More to follow in due course – like a summary of how the idea of the Shroud as a simulated sweat imprint first came to me on learning of the recent discovery of the Machy Mould, how everything I read and discovered by experimentation fitted with the new model, and how that so-called academic discipline (ha ha) that calls itself sindonology does NOT want you to know about my simple non-supernatural “simulated sweat imprint” theory, and indeed has done its best to suppress it for the best part of 4 whole years.
Note regarding site banner:
See how a simulated sweat imprint (my wet hand pressed down onto dark fabric) responds magnificently to 3D-rendering computer software (ImageJ) before and after tone-reversal (negative back to positive image). Remind you of anything? Like those supposedly “unique” and “encoded” 3D-properties of the Shroud of Turin body image? For a more realistic aged/yellowed sweat imprint, see the many postings on this site since 2014 obtained with the aid of my Model 10 (imprinting off parts, notably head and hands, of a real body (mine!) onto linen with white wheaten flour, followed by heat-development of the image to generate carbon-based and thus bleachable straw-coloured melanoidins via Maillard reactions between wheat proteins and reducing sugars).
Background to the notion of the TS as representing a ‘simulated sweat imprint’ (medieval manufacture):
Here’s a screen grab of the first mention made of “sweat imprint” on this site. It’s from Feb 2014, some four and a half years ago! “Simulated” does not get a mention yet. That came later the same year.
Yes, it was November the same year (2014) when my catch-phrase description of the TS expanded to “simulated sweat imprint” with this posting:
What you see above is my earlier Model 2 (simulating an ancient yellowed sweat imprint via direct scorching of linen from a heated metal template). Things have moved on – to Model 10 – imprinting from a real body onto wet linen using white flour, and then gently roasting the linen!
So what was the crucial experiment that replaced Model 2 (finally) with Model 10?
Here were the origins of Model 10 (flour imprinting to simulate an ancient sweat imprint) appearing on my generalist sciencebuzz site in October 2014:
Direct scorching off a heated template is easy when dealing with something small and bas relief like a horse brass, less so with a life-size bronze statue or similar!
Solution: tested first with the horse brass: smear lightly with vegetable oil, sprinkle with white flour from a height, shake off the excess flour. press the coated template down onto WET linen, then gently roast the linen over charcoal embers or in an oven to develop the yellow/brown melanoidin image.
The technology works! What’s more it is easily adaptable to imprint one’s own hand or even one’s face, as I showed back in May 2015.
Howzat! Admittedly the image was produced using a wet slurry of flour as imprinting agent, in conjunction with dry linen (which preceded my resort to dry white flour onto wet linen. (That was in response to criticism that my images were too sharp and well-defined compared with the TS body image. One can always rely on sindonologists to seek out the tiniest supposed defects in one’s modelling efforts, ignoring the underlying scientific principles!).
Yes, that imprint of my face is a tone-reversed negative. The prominences that look lightest in a photograph through reflecting most incoming light look darkest and vice versa. That is entirely to be expected of a CONTACT imprint, where the linen makes best contact with the features that are raised rather than recessed. Forget all the hype about the TS body image being a ‘selfie’ photograph produced by resurrectional radiation. The makers of the TS simply wanted the viewer to see the double body image as the contact imprint left by sweat and blood on an up-and-over sheet of fine linen, the one described as “clean linen” (Matthew), “fine linen” (Mark) or simply “linen” (Luke), the one supplied by Joseph of Arimathea to collect the body, either from the cross or from Pontius Pilate’s safe keeping. Our medieval modellers saw and seized an opportunity to mimc on a larger scale the kind of imagery that captured the face of the founder of Christianity en route to the cross onto the lady bystander’s veil (“Veil of Veronica”) but with a crucial difference – a simulation of Joseph of Arimathea’s linen could be used to capture an image of the entire body, frontal v dorsal sides, with the drenching in body sweat providing a notional latent image (“sweat imprint”) that would subsequently become more easily visible (and explainable) as the result of yellowing with age.
In other words, the explanation for the Turin Shroud is simple, absurdly simple. That explains why sindonology pretends my thinking is not there, despite placing close on 400 postings to the internet these last 6 years or more. Sindonology does not want you viewing the TS as a sheet of linen that acquired its imprint en route from cross to tomb – far less a medieval modelling of that scenario. It wants you to view the linen as the BURIAL shroud referred to in the book of John, to see the imaging as a byproduct of resurrection, with all kinds of abstruse explanations to account for the co-imaging of blood as if still fresh and unclotted.
