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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ed: an afterthought: the Man on the TS might conceivable be Jacques de Molay himself – more at a later date)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:  The Templars and the Shroud of Turin

Advertisements

About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. colinsberry says:

    In fact, looking again closely at the Man on the Badge (which I invite readers here to do), especially thr face and the feet, does that not strike you more as an image of a man being burned, rather than crucified? Note the way the head is tilted slightly upwards – as if enduring fearsome pain – rather then the downwards tilt one sees so often in crucifixion images of an exhausted man. The feet are also interesting. Yes, they are crossed, as expected if nailed together. But they could also represent feet that are being roasted and are in a spasm of pain. And what is that beneath the feet? A second chain? If so the links are oddly separated. Might it not be a nominal portrayal of burning wood?

  2. Pingback: Colin Berry, Historybod: A Tale of Two Meanings « Shroud of Turin Blog

  3. colinsberry says:

    Dan Porter has just this minute posted on this one (full marks for an almost journalistic response-time, Dan, but shame you continue to vet all my comment before allowing them to appear).
    http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/colin-berry-historybod-a-tale-of-two-meanings/
    Dan writes as follows:
    “Remember ‘The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry,’ by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. Amazon in the U.K. has five copies. In the U.S. where you can buy a Kindle version, Amazon proclaims, “Using the latest scientific techniques , the authors prove that the shroud [Jacques de]Molay was wrapped in is the one now known as the Turin Shroud.
    Well, Colin Berry, has a new twist on this. Yes, it is still a scorch ala Berry and not the chemical approach taken by Knight and Lomas and . . “
    Yup, I knew I had come across that link between Molay and the Shroud some weeks ago, and it was consigned to a filing cabinet at the back of my mind, the one labelled “yet another conspiracy theory?” but hours of googling these last few days failed to turn up that Knight and Lomas book. Anyway, it’s good to know that others have spotted a connection too – apologies to those authors for not citing their work, of which I knew nothing until 5 minutes ago. Thank you Dan. I shall now try to get my hands on a copy of that book.

  4. Max Patrick Hamon says:

    Most outstanding C(raps &) B(ullshit)!
    Bad news for you, I am a Templar graffiti specialist (see e.g. my -non-revised version- 2006 Loches conference paper on Chinon enigmatic graffitis, ASPAG ed)…

  5. Max Patrick Hamon says:

    Shamre on you!

  6. colinsberry says:

    Well, I have had to block several of your comments, MPH, not because I cannot take abuse, but because I don’t want it clutttering up my comments threads, distracting from the train of thought. That’s why I allowed the last two, as a signal that I still look at each comment and give some thought as to whether it is really deserving of the filter or not.

    In fact, you have just done me a huge favour, whether you realize it or not, by making reference on Dan Porter’s site to the martyrdom of St. Lawrence (St.Laurent in France) whom the Church accused of failing to hand over the Holy Grail/Chalice that he was suspected of hoarding (forgive me if I have got it wrong or over-simplified – this being all new to me, and from cerebral RAM).

    The parallels with the Templars and their wealth and persecution by Philip IV of France is all to clear. What makes it all so compellling is the punishment meted out to Lawrence – being slowly grilled to death – precisely the same fate suffered by Jacques de Molay and Geoffroi de Charney. Now we know why that particular form of execution was ordered – there were historical and symbolic precedents.

    Tomorrow I will add a new posting in which I compare details of the Lirey badge recovered from the Seine (1855 from memory) with those from a drawing done some 10 years later. There are some interesting indications that the man on the Lirey badge was indeed being grilled from below, additional to the ones I have already suggested. In other words, he was nott the victim of crucifixion as commonly assumed – although the artist who produced it was engaged in a mischievous kind of ambiguity – one that was intended to gull both impressionable medieval pilgrims and suspicious and wary Church authorities alike… The Shroud of Turin may bve seen as a spin doctor’s tour de force (as they might say in France)

    • Max Patrick Hamon says:

      Even to my worst enemy , I can hold out a hand….in case I overmade it….

      • Max Patrick Hamon says:

        The only snag with your “most unhistorical/unarchaeological reconstructive post” is that the first cryptopareidoliac rendering of the Shroud image as “St Lawrence’s fire grate”
        dates back to the Vth century CE not the XIVth…

  7. colinsberry says:

    Here is a comment from R on Dan Porter’s site from someone who clearly has not read what I wrote, and has simply used Dan Porter’s negative spin-doctor’s summary as a guide to what I said.

    “Colin’s mis-interpretation of many of the symbols seen on this metal just goes to show my several previous comments that maybe a new pair of glasses are warranted is correct 😉

    Blood stains turn to chains, firm body features turn to armour, etc; etc; yet clues such as herringbone weave, the naked body, the flagrum, the nails, the tomb seem to disappear in his analysis.

