What’s causing Air Sindonology to nosedive and crash? Vapour alone from an empty fuel tank? Or trying to fly on a heaven-sent source of mystery radiation?


Let’s start with an analogy, shall we?  It’s  a famous plane crash that took place in Iceland, 1973, The wreckage remains to this day as a tourist attraction, still attracting speculation as to precise causes..

biteoficeland dc3 wreck

No, that’s  not me on top. I have my own “plane wreck” to visit and re-visit.. The wreck  I visit  is called  Air Sindonology.

funiceland plane wreck

Here’s a close-up view of the  Iceland  plane wreck

iceland famous air crash

Here’s a tourist guide to the Iceland plane wreck.  (Think of this site as a tourist guide to  the  equally celebrated wreck that is Air Sindonology!)

And here are a few words from the internet that accompany a tourist guide to the Iceland plane wreck.

Sólheimasandur, Iceland

The epic plane wreck on the black beach in South Iceland
In 1973 a United States Navy DC plane ran out of fuel and crashed on the black beach at Sólheimasandur, in the South Coast of Iceland. Fortunately, everyone in that plane survived. Later it turned out that the pilot had simply switched over to the wrong fuel tank.


Sad to say, I can’t be as succinct in describing the wreck that is Air Sindonology.  It will need a sizeable number of numbered points. But the parallel with the Iceland plane wreck is interesting.  Why?  Because both crashes were arguably due to the same reason –  switching over to the wrong fuel tank, real  for the US Navy DC3 above, while metaphorically speaking for Air Sindonology!

Numbered points

1. Stop calling it a “shroud“. Read the bible, the first 3 Gospels especially setting out the intervention by “Joseph of Arimathea and his “fine linen”. Forget “shroud”, with its burial connotations. Think simply “retrieval linen”,  i.e. retrieval from cross to tomb, whether genuine, or more likely, a medieval mock-up (“simulation”). “Burial” and its connotations ( invariably with quick fast-forward to Resurrection on the Third Day) supplied the wrong kind of fuel.
2. Think “Veil of Veronica” mode of imprinting, where one focuses on end -result, a recognizable image, more specifically imprint, indeed negative tone-reversed imprint. (Ring any bells?). No need to dwell just yet on details like imprinting ingredients, mechanism, resemblance to subject etc.
The Veil of Veronica association could be considered the right kind of fuel that allows lift-off and keeps one airborne.

3. Yes. Veil of Veronica :ante mortem ‘captured likeness’ (FACE only)
J of A’s retrieval linen, aka TS, post-mortem ‘captured likeness’ (ENTIRE UNCLOTHED BODY).

4. If a retrieval linen, then the double image, faint, negative, bloodstains  etc is almost certainly one formed by actual physical contact, whether real or modelled. Contact-imprinting – the right  kind of fuel, or should be if wishing to get airborne and stay airborne.
5. Think of the linen NOT in terms of Resurrection, or even  Rogers‘naturalistic’ post-mortem decomposition products etc.

Wrong kind of fuel. Think of it as a sweat/ blood IMPRINT. Right kind of fuel.

6. Forget about imaging across air gaps (based on assumption of  authenticity assuming/fixated  loosely draped linen) and then drop wacky unscientific ideas about the negative image being the result of supernatural proto-photography via radiation. Wrong kind of fuel.
7. Claim for imaging across air gaps  (!) failed to take proper account of  a  more credible medievally-devised imprinting where the linen is manually pressed against a body, reaching shallow recessed relief, e.g. sides of nose, not just the prominent bridge of nose and/or other ‘high points’ of body relief.

8. OK, so let’s drop the notion that body image is some kind of photograph, read wrong kind of fuel,. So let’s move on, and take a close and deeply sceptical look at the claim that the body image is confined entirely to the outermost layer of the linen fibres (PCW, a mere 200 nm thick), allegedly much too superficial to be man-made (!).

Er, where’s the hard evidence for that claim? See previous posting for answer.  Answer: zilch, one big fat zero.

Oh, and since when has man been incapable of generating superficial layers? (Ben Franklin showed how to do it in the 18th century – simple put a drop or two of oil onto the surface of a pond!)

Answer (briefly summarised): nowhere to be found! Much verbiage, much “suggestion” but not a shred of hard evidence, just postulates pretending to be established fact. Read: wrong kind of fuel.

Pseudoscience (the wrong kind if fuel) is alive and well,   unashamedly so in the case of sindonology.

