This comment was supplied by Matt a couple of days ago:
Good day Colin, I’ve been reading your blog and you’ve revealed things to me I never knew about the shroud given all the hype that’s out there. Just wanted your opinion on something. What do you make of the “second face” on the reverse side claim. I’ve heard even some pro-shroud people deny it. Do you have a post about it? Thanks.
From the Independent, April, 2004:
Here’s my immediate (stalling!) reply:
No, I’ve never addressed the claim for partial
obversereverse-side images as yet, notably face and hands, feeling as I do that I needed to be better informed as to the nature of the topside image first. When I say images, I mean ones that can or cannot be seen with photographs alone, rather than those problematical computer-aided reconstructions reported by Giulio Fanti and his team.
Mario Latendresse put a couple of photos up on his sindonology.com site a while ago. I’ve taken the face, shown first “as is” and then after photoenhancement in my unsophisticated MS Office Picture Manager, using just the 5 controls in brightness and contrast.
What do you reckon Matt? Is there an image on the opposite side of the linen or not? Mario says there’s not…
(There’s probably no point our discussing THAT claimed image unless agreed on whether there really is one or not!).
PS: Beware: the photoedited one has also been left/right reversed, unlike the ‘as is’. Apols for that (it was done for future use, when comparing with topside image).
Matt came back with this:
Well if there is no image, where is the hair coming from unless the front image isn’t as superficial as they’re saying? It’s hard for me to believe a lot of the pro-shroudies given the spurious nature of a lot of their claims. I saw your comment on Dan Porter’s site about the graphite background and the picture of the red painting on linen. Could this be a light phenomena? assuming the images are as superficial as they say. In any case, I’m convinced that the shroud is a fake. I think the image of the hair may come from the outlines of the painted blood and perhaps some oil substance staining through which adds to the paredolia.
In the big picture I think this is the last thing Christianity has seeing that they’ve lost when it comes to creationism, geocentrism and Adam and Eve. Seeing that all these things have been debunked. I think the shroud will follow.
What say you?
I replied with this (having to postpone for now comment on the “graphite and red painting” which has slipped my memory):
Yes, the pro-authenticity folk in general (Mario L a notable exception – see his site) seem to be relaxed about an image that is on both faces of the Shroud, albeit exceedingly faint on the obverse side, yet say there’s nothing in between! That takes quite a bit of explaining, wouldn’t you say, and I don’t recall seeing any attempts as yet to come up with a cogent explanation?
I have one, and it’s tentative, so am pleased to see your thinking is at least partly along the same lines.
Yup, we’re talking about OIL.
My flour imprinting works best when there’s vegetable oil present, not just to attach flour to the skin initially, but to help colour development in the oven too.
The oil helps to ‘micro-fry’ the particles of flour, which then proceed to turn brown due to Maillard reactions. A small surplus of oil then acts as a liquid vehicle, allowing that cocktail of yellow/brown Maillard products to penetrate the weave of the linen. The likely route for capillary migration is the narrow channels BETWEEN the fibres, as can be easily modelled with ink ( I did a clip for YouTube back in 2015 , enter “dynamic penetration of ink” into your search engine), so the brown cocktail can get from one side of the linen to the other INSIDE the threads, out of sight, and then, if there’s sufficient, proceed to stain the opposite face where they emerge.
So why an image (of sorts) on the opposite face, rather than a mere oil stain?
Maybe the Maillard cocktail deposits solid polymeric highly-pigmented melanoidins on its short journey. The latter attach strongly to the fibres, so that the migrating oil gets cleaner and cleaner, finally scarcely visible in the cloth, leaving the pigmented image on the obverse side roughly the same shape and size as the topside, but not exactly the same (which might explain Fanti’s curious finding that the main and subsidiary image were not quite identical in his computer-assisted imaging).
Thanks for the interest Matt. Let me know if you have any further insights. Right or wrong they are all grist to the mill.
Thanks for the appreciative reply, Matt, and for giving this Shroud investigator an opportunity to finally grasp – after 5 long years – that particular nettle as regards the reverse-side face! Feel free to call in again – anytime. Informed comment is especially welcome.
If I have any afterthoughts on that reverse-side face, I’ll tack them on the end here in the coming days or weeks.
Comments invited. ( Warning: the site’s WordPress host requires me to vet a contributor’s first-time comment before it can appear. Thereafter they are displayed immediately).
Monday 20th March 2017
Rapid but short-lived transport of Maillard products also accounts for the peculiar characteristics of image threads and their fibres as seen under a low power microscope (see Mark Evans photomicrographs).
