A solution (at last!) to the Turin Shroud – based on my 5 years of continuous experimental research.

 

Note added 28th September, 2017:

Here’s in blue font below is a copy of the final two paragraphs of this posting, which serve as Summary of my TRANSPORT (NOT burial!) Shroud hypothesis. Correction: medieval simulated TRANSPORT “Shroud” …

Well, I’ve said it many, many times before these last 3 years or more, but the message for some reason is failing to sink in. The Shroud of Turin is a 14th century simulation/modelling/reconstruction/mischievous forgery (take your pick)  of what a whole body imprint in sweat and blood of the crucified Jesus onto Joseph of Arimathea’s fine linen, supplied to the cross, formed en route to the rock tomb place of burial, might have looked like some 13 centuries later. It was inspired by the Veil of Veronica, an alleged imprint of the face of Christ onto a proffered piece of  bystander’s cloth acquired en route to the cross. Note the symmetry: first, a facial imprint formed en route to the cross, then, a few hours later, a whole body imprint formed en route from cross to tomb.

There you have it folks. Note that the explanation offered does not require that one accurately models or reproduces the TS blood/body image for it to be true. I regard my flour-imprinting procedure merely as a reasonable approximation, one that can account for several features of the body image especially. But I repeat: acceptance of the ‘transport-shroud’ hypothesis, with rejection of  any significant imprinting post-interment (whether in a 1st or 14th century time-frame) does not depend on getting the image modelling 100% right, or even 10%.  What matters is that medieval artisans set out to ‘trump’ the Veil of Veronica, producing a bigger and better image of the founder of Christianity, and despite the initial setbacks at the hands of the local bishop and Pope, could be said to have been phenomenally successful, given the millions today who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud, thanks to 20th/21st century agenda-driven pseudoscience (groan!).

Start of original posting:

Here’s a new image-modelling result for starters, obtained this very morning:

DSC07540 slightly cropped

 

 

It shows my own hand, sprinkled with an imprinting medium (plain white flour) from above. First, there was  addition of  two enveloping  circles of black adhesive tape (wrist and finger) to show where the flour settles and (more importantly) where it DOES NOT (the vertical sides, as distinct from higher flatter planes).  Note the fairly abrupt transition from horizontal planes – where the flour settles – and the vertical planes – where it doesn’t, with a fuzzy boundary separating the two.

Relevance to the Turin Shroud? One would have needed to read some two years worth of postings on this site since August 2015 to know why I think, and indeed KNOW the relevance. One would need to know that the flour one sees in the above photos can be imprinted onto wet linen, draped over the top of the flour-coated-hand and pressed firmly.  One would need to know that the flour imprint can then be thermally developed in an oven (or glowing charcoal embers?) to produce a resistant yellow or brown NEGATIVE (tone-reversed) image, displaying a 3D-response in the appropriate computer software.

Here’s the initial imprint of my hand from the above pressing, first as seen when removed from the oven.

DSC07576 roasted hand imprint no oil as is

Shroud-like?  Yes, more so after washing, but let’s put the above image into ImageJ (3D-rendering software that converts image density to image height plotted onto an entirely artificial vertical z coordinate):

roasted hand imprint no oil pre wash 3D

 

3D-rendering

 

Yes the contact flour imprint on exposure to heat (radiant heat especially) produced a Shroud-like NEGATIVE (tone-reversed) image with 3D response in the appropriate software! Coincidence? I think not. The Shroud image is also a contact imprint, made with white flour (probably) and not a miraculous ‘selfie’ of the crucified Jesus! Clever these medievals!

More to come, much more. (John Jackson and other proponents of imaging via mystery corpse-generated radiation via one-off  ‘resurrectional incandescence’  I say simply this: BRACE YOURSELVES! The time of reckoning has finally arrived (after some 35 years of your fairly non-stop, self-indulgent blitzing of the media with your fanciful PSEUDOSCIENCE!).

Friday Aug 25

I repeat a question made on this site a few days ago.

Where is there a single shred of evidence that the Shroud body image is anything other than one formed by physical CONTACT alone between  linen and a  human body (or inanimate version of the latter, 3D or bas relief)?

None of the evidence I have encountered thus far for imaging across air gaps (requiring uv, x-ray radiation  or bombardment via sub-atomic particles etc) stands up to close scrutiny. Maybe my scrutiny  has been too close – in which case, please disabuse me quickly of my lack of understanding.

In the meantime, I say this to all you ‘radiationists’  out there and your ilk.  Fantasize by all means. But kindly desist from resorting to pseudoscience. You risk damaging the reputation of  science (real science that is).

The laws of physics and chemistry are just that – laws. They are not there to be re-fashioned to suit your own convenience, far less to pander to the over-impressionable or gullible…

Saturday 26th Aug

Here’s an image that appears in the highly proactive  lawyer (“Test the Shroud”)  Mark Antonacci’s 2000 book entitled “The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical and Archaeological Evidence”. It’s on Page 7 no less, one of the first images to appear in the book:DSC07599 yellow arrow

 

Notice anything unusual, dare one say overlooked, maybe studiously ignored? The pictures are 3D-renderings (VP-8 Image Analyser), dorsal body on the left, frontal on the right.  What’s that to the left of my yellow arrow?  What’s image density doing there, one might ask,  immediately beneath the chin, indeed beneath the recognized ‘beard’,  image density that responds so well to 3D-rendering? Has there been any comment and speculation about so prominent a feature? If so, then this investigator has missed it completely, despite nearly 6 years of continuous reading and research.

It’s the neck of the Man on the Shroud, right? So what’s image density doing on the neck? Isn’t the neck supposed to have been too far below loosely draped linen that ‘tents’ from the tip of the chin to the chest?

Isn’t that what we have been told repeatedly by the ‘radiationists’, promoting their imaging via ‘resurrectional incandescence’, namely that image formation does not require physical contact between body and linen, that imaging can occur across air gaps, decreasing rapidly with distance, ceasing altogether at about 4cm separation?

Would one expect imaging of the neck? Here’s another figure: it’s from Page 39 of Antonacci’s book.  It would suggest there should be little if any imaging of the neck:

DSC07596 cropped

 

Yes, there’s that sizeable gap between linen and body in the neck area, surely at least 4cm in height. Look too at the ‘microdensitometer intensity plot’ above the recumbent figure. Note the way that image intensity falls precipitately from chin, moving left to right, and only starts to re-build when the linen meets the chest.

