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:
Mario Latendresse’s Shroud Scope images are fine as far as they go. They retain high definition, aka high-resolution (HD and HR respectively) up to to their top level of magnification.
But they lose resolution and become pixellated if one tries to magnify further.
Why would one want to magnify further? Answer: to investigate the region between seeing the herringbone weave, with blood image apparently confined to the ribs of the weave, and the individual interwoven fibres. There is a paucity of such images available on the internet – they appear to be in the Mark Evans’ archive held by Barrie Schwortz and his STERA Inc. as recommended to me recently by Dr.Thibault Heimburger. Example:
One needs to know which of the latter are contributing to the herringbone weave, and which are not, and the only way of doing that reliably is to zoom in and zoom out on a single image with an unbroken continuum until one has a feel for the transition between photomacrograph and photomicrograph respectively.
(Note added 14 April 2013: when I wrote this last July, I had not appreciated that the ribs of the herringbone weave ARE discernible in the above picture. They are the stacked but staggered horizontals (running diagonally from top left to bottom right) each of which is 1 thread passing over 3, before going under the next, then over the next 3 etc. I’m deliberately avoiding all mention of warp and weft here, given the later controversy as to which is which, and the lack of what one might describe as an unambiguous scientific definition that allows one to be absolutely certain as to which is which without being present at the loom during weaving).
Barrie Schwortz may have the images in his copyright-protected archive, but has stated (my bold) :
“Due to copyright considerations, we cannot provide high resolution digital files without a written licensing agreement. We do not permit our high resolution files to be published on the internet.”
Why not Mr.Schwortz? Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I thought your STERA existed to promote Education and Research…
It might be more accurate to describe STERA as a copyright organization that exists to promote STERA, as this link should prove beyond any shadow of doubt. (Why should STERA hold the copyright on the iconic Shroud photographs taken by Secondo Pia – to take just one example from a long long list).
Update 13th April 2013 : we now have the Shroud 2.0 App with higher resolutions than we have seen previously, at least for those with access to a smartphone.
I’ve been playing around a bit with the image that appeared on the Daniel R.Porter’s shroud.com site, showing a close-up of the epsilon (reversed 3) bloodstain on the forehead.
Here’s the image as shown, with the blood just visible on the 1-over-3 threads comprising the ribs of the herringbone weave (quite how much is in those furrows is anyone’s guess, but I suspect it is smaller than one would think at first sight)
Note that the pink colour has intensified somewhat on the 1-over-3 threads, and there is a hint of a more intense yellow in places outside the blood stain corresponding with faint patches of body image.
Note further yellowing /intensification of the body image colour, but the yellow is now replacing pink in the bloodstain too.
Note how the initial pink coloration of the threads in the epsilon has now been replaced by the yellow coloration of body image at high contrast. Artefact? Or is there body image under the epsilon bloodstains that has been unmasked by increasing the contrast? More to follow (control experiments).
Futher update: here, in response to an enquiry, is the frontal and reverse side of some fabric that has been dabbed with blood.
Late addition (July 1 2013): herringbone weave modelled using a suggestion from Hugh Farey on the James Randi Forum (more details to follow). I chose this old post as one having the greatest relevance to the matter of that (enigmatic) herringbone weave.
Late edit (8 years later – Aug 18, 2020)
I realized just a few days ago that my modelling above was incorrect. How did I know? Answer: I came across a STERA-owned photograph of one of the portions of the TS taken for radiocarbon dating (probably Arizona’s). They didn’t match. So I’ve spent half the morning with coloured paper and guillotine, and come up with the following which, hooray, does match! (The error is to do with the manner in which the 3/1 “herringbone weave” is staggered – nuff said…)
I shan’t bother displaying the reverse-side image. It generally causes much head-scratching (my own included!).