Contact prints from a 3D figure will always be wider and suffer from wrap-around distortion. True or false?

It began by asking a simple question. Suppose one dusted a 3D figure completely with white flour (now this blogger’s preferred imprinting medium, admittedly requiring an oven to ‘develop’ the image to a visible brown colour). Suppose one imprinted the two sides separately. Would there be a ‘frontal’ image and a ‘dorsal’ image, as per the Turin Shroud, with no imprinting of the sides, or would one see unsightly imprinting of the sides as well,  through having used a printing mode dependent on physical contact. ?

5.warrior coated evenly all over DSC02671

Fig. 1 Template entirely coated with flour,  sides included.

Using my “Galaxy Warrior” again as template, I  first smeared it all over, front, back and sides, with vegetable oil, then dusted liberally with white flour, then knocked off the excess. It was checked carefully to see that no parts had been missed, adding extra flour where necessary and again knocking off the excess. It was now ready for imprinting.

The frontal side was imprinted onto wet linen first, using what I call the LOTTO mode (Linen On Top, Then Overlay). The dorsal side was then imprinted onto the same piece of linen, reproducing in miniature the distinctive, some might say iconic Turin Shroud head-to-head configuration using the LUWU configuration ( Linen Underneath With Underlay).   The flour imprints were of course somewhat faint and indistinct at this stage, but on close inspection  there did not seem to be imaging off the coated sides of the template. So far, so good.  It’s presumably the vertically-applied pressure onto the template (LUWU) or the overlying linen that allows one to imprint off the frontal and dorsal surfaces without imprinting the sides as well (which would make for a unsightly end result).

The imprinted linen was then suspended vertically in a fan oven supplying  hot air by forced convection – the only source of thermal energy (i.e. no conduction, no radiation).  Some 10 minutes later there were the expected reddish-brown imprints, presumably the result of Maillard reactions between reducing sugars and protein in the flour. Again, on quick inspection, there was no obvious wrap-around distortion. Was that surprising? Some might think so, given the manner of imprinting, and indeed a photograph taken at the stage when linen was pressed onto the template in LOTTO mode shows considerable ‘wrap-around’ suggesting that the images would be too ‘expanded’, and suffering consequently from accompanying lateral distortion. Was the image expansion maybe there, but too small to be easily detected, and if so, why? These seem important questions needing to be asked, so I make no apology for using  a convenient 3D template, the ‘Galaxy Warrior, what was described today in comments as a “curious toy”.  If nothing else, it’s more economical on pricey linen than using my hand as template (see previous postings).

Here’s the double imprint. It seems OK at first sight, viewed alongside the template. There’s certainly no grotesque distortion, indeed scarcely any.

1. cropped double image with warrior comparison DSC02715

Caption here

Note that the buttocks have been imprinted on the dorsal surface, unlike the previous session. Why?  There was insufficient underlay (the second U of LUWU) last time. This time. several layers of woollen pullovers with plenty of ‘give’ under pressure were placed under the template. Problem solved.

Here’s a close-up of the dorsal imprint (left). Any lateral disortion due to wrap around effect?

2. cropped dorsal with warrior DSC02718

Caption

If it’s there, it’s not immediately obvious.  Neither was it apparent when the template was placed down directly  on top of the imprint:

xxx

xxx

Enough of the eye-balling. Let’s do some measurements to compare dimensions of the template and the imprint.

xxx

The distance between the two shoulders is essentially the same for template and imprint – 3.5cm.

Let’s do one more check from the frontal image – those thighs:

xxx

xxx

Again, the match is almost perfect.  How come? What am I doing NOT wrong?

