Could this be clinching evidence that the Shroud image is a contact scorch?

Man in the Shroud, chin and neck region, Durante 2002/ShroudScope image, with added contrast

Man in the Shroud, chin and neck region, Durante 2002/Shroud Scope image, with added contrast.  A= permanent imprinting of a crease of some kind at same time as body image (see later), B= imaging of underside of chin, C= imaging of the neck. See “Interpretation” below for more details.

Interpretation:

Red arrow A:  Crease in linen where forced to turn through 90 degrees over tip of chin (previously noted and interpreted on my sciencebuzz site  and  my ShroudScope series here too)

Red arrow B. Faint imaging of the underside of the chin where the fabric is largely tangential to the template, such that the resolved force vector is small.

Red arrow C. Strong imaging where the fabric then turns through 90 degrees a second time,  meeting the neck “square on”.

How would proponents of other models account for those three peculiar and unexpected details labelled A, B and C, none of which would seem to be readily accommodated within non-contact models.

I may add more later, but will first await folk’s initial reactions.

How can this picture be explained except by continuity of contact between the base of chin and the chest. Continuity  requires direct contact under applied pressure, as would occur if a heated template were pushed down into linen with a soft underlay. (ed: the two pictures are in the wrong sequence – will attend to later).

Note sizeable caviry under linen between chin and chest due to tenting of cloth  when there is no applied pressure to make it conform to the contours. (The scorch medel using a template. linen and soft underlay presumes pressure is applied for best imprinting, at least on this site).

Note sizeable cavity under linen between chin and chest due to tenting of cloth when there is no applied pressure to make it conform to the contours. (The contact- scorch model using a heated template. linen and soft underlay presumes pressure is applied for best imprinting,-  at least on this site).

Is it not inconsistent with radiation models that picture the cloth draped loosely over the recumbent subject, since there would be tenting of fabric between chin and chest resulting in at best weak,  or more probably NO IMAGING.

Beware incoming (uncharitable thought): some of us dismiss radiation because there is no obvious means by which radiant energy from accessible or realistic parts of the em spectrum – near uv, visible, infrared –  can be absorbed sufficiently by white linen to produce chemical change, either as a primary consequence of bond scission, or secondary thermal effects. What the ‘radiationists’ seem to be doing, if I’m not mistaken, is to adduce  imprinting of the neck etc across an air-gap in a loosely-draped model, as evidence for action at a distance  – despite the subjective model, and, more importantly,  in clear contradiction to elementary physics (no chemical change without prior absorption of radiation). They then  compound the felony by invoking the inverse square law.  The latter only tells you that the flux density falls off (dramatically) with distance,  but that is irrelevant if it’s the wrong type of radiation (or  target, in this case linen)  that is unable to absorb sufficient radiation to be altered by it  to leave a “burned patch” ( leaving a recognizable image adds another order of complexity, even in 21st century ENSA laboratories far removed in time and space from 1st century rock tombs, one  that is usually glossed over if mentioned at all) . As Joe Nickell accurately observed, the pseudo-scientists start with the desired result and then work backwards to find the evidence.

Imaging of neck and underside of chin when using my variant of the scorching model.

Imaging of neck and underside of chin when using my variant of the scorching model. Note: the effigy/template is now FACE DOWN into the linen.

(Sorry about the absence of a nose as reference point. I used the ‘crucified Jesus’ picture above as starting point, which had to be flipped vertically through 180 degrees. It too lacks a nose.)

In the contact-scorch model, using pressure on a heated template, the linen can be made to conform with more of the contours such that imaging of neck and even underside of chin becomes feasible:

Afterthought, added Saturday am:  Acting as my own Devil’s Advocate, I began to question the validity of attributing the scorched-in crease to a single prominence like the chin, when the crease extends both sides as far as the hair, and would need  contact with hot template to have acquired that scorched-in appearance across the entire width.

Dan Porter has today re-posted a graphic he first displayed in Dec 2011, reporting his first results with the splendid ImageJ 3D-enhancing software.

Dan Porter's  Dec 2011 application of ImageJ to the TS(?) image.

Dan Porter’s Dec 2011 application of ImageJ to the TS(?) image.