Sindonology sees the Shroud as an opportunity to impose its view of the genuinness of the Shroud by having us believe that its image characteristics could only have been acquired by supernatural means that tally with the Gospel account of the Resurrection. Sindonology is mistaken. The Shroud’s imagery is entirely explainable , drawing on simple imprinting physics, chemistry and biology.
It’s time sindonology returned to earth, and did some genuine relevant modelling to confirm the ideas presented here. The first things it should do are: (a) confirm the radicarbon dating and cease impugning the integrity of the 3 dating labs from 1988 or of their overseer – the British Museum and (b) confirm that the body image is melanoidin from an extraneous addition – (imprinting medium – probably white flour or similar) NOT modified linen cellulose.
Suppose now you create the beginnings of a supposedly ‘scientific’ rainbow, one which says: follow the rainbow into the enigmatic realms of the Turin Shroud, venturing into regions where science is incapable of explaining the image characteristics (does it heck!). Suppose you convince your audience that there is no explanation in terms of conventional science – that one has to assume a supernatural intervention – bursts of radiation at Resurrection that scorch on an image of the crucified Jesus, days old bloodstains an’all.
Notice anything? If you succeed in your aim of ‘enigmatizing’ the Shroud of Turin, convincing the world at large that its a magical entity, then you have created for yourself a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow. How?
Simple! Convince the world that the Shroud is a supernatural gift from on high, then you have created for yourself a seemingly virtuous circle. If the Shroud is a supernatural relic, then you have in your hands tangible ‘evidence’ of the biblical account of the aftermath of crucifixion – miraculous restoration of life, later Ascension to rejoin the Father on high. Think Super-Shroud of Turin, not Simulated Sweat Imprint of obscure Lirey, deeply rural outskirts of Troyes, Champagne region, mid-14th century France.
In short, the Shroud of Turin, properly handled with judicious inputs of new “science” at regular intervals, becomes the self-reinforcing religious relic, one that goes on giving. Is it any wonder that so much effort has gone into “proving” the authenticity of the Turin Shroud? In religious terms, it is gold dust, nay ingots of solid platinum…
More to come, possibly, though running out of things to say. Comments as ever are welcome (first-time comments being subject to my pre-approval – that being WordPress standard practice – its decision, not mine).
Kindly shoot me down, if you can…
Afterthought: some might be interested in the current technology used to make arguably Shroud-like images off 3D templates (whether inanimate, like plastic or metal figurines, or the human anatomy). I can’t list all my postings on the practical nitty-gritty – there being too many of them. Here’s just one that shows the simplicity of the procedure, used to create a pre-photographic negative-image selfie from a small brass crucifix, purchased some years ago in a French Saturday market:
Note the posting title: Who says science can’t explain the Shroud of Turin?
This site reports on current research, letting the reader in on my current thinking ahead of critical scrutiny (mine in the first instance!). It eschews the sindonological norm of hitting the reader with one fait accompli after another, ones that invariably fizzle out to nothing (those pulsed-uv laser studies from Italy’s ENEA being a case in point!).
So what’s the current thinking? See that contact image of my own face, obtained as I said by the wet-slurry technology with white flour onto dry linen that preceded dry flour imprinting onto wet linen. It’s better, much better than the results obtained later with dry flour onto wet linen.
Am I not right in thinking that the face of the Man on the TS is reckoned to be significantly more intense than the rest of the body image, that the hint of a “second face” image on the opposite side of the linen is confined to the face mainly (hands get a mention too). Is there not a more abrupt cut-off between cheek bones and hair compared with a fuzzier edge to the rest of the body? Does that not suggest a difference in technique used for face compared with rest of body?
Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Wet slurry was used to image the face, initially onto dry linen, with thermal development initially of the face only. Then and only then was dry flour used to imprint the image of the rest of the body, with a second thermal step to bring up the rest of the image.
That two step procedure might account for the odd appearance of the head/torso junction, maybe that prominent horizontal crease line where the two meet that appears to be part of the body image – not a later acquired non-baked-in-crease as some have suggested.
The first priority is book research, and such published data that are available without shelling out huge dollops of pension merely for a peek behind journal paywalls.
Advantages of the two step procedure? Two come to mind immediately. First – economy: upmarket linen (herring bone twill weave) is pricey. So get the tricky high-definition face right first. If it’s initially a botch job, then simply cut that small segment off and dispose of it, leaving unmarked linen for another use.