Yup, I refer to (a) the so-called half-tone effect and (b) abrupt discontinuities in fibre coloration.
The half-tone effect (an unhelpful – and probably over-simplistic term in my view) is shorthand for saying there are – or may be – only two kinds of image fibres – coloured (full tone) and uncoloured (no tone) – with no in-betweens. (Think of it as akin to the use of binary numbering (o, 1 only ) in digitized imaging). Discontinuites refers to the presence of cut-offs in coloration along certain fibres for no obvious reasons.
Both these effects are explicable if it’s assumed that there’s a limited supply of hot, briefly-liquified Maillard reaction products from the heated flour imprint that migrate rapidly for a short distance only along and between the fibres of linen threads. That results in even-staining of some but not all fibres (half-tone effect) with abrupt cut-offs in coloration (discontinuities) when the supply of liquid from the superficial thermal zone is exhausted.
Update : 17:00 hours, UK time, March 20
Here I am, some 36 hours after posting, and STILL the major search engine has failed to spot this latest posting.
Had I posted it on my sciencebuzz site (Google -hosted) it would have appeared almost instantly!
Oops. Mustn’t be seen to have a down on the internet Google giant, must I?
Nope. Microsoft’s Bing site also fails to show it in its first 20 listings under a (shroud of turin ) search. (But then Microsoft’s Bing has NEVER listed this site – to the best of my knowledge.
There’s something distinctly rotten (or at any rate, PC-obsessed) in the Stateside search engines – Google, Bing etc, something we Brits and Europeans have to be content with, no local alternatives being available.
Musn’t offend your Stateside Catholics, must we, Google, Bing etc?
PC-obsessed , ideas-stifling Stateside PC rules OK? (Or should that be multi-billion $ e-commerce income ?).
Update: Tuesday 21st March, 2017
07:30: Have just used the Feedback facility on Bing to send the following message:
Here’s a link to my specialist Shroud of Turin site.
It has been running for more than 5 years, has well over 400 postings, advances new models and theories, yet continues to show up NOWHERE in your listings under a (shroud of turin) search. It’s currently listed on Page 5* of Google.uk returns.
Why are you effectively censoring me, preventing my original research and ideas from reaching Bing searchers? Is it because my views are anti-authenticity? Is it because you are keen to spare the feelings of those whose religion predisposes them to favouring authenticity? Since when has it been the job of a search engine to protect anyone from the real world?
Yahoo? I’ve just searched the first 20 pages of Yahoo under (shroud of turin). No listing for this site, confirming previous experience over the years. Why not? Who knows?
What I do know is that there was no mechanism for sending the same message to Yahoo as the one I sent Bing earlier this morning. (There was a word limit – unannounced upfront!). What I did find was a page that invited me to “submit” my site as if Yahoo were doing me a favour (nope, it’s web site creators who are doing YOU a favour, Yahoo) but that would require “registration”.
So I went back to the Suggestions tab, ignoring all the copious blurb about what they want and don’t want, and sent this short sweet message:
Update, Tuesday 15:00
Hey ho. Google has finally spotted this latest posting, which (for all its faults) says a lot more for Google than it does for the deeply-suspect Bing or Yahoo.
Thank you Google. You came through for me (at last!).
Update: Thursday March 23
But there’s a downside to the world’s favourite search engine where this site is concerned, but it needs a sharp eye to spot it.
Search for (turin shroud) on Stateside google.com (enter http://www.google.com/ncr if outside mainland USA, “ncr” specifying “no country redirect) and here’s what you will currently see – or something very similar:
Yup, that’s this site, shown 3 entries down on Page 5 of returns.
So what would you expect to see if you had entered (shroud of turin), which I suspect a majority of folk will do, with or without the unnecessary “of”. You would expect to get a similar or identical result, yes?
Well, you don’t. You will get the same result as the one I discovered and announced many months ago. You will find NO RETURNS FOR THIS SITE, at least on the first two dozen pages or so, even assuming the search engine allows you to access so many pages.
Yup, this site is invisible Stateside to anyone searching (shroud of turin) Stateside – which according to this site’s flag counter is where most of the interest in the Shroud resides – way , way above my own largely Shroud-indifferent country (UK)
I’ve sent one final, despairing email to the search engine, using its Feedback facility, attaching my name and email address, asking it to correct this anomaly forthwith. If there’s no reply by the end of the day, I’ll reproduce the email here, and then think about acting on my threat to devote a full posting to the iniquity of being deprived of clicks, readers and page-ranking by the perverse nature of what I’ve described above.