Let’s take a look at the dorsal side too, bearing in mind that the imprinting method was different  (LUWU not LOTTO).

xxx

xxx

Is there not something wrong here? Should there not be a larger width for the imprint, compared with the corresponding two points on the template? Or are we taking too simplistic a view of the ‘wrap-around’ effect, assuming that it always results in expansion of image relative to template?  Let’s put pencil to paper and do some calculations.

geometry DSC02745

xxx

Here we imagine, purely as an intermediate starting point, that we are seeing a portion of the anatomy in cross-section, represented as a circle (yes, a simplification)  and that it is pressed down into a yielding linen underlay, represented as a thick blue line. What’s more the depth of penetration is 1/3rd of its circumference, which means there is an angle of 120 degrees (1/3rd of 360) subtended at the centre of the circle.

Now, the maximum width of the anatomical feature that is perceived by the eye or a camera is the diameter, shown in red.  How does the length of the imprint compare with that diameter, after the linen has been straightened out?

Let’s take the coward’s way out initially and use coloured cotton, red and blue, to compare those two  relative lengths.One sees that that circumference, or rather 1/3rd circumference, is longer than the diameter, due to that ‘wrap-around’ effect, but only SLIGHTLY LONGER, at least for the partial embedding of the circle/cylinder/sphere (whatever) in the linen and underlay. What if the half the circumference of the circle had been embedded, or any other fraction?  Can one derive a mathematical expression that compares the width of the image (“buried circumference”) with that of the template (“diameter”)?

The circumference of a circle is 2πr, so 1/3 of the circumference is 2πr/3. That is now to be compared with the diameter D, which is 2r. So let’s derive an expression for the partial (buried) circumference that finally gives the width of imprint:

Partial circumference (shown in non-wavy blue above) as a percentage of the diameter (real width of template) is (2πr/3 x 1/2r) x 100%, or more simply, 100π/3 = 104.6%. So yes, the length of blue cotton was just slightly greater than red. So for partial embedding of the template in  linen, as shown in the diagram, there is in fact scarcely any elongation of imprinted image relative to template, explaining no doubt my finding the same by experiment.

In fact, one can calculate the angle subtended at the centre of the circle where image width exactly matches that of template. It is 114.5 degrees, slightly less than the arbitrary 120 degrees used in the diagram. So it’s already obvious, or should be, that the wrap around effect only creates artefactual enlargement of contact imprint with respect to template when the subtended angle at the centre is greater than 114.5 degrees and/or the buried circumference is appreciable greater than a third (approx).

What is the effect of ‘burying’ one half of the circumference, were that physically possible in the template/linen situation, such that the subtended angle above increases from 120 to 180 degrees?  The buried circumference now becomes one half of 2πr, i.e πr, while the diameter stays the same at 2r. So the corresponding percentage of partial circumference relative to diameter can be calculated as (πr/2r)  x 100%. Now that is a big and indeed somewhat alarming number, i.e. 157%.  So there’s a huge shift in the ratio of apparent to real width in going from 1/3 to 1/2 of ‘buried’ circumference. But that’s not a basis for taking the worst case scenario where half is buried, and assuming that to be the routine norm for a template pressed into linen (LUWU)  or linen pressed onto a template (LOTTO) and declaring that ALL contact images must suffer from distortion due to wrap-around effect. Indeed, if the template were buried with appreciably less than a third of the circumference, then the image width would be LESS than actual: partial embedding, provided it is not too much, can actually IMPROVE the look of the imprint, making it a better match with actual width than would be the case if there were no wrap-around effect.

Finally, added as an afterthought (Wed 13 Jan) let’s generalize on the maths. Instead of choosing particular numerical values for the buried fraction of the circumference (e.g. one  1/3 above). let’s represent the fraction by the symbol F.  Let’s then introduce the ratio R, which is (width of imprint/width of template).

It’s then a simple matter to show that R= 2πrF/2r, or simply  πF. In other words, R is a simple linear function of F, with π as the proportionality constant. This can be seen by plotting R (vertical axis) against F (horizontal).

R versus F for imprinting from 3D DSC02850

Graph of R, the ratio of image to template width, against F, the fraction of the circumference of a spherical or cylindrical template being thrust into linen to make increasing degrees of physical contact.