Second: preserving sensibilities: while one wants the face to be the highest possible definition, showing this or that detail that helps the pilgrim recognize the face as being that of the crucified Jesus, one prefers to have a fuzzier image for the rest of the naked body. There are also the innumerable scourge marks, allegedly some 372!, that will later have to be applied to the rest of the body (while not needed on the face!) so best to divide up the imprinting procedure into two separate phases.
Here’s another idea for consideration: go to the John account of the tomb and ‘disappeared body’, an account that differs markedly from that in the three preceding synoptic gospels.
In my King James version of the Bible it reads (John Chp. 20, verses 5, 6 and7):
v5: And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying ; yet went he not in.
v6: Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie.
v7: And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
Might it not be unreasonable to suggest that forgers’ initial aim was to simulate that face cloth only, with a Veronica-like imprinted image of the face only of the crucified Jesus, and they became very practised and expert in perfecting that image, probably using the wet flour slurry technique. (Suggestions that the image borders would be too sharp are easily dispensed with – they could simply abrade the edges of the initial air-dried flour imprint gently to remove any ridge- like accumulations of flour).
The idea initially was ‘merely’ to display a Mark 2 Veronica. But someone had a brainwave: why not add an imprint of the rest of the body, front and rear, and claim that the image represented that left on Joseph of Arimathea’s linen en route from cross to tomb, an ancient age-yellowed sweat imprint, with bloodstains in all the give-away locations, leaving no doubt as to the identify of the imprinted Man on the up-and-over body-concealing Shroud.?
Monday July 30, 2018
Have been searching through my own archives for a comparison of the two modes of flour imprinting – wet slurry onto dry linen as against dry flour powder onto wet linen. Have finally succeeded in tracking down an image that shows the two side by side, from August 2015, almost 3 years ago:
The image on the left was obtained with wet slurry onto dry linen, using a hot oven to develop the colour, with no final washing step. Note the relatively sharp outline (attracting almost immediate negative comment from a certain pro-authenticity hyper-critical quarter). The second was my response – to switch to imprinting with dry white flour onto wet linen. But there’s a difference – after oven-heating the image was then vigorously washed with soap and water so as to detach all but the most tenaciously-attached pigment (presumably melanoidin in chemical terms, i.e. high molecular weight products formed via protein-sugar interactions). Note the fuzzy border of the end-result, which immediately put flour-imprinting back into contention (in my humble opinion), even if the response from sindonology was the customary deafening silence! But then one does not look to sindonology for approval… It’s scorn and/or vitriol or nothing, in my 6+ years of experience! Academic discipline? Do me a favour… For 95% of the time it’s now’t but agenda-pushing pseudoscience!
Returning to yesterday’s suggestion that the initial aim of our Lirey artisan/clerics was ‘merely’ to simulate the “facecloth” that was left in the sepulchre, not Joseph of Arimathea’s main sheet of linen, i.e. that the initial objective was to produce a credible imprint of the face only (using I suggested the flour slurry/dry linen imprinting technique). I think I now have tangible evidence that was indeed the case! It will follow later this morning, but here’s a foretaste of what is still to come:
See the second of Ian Wilson’s splendid articles on the Machy Mould that appeared in the BSTS Newsletter (pre-paywall!) in December 2013:
But there’s a higher definition picture of the Machy Mould on Mario Latendresse’s sindonlogy.org site that argues against what I was about to suggest:
The herringbone weave is clearly apparent, and extends all the way to the left extremity of the cleric on the right. That says the two ARE displaying the full-length body shroud, not the much smaller face cloth as might be considered compatible with the inset face above the word SUAIRE (“face cloth”).
Oh well, nothing ventured, nothing gained…
Tuesday July 31, 2018
Years ago I watched a TV programme which followed a Church of England bishop to California (as I recall) where he had been invited by the Creationists. He for his part defended Darwinian evolution over billions of years, but did not stop there. He deployed a telling analogy as a means of signalling his dislike of Creationist advocacy. He invited his now visibly uptight audience to compare their tactics with those who boast they have hit the bullseye with a carefully aimed dart.
Fine if the target was there first, the dart arriving later. But that’s not the real version of events where Creationism is concerned he said. The dart was thrown first, onto a mounted blank canvas , and the dart board then meticulously drawn around it, the point of dart entry being centred on the red bullseye needless to say!