So why the “ruff” on the 3D-image of the neck region?

What about the Shroud body image prior to 3D rendering? Does it show zero, low or high image intensity in the neck region, relative to chin and chest?

Again. let’s look at a third image from Antonacci’s book:

DSC07598 yellow arrow

 

So what’s that region of high image intensity doing on the neck for the ‘as is’ negative image shown on the right, to the left of my yellow arrow?

It should surely not be there, based on the ‘loosely draped linen’ model of John Jackson and others. based on his “correlation paper” of 1983, based also on that microdensitometer plot above. But it is, and it’s  plain for all to see  in the 3D rendering, yet seems to have been ignored completely (ah, those inconvenient facts!).   But it wasn’t ignored by this investigator some 4 and a half years ago. Indeed, it was the subject of a posting all to itself in Feb 2013.

Here’s a pair of side-by-side images from that paper:

The right side side shows a Shroud Scope image of the face (added contrast). Note the dark zone (labelled “neck?”) with a paler zone separating it from the chin (and ‘crease’).

The image on the left is a doctored version of the same, showing what one might have expected, given the size of the air gap in the ‘loosely draped linen’ model.

Why the discrepancy between model and actual image? The answer should be obvious: the model is wrong, and even the data supporting it, which fails to flag up the ‘neck anomaly’

There was NO loosely draped linen, at least in the neck region. Regardless of whether the subject was a real face, living or dead, or an inanimate facsimile thereof , the linen did NOT drape loosely. The nature of the image suggests that the linen was PRESSED firmly onto the neck, and less firmly to the underside of the chin to account for the pattern seen.

Manual pressing of linen is not totally inconsistent with authenticity. One could (idly) specuate that a band  had been manually secured in place at neck level to prevent sliding of cadaver within shroud during transport from cross to tomb.  But there’s another scenario that needs to be considered, nay SHOULD have been considered before settling with indecent haste on the ‘loosely-draped’ model, namely medieval ‘forgery’ (or as I prefer to say, medieval simulation of a body (sweat/ newish blood) imprint acquired on Joseph of Arimathea’s linen en route from cross to tomb. The notion of imaging across air gaps via some kind of (still undefined) electromagnetic radiation, corona discharge, sub-atomic particles etc is totally, and I mean TOTALLY unscientific!

Tomorrow I shall take a brief look at that splendid but much-neglected pdf produced by Bernard Power in 2002 which, despite an error in the author’s  asides on chromophore chemistry, frankly puts the Shroudie ‘radiationists’ to shame for its attention to the detailed SCIENCE  requirements and limitations of imaging across air gaps via radiation.

Sunday Aug 27

I’ve changed my mind. Sindonology is just one vast echo chamber, with scarcely anything coming back, except one’s own voice.

Yup, I could summarise some of the key points raised in that  Bernard Power analysis, and request that today’s  radiationists respond to the points he raised. But they won’t. They simply deliver their set pieces, ignoring the detailed physics and chemistry, ignoring the voices of sceptics and critics. I could also pick up on Power’s recognition that a form of electromagnetic radiation (microwave) that of itself has insufficient energy to break chemical bonds could (theoretically at any rate) still play a role in image formation via its generalised thermal effect, triggering chemical reactions that would not otherwise take place at ordinary environmental temperatures on account of the absence of the necessary ‘activation energy’ needed to surmount the energy hump. I could then cross-reference with my own modified Model 10 that features the more energetic infrared radiation – incident radiation I hasten to add from a medieval bed of hot charcoal or similar –  and give hints as to my latest thinking re ‘hotspots’ on the flour-imprinted linen that preferentially absorb rather than reflect infrared radiation (wheat bran particles?). But I’m now minded not to bother. Sindonology frankly does not give a toss for the detailed science, being entirely about promoting its ‘resurrectional incandescence’ agenda* to the general public via a cooperative or compliant media. Science and pseudoscience do not mix. Internet debate and the general mass media do not mix. As for Google’s so-called search engine, read systematically-biased pro-authenticity click-bait e-commerce directory, words fail me…

If there’s anyone out there who wants to discuss or debate the detailed science, then I’m here, ready and willing to participate. But I’m no longer willing to talk to myself (excluding sole respondent Hugh Farey,  Editor  of the BSTS Newsletter – see most recent comments).

*  Am I the only one to think that incandescence/dematerialization would make a lot more sense in the context of the final one-way Ascension (to heaven) than Resurrection, given there would need to be energy-ABSORBING reversal of resurrectional dematerialization? (See Gospel accounts of the various post-resurrectional encounters between the Risen Christ and his disciples etc). 

September 17, 2017

IMG_0015 The Shroud Conspiracy with my markers of Veronica Veil induced 'miracles'

 

See my own comment regarding this crass so-called novel, which I’m loath to advertise (given its conjuring up THREE modern-day miracles no less enacted by a Vatican archive employee, into whose hands has fallen (allegedly) the  entire Veil of Veronica, tucked into a pocket of a long-lost volume).  Shame on  Simon and Schuster for publishing this tosh…

Tuesday 19th Sept, 2017

Some folk have asked if I’m bothered by the slow (or, as some would say, non-existent) take-up of my modelling studies on the Shroud. Answer: yes, but not unduly. Why not? Well, here’s a clue – the second paragraph in the Introduction to a paper that appeared last year, addressing  “resistant starch” a subject this retired biochemist/food scientist worked upon years ago – some 30-40 years  to be precise while Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at the (then Chorleywood-based) FMBRA:

 

The debranching enzyme, pullulanase is gaining popularity in the processes of starch conversion. Berry (1986) reported that amylopectin of potato starch when debranched using pullulanase before applying heating and cooling cycles considerably improved the RS3 content. The increased degree of debranching would give chains a more opportunity to align and aggregate to form perfect crystalline structure, thereby leading to the formation of more RS.

Yup, a finding I reported back in 1986 is only now “gaining popularity”!

Here’s a screen shot of the 2016 paper in question, coming from a Saudi institute.

 

saudi paper 2016 resistant starch pullulanase

And here’s a screenshot of my 1986 paper:

 

Berry 1986 resistant starch pullulanase

 

Here’s my current listing on a Google search under (dietary fibre resistant starch):

 

screen grab from google my resistant starch paper 1986

523 Citations?  Peanuts – given they have accumulated over a mere 30+ years !  Or there again… What’s the opposite of ‘ephemera’, that eternal blight  (oops) of sindonology?

