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:
Update Saturday 13th October: this has just appeared under the posting in question:
“I agreed with a complaint by Colin Berry and have blue-penciled out some wording and replaced it with what I felt was appropriate. Apologies to Colin Berry and David Rolfe”.
I thank Dan Porter* for seeing my point of view, and was briefly minded to delete this post. But as I have said all along , this blog was conceived as a warts an’ all account of my attempts to get a handle on the Shroud, and to chart what happens when I quietly drip-feed my conclusions into the public domain. So it would be inconsistent and more besides to go sanitizing it, just as my no-nonsense interpretation of the Shroud as a blood-painted scorch begins to attract some serious flak. I may review that decision in a week or two, but for now this posting stays, without any editing, if only to allow folk on The Other Site to see what the fuss was about.
* The sincerity of which is now thrown into question by this new addition:
“Revised (Paulette concurs by email) to remove a couple of sentences that Colin Berry complained were attacks on his character. Ironic?”.
“Ironic”. What’s that supposed to mean? Anyway, the offending words, claiming I “make things up” have been removed – which for now is all that matters…
From “Paulette”, a US-based science teacher as I recall: “One need only look at Colin Berry to see how anyone can make up and use image characteristics to advance personal agendas.”
So what else is new? Still more of the same steady drip drip of defamatory comment from The Other Site. What’s more, the site’s host not only allows it in his comments section, but in this instance encourages it (I refer to the fact that the above slur on my character was a personal communication elevated to a guest posting).
For the record, I have posted many, many times on image characteristics, both from model scorches or from Shroud Scope images, and cannot recall ever being seriously questioned on observations or conclusions, either here or the other site. Yet here I am accused of “making up” image characteristics (unspecified) and advancing personal agendas (unspecified). Unless Ms. “Science Teacher” can be more specific as to my transgressions, there is no case to answer on my part, but a serious one to answer on hers – like why is she using someone else’s website to defame me, and why does the site’s host allow this anonymous individual to slander/libel a named individual?
Call me mistaken, incompetent, a Mickey Mouse scientist if you wish, lady, which are all valid descriptions if attacking a person’s SCIENCE – and ones I have used regularly and will continue to do so. But don’t tell the world that I “make things up”. My results are always displayed, using photographs wherever possible. I always try to provide enough detail to allow folk to repeat my experiments and reproduce my findings.
I have not devoted my entire career (and now retirement) to scientific research and teaching (yes, teaching) to tolerate poison pen letters sent to Dan Porter from anonymous individuals, hiding behind first names or pseudonyms- ones that attack my basic integrity and honesty
It is high time that Dan Porter began to employ a blue pencil before posting this kind of poison.