As already stated, the most ‘virtuous’ zone of the graph when it comes down to the fidelity of contact imprinting is where the fraction of total circumference that is buried is close to a third, as indicated above by the orange lines.

(ed, 14th Jan:  I have removed the section that was here in the original posting, having had second thoughts about the the theory, and having realized there’s a simple experiment that can be done to make the intended point. It’s been tacked onto the end of this posting as a series of 10 photos. See Late Addition,  in large red font).

So what’s the more realistic scenario? Half the circumference buried, with gross image enlargement and distortion, or a more modest third?  Let’s continue the debate in Comments should anyone be interested in what they have read so far.

Afterthought: here’s a simple experiment anyone can do with a bottle and with thick padding (I used several layers of woolen pullover). Actually, it’s two experiments, one in LUWU mode the other with LOTTO (the mechanics  are different in the two instances, but arguably lead to the same conclusion).

bottle and woollen pullover test

See if you can get more than a third or so of the bottle’s circumference to make contact with the padding in the two situations: (a) by laying the bottle on top and pressing down hard, i.e. LUWU mode or (b) by draping the padding on top of the bottle, with or without pressure applied from above.

Discuss.

Late addition: here’s an extra experiment that’s just been done to see how much image elongation is generated when one imprints off a perfect cylinder (a cider bottle!) applying downward pressure with one’s  slightly cupped hand to capture surface relief, being careful to imprint off no more than half the facing circumference. White discs were attached to the bottle to provide the surface relief, which were then painted with vegetable oil, flour coated (sprinkled vertically), imprinted onto wet linen, followed by oven-roasting. In other words the bottle test conformed as closely as possible to the imprinting procedure developed here and unique to this site.

bottle 1 to 3

xxx

 

bottle 4 to 6

xxx

 

bottle 7 and 8

xxx

bottle 9 and 10

xxx

So, to repeat the question: how serious is the ‘elongation’ effect when imprinting off a curved surface onto linen?   (I’ll attach numbers later to the template v image widths you see above).

Is not the term ‘lateral distortion’ somewhat misleading? The shape of those discs – circular – did not distort on imprinting. How could it, given the linen stayed tangential to each disc at all points of contact? If the truth be told, it’s not the imprint that is distorted, excluding the elongation relative to the cross-sectional width of the bottle, i.e. diameter. It is the “appearance” of the template to the eye or camera that is distorted, inasmuch as those discs appear progressively slimmer and more oval-like as one moves away from the centre.

In fact, the problem with contact imprints, potential or realized, is not lateral distortion, but lateral non-distortion, in as much as repeated motifs, if present, maintain their shapes to the periphery INSTEAD of becoming distorted from the viewer’s perspective on the original template.  In fact, the eye depends on a number of cues for detecting that something is round rather than flat. the obvious one is light and shade, generated by oblique illumination, whether from daylight or artificial light. But there are those other subtle clue that come from shape changes, or rather APPARENT shape changes linked to curved surfaces.

 

What about the Shroud? What visual cues if any are we given to 3D-ness or otherwise? Answer. NONE, absolutely none that I can see. Firstly, the image is famously ‘non-directional’, i.e. lacking patterns of light and shade that give a clue as to direction of incident light (meaning there was no incident light, and effectively ruling out a brush-painted portrait – unless the artist was deliberately trying to imitate  the look of an imprint, but making too good a job of it, given the negative image).