Assuming it’s the real Shroud image in  his picture, and not a clever Garlaschelli facsimile (the accompanying text is a little unclear – but the presence of a 1532 scorch mark – also 3D-enhancible! would suggest it is) then that picture demonstrates eloquently how a crease might come to be associated with a thermal imprint off a rigid template. The chin would be the leading edge/point initially as the template was pushed down into linen, but then the mask-like representation of the face – probably a separate template – would then cause the first-formed chin crease to extend as far as the “hair” on both sides, given that the latter is a rigid bounding feature of template too. Yes, it’s complicated I know, but one has to make do with what little is available – there’s only one Shroud of Turin.

(I shall borrow Dan’s ImageJ settings which he has thoughtfully provided, and see whether I too can capture that chin-level  crease in all its glory).

New addition, Saturday pm: (thanks to a  free downloadable image clone tool)

Surely a loosely-draped Shroud that ‘tents’ between the chin and chest should have produced an image like the one on the left, not the actual one on the right (ShroudScope)?  There might have been no transverse scorched-in crease either…

Surely a loosely-draped Shroud that ‘tents’ between the chin and chest should have produced an image like the one on the left, not the actual one on the right (ShroudScope)? There might have been no transverse scorched-in crease either…

Should anyone say that there might be some imaging of the neck, say, across an air gap of several centimetres, because of the inverse square law of radiation, rest assured that will really set me off – on the subject of radiation and its proposed (or presupposed) role in creating images on linen… There are some folk who need to learn – re-learn- a bit of elementary physics. Regrettably (or should that be astonishingly?) that includes some miracle-invoking physicists and engineers who inexcusably compromise  the objectivity of science with their particular variant of  Christian theology (even if the latter were by some stretch of the imagination  to be proven to have  been  the correct extra-scientific description of our Universe).

New addition, Sunday 3rd Feb

Thibault Heimburger posted a broadside yesterday (see recent comments) to which I gave a holding reply, addressing just the first point, i.e.

“Regarding the crease (A above), it is just one of dozens of transverse creases “caused by compressing the fabric in the process of rolling it inappropriately… it is very important to analyse the correct interrelations, because we have to be careful not to give inappropriate weight to the existence of these creases.” (Flury-Lemberg, Sindone 2002).
This crease has nothing to do with the image formation process.”.

Let’s take a look, shall we, at all those “dozens of transverse creases” caused by “compression and rolling”. Let’s be scientific, and make no assumptions to begin with as to how they were made, or when they were made. That will mean dropping the term “crease” for a start, and much else besides.

Let’s start first with two frontal views of the Shroud, the first a B/W  Enrie negative from old-fashioned silver salt photography and the second my preferred Durante 2002 “as is” image from modern digital photography, both from the invaluable ShroudScope site.

Durante 2002 top,  Enrie (193?) bottom.

Durante 2002 top, Enrie (193?) bottom. CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Note that the transverse marks are far easier to see in the negative than the positive.  Are they all the same character?  Let’s compare close-ups of the one at chin-level with some others, especially those that are nowhere near the body-image area.

More to come, including some slicker description than ‘transverse mark’. Maybe I’ll be able to suggest an abbreviation or acronym that can be used provisionally while we explore, bit by bit,  the entire population of those marks that Thibault is so keen to prematurely pigeon-hole in that filing cabinet mind of his. Shame there isn’t a drawer labelled “Scientific Method”…  To quote Joe Nickell: ” Shroudologists start with the desired answer and then work backwards  to the evidence” or words to that effect. That ain’t science – it’s pseudo-science.

Back to the science: how about this as a good, neutral, non-loaded term?    TIDS  That’s an acronym for Transverse Image-Degrading  Defacing Streaks.  My Collins Dictionary defines a streak as “a long thin mark, stripe or trace of some contrasting colour”.

TIDS (Transverse Image-Degrading Streaks) in body image v non body image areas, indicated by yellow rectangles on the Enrie negative.

TIDS (Transverse Image-Degrading Streaks) in body image v non body image areas, indicated by yellow rectangles on the Enrie negative.

Now let’s see how those two TIDS compare in Durante close-ups, helpfully available from ShroudScope. (My mentioning Shroudscope and/or using its images virtually guarantees that this posting will be ignored by The Other Site (“ShroudScopophobia”).