Yup, one needs to take a long-term view where scientific research is concerned!  Anyone who expects instant attention and interest in their latest thinking is definitely in the wrong line of business! If not pearls before swine, think shiny semi-precious stones before blinkered mules…

 

Thursday Sept 21

Might there be a way of  chemically testing my medieval-era flour-based “toastograph” hypothesis for image formation? Answer: yes, in principle, though it would need some excised body image fibres from the Shroud, and would regrettably be destructive.

Would such a test, based on confirming the presence or absence of  high molecular weight melanoidins  (NOT chemically modified cellulose!) as the image chromophore,  allow one to distinguish my flour-derived end-product from that of the naturalistic 1st century purified starch/volatile amine-derived product proposed by STURP’s Raymond N.Rogers in his post-mortem putrefaction model – he being the first to propose melanoidins as body-image chromophore ? Answer: probably yes, at least in principle.

Experimental details can be provided here (on request). 

In the meantime, here’s a link to a 1984 paper (Dutch/Israeli authorship) that provides a clue to the promising ‘chemical-fingerprinting’ technology.

curie point pms 1984

Saturday 23rd September

A unique feature of my flour imprinting/melanoidin Model 10 is the ‘mobile chromophore’ hypothesis, with migration of the yellow pigment as a LIQUID initially, probably within rather than merely on the surface of fibres.

It was mooted as long ago as August 2015 on Dan Porter’s now retired shroudstory site. (See comments especially).  Experimentally it’s tricky, very tricky as I’ve found to my cost, needing a lot more work, but will be aided hopefully (a) by my two new microscopes and (b) with a new Canon digital camera that is proving better at capturing what one sees down the eye piece. (The image-capture software that came with one of the microscopes is simply dreadful!).

The main challenge will be to see how image chromophore is able to migrate from one side of the weave to the other, leaving little trace of its whereabouts en route between contact and non-contact side of the linen. I shall shamelessly make full use of the contrast-enhancement tool on my graphics software, notwithstanding the uneasiness expressed by Dan Porter as regards artificial contrast in the link to that 2015 posting! One is dealing with an exceedingly faint yellow chromophore,  at least when seen at the individual fibre level – so adding contrast – making it progressively darker tones of brown – becomes a no-brainer!

The ultimate aim is to arrive at a further diagnostic tool with which to implicate a Model 10  imprinting mechanism for the actual Shroud of Turin. That depends needless to say on there being a return visit to Turin by STURP ensemble Mk2, not restricted next time to Stateside researchers only! Far too many of the latter were not true (i.e., ideas-driven) researchers, but mere instrumentation specialists, unconcerned about having no hypothesis to test, apart from the tedious “it’s probably just a painting”).

Sunday 24th September: Can someone please explain to me how a team of 30+ physicists, engineers, chemists, photographers etc could have closed their eyes to the obvious – namely that a tone-reversed, i.e. “negative” image that predated photography by hundreds of years should have been seen in the first instance as a CONTACT imprint, NOT a painting or proto-photograph. That’s especially the case, given the artefact is life-size, both frontal v dorsal surfaces of supposedly the same subject, and bearing biological material suggestive of contact, namely blood (or “blood”) even if that latter ingredient had been painted rather than imprinted. The working assumption that the body image as well as blood was acquired from a free-hand artist’s paint brush – without serious consideration being given to a more obvious alternative – doth simply pass all understanding! Talk about closing one’s eyes to the obvious – or being blinded by minimalist overhyped “science” as it existed back in 1978.

Wed 27th September

Realization (unflattering  I have to say to  mainstream sindonology)  has set in where current and past promotion of the TS is concerned.

I’m thinking of the supposed conceptual links – as one might reasonably take for granted – between the Shroud on the one hand and the biblical Joseph of Arimathea’s “fine linen”on the other, delivered to the site of crucifixion to receive  the body  directly from the cross as temporary transport stretcher, No,  NOT delivered to the the final resting place (rock tomb) as if the biblical linen had been intended  to serve as the permanent burial shroud. Sorry to have to repeat myself…

I’m working my way as we speak through two  previously highly quoted  pro-authenticity text books , seeking out those rare mentions of J of A.

I say, if you want to understand  the TS, then THINK JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA if it’s biblical authority you seek or insist upon.

There is now no doubt in my mind whatsoever that  pro-authenticity ‘sindonology’ has been a huge smoke-and-mirrors distraction  exercise, one that can’t even be bothered to acknowledge, far less  respect, the biblical account regarding J of A’s ” fine linen”, despite the Shroud’s expensive herringbone weave).

Sindonology tries to fast-forward from delivery of a crucified body from the cross into J of A’s linen quickly onto that aforementioned  rock tomb,  and then (pause for further fast forward) to that supposedly whole-body imaging  via ‘resurrectional incandescence ‘ on the third day.

Shame about those pre-existing blood stains complicating the narrative! Cue that little known branch of medicine known as sindonological post-mortem bleeding…

More to come when I’ve finished searching those  two books for references, however slight, to Joseph of Arimathea. One thing’s for certain – he was clearly no star turn where sindonology is concerned.  I wonder why …

Thursday 28th September

Task 1:  have just re-read John Heller’s 1983 “Report on the Shroud of Turin” from cover to cover (all 225 pages, sadly no index).

john heller report shroud turin

Care to guess how many mentions are given to that Joseph of Arimathea (you know, the respected elder who supplied the “fine” or “clean” linen that is the sole biblical corroboration for the involvement of a single sheet of fabric?) One would expect at least one, correct? Indeed, one might expect more than one if there were some discussion as to what would have been considered fine linen in the 1st century, maybe with some information on then current weaving technology (herringbone weave etc).

Be prepared for a surprise. There are NO mentions, not a single one. There was no attempt to fit the pro-authenticity narrative – one that ever so gradually  makes its appearance towards the end of Heller’s book – with the biblical narrative, notably the involvement of that key figure with his strategic purchase.

Why not?  Maybe someone can someone explain to this dullard why that should not have been considered desirable, indeed essential, if writing a book ostensibly on the SHROUD of Turin.?

Task 2: re-read Mark Antonacci’s  (2000) “The Resurrection of the Shroud” from cover to cover, all 328 pages no less.  This later book looks more promising, given the reproduction on the front cover of the Deposition from the Cross of the crucified Jesus into Joseph of Arimathea’s linen. (credited as 16th century, by Della Rovere).

antonacci resurrection of shroud

And there’s an Index this time, which should surely have at least a few entries by name to the supplier of the fine linen in that painting.