What a pity then that we don’t have a recurring motif, like my little discs, or links on a chain, spanning the entire width of the body that could allow us to detect a maintenance of shape consistent with imprinting . Or at any rate,  we don’t with the image as we see it now. But what if it’s been altered or otherwise been tampered with?  What about that peculiar ‘coiled rope’ at waist level that one sees on the Lirey badge, and better on discoverer Arthur Forgeais’ line drawing? It’s not a lot to go on, admittedly, but it’s time maybe to take another long hard look at that ‘coiled rope’to see if there’s evidence of an initial image that was later seen as maybe too imprint-like*, and amended accordingly  (while acknowledging that it’s easier to add to a roasted flour imprint than to take away). Of course, one could always add something else on top, like blood, to mask what was underneath, turning a coiled rope into Wilson’s somewhat stylized “blood belt”.   Or there again, considering this blogger’s aversion to 99% of conspiracy theories, he might decide not to go down that road…

 

*This needs a little word of explanation, or at any rate qualification. The TS image may have been designed to look like an imprint of a crucified man, and then executed as such, i.e. by imprinting off a template, whether human or inanimate.

But there was a fine line to be trod: while looking at first sight to the medieval eye like an imprint, correction, double imprint on up-and-over linen (as might have been left by a real man 1300 years earlier)  it must not on any account have looked  like an obvious  ‘modern’ imprint (modern being mid-14th century). Indeed, there had to be a certain ‘ghostly’ quality about it, with fuzzy and indistinct features,  indeed, more ambitiously, an enigmatic negative image that may or may not have been immediately recognized as signalling an imprint rather than an artist’s portrait.

The genius of the TS was to create an image that was not immediately capable of being mentally pigeon-holed into this or that artistic genre, one designed to mystify. The rest as they say  is history – with many  layers of  ‘mystification’ added in later centuries by those who have fallen under its spell. Never underestimate the creativity and resourcefulness of the human mind, once  encouraged, determined  and no doubt rewarded to achieve a certain pre-set goal, especially if that is defined as curing the sick, averting ill-health or saving wayward souls.

Update: 23rd Feb 2016

Suppose, just suppose, that the TS image we see on the linen had suffered a degree of ‘lateral distortion’, or at any rate, lateral expansion, as a result of imprinting off a 3D subject. What would the “real” subject look like if one could somehow correct for that effect?

What you see below is a very crude attempt to make that correction. I have taken the Durante face from Shroud Scope, printed it out to get a photo that is approx. 1/3rd the circumference of a wine bottle, then stuck it to the side of the bottle, then re-photographed with the camera ‘square on’.

Here’s the very first result, with factors still to be controlled, especially colour, but which give an idea of the likely degree of distortion generated by a contact-imprinting model.

 

before and after curvature reconstruction

“As- is” TS face (left) from Shroud Scope.. As the real life/death face might have looked (right) if the image had been generated by contact imprinting. Note the curvature towards the wine bottle’s neck  near the top.

Ouch. The colour difference is a huge distraction, and the bottle-mounted image has been cropped too severely. Here’s the same after after tweaking:

new

That’s  “as is” control v bottle-mounted, positive orange images on the left, and the corresponding images after light/dark inversion on the right. The blue colour is an artefact of inverting a non-grayscale image.

 

Postscript, Feb 26, 2017

Here are some additional pix obtained from a larger plastic mannequin (approx half human scale) that I’m placing here first in order to upload to another very accommodating site! (At least as regards images, nuff said).

 

dsc03225-from-stepladder

dsc03241

dsc03075

dsc03241

dsc03087

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 contact imprint, Shroud of Turin, Turin Shroud and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Contact prints from a 3D figure will always be wider and suffer from wrap-around distortion. True or false?

  1. piero says:

    Are you able to work with an useful graphical tool
    [= an animation, in order to improve what you described
    in your own page] and show us … what happens with an increasing
    degrees of physical contact?

    I doubt you’ll have much luck with your galactic warrior.
    So far I see no signs of interest as instead was the
    situation in the blog of Dan Porter (often with long discussions!) …
    — — —
    In 1980 also father Gaetano Intrigillo obtained
    experimental impressions by using cloths soaked
    in a watery aloe and myrrh solution, placed on
    a clay face equipped with hair, beard and
    mustache human sprayed with sweat and blood,
    covered with dripping blood and surrounded by
    a chin guard (figure 3).

