return later with some of my own.
The main reservation one has with the BSTS Newsletter is that it doesn’t invite or accept comments (but then the same might be said for its shroud.com host, bar those ancient undated comments that can be found on diligent site-searching – arguably mere window-dressing!).
I’m not sure what the solution is for a society newsletter – given it has no ambitions to maintain a 24/7 internet presence. Suggestions invited.
Back again, Sep 21
So what am I doing to occupy my free time, while waiting for the world to notice there’s finally an explanation for the oh-so-enigmatic Shroud image? (Nope, I’m not relying on sindonology to spread the word, or even the UK’s hidebound anti-science media).
Answer: I’m attempting to marry the oil/flour-imprinting model with the “blood story”, notably the ‘blood before body image’ mantra.
Progress? Yes, there’s progress, the result of going back and taking another look at the contrast-enhanced (or as I prefer to say, contrast-restored) Shroud Scope pictures. Here are two from the same “spear site” in the side of the chest at two different levels of magnification.
I have just noticed this morning something I should have spotted years ago when first posting these pix. It was NOT necessarily ‘blood before image’, given that the flour-imprinting model provides TOTALcontrol over which parts of the body to imprint, or not to imprint. It could be ‘blood without image’ in those parts where there’s blood! Can anyone see what I’m driving at? Look for pale areas, paler, that is, than either the blood OR THE BODY IMAGE!
Yup, I now suspect that at least some of the areas earmarked for blood were deliberately left free of body image, i.e. flour, at least for the site above, and I believe, for a number of other blood sites.
See this earlier experiment with masking/protection from imprinting agent that illustrated the principle of blood-without-image.
I also believe these pix show evidence for two types of superimposed blood-imaging, maybe separated by a considerable time interval (decades at least). The first blood was real, or a reasonable approximation thereof, while the second ‘touching-up’ blood was entirely artificial, e.g. the particulate, non-organic mineral mix discovered by Lucotte et al ( hematite, biotite etc). Which is which? Hard to be certain at present, but I suspect that the first blood was the wishy-washy plum-coloured areas, maybe much bolder to start with, and then largely flaked off. That was followed by the much denser red-brown additions of mineral paint that one sees above.
I may append more pix in due course that make the same points – painting blood initially onto image-free areas followed later by touching up with ‘artificial’ blood.
Back again: here’s another enhanced Scope picture showing the bloodstain on the wrist:
Many moons ago, I was directed to this picture, and instructed to note the ‘serum halo’ at extreme top left, extending beyond that dense tip of the limb. My reply? How come it’s seen in a Shroud Scope photo, taken by Durante in 2002 in visible light? Aren’t those serum haloes supposed to be seen in uv light only? And if it’s a serum halo at the one location, why don’t we see them at the edge of every single bloodstain (no reply!).
Now hold your laptop at arms length, take in the entire image. Do you see what I see – namely a pale zone, as if blood had been painted onto an image-free zone? In other words, what have been described as ‘serum haloes’ at least in visible light may be nothing of the sort, but parts of a blank image-free zone that were not completely painted over/infilled with blood. One could go a step further (possibly a step too far) and suggest that the fluorescence attributed to “serum” exudate under uv light is again nothing of the sort, or at any rate not the entire explanation. Linen has an intrinsic blue fluorescence under uv light that in my model survives oven-roasting in the areas that are free of flour imprint. So who’s to say that the blue fluoresence in and around the Shroud’s bloodstains is not due to the linen per se in image-free zones deliberately selected by the ‘forger’ for painting with blood AFTER oven-heating and washing? It makes sense, does it not, to apply the blood to image-free zones AFTER those two drastic steps that generate the final fuzzy, washed-out looking body image, but which would damage or wash out blood that was applied too soon in the procedure.
Back again (still Sep 21)
Here’s another example – upper part of one of the forearms: Note the many pale areas in and around the blood, paler than body image:
Serum haloes? I hardly think so, not in a photograph taken under visible light… Nope, I say the blood was painted onto carefully pre-selected areas that were carefully kept free of image-imprinting medium, ie. flour.
Which of these two ‘event venues’ would you prefer to use for something billed as an ‘international conference’? The one on the left, or the one on the right (main entrance shown in both instances)?
In fact, they are pictures of the same venue – that chosen in Pasco, Washington State for the 2017 International Shroud Conference.
It’s amazing what can be done with a fish eye lens, one that makes straight facades seem pleasingly curved, and waiting till evening for some low-level artificial lighting…
Some might think that tarted-up TRAC image is not the only instance one could cite where a warped and glossy view has been substituted for the real thing. Warped and glossy sells so much easier and quicker!
Here’s a link for those wishing to book the TRAC Center Pasco for THEIR international conference!
Sep 23 2016
In just 1 month and 1 day, the flour/oil imprinting model will be two years old!
I discovered it initially through trying to scorch linen with hot metal at lower temperatures, impregnating the linen with dry white flour. Success, as reported in the above posting on my sciencebuzz site (Oct 24 2014). That’s when a crucial step was taken – to see if one could ‘turn the technology on its head’, and imprint off cold metal, or any other 3D template for that matter!). Again, success! The horse brass or brass crucifix could be smeared with oil, dusted with flour, pressed onto linen to leave an oil/flour imprint, and then it was the linen that was gently roasted!