That analogy now comes repeatedly to mind when I read the incresingly desperate arguments that come from pro-authenticity sindonology. That was the case in the previous posting where I expressed deep misgivings regarding the scientific legitimacy of the Carlino and Fanti paper, claiming there were “nanoparticles” that identified the blood on a minute fragment of Shroud linen fibre as displaying creatinine/iron oxide associations (really?), one they claimed that betrayed objective clinical evidence of “trauma” and “torture”. Secondary reporting – much of it gleeful – of that single paper in 2017 had by May 2018 consumed 15 of the top 150 Google listings no less under a simple “shroud of turin” search, i.e. an amazing 10% of the total. Meanwhile this site, at the time was nowhere to be seen (though having said that, it’s currently back on Page 9).
We’ve since learned that the open-access journal PLOS ONE, which published the Carlino and Fanti paper, has since retracted it (good for them!) in spite of the authors’ objections. See my previous posting for links and details.
That paper was to my way of thinking a prime example of dart first, bullseye second pseudoscience, and not the first of that type to emerge with the name of Professor Fanti of Padua University prominent among the authors and/or instigators. Uncompromisingly pro-authenticity Professor Fanti is an engineer by profession, not a scientist (and oh boy, does it show!).
I’ll be back tomorrow with a plea for flour-imprinting to be recognized as a credible means by which the TS body image was produced by 14th century artisans. It’s frankly absurd that pro-authenticity sindonology (bar the occasionally receptive and open-minded Thibault Heimburger MD from whom we’ve worryingly heard nothing for many months) fails even to acknowledge its existence. One cannot call oneself an academic discipline if one fails to address critics, especially those who have developed radically new lines of thinking, as I have done these last 6 years.
Incidentally, my 1986 resistant starch/dietary fibre paper had 550 citations under Google Scholar at the last look.
How many sindonologists can match that for established scientific credentials, one wonders?
Wednesday Aug 1, 2018
We continue to see this entry under Google returns for an entry level search under (shroud of turin), day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year…
No, that’s a travesty of the real facts, namely that it’s science that continues to elude the proponents of Shroud authenticity, especially those who claim that the body image cannot be accounted for by any known science. Crazy! Preposterous!
Why does it baffle science? Ask sindonologists to spell out the reasons, but make sure you first ask them to say what they know about the chemical nature of the image chromophore. If they tell you they know nothing whatsoever (or mutter vaguely about “oxidized cellulose” without supplying a scrap of hard chemical evidence) then tell them simply and forcibly that if they can’t be bothered to do the preliminary chemical analysis, then they have no business whatsoever declaring the body image to be inexplicable by any known science.
Tell them to go away and determine the chemical nature of the image chromophore before belittling the powerful scientific method (which is fully capable of determining the chemistry, provided it’s first given access to image fibres (and I don’t mean those contaminated sticky tape samples as harvested by Raymond Rogers). The latter inferior substitutes were immediately dispatched to a microscopist – Walter McCrone – who did no chemistry worth speaking of – yet declared the chromophore to be “iron oxide”, totally at odds with Adler’s later discovery that the chromophore was bleachable witb various chemical reagents, making it ORGANIC in nature, NOT inorganic).
That we should constantly be regaled year after year with that laughable headline from a non-scientific source (National Geographic magazine) is frankly a disgrace. Why is it still there, 3 years after its insulting appearance? Who’s continue to broadcast and disseminate that total misrepresentation of the real facts?
Thursday Aug 2, 2018
Here’s a hair-curling instance of crass hypocrisy from pro-authenticity sindonology. It appeared in yesterday’s online Daily Express (UK mass circulation tabloid newspaper):
Excerpt: I’ve corrected the spelling of “Emanuella” (sic).
“But the four experts, Barrie Schwortz, Bruno Barberis, Emanuela Marinelli and Professor Jorge Manuel Rodrigues are preparing to hit back during a presentation at the UK’s largest Muslim convention, the Jalsa Salana, on Friday.
All four have spent long periods of their respective careers studying the shroud, which is regarded as a holy relic by the Vatican.
Speaking prior to Friday’s event, Ms Marinelli said: “It’s absolutely not comparable to the scientific investigations done by those who have truly studied the Shroud.
“These two men, the authors of this study, have never seen the Shroud up-close and surely not from afar. “
Strange: three of STURP’s best known investigators were (a) John Heller (b) Alan Adler (c) Walter McCrone (his association with STURP being shortlived, on account of a falling out)…
Heller gave us the book with a blow-by-blow account of the STURP project from start to finish.
Alan Adler gave us the “blood too red” claim, his bizarre explanation in terms of “trauma bilirubin” and his highly tendentious explanation for imprinting from dried clotted bloodstains (“serum exudation from retracted blood clots”).