9:  See recent evidence from a model system  (my  Model 10!)  that faint fuzzy images may at first glance look superficial to the unaided eye but need not be. Appearances can be deceptive.  Look at them under the microscope and be prepared for a surprise.

See preceding posting.

8549 zoom cropped in MS paint

Model 10 image pigment INSIDE linen fibres, best seen in cut ends!


Analogy: a suntan may look superficial, despite being 5 layers deep in the outermost layer of skin (epidermis):

partial sun tan


tech-sun3 stratum basale

Yes, the  protective melanin pigment responsible for a sun tan is in that deepest layer – the stratum basale –  NOT nearly as superficial as might be supposed.


Again, see previousposting


Interlude comment: some folk getting this far may wonder why, of all the mishaps involving aircraft, I have chosen this particular one.

Well, here’s a tiny clue. It involves the US Navy, which has a  training academy in California that awards  its own academic doctorates “(PhD degrees!” no less).  Yes, really!  Talk about usurping the longstanding institutions of the civilian world.  Talk about the unacceptable face of the US of A!

So what’s so special about the US Navy and a particular aircraft owned by the US Navy that was launched in the 1970s, but  then quickly ran intoi trouble, with the pilot trying alternatives to conventional science-based fuel?

Ever heard of  the House That Jack Built?  Yes, you probably have.

But have you heard about the “house”, correction, sindonological aircraft that Jack’s son built?    Shame it  tried to fly on substitutes for real fuel, like  Rogers’ vapour, like  Jack’s son own uv radiation, whether supplied from the Sun, or something even Higher    😉

No quick return to Planet Earth you realize, flying as it does in the upper reaches of the stratosphere.

Guess what?  It’s ever so gradually  falling out the sky as we speak! Fuel problem?

Thursday Feb 14

Here’s a Valentine’s Day greeting card to my followers. Actually, it’s a plate from Mark Antonacci’s 2000 “Resurrection of the Shroud”  (the title betraying the author’s supernaturalist stance!).

getImage lateral distortion used by antonacci CROPPED

It introduces the topic, dare I say  needless distraction of, guess what?

Yes. What you see is a ‘worst case scenario’  (WCS) , namely that so-called lateral, aka ‘wrap-around’ distortion which from the early days of STURP  was used to rule image-imprinting via direct contact out of contention (followed in short order by those radiation-based photography models that allowed imaging across air gaps).

Yes,  that hideous WCS is the result of allowing the linen to make contact with the sides of the head, together with some accompanying imprinting mechanism. Then you do indeed get wrap-around distortion (WAD). Why? Because the linen is removed and laid flat after imprinting. Imprinting of sides – if allowed to happen, means one gets “lateral distortion” – the making the image too wide, and totally hideous and non life-like (which has been dubbed Agamemnon’s mask).


My response? Irrelevant – totally  and utterly irrelevant, not to say grossly misleading. Why?

Look at the TS double body image! One of its most noteworthy features is it showing square-on frontal and dorsal views only, NO sides (no top of head either). One might as well be looking at cardboard cut-outs. Leaving aside the implications (that one’s looking at contact imprints, somewhat stylized one might think, that are tone-reversed negatives- NOT paintings, NOT photographs) how can there be lateral distortion due to ‘excessive-imaging’ of sides if the IMAGE HAS NO SIDES (for whatever reason)?

So what caused that imprinting monstrosity which legal attorney Antonacci chose to highlight in his book you might ask? Was it a real unavoidable result? Or, less charitably, was it one deliberately contrived to present a worst case scenario (WCS) as if real – indeed unavoidable? Are we seeing the technique of the attorney at work, intent on demolishing an opponent’s case using techniques that are the antithesis of the scientific method, the latter at least attempting to display an open enquiring mind, freed if only temporaily of preconceptions?

Invoking that “lateral distortion” as clincher argument against imprinting could be seen as springing a leak in Air Sindonology’s main fuel tank, such that 40 years later the aircraft is still gently gliding earthwards, without the least sign of concern on the face of the air crew

Might there be a way of avoiding WAD, one that’s not rocket science ? Why yes – like NOT allowing the linen to make contact with the sides! Alternatively, don’t apply imprinting medium to the sides. It then doesn’t matter a jot if the linen makes contact with the sides! Avoiding the WCS of wrap-around distortion ain’t rocket science – it’s merely requires commonsense and a minor modification of practical technique.