I should have the tried imprinting off human flesh – like my own hand – but didn’t, not immediately. Instead the research took off at a tangent in an entirely new direction, time-consuming and useful after a fashion (helping to exclude rival models like wet dye imprinting, sulphuric acid-etching etc.). But it finally looped back, some 6 months later, to the same science, the same technology, i.e. oil and flour.
Yup, two years almost since the flour/oil model was flagged up, but you wouldn’t know it from scanning the ‘mainstream’ sindonology literature, still hung up on its uv laser pulses, neutron beams etc! How much longer before these narrative-driven enthusiasts return to planet Earth?
Sep 24 2016
ADVANCE NOTICE: 2018 INTERNATIONAL SHROUD CONFERENCE – DUXFORD AERODROME, UK !
Venue’s chief attractions? Ample floor space – can easily accommodate the thousands expected! Spillover easily accomodated onto hundreds of square miles of surrounding fenland. Handy too for London (Stansted) Airport. (Duxford’s present hangars and runways are presently being used temporarily for display of WW2 vintage aircraft).
Why Duxford? Well, it’s part of a carefully-planned recruitment drive for sindonology, you see, the surrounding area boasting as it does the highest concentration of PhDs in the UK – it’s called Cambridge University!
The fact that Duxford’s a mere half hour’s drive from where I happen to live had ABSOLUTELY nothing whatsoever to do with the decision…
My role? I’m glad you asked that. I shall be the patron, prime mover and star attraction, needless to say, using the Conference to promote my thermal flour/oil imprinting model for the Turin Shroud. (The old adage that goes: “Invent a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door” being demonstrably false …).
Hey ho. One has just raised the model another notch on the dimensions scale, doubling the height (now approx 1/6th human) and trebling the width:
The “Hulk” left performed approximately the same as the “Galaxy Warrior” right, though it has to be said that plastic is somewhat inferior to human skin for imprinting purposes. (it’s to do with the efficiency with which a thin dusting of flour transfers from the plastic to the wet linen).
Sep 28, 2016
See below the snapshot of an experiment, correction, two related experiments, both performed yesterday. They are probably worth a posting to themselves. But there’s no point in my continually adding new postings to this site, for reasons that should be apparent to those who have noted my earlier observations re what is clearly a boycott by sindonology on a model that was submitted for scrutiny well over a year ago – including the shroudstory site while still active. (I exclude Thibault Heimburger MD and a handful of others from that, while awaiting with interest TH’s conclusions from his flagged-up experimental evaluation of my model when complete).
Late insert: note the two creases across the back of the hand in Expt.1. They unintentionally/fortuitously model a feature visible on the TS, one I used to refer to as “baked-in creases”, notably the prominent one that is seen in the neck/chin region. I’ll expand on that detail here in a day or two. For now I’d simply say that I’ve always maintained that those creases on the TS that match the image colour, but have an image-free central zone, constitute prima facie evidence for a contact image that is imprinted under manual pressure, out of sight of the artisan(s), allowing the blemish to go unnoticed until it’s too late. More later.
And here’s the compact folded/rolled linen suspended in a fan oven.
The flour/oil imprinted wet linen was first allowed to dry, a spacer sheet of blank linen placed on top of the imprint, the two folded in half along the shorter of the two dimensions, and the assemblage then rolled up, starting at the fold.
This posting is long enough as it is, without adding more screed, so the thinking behind the above experiments, and the unexpected windfall (Expt.2) will be continued in Comments below.
October 5, 2016:
This comment appeared from Stephen Jones yesterday on his cantakerous so-called “blog”, read poison pot. (Or should that be ‘plot’, given his madcap KGB theory re the Shroud’s radiocarbon dating?).
“Now that Porter’s blog has closed Berry has a problem in that he cannot post comments to the two major Shroud blogs (Porter’s and mine) so as to entice their readers to view his minor Shroud anti-authenticist blog.”
I’ve just this minute searched google.uk under (shroud of turin) and confirmed what I have suspected for a while, namely that this site has steadily been closing the gap with Jones’s. Right now, mine is immediately behind his in the listings (both currently top of page 4). Mine has been gently rising these last few weeks, Jones’s site site steadily sinking. See the first two returns on this morning’s Page 4:
Stephen will have to find this entry for himself. I have ceased alerting him to any new content here, or linking with his site. All it does is elicit more abuse and misreporting (like claiming I post anonymously to his site – a mischievous and potentially damaging claim if ever there was, as he knows full well – given I always make my identity clear, previously as “sciencebod”, as registered with Blogger, or more recently appending my real name in full to the end of a brief comment, alerting him to my ‘thermograph’ model).
As for the description of my style as “discursive” (a term one rarely encounters), maybe Stephen needs to learn the difference between hypothesis-driven experimentally-based science on the one hand and his agenda-driven non-experimental polemics on the other, the first being open to new suggestions and ideas, the latter essentially closed. The first may seem aimless wandering to the impatient and uninitiated. It took this reseacher from Spring 2012 to Autumn 2014 to discover flour/oil imprinting. The last 2 years have been a process of cementing the model as feasible, realistic, soundly-based in theory etc etc. Call it ‘discursive’ if you like Stephen. I say it’s patient and thorough, leaving no stone unturned.
