Late addition (July 2019)
Please forgive this postscript, correction, “prescript”, correction, intrusion, added many years later – based on some 350 and more postings here and elsewhere.
That’s including some 7 years of my hands-on investigation into image-forming techniques, chosen to be credible with simple, indeed crude, medieval (14th century) technology etc etc.
(Oh, and yes, I accept the radiocarbon dating, despite it being restricted to a single non-random corner sample, making all the oh-so-dismissive, oh-so-derogatory statistics-based sniping totally irrelevant – a ranging shot being just that me dears- a single ranging shot, albeit subdivided into three for Arizona, Oxford and Zurich).
Sindonology (i.e. the “science” , read pseudoscience – of the so-called “Shroud ” of Turin) can be simply summed up. It’s a re-branding exercise, one designed to pretend that the prized Turin possession is not just J of A’s “fine linen”, described in the biblical account as used to transport a crucified body from cross to tomb.
Oh no, it goes further, much further, way way beyond the biblical account. How? By making out that it was the SAME linen as that described in the Gospel of John, deployed as final “burial clothes”. Thus the description “Shroud” for the Turin Linen, usually with the addition “burial shroud”. Why the elision of two different linens, deployed for entirely different purposes (transport first, then final interment)?
Go figure! Key words to consider are: authentic relic v manufactured medieval icon; mystique, peaceful death-repose, unlimited opportunity for proposing new and ever more improbable image-formation mechanisms etc. How much easier it is to attach the label “Holy” to Shroud if seen as final burial clothes, in final at-peace repose – prior to Resurrection- as distinct from a means of temporary swaying side-to-side transport in an improvised makeshift stretcher !
As I say, a rebranding exercise (transport to final burial shroud) and a very smart and subtle one at that . Not for nothing did that angry local Bishop of Troyes suddenly refer to a “sleight of hand” after allegedly accepting it when first displayed. Seems the script was altered, or as some might say, tampered with! It might also explain why there were two Lirey badges, not just one. Entire books could be written on which of the two came first… I think I know which, with its allusion (?) to the Veil of Veronica… yes, there are alternative views (the face above “SUAIRE” a visual link to the face-only display of the Linen as the “Image of Edessa” or as that on the then current “Shroud” per se.
Face shown (left) on mid- 14th century Machy Mould (recently discovered variant of the Lirey Pilgrim Badge) above the word “SUAIRE” (allegedly meaning “shroud”). Inset image on the right: one version among many of the fabled “Veil of Veronica” image. I say the two are related, and deliberately so, but this is not the time or place to go into detail.
No, NOT a resurrectional selfie, but instead a full size version of, wait for it, the legendary VEIL OF VERONICA , product of inital body contact – no air gaps- between body and fabric, but with one important difference. The Turin image was intended to look more realistic, less artistic.
How? By displaying a negative tone-reversed image implying IMPRINT (unless, that is, you’re a modern day sindonologist, in which case ‘resurrectional proto-photographic selfie” becomes the preferred, nay, vigorously proferred explanation assisted by unrestrained imagination, creation of endless pseudoscience etc etc, with resort to laser beams, corona discharges, nuclear physics, elementary particles, earthquakes etc etc – the list is seemingly endless!
Welcome to modern day sindonology.
Personally, I prefer no-nonsense feet-on-the-ground hypothesis-testing science, aided by lashings of, wait for it, plain down-to-earth common sense.
Start of original posting:
Dan Porter, you make it seem as if I have confused one Geoffrey with another “completely different person, perhaps related, perhaps not” . What complete poppycock, Dan Porter.
I have to say that for some time this has become a routine tactic of yours, which is to portray me as some kind of dim-witted innocent abroad in your suave sophisticated land of Shroudology. (Well, it’s foreign alright, but I’m fast finding may way around, and finding the STURP tourist guide book is inaccurate in a whole number of respects).
(Re that wiki link to STURP: it ends with “STURP ended its activities in 1981”. Ho,ho. If you believe that, you will believe anything, especially if you look at the participants in the Valencia Shroud shindig – starting this coming Saturday, just the latest in the never-ending Shroudology circus)
No, I did not confuse the two Geoffreys. In fact I went to some trouble right at the start to distinguish between the two, calling them Geoffroi Sr and Geoffroi Jr. What’s more, I identified them as uncle and nephew respectively. That was based on the work of Noel Currer-Briggs, a big name here in the UK in genealogy and author of many books, the “Shroud and the Grail” included until his recent death in 2004.
What’s more, Geoffrey Sr., the uncle, did not just “die” in 1314 – he was hideously and slowly grilled at the stake from the feet upwards along with Jacques de Molay, last Grand Master of the Knights Templar and other Templars charged by Philp IV of France as being heretics ( conveniently wiping out the debts he had accrued with them).
It was that link between the nephew on the one hand and martyred uncle on the other that formed the basis of my post, the details of which you have chosen to ignore completely in your desire to scoff at my research on your increasingly dubious site .
But it is not just your site, is it Dan? You are the mouthpiece for something much bigger. But what? Why the coyness, Dan? Who are your backers who together have the resources to respond to criticism with lightning speed? I doubt if there was more than an hour between my post being read this morning (yes, WordPress give me a site meter too) to be followed a few hours later with your magisterial put-down.