Oh dear. Joseph of Arimathea does not appear in the Index!  So, once again, it’s a case of laboriously  (re-) reading Antonacci’s book from cover to cover, marking any and all pages that mention our man.

There are just 4 mentions: Pages 117,119, and Pages 261/262 (Appendix B).

Let’s just make a brief aside before quoting the actual words. One the back cover, there are recommendations from various folk. Here, verbatim, blue font, is the first (my italics at the end):

“What a splendid irony it would be if science, after opposing religion for centuries, should finally provide the strongest confirmation of biblical claims! Mark Antonacci, a lawyer trained to evaluate evidence, uses science itself to rebut the arguments against the authenticity of the Turin Shroud (including the widely publicized carbon dating), and also to show it corroborates not only the crucifixion of Christ, but even his resurrection

-E.La B.Cherbonnier, Professor of Religion Emeritus, Trinity College, Hartford, CT

Er, yes, but let’s not forget that resurrection did not follow instantly from crucifixion. There were those intermediate steps involving J of A’s linen – deposition from the cross, transport to the rock tomb, preliminary preparations for burial etc. Presumably Mark Antonacci would have addressed those on one or more of the 4  of 328 pages where Joseph of Arimathea gets a specific mention, not only as supplier of the linen, but using it personally to receive, transport etc the crucified body from cross to tomb.

Does he?

The two mentions in the Appendix B can safely be ignored, being simply biblical references linking Joseph of Arimathea with “myrrh and aloes”. Folk have looked for traces of those on the Shroud and drawn a blank. So we can now proceed to focus our beady-eyed gaze solely upon what Mark Antonacci has/had to say on Pages 117 and 119.

Verbatim cut-and-paste – Page  117  (blue font):

Several very convincing arguments refute assertions that Jesus’ body was washed. In the first place, the burial that Jesus received was hurried and incomplete. It was the Day of Preparation and the Sabbath was approaching, and all work had to cease before sundown. Not only was this the Sabbath, but this particular Sabbath was also the Passover, one of the holiest of all Jewish occasions.
It was already evening when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-58, Mark 15:42-43). This would have been at least a 10 minute journey (and possibly longer because of the crowds gathered for the Passover). There most likely would have been some additional delay in gaining an audience with Pilate, and even further delay as Pilate awaited confirmation of Jesus’ death from the centurion (Mark 15:44-45). Since the release of the body would have involved a legal act of some importance, more than likely a document of release would have been prepared as well, especially since the Jews had sought permission a short time before to have the bodies of the crucified taken away (John 19:31). Joseph of Arimathea then had to proceed back to Golgotha, purchase a linen shroud along the way, take the body down from the cross, and transport it to the tomb…

So, here we are regaled with all the time-consuming steps involved in getting a body from cross to tomb (for reasons that do not concern us for now). Suffice it to say that no mention is made of the importance of that step from cross to tomb, one where an unwashed  body was transferred direct from cross to J of A’s fine linen, when there would have been what might have been at least Stage 1 imprinting of shed blood and probably much else besides, notably body sweat. Yet neither John Heller (earlier) nor Mark Antonacci considers that early imprinting opportunity to warrant attention, merely glossing over the transport step, loading the narrative with other distracting detail.

Why this black hole at the very start of the process that led from real body on cross to image of body deposited on a sheet of linen?  It simply beggars belief that folk would take the trouble to write lengthy books that skim over the first few hours of the most crucial period where the alleged history of the Shroud is concerned. Why have both authors failed to do justice to that crucial part of the narrative? Was it by accident, or was it by design?

It’s time to put my cards on the table. No, correction: my cards were put on the table almost 3 years ago when first articulating an alternative to the TS as a “burial shroud”, suggesting instead what I described as a ‘new paradigm’, namely that it should be seen as a ‘pre-burial’ TRANSPORT shroud, with image as sweat/blood imprint being acquired, whether authentically (or more probably via medieval simulation) in the course of TRANSPORT between cross and tomb.  Needless to say, that notion did not come as music to the ears of those who make their living from claiming that the Shroud body image defies scientific explanation, that ipso facto it did not arrive until the instant of Resurrection!

Yes, it’s nigh on 3 years since this researcher first proposed that the TS was a medieval simulation of a sweat/blood image left on Joseph of Arimathea’s linen while being transported from cross to tomb (indecorously referred to as a ‘body-bag’).

The Makeshift Body Bag of Turin

Sindonology does not challenge it, and indeed ignores it, hoping it will reach as few eyes and ears as possible. Body imaging during transport, whether real (1st century) or as I prefer to say, simulated (14th century) deflates sindonology’s  garish party balloon, the one labelled resurrectional incandescence.

My transport model is testable. Indeed, the flour-imprinting model is/was an attempt to think like a medieval, asking how best to simulate an ancient sweat imprint onto linen, to produce a negative, 3D-enhancible image with the peculiar microscopic properties at thread and fibre level matching those of the Shroud.

Yes, the flour-imprinting model is testable, unlike resurrectional incandescence which isn’t, and indeed is pseudo-science posturing as science. That pro-authenticity sindonology should totally ignore rival models tells one all one needs to know about sindonology. It’s the preserve of closed minds, intent on pushing an agenda that is about mystifying things that are in principle, practice or both capable of rational explanation. Repeat: sindonology has a self-imposed mission to mystify.

Well, I’ve said it many, many times before these last 3 years or more, but the message for some reason is failing to sink in. The Shroud of Turin is a 14th century simulation/modelling/reconstruction/mischievous forgery (take your pick)  of what a whole body imprint in sweat and blood of the crucified Jesus onto Joseph of Arimathea’s fine linen, supplied to the cross, formed en route to the rock tomb place of burial, might have looked like some 13 centuries later. It was inspired by the Veil of Veronica, an alleged imprint of the face of Christ onto a proffered piece of  bystander’s cloth acquired en route to the cross. Note the symmetry: first, a facial imprint formed en route to the cross, then, a few hours later, a whole body imprint formed en route from cross to tomb.