October 6, 2016
What was that you were saying about “minor” blog, Mr. Stephen E. Jones? You really do need to check and re-check your facts before getting too puffed up with your own self-importance – or dismissive of others…
Postscript: this investigator has other interests too, above and beyond the Shroud of Turin, having set up his generalist ‘sciencebuzz’ site in 2009. See the most recent posting, setting out my view on the true purpose of Stonehenge (and indeed, most stone circles and/or henges in Neolithic Britain) namely as sites for AFS (avian-facilitated skeletonization), better known as “sky burial”, followed in many instances by facile end-stage cremation of the mainly-excarnated bones.
Nope, not pleasant to contemplate, but there were probably sound practical reasons for employing this method of disposal of the dead in an era that predated bronze and other metal tools for excavating graves and/or lack of dry timber for fuel- efficient funeral pyres.
October 9, 2016
Have just taken a quick look at Stephen Jones’s site. He seems to have erased all those pejorative references to me and this site that I was commenting on above!
Here’s a passage in his current posting that I consider totally bizarre:
… Turin amateur photographer Secondo Pia (1855–1941) took the first photographs of the Shroud and discovered that the negative on his photographic plate was a photographic positive, which meant that the Shroud image was a photographic negative! See the above negative photograph of the Shroud [right], which is a photographic positive, thus proving the Shroud image is a photographic negative [left].
Here’s the result of an exercise I did back in January this year. Compare the two images, top and bottom. What would you, dear reader, or Stephen Jones conclude?
The one on top is clearly a negative, i.e. light/dark reversed, as can be seen by looking at the lower image that has been tone-reversed.
So that means the top image is a photographic negative, right, because it responds to tone-reversal to give a positive?
No, of course not. The top image is NOT a photograph (in the first instance). It’s a contact imprint, a brass-rubbing to be precise, selected from internet photo-archives. Like all CONTACT imprints, it is tone-reversed, compared with the brass from which the image was obtained by rubbing.
Jones’s logic is flawed, and seriously so, given the blind spot it reveals about the nature and provenance of the Turin Shroud. He may have other grounds for rejecting the idea that it’s a contact imprint, but baldly making the statement one reads above to support his “resurrection image” ideas – ones that are emblazoned on his site’s tagline – is frankly unbelievable, coming as it does from someone who boasts a science degree.
Note: the above exercise would have been better if I could have found a rubbing taken from a brass that had been cast in a mould to give smooth contours (as distinct from the line- engraving technique) since the retsored ‘positive’ would have looked even more ‘photograph-like’. I shall keep hunting those photo archives for just such a image that matches the TS image characteristics more closely.
Afterthought: for other recent results with imaging my own hand, which some may prefer to plastic figurines, see the posting preceding this one, and another on a resurrected site (abandoned 3 years ago, and presently below the search engine radar!):
Here’s a link to the posting:
Having discovered that the above posting appeared briefly, then disappeared from my search engine listings (past 24 hrs, past week, past month etc) I became curious, and posted to my currently dormant sciencebuzz site, addressing some of the more controversial aspects of sindonology, like the shameless intermixing of science and pseudoscience, which has been a bone of contention these last 5 years or so:
Here’s a screen grab of the title page:
Here’s the link (in full):
Guess what? It shared the same fate, appearing briefly, then disappearing completely (and I mean COMPLETELY, not even searchable under its full title!). It’s been ‘disappeared’, to use the current jargon. thanks those shadowy forces unknown – no doubt with a big stake in keeping the age-old TS show on the road…
Go figure as they say… It’s not just the print and other mass media that are being manipulated (and filtered!) by certain vested interests in sindonology, but the internet too! I shall continue to speak my mind, regardless of whether my views are searchable or not. The truth will out… It’s just a matter of time, with the need to remain patient and focused on essentials.
16:30, October 16, 2016
Here’s a screen shot of the sitemeter supplied by my sciencebuzz site, showing the cumulative number of visits to most postings:
Just 18 hits in 6 days for my most recent posting? In fact, most of those 18 accrued in the first day or two when the current posting was first posted, and visible to those checking most recent postings. Then the number froze at the above 18 for several days (20 at the time of writing), coinciding with the disappearance of my site from searches under (shroud of turin) and even the posting’s full title!
Why am I reporting this? Because my Shroud of Turin investigation was intended – probably uniquely – as a day by day, month by month, year by year report in real time on the INTERNET of an actual hands-on research project. Anything that prevents my findings – or conclusions therefrom – must, for an accurate and complete record, also be reported. It’s as important, if not more so, to report these failures of one’s current thinking to be searchable online as it is to resolve difficulties and uncertainties re the nature of the Shroud image. To say that I’m less than enamoured with the internet’s most resorted-to search engine would be an understatement. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – its rankings are clearly get-attable by those with money, influence or both... Something needs to be done…