    It has been stated that the medalion was most evidentally created whilst de Charny was still alive and as the Lirey expositions were ongoing, this conclusion comes from the depiction of the coat of arms and their ‘specific’ positioning. This was covered in detail in Wilson’s latest book The Turin Shroud and backed by others. So the medallion would be pre-1356. Medallions were common place among pilgrims in the middle ages and apparently it was good luck to toss them into waters, hense the finding of this medalion in the siene river.”

    Just that reference to “blood stains turn to chains” should be sufficient to show that someone has not bothered to do his homework. If anything, it is the other way round – that what was originally portrayed as a chain around the waist has been turned into blood stains. Why? because the “chain” on the Lirey badge is not just around the waist – it is seen to extend from both sides of the body. Given that it would be difficult if not impossible to bleach or otherwise erase what I believe is a heat scorch, that would suggest to me that the original Shroud image – as depicted on the badge – was later replaced by a new one, in which the “chain” was removed and replaced by blood stains. When was that done? 1532 would be my guess- using “fire damge” as a cover. That’s why the Savoy custodians were grilled by 3 bishops and 10 noblemen no less, suspicious that the 1532 Chambery fire was really an accident, or arson as suspected, and whether the surviving Shroud, minus a few details like those absurdly bloated (armoured?) shoulders in the original, was really the same as the one they had recalled from seeing years previously, if at all with their own eyes, and responding to complaints from previous pilgrims that the 1532 fire had changed the Shroud image as regards some important details, like making it unequivocally the crucified Christ, with no Templar coded imagery…

  8. lovetar says:

    There are various opinions and researches of the shroud of Turin. Some people say that it is the genuine and some that it is the fake and the hoax. The fact is that the shroud of Turin doesn’t present Jesus of the Bible. If we can find even one evidence, which disprove the shroud of Turin theory, so the whole story shall be invalidated. We can find a large number of evidence from the Bible, which show that the shroud of Turin cannot be the shroud of the Lord Jesus.

    Source of the text; http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.html

    • colinsberry says:

      Thanks lovetar. Have just had a quick look at that link of yours. It confirms some of my suspicions that the Shroud’s details depart somewhat from the biblical account. I’m especially intrigued by the suggestion that an expensive linen cloth would only have been used to cover the body en route to the sepulchre, and not left there.

  9. Pingback: Comments I would have placed on Dan Porter’s “Shroud of Turin” WordPress site” – but for his block on free speech … | Let's take a closer look at those straws – the ones still clutched at by Turin Shroud inve

  10. colinsberry says:

    5th May: I submitted this post to my.telegraph.co.uk a few days back. It appeared briefly, attracted one comment, and then quickly disappeared. Yet it is still listed on Google searches that have the relevant search terms, but when one clicks, there is a message “This blog has been archived or suspended”. Yet am still able to comment on my.telegraph.
    Google still keeps snapshots of postings in “Cache” which remain after one’s link has gone dead. Here’s a link to my censored posting:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AJoCsMoCw8EJ:my.telegraph.co.uk/shroudofturinwithoutallthehype/science_bod/3/a-new-theory-that-gives-a-medieval-origin-to-the-turin-shroud/+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

    Now why would the Telegraph not want its readers to see my theory? Answers on a postcard…
    Alternatively, I am a victim of what some suspect is a cheap and cheerful substitute for “moderation”, one that automatically deletes any posting or comment that receives more than a certain number of “Report this comment” clicks. Others before me have suggested that this is the way it works on the Telegraph (and no, it’s not Disqus that makes all the decisions, contrary to popular belief).

    A robot system that responds merely to numbers of Report clicks is to my mind not fit for purpose. That should be self-evident, but is especially the case because the Disqus system does contribute through allowing those who report a comment to give no reason ( and preventing those who do wish to give a reason). This makes it easy for organized lobbies and pressure groups to target those who are perceived as “the enemy” and get their postings and comments deleted. It is what’s called “astroturfing” – pretending to be grassroots opinion. In other words the DT/Disqus ‘report comment’ system is totally dumb and open to manipulation – resulting in mindless- yes, literally mindless, deletions, while at the same time leaving a marker on Google that one’s work has been deemed dodgy for some reason or other that is not specified. It really is time that the Telegraph and Disqus got together and worked out a more sensible way of policing my.telegraph and other DT forums. There are other issues too, which I shall not go into now, but would be happy to disquss if invited to do so.

  11. Saleire says:

    Just a passing thought…I once read that Jacques de Molay was crucified on the back of a door where he was held prisoner, then, left to the point of death before he was taken down and revived….in this time, could they have wrapped him in cloth. They also say that Geoffroi de Charney who was burned at the stake was possibly the uncle of the Charney who was the first recorded owner of the ‘Turin Shroud’ ……

    • Colin Berry says:

      Yes, the “nailed on a door” scenario is the one proposed by Knight and Lomas in their ‘Second Messiah’ theory.