There you have it folks. Note that the explanation offered does not require that one accurately models or reproduces the TS blood/body image for it to be true. I regard my flour-imprinting procedure merely as a reasonable approximation, one that can account for several features of the body image especially. But I repeat: acceptance of the ‘transport-shroud’ hypothesis, with rejection of  any significant imprinting post-interment (whether in a 1st or 14th century time-frame) does not depend on getting the image modelling 100% right, or even 10%.  What matters is that medieval artisans set out to ‘trump’ the Veil of Veronica, producing a bigger and better image of the founder of Christianity, and despite the initial setbacks at the hands of the local bishop and Pope, could be said to have been phenomenally successful, given the millions today who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud, thanks to 20th/21st century agenda-driven pseudoscience (groan!).

 

End of posting. 

The final two paragraphs,  constituting a summary of sorts, have been copied/pasted to the start of the posting by way of Introduction.

 

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 Shroud of Turin, shroud of turin,, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to A solution (at last!) to the Turin Shroud – based on my 5 years of continuous experimental research.

  1. Colin Berry says:

    Terrible, isn’t it. when one has to keep adding one comment after another to one’s latest post*, for want of visitor interest? ? Ours is not to reason why!

    * correction: last but one post

    There’s a reason for persevering. It’s to do with the major search engine and how it operates (I’ll spare you the details, dear reader, except to say I’ve returned to the listings since adopting the present drip-feed format – currently Page 8 under a worldwide, any time search (enter ‘shroud of turin’!). Never look a gift horse in the mouth!

    I’ve been looking in detail the last day or two at the so-called “pigtail” on the dorsal view, adding different levels of contrast to ShroudScope, applying 3D rendering (natural colour v thermal LUT).

    Conclusion: it’s nothing to do with hair (as imagined by those who mistakenly view the TS body image as a kind of photograph – it’s NOT!). Nope, it’s not a photograph! It’s a pressure imprint (“impactograph”). Working hypothesis: the so-called pigtail is nothing of the sort. It’s the impression left on the imprinting medium (white flour in my favoured Model 10) by, wait for it…. the (hard bony) spinal vertebral column of a real human being – alive or dead!

    One can even – admittedly with the eye of faith- make out the separate nobbles of the vertebrae!

    Nope – this is not I grant you the stuff of peer-reviewed (invariably over-assertive) journal submissions. It’s real groping, bumbling suck-it-and-see science (progressive model building, testing, refinement…), the kind for which focused, agenda-driven, tunnel-vision sindonology has no time whatsoever.

  2. Colin Berry says:

    What would be the point in getting a medieval artist to ditch his regular paint palette for something altogether more primitive – like a weak suspension of iron oxide in acid – and then be told to paint IN THE NEGATIVE (i.e. dark/light tone reversed)? And why – to what ends? Answer: so that the resulting image resembled an IMPRINT, as might have been left on J of A’s ‘fine linen’ by a sweat/blood coated man. Yes, the iron oxide/acid is to serve as simulated sweat you realize, but of medieval provenance (we at least agree on something). Oh, and the blood too has got to look like real blood, even if it too is simulated, or partly so.

    If the aim was to create something that looked like a real body imprint (life size, frontal v dorsal, no sides, no shadowing, NO loin cloth, quality linen etc etc) then would it not make more sense to dispense with the services of that truly adventurous, avant garde artist, and employ one or more artisans to generate REAL BODY IMPRINTS, one where there’s little if any chance of sceptics pointing a finger and saying “Just who do you think you are kidding – that’s just a faint painting, made to look like an imprint!”

    This investigator will continue to plough his now ever lonelier furrow. The TS body image is/was a real body imprint from the word go! Everything points in that direction, despite the attempts by John Jackson and now the outgoing editor of the BSTS to dismiss contact imprint with their dodgy self-serving experimental models. What’s more I can model it with white flour and wet linen, at least on a small scale (I leave it to others to test it out full scale).

  3. Colin Berry says:

    PS …and when it comes to the dreary ‘just a painting’ refrain, it’s hard to know what’s worse – an absence of hardcore science, or the substitution of what I’m minded to call ‘candyfloss chemistry’. The latter started in the U.S. (STURP era, “conjugated carbonyls”), then moved to Italy (with allegedly ‘relevant’ laser-induced chemical pathways involving we’re told that cellulose and internal double bonds). It has now reared its ugly head in the UK (see BSTS Newsletter 85 to which I decline to give a link, such is my growing disenchantment with the way that publication has gone downhill in recent months and years).

    Reminder to sindonology: chemistry is an exact science. Kindly give it the respect it deserves. Stop abusing – or merely glossing over it – invariably to sustain your own favoured narrative, shutting the door on that of others …

  4. Colin Berry says:

    Beware the latest recruits to the “just a painting” school of simplistic thinking – unable, or more probably unwilling – to address the complexity of detail that is the TS imprint.

    (That’s IMPRINT, note, a truly unique, negative, i.e. tone-reversed IMPRINT, both frontal and dorsal sides, seemingly of the crucified Jesus, recreated in the medieval era – circa mid 14th century- in a striking and unforgettable feat of visually-realized imagination).

    The body image alone, even without the identifying blood, is importantly both monochrome and lacking sides, as do imprints generally. But it is definitely not, repeat NOT, a routine painting!

    Those tedious ‘just a painting’ protagonists/dogmatists, new and old, are each pursuing their own individual agendas – whether realizing it or not!

  5. Colin Berry says:

    I was asked yesterday (offline) what my reasons were for thinking that HEAT had been needed by our medieval artisans to produce that ghostly yellow body imprint on the TS.

    Ah yes, good question, er, er …

    Leaving aside the ability to model the process, with white flour, wet linen and a bed of glowing hot embers, there’s no one single killer answer. How can there be when STURP, despite its armoury of gee whiz gadgetry produced scarcely any information on the chemical nature of the body image chromophore – apart, that is, from the bleaching by diimide (indicating a carbon-based chromophore with alternating single -C-C – and double -C=C- bonds).

    But an hour with a pen and notebook has so far resulted in 19 points in favour of there having been a thermal development step.

    Yes, 19 no less, each one distinctly sub-lethal, but collectively packing a punch. But then I would say that, wouldn’t I?

  6. Colin Berry says:

    Hi there ‘pavurcn’. Welcome to the site – and thanks for your focused comment (even if I disagree with the general thrust).

    Have you seen my current posting?

    https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/pro-authenticity-shroud-investigators-should-have-considered-the-body-image-as-a-simulated-sweat-imprint-before-rushing-to-their-pseudoscience-resurrectional-incandescence-etc/

    There I make a claim that the TS body image is NOT a photograph, far less an August Accetta X-ray radiograph. It’s an ‘impactograph’.