Durante 2002 SScope yellow rect cropped

Now for the crucial comparison:

TIDS 1 v TIDS 2same level of magnification in ShroudScope

TIDS 1 v TIDS 2
same level of magnification in ShroudScope

Notice anything? Look closely at the two “TIDS”. They are entirely different in character. The one at the base of the chin (TIDS 1)  is ‘twin-track’ as noted  previously, almost a year ago to the day, with ideas on how it may have acquired that distinctive appearance. TIDS2″, on the other hand, possibly one of “dozens” according to Thibault is single track, and not quite the same hue.

Thibault’s huge and premature assumption has been to assume that the TIDS are are the same in character. That is clearly not the case. TIDS 1, at chin level, is different. How many more like TIDS 1 can we find, how many more like  TIDS2?  That may take a while to establish. I’ll be back later with some more results.

Update: Sunday 13:50.

Here’s another twin-track TIDS,  hot from the presses. It’s from a dorsal view, just below the so-called “blood belt”:

tids 3 below blood belt -7,100,15

Fine so far.  Now let’s see if I can find a third “twin track ” TIDS on the body image. I I shall go hunting for one or more outside of the body image zone among the many TIDS that one sees there, especially in the Enrie photographs.

Here we are on the dorsal side, in the feet region, and what do we find? An embarrassment of twin-track TIDS.

tids 4 dorsal feet region -7,100,15

Embarrassment because they are no respecters of their ‘transverse’ directionality, that term chosen because of the preponderance of transverse streaks one sees in the Enrie pictures.

Here is a corner of the Shroud, dorsal side, showing the presence of both types of TIDS, Type A (twin track), a selection of which are labelled with red arrows,   and Type B (single track), labelled  with blue arrows.

tids 5 corner dorsal -7, 100,15 labelled

More to come (like a consideration of when each type of TIDS arrived on the Shroud).

Here’s  a horizontal view of  the base of the TS  head, dorsal side. Note the two prominent Type A (twin track) TIDS, which hardly need labelling.

dorsal base head -7,100,15

Are there any  TIDS on the body image area that are NOT Type A?

Update: 16:40

Well, I have spent a few minutes scrutinizing the body image areas frontal and dorsal views of the TS.

TIDS at far right somewhat difficult to classify as Type A or Type B

TIDS at far right somewhat difficult to classify as Type A or Type B

Nowhere can I see an unequivocal Type B (single track) TIDS. There is one right at the far end of dorsal view, beyond the feet that is difficult to classify, see above, but in other respects once can confidently state that ALL the TIDS on the Shroud’s central body image area of the twin track Type A.

Conclusion: there are two types of TIDS on the Shroud, A and B. The body image area has twin track Type A only. Non-body image areas can have Type A or Type B.

To assert  that the TIDS at chin level on the Shroud is just “one of dozens” , as if to belittle its significance, is unscientific, given  they are not all the same.

There is presumably something special or unusual about the body image area that would explain why all the TIDS are Type A.

Let’s now consider the unusual and distinguishing feature of the Type A TIDS, namely that the central zone is largely free of colour, despite being surrounded in the central zone by body image.

Hypothesis: the Type A TIDS must have been imprinted at the SAME TIME as the body image (not acquired afterwards) for it to have  prevented  imprinting of body image in its central zone. Note too that it IS an imprint – not a mere crease or fold. It is an intrinsic PART OF THE TS IMAGE – so cannot be dismissed as the result of ‘compression and rolling’ of the TS centuries after the initial imprinting.

Close-up view of that chin-level TIDS

Close-up view of that chin-level TIDS

Advertisements

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 medieval forgery, medieval hoax, Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Could this be clinching evidence that the Shroud image is a contact scorch?

  1. Thibault HEIMBURGER says:

    Regarding the crease (A above), it is just one of dozens of transverse creases “caused by compressing the fabric in the process of rolling it inappropriately… it is very important to analyse the correct interrelations, because we have to be careful not to give inappropriate weight to the existence of these creases.” (Flury-Lemberg, Sindone 2002).
    This crease has nothing to do with the image formation process.