      It’s an interesting idea, indeed ingenious, but I frankly don’t buy into their chemical image theory (lactic acid, singlet oxygen etc).

      It was Geoffroi de Charney, preceptor of Normandy, who was burned at the stake in 1314, alongside Jacques de Molay, last Grand Master of the Knights Templar. It was Geoffroi de Charny and his wife who were the first recorded owners of the TS. Note the slight difference in spelling. It was suggested by a prominent genealogist that de Charney and de Charny were uncle and nephew respectively. The possible Templar connection opens up all kinds of possibilities apart from the one suggested by Knight and Lomas, especially if you add the evidence from Barbara Frale that the Templars were using an image of a bearded man on linen in secret initiation rituals well before the events of 1314. Pity we don’t know whether the image was painted on, or more scorch-like as per TS.

      Thanks for looking in. I’ll respond to your second comment later today.

  12. Saleire says:

    Also…they say at Wikipedia of the likeness on the badge: The Brass Effigy is of the son, French Knight Geoffroi de Charny II. It is presented for historical reference only since there are no known images of the father. It is said to be an authentic likeness to the father as well and the son. The Effigy translation was generously provided by author Ian Wilson. It states as follows: ‘Here lies the noble man Monsieur Geoffroy de Charny at one time seigneur of Thory, in the district of Beauvais, who died the 22nd day of the month of May 1398. Pray God for his soul.’.[8]

    The Effigy is frequently represented elsewhere as being of the father but the translation clearly shows it is of Geoffroi II, the son.

    • Colin Berry says:

      I don’t know about you, but I find it somewhat irritating that a wiki article about Geoffroi de Charny should be accompanied by an illustration of his son, even if labelled as GDC II. The suggestion that the two looked alike (as well they might when encased in knightly armour) is neither here nor there – since it could simply mean they were both clean-shaven and had similar hair lengths. How much can one tell from brasses and line drawings anyway? It’s simply a source of possible confusion (of which some might think there’s enough already as regards de Charney v de Charny, which is a sore point with this blogger, having once been airily dismissed for confusing the two despite my having carefully made references to the claims for an uncle v nephew relationship).

  13. My first consideration on this controversy. Most extraordinary. Almost three years since your last entry, Colin. Any updates on yourself and this mind-bending topic ?

  14. Colin Berry says:

    Thanks for your interest Mark. Beware — you too may find yourself becoming progressively addicted to this intriguing topic. Even as a medieval fabrication, the people who created it displayed sheer genius – all the more impressive for keeping a technology secret that has confounded modern-day scientists. The secret I believe is to fathom out what could have been added as a heat-sensitive imprinting agent (recognizing that linen is incredibly resistant to chemical and thermal change) the non-image incorporated surplus of which was then washed out in the final step.

    I believe the secret ingredient was white flour, but that is far too mundane a proposal for some of the people I’m talking to right now on a different site.

    Yup, there’s no point adding more to this site. I discovered yesterday that while my current page 3 ranking on google.uk (enter : shroud of turin) is now ahead of Stephen Jones’s blog, he’s on Page 3 of Stateside google.com and I’m nowhere to be seen, at least on the first 12 pages! What chance does a private blogger have of getting his ideas across when the ‘system’ is so obviously discriminating , read bent and corrupted, against sceptics like myself, at least Stateside.?

  15. Please keep us informed of any new developments. From what I’ve read here, am also leaning toward the white flour theory. It’s really the simplest explanation…….. so far. +

  16. Colin Berry says:

    Thanks for the encouragement, Mark. There have indeed been new developments in the last few days in fact, reported on another site.

    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11745357&postcount=191

    Thanks to the “Zeke” filter provided on Windows 10, I’ve been able to reduce the three step model (imprinting/oven roasting/water washing to just 2!

    The beauty of the Zeke filter is that it promotes texture (like adhering solid particles) above background, such that the entire history of the Shroud image is open to inspection. I say it began as an encrustation that wasn’t washed off as initially suggested, per my site banner, but has only PARTIALLY flaked away naturally, still leaving bags of evidence , visible (especially) with the Zeke filter (courtesy of Windows 10).

    In short, it’s now a 2-stage model (imprinting/roasting) not 3!.

    My ideas are being rubbished on that “skeptics” site, but the resident know-alls there would rubbish the idea that the Sun rose each morning… The important thing right now for this real time internet reporter is to get visibility on search engines, which show a distinct bias. I have to say, at least Stateside (e.g google.com) towards pro-authenticity claims!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s