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:
Yes, here in a series of pictures, is an attempt to scorch linen so severely in my new “fabric on top” mode that folk will straight away dismiss it as invalid – producing an image with none of the subtlety of the Man on the TS. However, the cognoscenti reading this will know that linen is quite hard to scorch severely – far more so in my experience than cotton – so one has botany on one’s side, so to speak, in doing what otherwise might be seen as a perverse exercise in model-building masochism.
Heat brass template on halogen ring, test with swab of linen, the aim being to quickly char the latter when sufficiently hot
The template is now hot enough to use
Place linen over hot template. Place a thick overlay of damp cloth on top of linen. Gently mould to contours manually, monitoring the heat transmitting through overlay.
Peel back the linen and overlay, confirming a very prominent image on linen (darker than would be used routinely). Note that the damp overlay has been scorched on its frilly edge – proof of “deliberate” overheating.
Comparison of template and thermal imprint. This image would have been dark brown, almost black, if cotton had been substituted for linen.
Close-up of image area. There has probably been some excessive distortion of the arms in this experiment, due to excessive contact time and attendant moulding around the relief.
The same image after uploading to ImageJ and applying Edit Invert (the modern-day equivalent of the famed Secondo Pia conversion of negative to photograph-like pseudo-positive). Sorry about the loose linen thread.
As above, after applying 3D enhancement.
This image did not respond well, but that may be due to a lot of relief in a very small area, making it impossible for the thick overlay to mould itself and linen to the intricate relief.
The final step was to snip off some of the arm image for examination under the microscope. How severe is the scorching? Are there burned semi-carbonized features as distinct from lightly scorched threads and fibres? How do the fields compare with those of the TS under the microscope (Mark Evans pictures)?
The microscopy is to be the subject of a separate posting, to follow on from this shortly.
Update: now added. Click on link below to see the appearance of that intensely-scorched arm area under the microscope. Do the fibres look “charred” or merely coloured/roasted/scorched etc – as might be the various descriptions of the Shroud image?
My answer to the steeped-in-mystique Turin Shroud - evolving gradually from some 10 years of science-based experimental modelling. 