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:
This is a quickie post today, since I have some chores to attend to. It’s a development of some ideas that have been forming since posting Part 3 of my response to Thibault Heimburger’s critique of the scorch hypothesis. There I was modelling the effect of different degrees of applied force between heated template and linen. The more force, the larger the imprint left on the threads of the linen. The lightest force would scorch only the most superficial threads of the weave, while increasing force would tend to affect those
threads parts of the same thread that are less superficial where they loop down into the weave.
Here’s a screen grab from that previous psoting:
It’s a natural development to think that through in terms of the separate weft and warp threads, but since there is some controversy as to which is which in Shroud micrographs, see immediately preceding post, I am going to designate the two sets (mutually at right angles) simply as w1 and w2.
w2 is the thread that one sees in micrographs as passing over 3, then under 1, over 3, under 1 etc. w2 is the most superficial of the threads.
Note that the image intensity tends to be greater on the more superficial w2 threads than the “recessed” w1 – exactly what one expect from a contact scorch applied with light or moderate pressure that was insufficient to flatten/crush the weave.
Now let’s look at modelling the effect of light contact, one that scorches just the w2 threads, and then a greater impaction force that flattens the weave, making contact with recessed w1 threads, causing some additional light scorching of the latter while increasing the image intensity on the w2 threads.
I believe there is a means of testing the scorch hypothesis. It involves looking at as many photomicrographs of the Shroud image, comparing regions where the image intensity is large, e.g. the nose, chin, moustache etc, and comparing with parts where it is low, e.g. the peripheries of face, torso and limbs.
Prediction. In regions where the image intensity is high (due to greatest impaction force in the template model) there will be appreciable scorching of both w1 and w2 threads. In the regions with a fainter image, only the more superficial w2 threads will be scorched.
I do not think that a radiation model could make a similar prediction. Indeed, after Raymond N.Rogers, I do not consider that any radiation model can account for the preferential location of image on the most superficial threads, as apparent in the micrograph above, far less a a progressive shift towards w1 threads as well in the regions of higher image intensity.
Here’s a model that can be tested without needing access to the Shroud, merely access to the existing archive of photomicrographs (Mark Evans/STERA etc). But it does require access to the entire archive.
Are there any plans to release those archives soon, to allow researchers like myself to test their ideas?