    As such, I’d be more than happy for the body image to show “teeth” (while unable to see them myself). Why? Because anything that’s hard and resistant to pressure (bone, teeth etc) assists with transfer of an imprinting medium from skin to linen.

    My imprinting medium (Model 10) is not liquid, incidentally, at least not initially. It’s solid particles of white flour, imprinted onto wet linen. But there is still a role for liquid, albeit transient, which assists in explaining so-called image superficiality (still to be properly measured- see below!) and the microscopic properties (image discontinuities, evenness of colour within individual fibres etc). I believe that a flour imprint ‘bleeds’ a briefly liquid thermal exudate on thermal colour development of a flour imprint over a bed of medieval hot charcoal embers. The liquid cocktail (Maillard browning products, melanoidins etc) actually penetrates fibres, so the image – far from being confined to the surface -actually penetrates beneath the PCW (primary cell wall) into the lignified S1 layer underneath.

    There’s far too much dogma re “image superficiality” in my view, despite precious little by way of hard data. If you know of some I’ve missed, then a link would be welcome.

  7. pavurcn says:

    “Where is there a single shred of evidence that the Shroud body image is anything other than one formed by physical CONTACT alone between linen and a human body (or inanimate version of the latter, 3D or bas relief)?”

    So the teeth should not be showing, by your account, since simple contact would not be enough to make them appear. Yet see http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2017/04/x-rays-22-man-on-shroud-evidence-is.html . No, it looks like there is much more than physical contact going on…

    In addition, the image is a tiny fraction of a hair’s width deep. Try that with liquids on cloth.

  8. Piero says:

    I have to add few useful words …
    because I am curious about the controls about the
    starch on linen fibrils and the possible (… or not ?) interference on blood imprint
    (since [in my opinion] the Holy Shroud seems to be non only an
    “ancient sweat imprint onto linen” …) and it was not my intent to insult you !
    By the way I was going to include the word “maybe”.
    But, in a hurry, this clarification (unfortunately) has been lost …
    I say this with regard to what you had received on Saturday …
    and of which you complained.

    Here I try to explain what happened :
    I had not had time to see all your attempts (that is, to look right)
    so I referred what I found in your blog …
    Indeed, in truth, I had taken your words as a reference
    about your “bass relief imprint”
    (the flour imprint of your hand, “using a wet flour paste on dry cotton”) …

    And here’s what I’ve read (your words):
    > I had made a flour imprint of my hand, using a wet flour paste on dry cotton (old technology) that was flat when it went into the oven.
    As the temperature increased, the fabric began to heave and buckle, making a glove like 3D version (or at any rate bas relief) facsimile of my hand …

    Anyway, in my opinion, my message was just a hasty writing, a short note posted with limited time … and then the result was your obvious irritation.
    In short, it was just an approximation of my thoughts…
    You should always be cautious about the exact meaning of the observations
    I write, which instead (sometimes) can be only approximated
    (and as a clear example, you can observe what I roughly wrote about “dibenzodioxocin”,
    that can be linked to the “resurrectional incandescence” or your “oven treatments”… )
    and then now you should understand that I did not have enough time
    to follow everything you’ve written.
    Now I think I’ve been clear.
    — * — * —
    The same talk (about the approximate communication…) may apply to AFM bending controls.
    With those AFM controls (on very small portions of linen material) it is possible to determine if the material has been damaged by nuclear radiation, etc.
    But I do not think it’s okay to destroy the flax fibers to do the AFM bending tests.

    For example: you can use Raman spectroscopy…
    Depending on the frequencies investigated in the Raman spectrum, different parts of a macromolecular structure can be investigated.
    Low wavenumbers reveal information on macromolecular skeletal movements and the amorphous and crystalline domains in the fibre
    whereas higher wavenumbers can be used to investigate particular molecular species or bonds …
    (source : “Handbook of tensile properties of textile and technical fibres”, edited by A. R. Bunsell, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2009).
    — — —
    Here two links about :
    “Dynamic AFM for soft surfaces”
    and
    “Nanomechanics with Atomic Force Microscopy”
    (NPL is the UK’s National Measurement Institute, charged by the UK government to carry out research into innovative new measurement techniques, technology and best practice…)

    Links :
    http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/surface-and-nanoanalysis/research/analytical-nanoprobes/nanoanalysis-using-atomic-force-microscopy-afm/dynamic-afm-for-soft-surfaces

    http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/surface-and-nanoanalysis/research/analytical-nanoprobes/nanoanalysis-using-atomic-force-microscopy-afm/nanomechanics-with-atomic-force-microscopy

    AFM techniques and AFM apparels seem to be useful when we have
    – to study the thickness of thin layer on linen fibril, adhesion of thin layers on linen fibrils, etc. ….
    – to obtain the maps for carboxylation (-COOH) and methylation (-CH3) degrees … etc. …
    — — —
    But before to do the “Nanomechanical measurements using Atomic Force Microscopy”,
    there are other useful controls to do (but these are things you probably know very well !) …
    Optical controls, for example : PLM
    Here a title :
    “Optical Microscopy in Forensic Science” (Dec 2009)
    Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry [chapter : Forensic Science]
    Lori J. Wilson,
    Barbara P. Wheeler
    —- —-
    Otherwise, the use of vibrational spectroscopies :
    ATR-FTIR (see also the penetration depth) and Raman analyses.
    Both analytical techniques are sensitive to the structural changes in the materials and can show us what is the situation of linen fibres.

    Taking apart the works by Fanti and Malfi,
    I have found the following reference:
    “Application of FTIR and Raman Spectroscopy
    to Qualitative Analysis of Structural Changes
    in Cellulosic Fibres”,
    published on
    Tekstilec, 2012, letn. 55, št. 1, str. 19–31
    Link:
    http://www.tekstilec.si/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Application-of-FTIR-and-Raman-Spectroscopy-to-Quantitative-Analysis-os-Structural-Changes-in-Cellulosic-Fibres.pdf
    —*—*—
    Another alternative is the use of High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy …
    on linen fibrils (cellulosic chains, hemicelluloses, lignins, etc).
    Then see also the cryo-EM (… with microscopic investigations that require less damages caused by radiations with respect the normal TEM controls) and think to the thicknesses of the samples to submit to the cryo-EM investigations … and the spy-molecules.