    Here the original text:
    >Nel 1980 anche don Gaetano Intrigillo realizzò
    impronte sperimentali utilizzando teli precedentemente
    immersi in soluzione acquosa di aloe e mirra,
    posti su un volto in creta, fornito di capelli, barba
    e baffi umani, spruzzato con sudore e sangue,
    cosparso di colature ematiche e circondato
    da una mentoniera (figura 3)

    Link:
    http://www.sindone.org/santa_sindone/la_sindone/00024091_teoria_del_contatto.html

    Colin,
    Do you are able to describe for us, poor readers,
    what is the exact difference between what did Intrigillo
    (and other researchers) and your new attempts?
    — —
    Please, could you give a vote (for example: from 1 to 10)
    for each of the following names?
    – Paul Vignon,
    – Ruggero Romanese
    – Giovanni Judica Cordiglia,
    – Sebastiano Rodante
    – Gaetano Intrigillo
    – Emily Craig
    – Paul-Eric Blanrue
    – Luigi Garlaschelli
    Thank you in advance…

  2. Colin Berry says:

    How nice it would be to get a comment or two that was relevant to the posting and the chief point that it makes – namely in this posting that partial ‘immersion’ into enveloping linen of a 3D template, specifically 1/3rd of the circumference if cylindrical in cross-section, produces an imprint that is the same size as the template. That makes a nonsense of those categorical assertions that contact imprinting always produces a degree of obvious distortion.

    Welcome as relevant comments are, this site does not exist primarily as a discussion forum, as was Dan Porter’s now lapsed site. It’s a record of a personal research programme, reported in real time. I make no claim that every experiment I do is entirely original, or that I have dutifully read everything written in every language regarding the issues addressed. If anyone knows of specific findings from the past that they think I should be aware of, then there’s a facility for leaving a comment (comment note, as distinct from rant) which is more than can be said for conventional reports in scientific journals.

    The internet has unique advantages as a medium for instant communication. There’s sadly a downside too, as has of late become plain to see here.

    • piero says:

      Yes, you have centered the problem…
      habitual rants don’t help or substitute
      the serious researches.

      I forgot to quote Delfino Pesce…
      >PESCE DELFINO, V. – Lettera – Pesce Delfino ribatte
      sulla Sindone – Tempo Medico, 15 Aprile 1989, p.3 e 66.

      Link:
      http://shrouduniversity.com/libraryarticles2.php

      In fact the work executed by him, in the past,
      using a bas-relief made red-hot seems to be hardly credible.

      But see also what were the ideas by Nickell:
      Nickell J.: Inquest on the Shroud of Turin,
      Buffalo: Prometheus Book, 1983

      Unfortunately, here, I cannot leave contributes
      of “high collaboration” with those persons who
      deny the validity of modern tests, with works of
      control based on advanced types of microscopy
      (= using AFM techniques, AFM-Raman, etc.)…
      — — —
      Here my “feeble suggestion”,
      instead to observe the bottle’s circumference:
      Have you tried to see what are the IR-Geometries
      (IR = infrared) of the images obtained from the
      surface of a linen sheet that covers a manikin full
      of liquid (with “body temperatures” near 20-30 Celsius)?
      Try also to put a little sand bag over the linen sheet
      and observe what is the effect (on image produced
      by IR-Geometry) of the pressure applied from above…
      This little work can easily be done.

      This seems to me the first right way to follow…
      Am I wrong?

  3. Colin Berry says:

    Update:I have just added a further 10 pix to the posting (scroll down to end as far as “Late addition” in red font). They were an afterthought – an experiment to determine how serious or otherwise is the image elongation when imprinting off a curved surface. A perfect cylinder (cider bottle) was chosen for the experiment.

    Here’s the final result. See the posting for the preceding steps.

  4. HEIMBURGER says:

    Congratulations Colin.