    These transverse creases are very different from the “V-shaped” fold running vertically all along the center line of the fabric. “its existence points to the fact that the cloth, in order to protect its precious content, has been folded length wise with the image facing in, apparently from a very early point in time”. But once again this fold was made after the image.

    Much more interesting is the discovery of another almost invisible fold, called by FL the “primary fold”. This fold can only be seen using grazing light. It is another much more delicate v-shaped grove only a few centimeters away from the other one described above which also runs along the whole length of the fabric. It belongs to the very first folding after the Shroud had been finished and is due to the production process of the fabric and is not the result of using the fabric.
    This is certainly the only fold that was there before the image.
    I have no high-resolution photographs of this particular fold but at the first look there is nothing interesting to expect.

    Therefore A is false.
    Regarding B and C, I see no problem at all with any kind of non-contact process.
    This kind of process may or may not leave an image between the chin and the chest.
    Actually there is an image whose intensity is clearly related to the color of the transverse bands that are clearly seen.
    Once again the “banding effect”.
    Is the banding effect (which is a fact) consistent with the scorch hypothesis ? I wonder..

    Thibault.

    • colinsberry says:

      2nd para’ (See response to introductory para below)

      “These transverse creases are very different from the “V-shaped” fold running vertically all along the center line of the fabric. “its (sic )existence points to the fact that the cloth, in order to protect its precious content, has been folded length wise with the image facing in, apparently from a very early point in time”. But once again this fold was made after the image.”

      On what grounds do you expect me or anyone else to accept an ex cathedra statement like “the fold was made after the image”?

      That is simply unscientific Thibault, and defies commonsense too – see my final picture above where it’s clear that the transverse streak at chin level is an INTRINSIC part of a centrally-situated AND remarkably homogeneous image, not some later add-on.

      See the additions made today to this posting regarding the chin-level imperfection which I describe as a Type A “TIDS” (Transverse Image-Defacing Streak”). Note the central zone between the twin tracks largely devoid of colour that can be accounted for in the scorch hypothesis. Can YOU account for it Thibault – someone who seems content to accept a 1st century provenance while freely admitting to having no working hypothesis to explain how the Shroud image was created?

    • colinsberry says:

      Paragraph 3:

      “Much more interesting is the discovery of another almost invisible fold, called by FL the “primary fold”. This fold can only be seen using grazing light. It is another much more delicate v-shaped grove only a few centimeters away from the other one described above which also runs along the whole length of the fabric. It belongs to the very first folding after the Shroud had been finished and is due to the production process of the fabric and is not the result of using the fabric.
      This is certainly the only fold that was there before the image.
      I have no high-resolution photographs of this particular fold but at the first look there is nothing interesting to expect.”

      “Much more interesting”? Have you any idea how condescending and arrogant you sound, Thibault? What gives you the right to decide what is or is not interesting? For your information I find little of that section above interesting at all, and of dubious relevance.

      “Certainly the only fold that was there before the image”? Only rarely is there certainty in scientific research, Thibault – just degrees of uncertainty.

      With reluctance I have to say this Thibault – you don ‘t have the first clue as to the scientific modus operandi. Everything you write confirms that again and again.

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER says:

        Colin,
        I was just writing a polite answer to your previous posts, with a proposal to send you some photographs from Flury-Lemberg’s book, showing that you are wrong regarding the creases and particularly your “final picture” .

        While I was writing, I received your last post.

        Since this last post is simply an insult to me and to Mrs. Flury-Lemberg (probably the best expert in the world), I will not waste my time with you.

        I am ready to discuss with a gentleman. You are not a gentleman.

        Sadly,

        Thibault.

        • colinsberry says:

          Nowhere did you say anything about sending photographs – which I would have been happy to receive, and nowhere did I make any reference to the good lady – whom you only mentioned in passing. So kindly leave Mme. Flury-Lemberg out of this, Thibault. You are seriously testing my patience with your barracking and false insinuations…

          PS: And I see you have repeated your ridiculous allegations on Dan Porters’ site. Contemptible. And you have the nerve to bandy around the term “gentleman”. It is you, Thibault, who needs to look at the way you interact with others online. You need to stop talking down the whole time, or posturing as if you know all the answers. You don’t. Oh, and one final thing: anyone who thinks that the streaks on the Shroud are simple folds and creases with no imprinting reveals a monumentally poor grasp of that artefact and what those photos represent…

    • colinsberry says:

      Reply to 5th and final para:

      “Therefore A is false”.