Anything else you write on that highly partisan pro-authenticity site of you and your associates that warrants attention will be answered here, Dan, and nowhere else … I was on the point of doing that anyway, given your vetting of my comments before allowing them to appear (while giving carte blanche to the likes of the Frenchman to engage in mudslinging and abuse).
Might I suggest that you re-read my previous post, and then comment on the key issues I have raised, like the significance of the chain around the waist, like the finding of that Pilgrim’s Badge (no, not a medal, but a badge) in the Seine so close to the site of de Molay’s and Geoffroi de Charney’s slow torture and final execution. I repeat once more for the slow of comprehension, or more likely the spin doctor(s) of Shroudology – that’s de Charney, the uncle note, not de Charny, the nephew. It was the uncle who was the martyr. It was the nephew who commissioned the Badge, and for all we know the Shroud too – a scorched image serving as a visual and arresting metaphor for a then relatively recent and traumatic event in French history, one that culminated with his uncle being grilled alive from the feet up. But it was cleverly done, combining elements of the uncle’s fate with that of the crucified Christ, gradually morphing into the latter alone.
That’s why we are still discussing and debating today – or trying to – given the strange, haunting and powerful imagery based on a convulsive period in French history. But you, Dan, or rather that site of yours, do not make it easy on us honest seekers after truth, ones with no personal axe to grind – just fascination with a still unsolved mystery along with an enquiring mind as befits those with a background in research. Nope, I admitted that I am not a historian, nor do I have ambitions to become one. My post was focused on a physical artefact with an extraordinary amount detail that has survived centuries of Seine water (as lead/tin alloys do), and one that has been largely and strangely ignored by Shroudologists, judging by the paucity of returns in search engines.
I am interested (and curious) to know why at least two of your site regulars have apparently from their comments not encountered the Badge previously, or appreciated its historical and cultural significance. Maybe you did not either Dan, at least until reading my post this morning, and then responded as is your wont by swinging into fire-fighting mode…
Colin Berry MSc, PhD
Previously Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at the Flour Milling and Baking Research Association, Chorleywood, Herts, UK
Here are just two of the responses on Dan Porter’s site today. Both are intrigued by the Lirey badge, scarcely aware it would seem of its existence, far less its significance, until today. Yet the site owner wastes no time in posting that sour put-down response of his, not just in one but two quick-fire postings. Make of that what you will, folks, sceptics especially…
Comment 1 (from a site regular)
This is the first time I have seen this badge in the public arena, or even heard mention of it, although evidently the cognoscenti have been aware of it. Doubtless they can provide more detailed information about it if so inclined. Its dimensions, identity of the coats of arms, its material and other aspects would be of considerable interest. Its provenance and dating are obviously critical to its identity. Max includes the note that a similar impression of the figures is apparently on the Coudray tower.
Ian Wilson includes a colour plate of Templars Molay and Charnay being burned at the stake taken from a British Library ms (plate 28c in “The Shroud” 2010), If the colour plate is a moderately realistic representation, then both men appear beardless and also tonsured.
If the badge can definitely be connected to the Templars, it would seem to add some little weight to Wilson’s theory that the Templars were at least aware of the Shroud image.
To me, the left-hand image appears to have a face and is therefore intended as a frontal image; I cannot discern a face on the right-hand image, and presume it may be intended as a dorsal view as represented on the Shroud. An alternative explanation might be that if they indeed are connected to the Templars, they might represent the two Templar victims, although I tend to favour a Shroud-like image representation.
If the figures are indeed frontal and dorsal views, then it seems highly unlikely that they can be seen as anything else but a representation of some intended connection with the Shroud image, There is nothing else like it which it could otherwise represent,
Any potential the badge might have for creating a rubbing or any other kind of copy is an irrelevant distraction from whatever else its true significance might be, assuming that it’s a genuine article.
Comment 2 (another site regular)
Just an interesting note about this medal : Did anyone noticed the herringbone weave on the cloth ? This is the best confirmation that the artist who have done this medal during the 14th century was looking at the Shroud of Turin.
Pingback: Conspiracy Theory anyone? « Shroud of Turin Blog
Have you considered adding some differing opinions to your article? I think it might enhance everyones understanding.
It’s not an article – it’s a response to a response…
I have been following an incredibly talented experimental film scientist an amateur who has discovered in 2011 the second Shroud or the first, a decoded photograph of an alive Jesus Christ in the St Peters Veronica Veil resembling the face of the Shroud of Turin. He also has been rediculed by this group of so called Shroudies. His discovery is of immense importance as he has given evidence to both cloths coming from the same man and the St Peters Veronica has far greater time history recorded. He has solved the mystery without carbon dating by his discovery and several of these Shroud groups who have vested interests in conitueing the circus are terrified of his discovery. He even revealed three toes ripped off the mysterious left foot which scientists have said was crossing over but was not visible , his name is Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello
Pingback: Change of direction | The Shroud of Turin: medieval scorch? Separating the science from the pseudo-science…