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:
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).
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.
(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.
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)
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.
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”.
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”).
Now for the crucial comparison:
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”:
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.
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.
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.
Are there any TIDS on the body image area that are NOT Type A?
Well, I have spent a few minutes scrutinizing the body image areas frontal and dorsal views of the TS.
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.