      A is simply a label on a diagram, showing a prominent transverse marking. Whether or not you accept my view that it is as intrinsic to the Shroud image as anything else – you cannot say it is “false”. How can a feature that has precisely the same hue as the body image, yet largely obliterates any superimposed body image due to having that pale central zone between the twin tracks, be described as “false”?

      “Regarding B and C, I see no problem at all with any kind of non-contact process.”

      You don’t see any problem with there being no known radiation capable of scorching linen at a distance, while still leaving an imprint of undamaged hair?

      “This kind of process may or may not leave an image between the chin and the chest.

      How can it leave an image, given the air gap?

      What’s the source of radiation? How was it brought to a focus or collimated – needed to form an image as distinct from a diffuse discoloration? Since when has wishful thinking been a substitute for science – or are you content to be seen as promoting pseudo-scientific twaddle?

      “Actually there is an image whose intensity is clearly related to the color of the transverse bands that are clearly seen. Once again the “banding effect”.

      The banding effect is usually wheeled out to counter the suggestion that the face looks too thin and gaunt. In fact the margins are not sufficiently linear to lend much support to yarn variability as the major cause for the abrupt cut off of the face at the two lateral margins. The high degree of bilateral symmetry also makes it improbable that banding is the major reason for the severe and, some might say, unrealistic mask-like character of that face. If it were not for the photogenic enhancement that comes with turning the pseudo-negative into a positive, I doubt whether the TS would exert the hold it does on so many folk – given its luminous and haunting character. However, a quick charcoal sketch of yourself, as could be had in many a tourist centre, would probably endow you too with a luminous and haunting quality, Thibault, after uploading to ImageJ software.

      ” Is the banding effect (which is a fact) consistent with the scorch hypothesis? I wonder..
      Thibault.

      You feel free to wonder,Thibault. Every second spent wondering is a second less spent promulgating your goal-directed brand of pseudo-science.

  2. colinsberry says:

    Introductory para: Well. I’m delighted to see that you have restored your Mobylette time machine to full working order, Thibault, and are able to enlighten us on the entire history of the Shroud from the date of its inception.

    However, I have to take issue with you on some ever so tiny details. That might take some time, given the number of details you have raised, and the fact that I am now becoming increasingly bored, not so much with the Shroud, as to the tactics of Shroudologists, and am more concerned right now with finalising my (damning) critique of Oppenheimer’s book on the genetic origins of les rosbifs. Here, by way of a courtesy, is my immediate response to your first point.

    You say “dozens of transverse creases”. I don’t know which creases you are referring to, but what seems abundantly clear from the Durante 2002/ShroudScope image of the transverse crease at chin level is that we are seeing a feature that has essentially the same character and homogeneity as the body image. In other words, it is not just a crease, but a baked-in crease, something you overlooked to mention (odd for someone who is so attentive to detail). (Late edit: I shall post details tomorrow of what provisionally one might call Type A and Type B transverse markings).

    Now that baked-in crease might in theory have arrived with the 1532 fire. But you say the crease is the result of “rolling” for storage. Are you not forgetting something? The bilateral symmetry of the 1532 scorch marks indicates without a shadow of doubt that the Shroud had been folded down its midline – between the eyes so to speak – at the time of the 1532 fire. Quite how could it have been folded down its long axis AND a number of transverse axes (again, symmetry) – AND rolled up all at the same time to give a multitude of baked in creases is a difficult concept for me to grasp. I suppose it’s just possible there had been rolling as well as folding. Perhaps you could supply some diagrams to back up your theory.

    In the meantime, I work on the assumption that the baked-in creases were acquired at the time that the Shroud image was imprinted, especially as there is one at chin level, and another at the top of the head (best seen in Enrie negatives) , suggestive of imprinting when a rigid hot template was forced down into linen.

    There are other details I could mention, like the twin-track appearance of the crease, tricky perhaps to explain as simple folding, but possible by the kind of invagination that might occur when the linen is subject to deformation from a rigid template under applied pressure exposing it to complex forces, especially when there is a soft backing underlay that allows a lot of movement. Invagination creates cold spots – or cold linear furrows – able to escape scorching, as I proposed many moons ago.