McCrone gave us his notorious “just a painting” dismissal of the Shroud body image (Why? Because it appeared particulate under his microscope, working with those sticky tape samples supplied to him by returning Raymond N.Rogers).
Why am I telling you this? Answer: because NONE OF THOSE THREE ACCOMPANIED RAY ROGERS, JOHN JACKSON and the rest of the STURP team to Turin in 1978. All three were content to remain behind in their respective US homes, and wait for Ray Rogers to return with his sticky tape samples. None saw the Shroud with their own eyes, not in 1978, despite being given the privileged once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do so (albeit having to meet theior own travel expenses).
Yet to this day we see attempts to lionize one or other of those three stay-at-home individuals (with Barrie M.Schwortz recently describing Alan Adler on STERA’s Facebook page as a “world renowned blood chemist” (which he most certainly was not, being a largely non-clinical porphyrin specialist).
Yet now we read in our newspapers an attempt on the part of a “Shroud expert” to belittle two investigators, one at the University of Pavia, the other at Liverpool (John Moore) Univerity deploying no-nonsense scientific (modelling) techniques, on the basis that neither has had STURP-type access to the Shroud! Have she ever seen fit to criticize Heller, Adler or McCrone for the same reason, or berated STERA’s President for recently absurdly inflating Alan D. Adler’s reseacrh credentials? If so, where? Have I missed it?
No, of course she has not. What we see is a double standard operating, one for true believers, another for those who dare challenge their poorly-documented claims for the Shroud being the actual “burial cloth” of the crucified Jesus.
Sindonology gets worse with each passing day … I personally wouldn’t bother, but for the fact that it continues to claim that the Shroud image cannot be explained in terms of known science. Is that surprising, when international scientists are denied access to image fibres, or even a close inspection of the intact item ? So stop putting out your dismissive snide put-downs to the mass media you back-to-the-wall true-believer sindonologists. Look and sound kike the ‘experts’ you claim to be. Press for other qualified investigators, sceptics especially, to be given access. Urge the Shroud custodians to allow limited albeit destructive sampling of less conspicuous image and bloodstained fibres. Stop claiming scientists are baffled when in fact they have simply been denied proper access, when high-profile STURP “investigators” themselves couldn’t even be bothered to see the TS with their own eyes! It’s time the image chromophore and blood were properly analysed, not merely passed around for poking and prodding by those lacking the desire or means to perform proper state-of-the-art microchemical testing.
Here’s a question for those “experts” listed at the start of the Express article. State the chemical nature of the Shroud body image chromophore in a single sentence. Answer straightaway please – , NOW not next week, next year, next century… Until you can supply an answer, then kindly cease your endless belittling of university-based investigators in the mass media. Cease declaring the TS to be inexplicable in terms of known science, only to turn on those who take up the challenge, instantly belittling, berating and name-calling.
Saturday Aug 4, 2018
Have just spotted a lively account in the Independent of what Barrie M. Schwortz and Emanuela Marinelli having been saying to journalists assembled in Hampshire at this year’s Ahmadiyya Muslim annual “big tent” gathering.
There’s a fascinating detail regarding the second of those (E.Marinelli, referred to vaguely in the Express report discussed earlier as an “expert”, that being a term I wish the media would drop, being essentially meaningless in my view, especially if meaning little more than “proselytizing specialist with an axe to grind”!).
Here’s what the Independent’s journalist has just written (complete news to me, and quite an eye-opener!): I’ve coloured up the bit that made me see red!
It is a theme repeated with gusto by his fellow sindonologist Emanuela Marinelli, 67, a retired high school geography teacher with two degrees who takes the title professor by virtue of the Italian custom of giving the honorific to schoolteachers.
“What is really disturbing,” says Prof Marinelli. “Is that hardly any media attention is paid to all the stuff about the shroud in peer-reviewed journals, and then this stupid experiment [with the blood and the mannequin] … big, big publicity!”
Well, well well – you live and you learn.