In my Model 10, white flour is sprinkled onto the subject from above, settling on the horizontal relief, with scarcely any attaching to vertical sides. After shaking off excess flour, the coated subject is then draped with wet linen, and the latter pressed against the coated subject by pressing down vertically, avoiding the sides.


Interlude:  Oh yes, one final word about our arch-authenticity-promoting  Mark Antonacci, he of the no-holds-barred defence/prosecution tendency.

Am I the only one to think that  the cover design of his 2000 books was – how can I put this delicately – BANG OUT OF ORDER.

compare cover of antonacci book with full rovere painting

Book cover left, with title obscuring a crucial detail on the 17th century Rovere painting, the full picture being shown on the right.


Yes, it’s to do with the artist’s hint as to the  manner AND  timing of image acquisition, with no hint that timing was postponed till “Resurrection”.   Instead,  the artist seems to be saying, correctly in my view,  that an image might have been acquired in the process of deposition from cross and/or subsequent transport to tomb, in Joseph of Arimathea’s makeshift linen  sling/stretcher –  NOT on the Third Day.


Stop Press (Feb 16)

Here’s are two snapshots taken in the last half hour, with the very first attempt to model the Turin Linen body image (more specifically, faintness and  diffuse nature  thereof) using an inflated  white balloon (“PCW”) and pipe cleaners (a mix of coloured and uncoloured to represent “microfibrils”). See Commenst for details – copied also to Dan Porter’s site.


Used white v coloured pipe cleaners , either laid side by side, or twisted around each otrher


Both types (parallel v twisted) are now inside the balloon, photographed with mainly transmitted light from above,  The coloured ends are easily seen because they touch the sides of the balloon (ignore).. But note the vague diffuse yellow coloration around the pipe cleaner where they don’t touch the balloon. And that’s just  two  modelled “microfibrils” inside a PCW sheath (skin of balloon)  each with only partial coloration










Appendix 1 (image required for posting elsewhere)


colour v b and w imagej 3D



Appendix 2 (as above, needed elsewhere)

final labelled




Appendix 3


TS + warning cropped


Appendix 4

science buzz first posting



Appendix 5


hand imprint model 10 in oven reverse side IMG_8384


Appendix 6

3D hand 10 March 19


Appendix 7

3. correlation is not causation




Appendix 8

1. fanti fig 14 cloth body distance


Appendix 9


intermediate 2


Appendix 10


3d fingers for lee



Appendix 11



candy mice


Appendix 12

final for dan's magic



Appendix 13


reply to yannick RIP, july 2012






Appendix 14



July 6, 2020: Just testin’  …  (I may, or may not, explain later…)










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 1973 plane crash, Iceland,, Sólheimasandur,, Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to What’s causing Air Sindonology to nosedive and crash? Vapour alone from an empty fuel tank? Or trying to fly on a heaven-sent source of mystery radiation?

  1. Lee Jones says:

    If the capillary channel transfer theory holds up, then it could explain why there is also partial images on the obverse side of the shroud. But allegedly there are only images of the face, and perhaps the hands. Why would only these parts be present ? Perhaps because these were the parts that had the most contact with the linen ? I know it is a controversial subject regarding the apparant “second face” on the obverse side of the cloth, but my follow on work from professor Giulio Fanti’s work offer’s even more evidence to support the theory. The thing is, i cant see the custodians of the shroud letting anyone near the shroud to remove the new backing cloth that was added during the restoration in 2002 lol. If anyone is interested in my work regarding the supposed second face, then let me know. I used the original high resolution Durante images that he took in 2002 during the restoration. They are rare, which is the reason that nobody has done work on them. You can clearly see the facial features,face and hair outline on my resulting image and they match the spatial measurements of the front face nearly perfectly. I would have used the 2008 Haltadefinizione images had they taken photos of the obverse side of the shroud, but they only took photos of the front side in 2008. I recently believed that the Haltadefinizione images were the highest resolution images of the shroud available, but Durante took photos in 2010 that were a resolution of 39 billion points, as opposed to the HAL900 images which are around 12 billion points. I have been using the new 2010 Durante image for a comparitive analysis of all of the photos ever taken of the shroud to confirm whether certain image phenomena are not the result of the photographic techniques used each time to capture the images. Here is a link to my Imagur account which shows my results of the work i did on the 2002 Durante images of the back side of the shroud. I do not believe my results are a consequence of Pareidolia. Have a look and make up your own mind https://imgur.com/gallery/YUthGzb

    • Lee Jones says:

      And the fact that the image is looked at as superficial in nature is probably because whatever the process/es was that formed the image, only reacted with the primary cell wall, or the carbohydrate layer, nothing else reacted, because if it did, then we would have an image that is not superficial in nature as the image would be located on the other parts of the linen fibers.Or if it was formed as a result of heat, then perhaps the amount of time said heat was applied was the reason why ony the PCM was affected and not any other part of the shroud that would of needed the heat applied for a longer period of time in order to be changed chemically. Just a thought.