    “This crease has nothing to do with the image formation process.”

    Sorry, Thibault, but critics who indulge in that kind of dogmatic assertion are not ones I hasten to respond to. You may have to wait a while for answers to the rest of your points.

  3. Hugh Farey says:

    In order to see a crease at all, it must be differently coloured from the background of the cloth. One way of achieving this is for the crease to be lit from the side, when, if it is a valley, the side closest to the light source will be in shadow, and the side facing the light source, being more perpendicular to it, will be brighter than the background. If the crease is a ridge, the shading is reversed. This would occur in completely uncoloured cloth, and I believe most of the type 2 TIDS are of this kind. Intriguingly, the Shroud Scope “Durante 2002 Horizontal” image has the beard to the left of the eyes, while the “Face only” close up has it to the left. Because we seem to be attuned to think of light as generally coming from the top-left, the long crease running from the forehead, very close to the epsilon mark, through an eye and on down the length of the cloth, appears to be a ridge in the “Face only” version, but a valley in the bigger version. I wonder which it is.
    Other creases are possible. Sigmoid, or recumbent creases, are typified by a single large shadow if the ‘lip’ is facing away from the light source, or simply a bright leading edge if it is facing towards it.
    As I say, these shadow details are observable in otherwise completely unmarked cloth. However, I have some difficulty with them in the shroud. If the shadow was a result of light coming from above or below the camera, as it travelled the length of the shroud, then transverse creases should be almost impossible to see, which is not the case. If from the right or left, then longitudinal creases should be invisible – also not the case. And if from any of the other four points of the compass, then the herringbone weave of the shroud should be much better defined in the strips lying across the rays of light than in those lying parallel to it. Also not the case.
    All this being true, one is inclined to think that the visible colouration of TIDS may not be due to the light and shadow at all; in which case they would be visible even if the shroud were ironed completely flat. Many of the TIDS, especially the type 1s, seem to be of this type. They seem to have twin verges darker than the background, and pale middles, which seem to me to be about the same colour as the background. I’m inclined to postulate that these are sigmoid or recumbent folds, over which the image was made, leaving the hidden interior pale. Some of them have very sharply defined edges, which suggests some pressure, closing the fold quite tightly together, and others less so (such as the big one across the beard) where the image mechanism appears to have coloured the interior as well. Just as a test, I would expect one side of such a crease, which consists of two layers of cloth, to be darker than the other.
    The most interesting one is right through the middle of a bit of the foot bloodstain (dorsal image), which is wholly uncoloured, suggesting the the fold was firmly closed when the blood made contact with the cloth.
    Shroud Scope has a measuring device, which is not terribly accurate, varying according to the magnification of the image, but indicates that the widest of the ‘white valleys’ is less than 2mm, which means that the folds are less than 1mm apart, approximately equal to the thickness of the cloth, I guess.
    Fortuitously (you might have guessed) I have recently spent some time rolling up and unrolling 5 metre lengths of cloth, which were acting as scenery for a travelling theatre, and these kinds of creases, both transverse and longitudinal, are very easy to ‘iron in’ as it were, and quite difficult to get out again later. Any mention of the shroud before the 1532 fire generally assumes it to be folded rather than rolled, from Ian Wilson’s Mandylion Face, to the Lirey poker holes, to the marks from the 1532 fire, so I am guessing that these creases are from the original manufacture of the cloth, be it 1st or 13th century, although some of them could easily have been ironed in further by one or other pressing mechanism, such as a hot bas relief.

  4. Hugh Farey says:

    And another thing…
    It is fascinating to compare Enrie’s photo with Durante’s. Enrie’s face, in addition to the crease across the beard, also shows a short double one under the chin, and another long one between the top of the head and the adjoining watermark. These are very prominent in Enrie, and almost invisible in Durante. Clearly “shadow” marks which have been pulled flat. All the more reason to wonder at the beard mark, which although also pulled flat, is clearly coloured along its length.

    • colinsberry says:

      Yes, I too was surprised at how “easy” it was to see the streaks in Enrie, and how difficult in Durante’s.