    At the end “the unsolved problem” :
    How to accurately visualize flexibility in macromolecular structures ?
    — — —
    I am still curious to know what were the results obtained from the Raman controls performed in 2002 (fifteen years ago!) on the Holy Shroud of Turin…
    Also I am curious to know what can be the results obtained using AFM and Raman controls on residual sample (from the 14C dating of the Shroud of Turin) kept in by Timothy Jull. …
    In an y case I will be happy to see (at least) an UV image of the Arizona sample because the photographs taken in the past by Barrie Schwortz (available online) din’t show the UV images.
    — — —
    … Archaeometry – also known as archaeological science – is the application of scientific methods and techniques to archeological investigations….
    I think we have to deal with “Textile Archaeometry and Analytical Techniques”…
    *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
    Regards,
    PI

  9. Piero says:

    Here the vague references about an “AFM bending test” :
    1 – ” Elastic Modulus of Single Cellulose Microfibrils from Tunicate Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy”
    Shinichiro Iwamoto, Weihua Kai, Akira Isogai and Tadahisa Iwata
    Link:
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bm900520n
    and
    here two very short excerpts from the abstract :
    >… The nanocellulosic materials were deposited on a specially designed silicon wafer with grooves 227 nm in width, and a three-point bending test was applied to determine the elastic modulus using an AFM cantilever. …
    >… … The result showed that the experimentally determined modulus of the highly crystalline tunicate microfibrils was in agreement with the elastic modulus of native cellulose crystals.
    — — —
    2 – “Measurement of the elastic modulus of spider mite silk fibers using atomic force microscopy”
    Stephen D. Hudson, Vladimir Zhurov, Vojislava Grbic, Miodrag Grbic, and Jeffrey L. Hutter
    published on “J. Appl. Phys.” 113, 154307 (2013).

    and, please, read the following excerpt :
    >… … To determine the mechanical properties of adult and larval Tetranychus urticae silk fibers, we have performed three-point bending tests with an atomic force microscope … …

    Link:
    http://www.nanomitech.com/uploads/1/1/2/8/11288642/measurement_of_the_elastic_modulus_of_spider_mite_silk_fibers_using_atomic_force_microscopy._m.grbic.pdf
    — —
    3 – there is a book titled :
    “Natural Fibre Composites: Materials, Processes and Properties”
    Alma Hodzic,Robert Shanks
    Woodhead Publishing, 13 feb 2014 – 408 pages
    — — —
    … … … … etc. … etc… …
    So …
    I think (taking apart the fact that tunicate or spider silk are not a well known textile material…) that AFM is not only a sort of psychical “fixation”…

    Regards,

    PI

  10. Colin Berry says:

    Firstly, you are hardly paying me a “compliment” when you so totally misrepresent my Model 10, first announced here and on Dan Porter’s site as long ago as August 2015. Yes, I routinely use my hand as template, because it’s fully 3D, not bas relief. I ceased using wet flour paste in Model 9, replacing it with sprinkled solid white flour, as shown yet again in this posting. And no, I do not imprint onto cotton, but linen. Cementation is not an issue since, as shown in this blog’s banner, the Stage 1 roasted flour imprints from the oven are routinely washed vigorously with soap and water to detach the initial encrustation of Maillard browning products, leaving a faint Shroud-like discoloration of the fibres only. There is no evidence whatsoever of cementation when forceps are used to gently pull and separate threads from the weave.

    Secondly, I reserve the right, as do most bloggers, to decide which of a commentator’s ideas to respond to, which to leave unanswered. Some ideas are better described as fixations. I would describe your all-consuming interest in your still-untested AFM as a fixation, nay, pie in the sky.

    In your case there is again the intrusion of personal insults, with the reference this time to mental presumably age-related “confusion”. You were previously banned from this site for resorting to crude personal insults and are now slipping back into your bad old ways. If you wish to insult me, then do so from a blogsite of your own, not this one…

    I shall stop here, being preoccupied right now with preparing my next posting, scheduled for Monday. If there’s a source of confusion in sindonology, one that has persisted now not just for years but several decades, it’s the failure on the part of authenticity-smitten sindonologists to recognize the difference between a real and a SIMULATED sweat imprint, the latter of medieval design and production. A simulated sweat imprint can be obtained without requiring a cement-like imprinting medium.

  11. Piero says:

    First of all,
    I do my compliments for your “bass relief imprint” (the flour imprint of your hand, “using a wet flour paste onto dry cotton”) …
    …although this might (perhaps) also imply interpretative difficulties about the Shroud image.
    And then see also the absence of cemented linen fibers (The Orphaned Manuscript, Dr. Alan Adler. See also other works ) …
    [Question :
    Are the fibers “cemented” together?
    The answer was : Not …]
    — — —
    Why you haven’t “the faintest clue what you are talking about” ???
    I believed to be clear in my indications…

    Despite the various topics I mentioned,
    I did think I was fairly clear
    So…
    Frankly your short answer seems to me only an inadequate reply and, sorry (here no insults about your person, seen as a searcher of truth !), also a possible first sign of confusion in your mind.

    Then …
    What I have to write to you in order to explain my own ideas about the advanced controls of linen fibrils?
    For example :
    I think that AFM bending tests are the useful way to know the truth…

  12. Colin Berry says:

    Sorry. But as before, I don’t have the faintest clue what you are talking about…

  13. Piero says:

    I beg your pardon about my “long intervention”
    with the short answer received by the Nobel Prize Henderson.
    Here I want to underline that I think
    you (perhaps) had not well understood the meaning of
    my previous rough message around “dibenzodioxocin” …
    In fact you indicated “the flour imprint can then be thermally developed in an oven” and this is an interesting fact to check (and see also the other BIF pathways [for example : C.D. indicated by Fanti, V.U.V. by Di Lazzaro, “Maillard products / melanoidins” by Ray Rogers, Robert Rucker’s radiation and the works by Colin Berry … obviously taking apart “Tipler’s sphaleron quantum tunneling” !] and the possible measurements about the “thermal degradation/decomposition depth”) because if there is not a thermal shock this compound (dibenzodioxocin) don’t decompose ( … if I am right in my rough idea…).
    Do you agree on that ?
    [Can you confirm my idea about the use of dibenzodioxocin (as a possible “spy-substance”) ?]
    Then this is a possible way to detect what was the BIF pathway.
    But this “investigative way” seems to be too refined (as an analytic way to run) and other more simple controls need to be considered in order to know the possible genesis of the Imprint.

