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:
Here’s a comment that has just appeared from Shroud road show promoter Russ Breault on Dan Porter’s shroudstory.com site as it is now called:
December 6, 2012 at 9:32 am | #1
Thanks Dan, here is an example of what I might include. This comes from Dr. Gil Lavoie’s work. On the Shroud we see blood that appears to be in the hair. Its not in the hair. The blood was on the face. Since the image came later, the blood only appears to be in the hair when you pull the cloth flat. This is a powerful proof point that the cloth indeed wrapped a corpse. Now why the image is vertically collimated is anyone’s guess.
Haven’t we overlooked something, Mr.Breault, that rather undermines your dodgy, self-serving authenticist position? There is a shroud dorsal as well as frontal image.
Shroud Scope images, brightness and contrast adjusted (Durante 2002/M.Latendresse)
Look at the back of the head on the dorsal image, and there are abundant bloodstains there too on the hair which are clearly intended to represent blood loss from a crown of thorns. But unlike the frontal view, there is no way that blood can be interpreted as having been on skin initially as distinct from hair.
Yet we know that blood could not have flowed from head wounds over strands of hair the way it did in the frontal image – i.e. in rivulets (thus your need, Mr.Breault, to propose it was on the skin initially, only seeming to be on the hair as a consequence of collimation, based on that hoary ‘blood first, body image second’ dogma.
I’ve already pointed out on previous occasions the scanty evidence on which that dogma is based. As for collimation, presumably of radiation, with no realistic mechanism for forming an image, then what we see here is frankly twaddle, hokum, pseudoscience (take your pick)…
My view? The image was imprinted first. Then the blood was painted on. (See an earlier post for what might have been used as a ready source of concentrated, clot-free blood, i.e. medicinal leech digesta). The artist wanted to indicate blood from a crown of thorns, so used artistic licence when painting it on the hair – frontal and dorsal image. How was he to know that sceptical 21st century critics, sick to the back teeth of the pseudoscience, would look at those blood trails on the frontal image and declare that real blood simply does not flow in that fashion on hair… In fact clotted blood does not flow at all, and so peculiar in composition was the so-called “blood” on the Shroud that Adler and Heller resorted to the description “serum exudate from retracted blood clots” (still more pseudoscience).
How much longer must we endure this selective reporting of the facts – chosen to fit a preconceived agenda – this PSEUDOSCIENCE????
Postscript: a passage from a posting by Meacham which while generally pro-authenticity, includes a mention of someone else’s deep scepticism re the blood stains on the hair (see phrase highlighted in italics at the very end).
“The pathology described thus far may well have characterized any number of crucifixion victims, since beating, scourging, carrying the crossbar, and nailing were common traits of a Roman execution. The lacerations about the upper head and the wound in the side are unusual and thus crucial in the identification of the Shroud figure. The exact nature of these wounds, especially whether they were inflicted on a living body and whether they could have been faked, is highly significant. Around the upper scalp and extending to its vertex are at least 30 blood flows from spike punctures. These wounds exhibit the same realism as those of the hand and feet: the bleeding is highly characteristic of scalp wounds with the retraction of torn vessels, the blood meets obstructions as it flows and pools on the forehead and hair, and there appears to be swelling around the points of laceration (though Bucklin [personal communication, 1982] doubts that swelling can be discerned). Several clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation (Rodante 1982). One writer (Freeland, cited in Sox 1981) questions the highly visible nature of the wounds and clots, as if the Shroud man had been bald or the stains painted over the body image.”
Update: Mario Latendresse, who I acknowledged above for his superb Shroud Scope, has just added a comment to the Russ Breault posting, stating that the notion of image projection onto a flattened sheet of linen simply does not fit with the geometrical facts. Here’s a link to his comment: click on the blue 2.
December 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm | #2
Afterthought (prompted by Hugh Farey’s comment): here’s a link to a post
I did a while ago, suggesting how that ‘blood first, body image ‘ might be re-investigated. Here, by way of taster, is a screen grab from that posting:
Angled abrasion of Shroud blood/image areas