      Whatever the true reason, how anyone could think those streaks*, regardless of how recorded for posterity, represent simple folds and/or creases, as distinct from captured coloured image, doth truly pass all understanding!

      I’ve enjoyed reading your current comments on The Other Site, Hugh…

      * Well, the Type A ones at any rate, which were in the frame. Maybe Thibault’s response was based on looking too long and hard at an Enrie negative, and not long emough at the ‘less processed’ digital era Durante picture. It may well be that many on the Enrie are simply not visible on the other, for the reason given – they are non-imprinted streaks that are picked up purely by their casting a shadow as you suggest. Good thinking.

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER says:

        Colin: “Yes, I too was surprised at how “easy” it was to see the streaks in Enrie, and how difficult in Durante’s.”

        The reason is easy to find.
        But I will not give the answer on this blog.

        • colinsberry says:

          That makes two chicken-shit comments from you in one night, Thibault, three if you count the lies and slander you posted on The Other Site. Aren’t we doing well?

          • Thibault HEIMBURGER says:

            Just a sample of Colin’s posts:

            “That is simply unscientific Thibault, and defies commonsense too”

            “With reluctance I have to say this Thibault – you don ‘t have the first clue as to the scientific modus operandi. Everything you write confirms that again and again”.

            ““Much more interesting”? Have you any idea how condescending and arrogant you sound, Thibault? What gives you the right to decide what is or is not interesting? For your information I find little of that section above interesting at all, and of dubious relevance.”

            “You are seriously testing my patience with your barracking and false insinuations…”

            “PS: And I see you have repeated your ridiculous allegations on Dan Porters’ site. Contemptible. And you have the nerve to bandy around the term “gentleman”. It is you, Thibault, who needs to look at the way you interact with others online. You need to stop talking down the whole time, or posturing as if you know all the answers. You don’t.”

            “” Is the banding effect (which is a fact) consistent with the scorch hypothesis? I wonder..
            Thibault.
            You feel free to wonder,Thibault. Every second spent wondering is a second less spent promulgating your goal-directed brand of pseudo-science”.

            Is Colin a gentleman? You decide.

            No more comment on this blog.

          • colinsberry says:

            I’m reminded of a naughty but nice joke I heard back in the 70s, just as the North Sea Oil boom was getting into full swing:

            Oilman with foreign accent (I won’t say which) to barman: “Aberdeen! It’s the arsehole of the world”

            Voice from elderly local in corner: “So, would ye jus’ be passin’ through like?”

            PS: I have just inserted this into the text of the posting:

            Beware incoming (uncharitable thought): some of us dismiss radiation because there is no obvious means by which radiant energy from accessible or realistic parts of the em spectrum – near uv, visible, infrared – can be absorbed sufficiently by white linen to produce chemical change, either as a primary consequence of bond scission, or secondary thermal effects. What the ‘radiationists’ seem to be doing, if I’m not mistaken, is to adduce imprinting of the neck etc across an air-gap in a loosely-draped model, as evidence for action at a distance – despite the subjective model, and, more importantly, in clear contradiction to elementary physics (no chemical change without prior absorption of radiation). They then compound the felony by invoking the inverse square law. The latter only tells you that the flux density falls off (dramatically) with distance, but that is irrelevant if it’s the wrong type of radiation (or target, in this case linen) that is unable to absorb sufficient radiation to be altered by it to leave a “burned patch” ( leaving a recognizable image adds another order of complexity, even in 21st century ENSA laboratories far removed in time and space from 1st century rock tombs, one that is usually glossed over if mentioned at all) . As Joe Nickell accurately observed, the pseudo-scientists start with the desired result and then work backwards to find the evidence.

            See also this posting that has just appeared on Dan Porter’s site highlighting the contact/no contact issue. No prizes for guessing where the poster’s sympathies lie, but was it ever thus, despite the urbane front and affected semi-detachment?

            There is more, much more, I could add in a similar vein. The ‘Shroud Center of Colorado’ beware: I have you in my cross-hairs, oops, metaphorically-speaking of course – through having seen that recent stinker of a pdf from your two Vatican-appointed knights (why not Dr.John Jackson?) that is frankly not just misinformation, but a mine of DISINFORMATION.