  2. Colin Berry says:

    Quick reply, Lee.

    Yes, there was a discussion on this site some time ago about the “second face” where the ‘Model 10’ idea of migrating liquid within the SCW cores of fibres was flagged up. And yes, I believe you have put your finger on it, re the nose and hands being better imprinted than other features.

    Late correction: the discussion was almost 2 years ago, when I was thinking not about migration within the cores of fibres, but the much larger channels between fibres!

    Yes, the more prominent, the more elevated, the more bony the anatomy, the greater the contact pressure between manually-pressed-down linen and feature. Result? A greater tendency for any liquefied chromophore to be ‘squeezed’ along capillary channels, better able to make an appearance on the opposite side of the fabric, albeit spotty and incomplete.

    Glad to back you back Lee. I will take a look at your images in the next day or two. 😉

    Note I refer only to the “second face”, not “doubly-superficial image. i say it’s time the notion of image “superficiality” was discarded, unless or until some hard evidence is produced. My microscope says that an image that seems to be superficial with the unaided eye may not be so – just the opposite in fact (if/when hidden away within the cores of fibres).

    PS: Did you ever get to ask Barrie Schwortz about transverse sections – whether they existed or not?

    • Lee Jones says:

      What get’s me, is the fact that you would of thought that the STURP team would have picked up on the capillary channels and the possibility of them explaining how the image was initially formed? Unless they did and they kept it hush lol, but thats speculative thinking and we all know where that can lead to lol. Still though, the fact remains that STURP or some other scientist who has analysed the image and the fiber’s should have picked up on it ? And i did message Barrie a while back but he was busy at the time and we were supposed to reconnect in December or January but as i have been busy, i have not been able to send another message. I will do that now and let you know what he says. He has been very helpfull in everything i have asked for or queried about regarding information on the shroud and the work,papers,notes and photographs he has in his possession so i would imagine that he will be as helpfull as he can in answering my question 🙂

      • Lee Jones says:

        And the fact that the image is looked at as superficial in nature is probably because whatever the process/es was that formed the image, only reacted with the primary cell wall, or the carbohydrate layer, nothing else reacted, because if it did, then we would have an image that is not superficial in nature as the image would be located on the other parts of the linen fibers.Or if it was formed as a result of heat, then perhaps the amount of time said heat was applied was the reason why ony the PCM was affected and not any other part of the shroud that would of needed the heat applied for a longer period of time in order to be changed chemically. Just a thought.

      • Colin Berry says:

        “What get’s me, is the fact that you would of thought that the STURP team would have picked up on the capillary channels and the possibility of them explaining how the image was initially formed? ”

        If you saw some of the correspondence that’s come to me in the last few days, you might need to reconsider what otherwise seems commonsense.

        There are any number of senior sindonologists saying effectively “who needs transverse sections of image fibres when when the unaided eye, or microscope views of whole fibres laid lengthwise on a glass slide should be sufficient to conclude the image is highly superficial?”

        To which the answer is: you don’t know the half of it, or indeed 1%.

        I claim to know a mere 10%, despite spending hours with a microscopes ringing all kinds of changes (direction, intensity of illumination, magnification etc etc ), such is the complexity of the linen thread (with scores of packed fibres in each thread, and scores of packed microfibrils within each fibre). This complexity is capable of playing all kinds of tricks with light ( absorption, reflection, refraction etc especially the intense light from a microscope lamp).

        As I said to one of them (naming no names), we need to go back to Square 1, set up a STURP Mark 2 charged with the task of looking at as many model systems as possible (including my Model 10!). Then, and only then, go cap in hand to Turin, and request a few more fibres to see whose model is the best fit.

        I’m quietly confident that mine, with its 17 matches to the TS, will come out best, but life (and science especially) is full of surprises.

