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:
Is it my imagination, or is there one stain (plum coloured) overlaid on another – the latter more the more typical sepia colour of the Shroud image generally, i.e. of body anatomy as distinct from shed blood… Is there a wound under the stain(s)?
Might image inversion (light/dark reversal) reveal more detail? Let’s try inverting the above image first.
Maybe it’s worth taking a look at the much older (1933) Enrie pictures that are also available with Shroud Scope.
Maybe 3D imaging might reveal a nail wound underneath all that “blood”. Time to re-activate my ImageJ software:
Maybe there’s a nail wound lurking round the back. That’s easy enough to investigate. I will rotate the image, while keeping the same settings:
Conclusion thus far (which I am ready to modify in the light of new information): there is no nail wound that I can see under the “blood stain” of that wrist on the Man in the Shroud. If there is no wound, then it is highly questionable whether that is real blood, or at any rate blood that issued from a wound. And I have to say that there is an impression (I shall not put it any stronger than that) that the plum coloured “blood” that seems to overlay older sepia-coloured “blood”(?) makes one wonder if there has not been some touching-up over the centuries. So claims that there is “real blood” on the Shroud, based on tests for haemoglobin, porphyrins, albumin, blood group testing etc have to be regarded with considerable scepticism since we do not know the age of the “blood” that is being tested.
This post is a work in progress, as I am following some comments threads on other sites. I shall be adding further pictures during the day as and when there are lulls in the conversation so to speak.
Postscript: Here’s an image you will not have seen before (with the blue masking to delineate it from surrounding visual clutter):
It’s the Shroud as shown on that Pray Codex, aka Hungarian Pray Manuscript. You can read all about it on my other Shroud site (the one I keep for addressing the trivia of Shroudology).