At least I get a listing of sorts, which is more than one can say for Bing and Yahoo (see earlier), those two blights on the blogosphere who continue year after year to display their hugely suspect -and I assume partisan – blind spot for this site. (Yahoo I’ve discovered currently lists 5 or 6 different postings from a rival pro-authenticity Australia-based Shroud blog scattered throughout the first 20 pages of returns – which basically says all one needs to know about its impartiality and professionalism).
It’s now 2100 hours on Thursday March 23. I’ve jusr rechecked the page rankings on Stateside google.com. No change. If one searches under (turin shroud) this site appears on Page 5. If one searches under (shroud of turin) my sciencebuzz site appears on Page 18, but this site appears NOWHERE. That’s despite logging a complaint many months ago. Nothing’s been done. Is it any wonder this site has near zero impact in the USA, since most folk there probably make “shroud” the first word in their search.
Here’s a copy of the communication that Google received from me first thing this morning UK time via its feedback facility:
Yet again, I see my UK-based site listed on Stateside google.com under (turin shroud) but curiously and perhaps significantly NOT under (shroud of turin).
This is at best bizarre, but it’s also deeply worrying, indeed suspicious, since you are depriving me of searchers and readers, which then means I don’t get the Stateside ranking that I believe my site deserves after hundreds of postings over 5 years.
I’ve made this same complaint to you before, via this Feedback facility and online, but nothing has been done.
I’ll wait 24 hours, and if I’m still not listed on google.com under (shroud of turin) then I’ll make a separate posting of this strange anomaly on the part of your allegedly algorithm-driven search engine. I shall be flagging up my strong suspicion of ‘dirty tricks’ by those who attempt to influence Google listings and rankings – Stateside especially – under (shroud of turin) but who have carelessly it seems overlooked the alternative (turin shroud) – arguably a smoking gun.
Please deal with it NOW, not next week or next year!
Colin Berry, UK
Update: Friday March 24
Have discovered that this, my latest posting, DOES appear on a Stateside search under (shroud of turin) but not under the default “Any Time”. One has to specify “Past week” or “Past month”, accessed via the Tools tab (which I suspect few general users ever deploy).
So the crawler and algorithm are picking up the existence of this site, and displaying it briefly, albeit to the cognoscenti wanting to know what’s new, but filtering it off from the main “Any Time” shop window.
Well, I’ve long suspected that Google goes in for window-dressing , correction, BIG correction, window-EXCLUSION, on entry-level searches, giving the lie to any suggestion that page rankings are determined purely by an algorithm (at least an algorithm that is responsive to objective criteria only, making no value pre-judgments as to likely ‘mass appeal, special-interest appeal’, outside interest credit-card flashing appeal etc.).
Google etc claim to be search engines, not mere e-commerce trade directories, so should perform as such, and indeed should be made to do so, via regulatory agencies, at least when ranking sites beyond their own shores, regardless of where those rankings are displayed!
In short, this site, MY site, is being partially-discriminated against, failing to appear when a Stateside searcher enters (shroud of turin) into his or her default-setting google.com. My own countrymen and women in the UK face no such filter. Big deal!
I accuse you Google of cyber-colonialism. You are wilfully preventing my site from receiving Stateside attention and visitors which I believe it warrants after 5 years and hundreds of postings. Indeed, I would be saying the same if my site were brand new! The Shroud of Turin is of international interest, whether seen from a religious or scientific perspective. No one should be denied the right to know what is being thought and said online by folk in other countries that contributes to the worldwide debate.
As others have been saying in recent days in regard to other more serious matters to do with your modus operandi, Google, notably your placing UK taxpayer-funded ads onto anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi YouTube videos, it’s time you cleaned up your act, across the board.
I repeat: it’s time you cleaned up your act, Google, across the board. (As for Bing and Yahoo, words fail me).
Monday 27th March 2017
See this link to a BBC scrutiny of the mighty Google, and the way it has come not only to dominate search, but what folk are allowed to see and not see:
Here’s a choice passage that says it all:
Trying to figure out how to please Google’s algorithm is rather like trying to appease an omnipotent, capricious and ultimately unknowable god.
You may say as long as Google’s top results are useful to searchers, it’s tough luck on those who rank lower – and if those results stop being useful, then some other pair of students at Stanford will spot the gap in the market and dream up a better way. Right?
Maybe – or maybe not. Search was a competitive business in the late 1990s. But now, it may be a natural monopoly – in other words, an industry that is extremely hard for a second entrant to succeed in.
The reason? Among the best ways to improve the usefulness of search results is to analyse which links were ultimately clicked by people who previously performed the same search, as well as what the user has searched for before.
Google has far more of that data than anyone else. That suggests the company may continue to shape our access to knowledge for generations to come.