  5. colinsberry says:

    Thanks Hugh. Hugely thought-provoking as ever. Yes, i spotted that coincidence of blood and Type A TIDS. It seemed to support a blood-first scenario. Any views?

  6. colinsberry says:

    Here’s a quickie response to Matthias, put to Hugh, on the Other Site. I may embellish later.

    February 5, 2013 at 4:34 am | #7

    What’s your current preferred theory Hugh? Is it the scorch theory?
    although I see some good points in Colin’s ideas, there are a few things that still trouble me about the scorch theory, including:

    – the general anatomical correctness of the image: statues of the 1300s were still struggling with anatomy

    Some say the head is too small! Yup. I think it looks too small. As for those fingers, their length and skeletal quality…

    – certain characteristics of the image – eg. the rear foot sole imprints – very much appear as genuine organic images from a real body, rather than images generated from a bas relief template or equivalent

    I agree. The images are indistinct, but the little we see has an authentic look, so that indistinctness is only to be expected if, say, the linen had been pulled up against the underside of the feet. They definitely speak of a statue rather than (easier) bas relief. It’s possible I suppose that there was cannibalisation of separate templates – some bas relief, say for the head, some statue – for the limbs say.

    – the “wrist problem” – why the blood on the wrist when this was basically unknown in artistic depictions. Surely the wound would have been placed on the hand.

    But that does not gel with the Shroud having been on display centuries before its showing at Lirey, to the extent that “poker holes” are said to be incorporated into the Pray Codex (not that I believe that for one moment). Surely the wrist wound(s) would have been incorporated too, and then appeared much earlier in Western art if the Shroud had been around as the authoritative guide. Or there again, maybe the wrist wound was painted on afterwards by an overzealous 16th century(?)monk, but lacking in anatomical knowledge, and mistaking metacarpals for phalanges.

    – the general appearance of wounds across the body appear quite authentic to my eyes, rather than something ‘faked’

    There are no wounds on the Shroud body image. Bloodstains, yes, but no wounds.

    – why the absence of loin cloth, again a historical norm. A fake created by scorching on a bas relief could have built in a loin cloth into the relief. Again why the big departure from the cultural norms of the time?

    Because the crossed hands serve the same modesty-protecting function as a loin cloth? And crossed hands are surely more authentic in the context of being enshrouded in an enclosed tomb, away from casual observers and/or inquisitive eyes.

    PS: Here’s Hugh’s response, which appeared after I posted the above:

    February 5, 2013 at 6:34 am | #8

    Hi Matthias; the shroud is such a varied topic that I don’t have any theory encapsulating the entire thing. I’m mostly exploring the scorch idea for three reasons:
    a) Several of the original papers by the STURP team describe the shroud as having many of the characteristics of a scorch, in particular the relationship between pressure or distance and image intensity and the fact that the image seems to be made of degraded cellulose.
    b) Scorching linen and observing the results is something anybody can do in their kitchen!
    c) Although degrading cellulose by scorching may not be the answer, experiments with superficiality, 3-D imaging and UV fluorescence may suggest a mechanism that can be achieved in other ways (gas diffusion or painting, for example).

    All the difficulties you mention are entirely valid, and were the main reasons the STURP team rejected the hypothesis, but they are, for time being, outside my purlieu, as it were!

  7. colinsberry says:

    Have just been looking at my flag counter.

    Know what? I feel another pdf coming on – Thibault’s probably. 17 views no less from France, probably all Thibault’s, assuming MPH is busy elsewhere..Yup, Thibault seems to be trawling my site, looking for the more controversial postings it would seem (yes, I get a list of individual postings viewed, all free and unasked for from WordPress).

    OK, so will there shortly be a third Thibault pdf signposted at the top of Dan’s site, not just anti-scorching, but anti-me, the man, the retired science bod? But for what purpose if folk read them, as I have done, gives a detailed response (3 postings no less in response to the anti-scorching pdf ) only to get ZERO response. Yes, ZERO response, despite Thibault returning again and again to this site with his nitpicking questions and his overarching, haughty, condescending dismissal of my approach and ideas .

    Here’s some unsolicited advice, Thibault. Take a break from Shroudology. You have been overdoing it dear chap. Listen, I know a physician in your neck of the woods who comes well recommended. Oops…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s