Since when has it been the role of retired schoolteachers to go declaring the hands-on experimental modelling by two respected academics, both university based, at least one (Luigi Garlaschelli) – possibly the other too- occupying a ‘chair’ i.e. professorship as the term is universally understood as a “stupid experiment”. My advice to “Prof” Marinelli is to get acquainted with the scientific method, which is essentially about the setting up and testing of cautiously stripped-down “models” in the first instance, and refrain from taking cheap shots at the inevitable limitations of one’s models, the earlier ones especially. (This Shroud investigator worked his way through 9 experimental models for the Shroud body image before settling on Model 10, while having to cope with needless and ill-informed flak# emanating from (guess who?) STERA’s President when back in early 2012 I checked out direct scorching of linen from a hot metal template – though not full-size mannequin, i.e. Model 2- before discarding it, more on practical than theoretical grounds. Oh, and that rejection had nothing whatsoever to do with “inadmissible fluorescence of ALL scorches under uv” as falsely claimed by STERA’s scientifically-unqualified President, busting in on the Comments section of a Dan Porter posting, attempting lord it over all and sundry.
# Here’s how that visitation from on high began, the target “gentleman” being yours truly:February 10, 2012 at 11:21 pm
And here’s a link to a posting some 3 years later when I finally got round to addressing the STERA President’s false claim , done via that good old-fashioned process called systematic scientific investigation, i.e. of experimental model scorches versus other thermal imprints, Model 10 especially (as distinct from shooting one’s mouth off, taking the weak uv fluorescence of scorched and charred areas on the Shroud arising from the 1532 fire to represent “all scorches”). Scorched and charred area cannot be used in so cavalier a fashion to dismiss new thermal-imprinting models for the TS body image, whether direct (hot metal template) and – least of all – indirect (flour imprinting followed by thermal development via infrared radiation, e.g. from glowing charcoal embers, of melanoidin colour), viz. my Models 2 and 10 respectively.
“President of the Shroud of Turin “Education” and “Research” Association”, ha ha, hoovering up his ex-STURP associates’ copyright the moment they pop their clogs? Talk about self-aggrandisement, feathering of that oh-so-cosy STERA nest!
Methinks it’s time for those know-all publicity-hungry photographers and schoolteachers to think about taking a back seat, leaving the real science to us real scientists! They could start by staying away from newspaper journalists for a start, at least until they have done their homework and/or caught up with current as distinct from decades-old research.
On a different subject (real purpose of Stonehenge), see my latest posting, put up less than an hour ago in response to what I consider a ground-breaking BBC article. It could be said to support my long-held ‘sky burial’ ‘pre-cremation’ hypothesis. Time will tell.
Monday Aug 6, 2018
On reading through this posting, and its focus on the relative merits/demerits of wet versus dry white flour as putative medieval-era imprinting agent, I suddenly realized there’s a third option needing to be studied (well, a variant of the wet slurry technique). The complaint made against wet slurry (tossed in somewhat too hastily in my view, but never mind) was that the edges of the imprint were too sharp and well defined.
I used modern roller-milled sieved white flour (sieved to remove all but the finest bran particles). But it’s unlikely that “white flour” in 14th century France was anything like as “white” as modern day flour. Probably the coarsest bran particles were sieved off, but what went through the mesh starting with stone-ground wheat grains was probably closer in appearance to modern day “brown flour” still with a sizeable bran component – which incidentally would make the primary imprint, prior to thermal or chemical development of colour, easy to see against white linen background.
Six years ago, or even 1 year ago, I’d be spreading newspaper over the dining room table, and raiding cupboards in the kitchen for utensils and ingredients (flour, vegetable oil etc).
Not any more. The comparison between white, brown and wholemeal flour – to compare the sharpness of the image in each case – can wait. What’s the point of doing all these experiments when sindonology turns its back on any and all scientific research that does NOT start with a presumption of 1st century authenticity, and which even to this day promotes its lurid fantasies regarding “resurrectional incandescence”. Those are based for the most part on nothing more than pseudoscience (e.g. supernatural emanations from a corpse of subatomic particles, notably neutrons and protons, or of high energy pulses of uv radiation, as generated by modern day lasers etc etc).
No, why bother doing the scientific spadework to respond to the monotonous claim that the TS body image cannot and never will be reproduced by any known science when one’s experimentation, reported here online, month after month, year after year, is studiously ignored and worse (let’s not go into the kind of genteel – and not-so-genteel – character assassination that is directed at those of us who take up the challenge on behalf of mainstream model-building science.
I predict that brown flour slurry, and especially wholemeal, with give a fuzzier image than white flour. But I’m no longer squandering my free time in doing the necessary experiments to test my own hypotheses. It’s sufficient now to flag up the available options, restricted or otherwise, bearing in mind the medieval era, and leave it at that.
Appendix: This image is one I produced back in early 2012 using ImageJ 3D-rendering software, normalised initially to contact scorch imprints), it being needed to illustrate a comment on the current posting.