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:
Hello again Thibault. To avoid any misunderstanding re your latest comment on The Other Site, let me tell you how I came to link the 1949 Lea and Hannan Biochim.Biophys.Acta paper with the claim that the rate of the casein-glucose reaction increases a massive 40,000-fold between 0 degrees C and 80 degrees C.
Like you,I make a lot of use of Google Scholar, and in the course of searching for temperature effects on Maillard reactions I came across the following 2006 thesis from V.M.Totlani of the Pennsylvania State University.
It was there I found my first reference to Lea and Hannan (1949):
I also found an independent source for linking the 40,000 factor with that same paper in a volume called “Advanced Dairy Chemistry” Vol 3.
although that may be where Dr.Totlani got his reference.
Now I only have the abstract, which does not specifically mention the 40,000 factor, although it does refer to an exceptionally high Q10 value of 5.? something when operating at very low temperatures (up to 9 degrees or so) – this from memory.
You say you have the entire paper, but you also appear to be suggesting ( I may be mistaken) that there is no mention in that paper of the 40,000 factor. Is that so? Have both my sources quoted the wrong paper?
As a courtesy, I would have alerted
you Thibault to this posting by inserting a link on The Other Site, as I tried to earlier for anoxie and Jos, but Dan Porter is up on his high horse again, passing judgement on my “netiquette”, deleting my links, and engaging yet again in some highly personal remarks at my expense. I shall be avoiding that site and its despot of a blogmeister even more than I do already – at least for the forseeable future. I simply don’t have the time or patience to respond to the steady stream of low-level ad hom flak that emanates from that site.