Needed urgently – scorch scanner (gd wkg cond)


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:




Must be in tip-top condition – needed for important modelling exercise at the cutting edge of science.

Must be capable of handling images of 250nm thickness +/- 500nm (best estimate available for target icon, based on  1980s vintage state-of-the-art sticky tape technology).

Click on image to enlarge. (Note: this sequence of steps is essentially the same as that displayed on all my posts (banner) except that it starts with a very faint scorch that is first given extra contrast, then ‘inverted’ with ImageJ software, i.e. light/dark reversed, and then 3D enhanced using the same program).

Must be capable of handling horse-brass size images – especially faint ones at the limits of visibility (see second from left above prior to 3D-image processing). Ability to upgrade to 4.4 x 1.1 metres an advantage, coupled with ease of portability and ability to fit through cathedral doorways.

Must also be capable of handling ancient scorches, including flaking specimens, up to 800 years old.

THIS POST WAS PIRATED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHIN MINUTES OF APPEARING HERE BY DANIEL R. PORTER, AND THEN GIVEN AN INSULTING TITLE! (Yes, I know that English pubs and their offerings featured in my last skit, but how many people will know or remember that?).

I have protested before about that man’s pirating of my content, to no avail, and am considering my options.

Speaking of titles: my next post will be a serious one:


” Part 2 of my response to Paolo Di Lazzaro.   More Mickey Mouse science from someone fixated with his  flawed radiation model”.

Line-by-line dissection of Paolo Di Lazzaro’s dodgy theory – like watching a train crash in slow-motion…


(Will he ignore this one as well?)



From The Other Site:

daveb of wellington nz
September 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm | #1

It’s good to lighten up occasionally, and Colin’s wit makes a welcome change from the pompous turgid material we see too often from some other contributors.

Has he enquired into obtaining a second-hand high-school lab microscope? That would seem to fit his specification!

OK, suppose I had a microscope to hand. Then what? You can’t just put image fibres under a microscope and get a read off of image thickness. The first step is to strip off image fibres with sticky tape. That I can do, and under a lens one can see short fragments of scorched fibres.

Adhesive tape removes enough scorched fibres from linen to give the clearly visible discoloured area. Note: it is fibres that are removed – not entire threads .

Close-up view of above

It’s the next step that is tricky if one attempts follows the STURP procedure. One has to grab hold of a single minute fibre (not thread remember but fibre, of which there can some 100-200 per thread, so one cannot expect to use just any old tweezers or forceps) pull it away from adhesive, with a view to removing a stripped fibre, leaving the image layer in the adhesive ( I’m seriously impressed!). As far as I can tell from the accounts of that experiment, the only evidence that the image layer was stripped was that observation that the stripped fibre was free of colour, and a “ghost” (coloured?) left in the adhesive, but the latter was too thin to be seen in cross-section. It’s from the latter observation that we have the much-touted 200nm figure, which of course is a pure guesstimate based on the “ghosts”  being smaller than the shortest wavelength of visible light, but the thickness was never measured directly, and as far as I’m aware no one has ever been able to do that. So it’s a bit tedious to be repeatedly told that all I have to do is get hold of a microscope when at best I can only hope to repeat the STURP procedure and arrive at the same impressionistic non-quantitative answer. Even following that marvel of micro-manipulation probably calls for a high degree of manual dexterity, and may involve an element of luck in getting image layer to separate (centuries of age may have assisted in the case of the Shroud fibres).

About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Needed urgently – scorch scanner (gd wkg cond)

  1. colinsberry says:

    I trust you are not a clairvoyant, Davor… Inquisitions are simply not my scene…

  2. Matthias says:

    Interested in your view, given your scorch theory, as to why there is no scorch image on the top of the head on the shroud. Might this be because the scorch image involved downward pressure into the cloth? Or do you think it more likely two base relief scorches neatly aligned in a mirror-like manner, thus explaining the lack of top of head image?

  3. colinsberry says:

    Hello again Matthias.

    Probably both, I would guess. In other words, there were two bas reliefs, one for the front, one for the back. Each was pressed vertically into the linen with some heat-absorbent “padding” underneath (damp sand? snow? damp wool or bedding?) to achieve good contact between cloth and template thus ensuring a reasonably good imprint (but some tenting effect is inevitable, which one sees as white space around the crossed hands etc). But each template would presumably not penetrate more than a few centimetres into the underlay. That means no imaging of the sides of the effigy, which aren’t present on shallow bas relief templates anyway, and no ears, and no ‘top of head’.

    I suppose it’s possible that a single template was used for the head, if using an ‘in the round’ bust, say, as distinct from flatter bas-relief ‘death masks’, but there would still be limited imaging of the sides, and if there were too much of the latter, one would see distortion effects that would be unsightly and a giveaway. Having said that, I noticed some distinct signs of excessive ‘wrap-around’ effect with the lower legs when looking at Shroud Scope images the other day. It’s a different leg as I recall when checking both frontal and dorsal images, which makes one wonder if there was not some operator bias where pushing/imprinting was concerned, i.e. pressure was not applied directly and evenly over the midline of the long axis. Put another way, the template tipped a bit to one side, probably towards the ‘pusher/rammer’. I hope that makes sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.