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:
Step 1: get yourself a stick of artist’s charcoal, do a quick sketch of the Man on the Shroud.
Ring any bells? Certainly it’s crude, but it shows how a quickie drawn image can produce a ‘ghostly’ end -result.
A much better Shroud-like image can be obtained with scorching instead of charcoal sketching, using a hot iron applied free hand ( I raise my hat to pyrographic artiste Irene Corgiat) or, better still, by imprinting off a hot bas-relief template.
Making the “scorch” image from the hot template produces ‘thermographic inversion” (the prominent parts of image like the nose which appear light in a photograph register instead as dark due to better contact with linen). The result is a ‘negative’ image.
Inverting the negative image back to a positive produces a luminous ghostly image, unlike a normal photographic positive? Why? Because the features that were imprinted and thus emphasised in the original imprint end up ‘de-emphasised’, and those that were left un-imaged – as white space – end up emphasised.
Is it any wonder why the iconic Shroud image looks so much better than the original negative imprint? IT IS – because the inversion/reversion cycle produces a unique ghostly effect that the world of art and photography has largely overlooked and/or ignored. Maybe there is a limited market for luminous ghostly images – no matter how much artistic value is added to crudely drawn images.
Finally, on a lighter note, assertions that the Shroud image, and that image alone, uniquely contains encoded 3D information is what I call Mickey Mouse science, and is perhaps best answered with the following:
Addendum: added 14 May. I have received an email from an image-researcher regarding my 3D techniques (using ImageJ software). Without stating chapter-and-verse, here’s a screen grab that shows three stages of smoothing, i.e. from zero through 12.0 to 33.0.
It shows how the 3D image starts as the addition of a vertical z axis, and then converts each pixel from 2D to 3D by elongating along the new vertical z axis in proportion to the pixel density (zero smoothing, first on left). Smoothing then … smooths.