    You have shown that there is no obvious wrap-around distortion in the contact imprint coming from a very small template (Galaxy warrior) or a perfect cylinder as long as certain conditions are met.

    And then ?

    Then, you have to show that on a real human face and/or a life-size bas relief.

    Given your experimental model, I see no obstacle to these experiences.

    • Colin Berry says:

      Thanks TH. Yes, the face is THE problem, as I’ve discovered from attempting to imprint off my own, or miniatures crafted with baked clay. I’m not rushing to suggest the face was done from a bas relief, since that would rule out imprinting, dare one say modelling from a real person, but there are a number of things that make a bas relief the obvious candidate, at least from my non-authenticity perspective. Examples that spring to mind are the severe vertical cut-offs at both sides of the TS face, the lack of obvious difference between skin and hair, the relatively small response of the nose to 3D-rendering in Image J etc. I feel in my bones that we are missing something, but still can’t think what. If the answer doesn’t come from the head region, with the most concentrated detail, it’s hard to see where else it will come from. Any ideas?

  5. Colin Berry says:

    This passage has just been added to the end of the posting – as an afterthought.

    Is not the term ‘lateral distortion’ somewhat misleading? The shape of those discs – circular – did not distort on imprinting. How could it, given the linen stayed approximately tangential to each disc around the circumference? If the truth be told, it’s not the imprint that is distorted, excluding the elongation relative to the cross-sectional width of the bottle (the latter being the diameter, essentially a geometrical construction, ie. imaginary line through the centre of the bottle.). It is the “appearance” of the perceived image of template to the eye or camera that is distorted, inasmuch as those discs appear progressively slimmer and more oval-like as one moves away from the centre.

    I really must make an effort to curb these afterthoughts:

  6. Colin Berry says:

    I see umbrage is being taken at the routine deployment of the terms ‘anti–authenticity’ and/or ‘anti-authenticist’ on the International Skeptics Forum, previously the James Randi Education Foundation, its Round 4 interest in the TS now acquiring some of the character of an Icelandic saga.

    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299015&page=70

    This blogger has considerable sympathy with that objection to a term that seems to make authenticity the default position despite the 1260-1390 dating. Those imaginative, some might say increasingly desperate attempts to explain away that dating by conjecturing this or that oversight or mishandling (especially that so-called invisible patching or mending) do not constitute solidly-based scholarship. (I see even Stephen Jones is now acknowledging that there was no known representation of the TS head-to-head double image in art prior to the Lirey Pilgrim’s badge, the latter reasonably presumed to have been cast circa 1355, a point this blogger made to some effect on Dan Porter’s site ahead of Jones shortly prior to its shutdown.

    Yes,”anti-authenticist” is a loaded term,, and as such one that should be rejected by all who care about objective rational and scientific enquiry. A better term might be pro (or anti-) medieval provenance. Those who pour scorn on the radiocarbon dating should be pressing for a re-run, albeit more invasive when returning to harvest multiple samples, instead of attempting to blacken the reputations of those who produced the Nature paper under the supervision, indeed (it should be stressed) direction of the Shroud’s curators.

  7. Colin Berry says:

    Casting an eye around the online shroudosphere, admittedly jaundiced through long exposure to pseudoscience, I am frankly amazed at the persistence of so much ossified thinking. Examples? The supposed anomaly in artistic terms of the double-image (Stephen Jones’ site, still setting up this and other strawman targets), or the supposed difficulty presented by the presence of blood (or “blood”) on a burial shroud (International Skeptics Forum, that term ‘burial’ being yet another unwarranted assumption).

    One has obviously failed to penetrate the carapace of ‘received wisdom’ that protects so much of sindonology. Must do better.

    Today, I shall start to assemble a “Shroud Manifesto”, one that spells out a distinctly different message than the one currently on offer anywhere else on the internet.

  8. Colin Berry says:

    Update: 23rd Feb.

    Care to guess how and WHY this quickie experiment was done? Clue: there’s a wine bottle behind the picture on the right.