    I think that Raman analyses can show what is the limit of stability obtained from the experiments with linen samples thermally treated (submitted to an increasing level of energy).
    In other words : a set of Raman controls linked to the thermal scale…
    — —
    See also :
    the use of “Applied AFM-Raman Archaeometry” on the supposed tablecloth (of the Last Supper) kept in Spain ( = the relic of Coria) …

    I think that working with a state-of-the-art Surface Chemical Analysis laboratory, well equipped with an Atomic Force Microscopy apparel, it is possible to achieve the interesting results.
    See also : mechanical properties of linen fibrils, etc.
    — — —
    Contact Resonance Imaging with AFM.
    CR imaging can provide quantitative nanomechanical information from extremely small
    material volumes…
    Link:
    https://www.asylumresearch.com/Applications/ContactResonance/Contact-resonance-Asylum-Research-AFM-GIT.pdf

  14. Piero says:

    Yes. I have sent two proposals :
    – Adhesion force and AFM measurements on treated samples.
    – Seeking the Truth about the Shroud: Investigations on Possible Age and Image Formation.
    But …
    I have not an University degree and having not a degree it is more difficult to work in the world…
    In short :
    I failed in my attempts to receive an help.
    Yes, science is a serious thing, but if no one at least tries to do something
    then it is useless to talk … (And of course I can not do much also because I do not have a private research lab !) and then
    I did not obtain the useful material to show during
    the (U.S. Conference) two presentations …
    —- —
    Instead here you can read the simple and short answer
    I received from the Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Henderson (yesterday) :
    = You can do cryoEM on any specimen as long as it is thinner than around 100 nm.

    And the question I posed (yesterday) to Henderson was the following :
    >What is your opinion about the possible use of cryo-EM
    in the field of analyses on linen (flax)
    and thin layers on linen fibrils ?
    — —
    I think you know who is Dr. R. Henderson and what is cryo-EM, in any case (in order “to help your readers”) there are the following excerpts from the interview :
    >… in a way cryo-EM is just another method of finding out what the atomic structure, high-resolution structure, of your molecules are. But the difference is there are quite a lot of structures in biology that were resistant, were recalcitrant to the other methods, like x-ray crystallography or nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. So it has opened up essentially a kind of new, previously unapproachable area of structural biology.
    >Imaging a material with electrons at near-atomic resolution requires a thin specimen that is stable in the vacuum of the transmission electron microscope. For biological samples, this comprises a thin layer of frozen aqueous solution containing the biomolecular complex of interest. … etc. …
    Link:
    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2017/henderson-interview.html
    — —
    Have you read the paper “Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud” by Carlino and Fanti ?
    >… reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide …
    Link:
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487
    — —
    There are several strategies for preparing samples for imaging by EM, including negative staining and cryogenic freezing…

    I recognize that cryo-EM is an interesting technique and allows you to get useful information without damaging too much the material to be controlled.

    Well…
    I still prefer the idea to use ATR-FTIR and SPM analyses on linen fibrils and thin layers (and then see also : the controls of the interesting “ghosts”).
    — — —
    What are your scientific remarks ?
    — —
    Regards,
    Piero

  15. Colin Berry says:

    There will be a new posting on Monday, telling it the way it is regarding 99% of ‘sindonology’. End of kid gloves treatment!

    It’s time sindonology – the kind that promotes image formation via ‘resurrectional incandescence’ – is seen for what it is – wishful agenda-driven thinking, scarcely if any biblical support, posturing as mainstream science.

    Nope: it’s worthless pseudoscience. Shame the mass media can’t be bothered to distinguish between science and pseudoscience…

  16. Colin Berry says:

    Sorry. Haven’t a clue what you are talking about – but that’s maybe because I seek simple straightforward answers, comprehensible to the average website visitor…

    How come you appeared briefly on the provisional programme for the Pasco, Wa conference in July, then abruptly disappeared? Did you think the conference was to be held in Washington DC?
    Wa = Washington State!

  17. Piero Iacazio says:

    Do you know dibenzodioxocin ?
    Molecular Formula = C14H10O2
    Average mass = 210.228 Da

    Dibenzodioxocins are thermally unstable products.
    Both semi-empirical and density functional theory quantum calculations show that both C-O bonds, which connect the biphenyl part of the dibenzodioxocin molecule to the phenolic group, can be broken under increasing temperature.

    So, I think it is possible to search something (advanced analyses) into your linen samples and other attempts to produce a Shroud-like material…

    Do you know the thermal degradation of a phenolic dibenzodioxocin lignin model ?
    So…
    Is it possible to apply these chemical knowledges in the field of the studies about the Shroud ?
    What is your own opinion ?
    Am I wrong about the idea to search dibenzodioxocin as a sorto of “key-molecule”?
    — — —
    I believe that AFM and SNOM technique can be useful to solve the Enigma.
    In any case we have to remember Ash and Nicholls [“Super-resolution Aperture Scanning Microscope”, Nature 237, 510 – 512 (30 June 1972)] …because they first demonstrated the concept of Near-field scanning optical microscopy …

    Regards,

    Piero Iacazio

    Reference :
    >…A specific condensed lignin substructure, dibenzodioxocin, was immunolocalized in differentiating cell walls of Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) H. Karsten) and silver birch ( Betula pendula Roth) xylem. …

    Links:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13680231

    https://www.lenzing.com/fileadmin/template/pdf/konzern/lenzinger_berichte/ausgabe_87_2009/LB_2009_Kudanga_10_ev.pdf

  18. Colin Berry says:

    (Edited/expanded from yesterday’s original): I have just read (from cover to cover) the 2017 covertly ‘pro-authenticity’ novel’ by John Heubusch entitled “The Shroud Conspiracy” with among other things an outrageous attempt to forecast ‘STURP Mk2’. But that’s as nothing compared with one of the major characters – a Vatican archive employee – rediscovering the Veil of Veronica, then deploying it 3 times no less to perform instant miracles – like bringing his dead dog back to life! Matters are left unexplained at the end, so as to allow for a sequel we’re told (whose title I decline to advertise). Shame on the otherwise reputable publishers for allowing a non-concluded ‘novel’ to be marketed for $26 as if a stand-alone story, one that assumes that the reader wholeheartedly accepts a supposed ancient relic as having instant miraculous powers.

    As per Google’s hugely-corrupted so-called “search engine” (see earlier) WORDS FAIL ME.

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