See also in today’s Telegraph:
Answer: no, not when California’s control freaks are allowed to rig their search engines to get the e-commerce friendly “look” they want.
Opening para’ (my italics) : In our post-truth universe, where facts kowtow to personal belief, where does that leave science? Professor Brian Cox thinks carefully before saying: “It is important for people in my position – by which I mean scientists that have some sort of public voice – to say that not all opinions are equal.” The 49-year-old physicist, TV presenter and all-round cheerleader for rational thought has seen long-held facts under fire of late. Last week, basketball supremo Shaquille O’Neill expressed his view that the Earth is flat; Donald Trump’s former rival, now colleague, Ben Carson says he doesn’t believe in the Big Bang. ..
Update: Tuesday March 28
Still on my anti- (so-called) search engine rant, I got to wondering if it was just Stateside google.com that was preventing entry-level (shroud of turin) searchers from accessing this site.
Answer: NO! The same applies to searchers on Canada’s google.ca and Australia’s google.au. That’s on the default “anytime” setting (I may be visible on past week, past month etc which few will use).
I then had a sudden thought (when using google.ca). Why have I never seen Mario Latendresse’s splendid sindonology.com site with its invaluable Shroud Scope when searching on google.uk or even google.com, at least not in the first dozen or even 20 pages? Has Mario been given the same blackball treatment as this investigator, despite being pro-authenticity (indeed, a founder member of the Shroud Science Group)?
Answer: YES!. Search (shroud of turin) on his own country’s google.ca, and he’s not listed anywhere on the first 20 pages!
I was right not to entertain dark conspiracies about sindonology (aka shroudology) being at the root of this exclusion from All Time Google listings. If that were the case, Mario would be getting special treatment. He’s not! There now seems little doubt that it’s Google deciding what entry-level searchers under (shroud of turin) should be allowed go see, and not see. In short, Google is not acting as a search engine pure and simple. It’s either manually ‘curating’ what comes from its allegedly algorithm-driven crawler OR has cleverly programmed the algorithm to reject sites that fail certain Google-ordained criteria. And what might those criteria be, one wonders? Might they be an aversion to facts, to ongoing research, to (dare one say) SCHOLARSHIP, the latter having no part to play in its e-commerce promoting business model, one that delivers billions of $$$$$$ each year via pay-per-click?
Yup, I suspect that to be the answer. Google (and its minor competitors like Bing and Yahoo) are all in the business of dumbing-down internet search, killing the true spirit of enquiry.
You are a disgrace to Western civilization, Google et al, founded as it is on a respect for free speech, for new thinking …
Something has to be done about these ethically-blinkered, greed-obsessed control-freak Californians, and soon!!!
This site is presently listed at the bottom of Page 5 listings under a (shroud of turin) search on google.uk. That’s despite several hundred postings over the last 5 years. many highlighted on other sites, notably Dan Porter ‘s shroudstory.com up till Dec 2015 and elsewhere, and many links to other sites (which Google says are crucial).
Yet when one looks at the top of current Page 5 listings, here’s the kind of site that Google decides to give precedence:
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Yes. a one-off posting by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with no long-term interest in the Shroud, or indeed any obvious reason to be interested, is allowed to push a specialist long-term interest site such as this down to the bottom of Page 5. Indeed, many such one-off ‘passing interest’ sites have been allowed to do this, thanks to the deplorable Google algorithm (with or without human intervention) making this and other more informed, on-the-ball sites scarcely visible.
This site was set up 5 years ago with the aim of reporting online, in real time, the progress of an investigation into the how and why the Turin Shroud could have been fabricated in such a way as to fool modern-day scientists (or “scientists”) into thinking it was authentic 1st century provenance, allegedly and mistakenly a genuine image of the crucified Jesus.
Thanks to Google and other California-based so-called search “engines” I now realize that the internet was not the hoped-for means of delivering new research, new thinking, new ideas, new theories into the public domain. The page rankings are a cesspit of accumulated human-deposited crap.
Yup, these last 5 years have been a complete and utter waste of this investigator’s time, thanks to his trust and reliance on search engines to transmit findings under a simple straightforward (shroud of turin) internet search.
Goodbye sordid, disreputable Google et al. I regard you as enemies of human enlightenment and progress, indeed of Western civilization. You will henceforth be treated here with the contempt you richly deserve – and ignored completely.
If I do another posting, it will be negative in its take on all things sindonological, given the array of vested interests that refuse to LISTEN to opposing opinions.
Probable title for next posting: “Turin Shroud: so how come STURP managed to get it so COMPLETELY wrong?”
It’s half-written already.