    See the tail-end of this posting for details.

  9. Colin Berry says:

    PS: Here are improved images after taking steps to remove the colour difference between ‘flat’ and curved bottle-mounted images, showing the results before and after applying “Edit Invert” (tone/colour reversal) in Image J. to convert the image from a “positive” to a “negative”. (One gets the colour reversal from orange to blue in imageJ whether one wants it or not):

  10. Bill says:

    Mr. Berry:

    I appreciate your perspective on the Shroud, and am glad that there are those who are willing to look at the Shroud through all lenses.

    In another perspective, all of your evidence serves as circumstantial evidence to disprove the Medieval artist theory. If a Medieval artist was responsible, where are the numerous trials, errors, communications like those that you and many others have done? Instead there is absolutely nothing, no statues, no writings, no documented trials, hypotheses, nothing. Was the Medieval artist so brilliant as to:

    1. Devise a way to cover up every last one of his tracks (trials, etc.) save one ‘admission’
    2. Complete a perfect anatomy artwork that is unique to its time
    3. Create an artwork that uniquely shows up as 3d in VP-8, which he knew nothing about
    4. Remember to put Palestinian pollens in it
    5. Fool and confound modern scientists for 35 years
    6. Fool multiple forensic pathologists into believing it is a real body
    7. Create an artwork that shows up better in negative photography than natural light
    8. Put it on an authentic linen from the Middle East
    9. Do this all by himself, from France.
    10. Put the blood / paint on before making the image
    11. And again, do all of the above without leaving a single shred of evidence

    If someone 700 years from now looks back at this time, they will find an incredible amount of evidence of skeptics attempting to replicate the Shroud of Turin. Where is the evidence from the person attempting to make the original?

  11. Colin Berry says:

    Sorry Bill. I’ve wasted far too much of my advancing years addressing your kind of multiple choice tick box “science”. Select one issue at a time for discussion in depth and I might be interested.

  12. Bill says:

    I am discussing one issue – where are the trials, errors, writings, communications, statues, hypotheses -similar to what you are doing here – from the Medieval artist that created the Shroud of Turin?

  13. Bill says:

    I recognize that it is basically a rhetorical question, but in as much as skeptics attempt to exploit any possible hole in Shroud theories and Shroud supporters, as you yourself have done, it seems only fair to address my question as well. In as much, you can choose to blow it off, that is your right.

  14. Colin Berry says:

    We aren’t discussing Leonardo or any artist for that matter (imprinting off a template, especially a real person, is technology, not art). We’re discussing a master forger, focused on producing a fake replica that would captivate and convince at first sight. The fact that his handiwork still passes muster in the 21st century shows his genius in keeping things simple but credible – by going for an uncluttered relatively detail-free negative imprint, using the “blood” not body image to identify the subject and manner of death. Again, placing bloodstains in all the biblically-correct locations is technology, not art.

  15. Bill says:

    Not only a genius in what you described but a genius in covering his or her trail. The lack of evidence in creating / transporting such a forgery as you have described should be addressed by Shroud skeptics if skeptics are going to attack and exploit much smaller holes in evidence provided by Shroud supporters.

    Again, I appreciate your work. I too would like to see if the image can be replicated by natural means.

    • Colin Berry says:

      This might be a good time to point out that this retired scientist has resumed work on some previous lines of interest, being content now to leave his TS flour-imprinting model on the table so to speak. Yes. I’m happy to respond to questions, but they must address specifics.

      Other interests? I have a new explanation for the enigmatic Silbury Hill in the pipeline, shortly to be published on another website, far more Google-visible than this one. I’m assisting a well-known broadsheet journalist with his investigation into another unsolved mystery, and today posted on the subject of smokeless coal (it’s maybe not as clean-burning as it’s made out to be).

      http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/is-officially-approved-smokeless-house.html

      So much to do… Must now get some sleep.

      Good night.

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