        • Lee Jones says:

          I wish they would implement a “like” feature on WordPress so we could like peoples comments lol. I agree with you (100 percent lol) regarding the need for a “STURP Mark 2”. Getting more image bearing fibers to chop up and get high resolution cross-section images would answer alot of questions that we can only otherwise theorize about without seeing these images of the inside of the image bearing fibers etc. Regarding these “sindonologists” saying “who needs transverse sections of image fibres when when the unaided eye, or microscope views of whole fibres laid lengthwise on a glass slide should be sufficient to conclude the image is highly superficial”. What nonsense :/ All they are effectivly doing there is guessing :/ Not very professional if you ask me Colin. Like i said in my other reply, assuming that these capillary channels have cell walls that contain carbohydrate, these may also have been imaged and have had their color changed, which would explain that the process/es only caused a reaction with the carbohydrate layers, which would explain and rule out anything regarding the image being superficial and not the result of human interaction. Because the fact that the image formation mechanism only imaged the carbohydrate layer was of consequence due to the fact that no other part of the shroud fibers could have been imaged as it was a process/es specific to the PCM carbohydrate layer, whether it was intentional or a tangental consequence.

          • Hugh Farey says:

            Hi Lee, and Colin.

            The only person I know who has made a comment anything like this: (Who needs transverse sections of image fibres when when the unaided eye, or microscope views of whole fibres laid lengthwise on a glass slide should be sufficient to conclude the image is highly superficial?) is me, and I didn’t say anything of the kind. Transverse sections of the fibres would be confirmation of the existence of the chromophore, and could identify whether it is in the PCW or the SCW. And looking at fibres laid lengthwise on a glass side certainly would not identify whether the chromophore was the PCW or the SCW. What I did say was that the colour must be visible from the side, through the transparent PCW if the chromophore is in the SCW, or there would be no image on the Shroud.

            I’m a bit confused by Lee’s “If these capillary channels also have a cell wall thats comprised of a carbohydrate layer”. The capillary channels mentioned by Colin are entirely within the flax cell, and do not have cell walls of their own. They form the structure of the secondary cell wall.

    • Lee Jones says:

      One last thing (I would edit my comments to include my what i forgot to include in my initial comment lol) If these capillary channels also have a cell wall thats comprised of a carbohydrate layer, then these would also be “imaged” with the same color as the PCM carbohydrate layer of the fibers on the shroud. Which would give yet more credence to your own theories i think ? As it would show that these channels were indeed used in the initial image formation mechanisms mode of action.

  3. Colin Berry says:

    “What I did say was that the colour must be visible from the side, through the transparent PCW if the chromophore is in the SCW, or there would be no image on the Shroud.”

    Yes, but what if you start, as I do, with an imprinted image on linen, albeit my Model 10, one that was clearly visible with the unaided eye, Hugh but then found that under the microscope there was nothing that could be perceived as “image”. Imagine all one saw was the faintest of faint glassy honey-like coloration that seemed to completely fill the interior of fibres.

    Well, that’s what I see, illumimating the microscope stage and specimen from above.
    In short, one can conclude absolutely nothing from looking at the near-invisible honey-coloration of those fibres. Illuminate from underneath and it gets worse – all yellow coloration virtually disappears.

    If as I suspect the ultra-superficial PCW-only mantra is based mainly or entirely on the faint diffuse coloration one sees when viewing intact fibres from the side, then I say there’s been a huge misjudgement, and subsequent source of gross misinformation used to promote ‘supernatural photography’

    Why? Because the simple act of cutting fibres in half and viewing the cut ends presents an entirely different picture, one where there’s dense pigmentation seen in the cut ends, with little or no visible coloration in the fibre leading up to those cut ends, viewed from the side.

    So why make an issue Hugh centred on what, according to you, should be visible from the side, whether in my Model 10, or the real McCoy, when as I’ve said, the most you can hope to see there is faint diffuse coloration, yielding no useful information whatsoever on image chromophore? Why not focus on what I (and apparently Dan Porter too) consider to be the new, original and totally unexpected finding from my home-based laboratory, namely that the image colour is best seen in CUT ENDS, implying a privileged access of image chromophore to the SCW cores of fibres, switching the misdirected attention away from the PCW? Indeed. it may well be that the difficulty of seeing the image chromophore in fibres viewed from the side is precisely for the reason described|: it’s concentrated in SCWs that are surrounded by light-reflecting PCW, and given it’s a minority of fibres within a thread that contain image chromophore, there’s further blurring from the presence of all; the surrounding uncoloured fibres.

    Oh, and I wasn’t referring only to your feedback Hugh. Two of my 9 other contacts who might be described as sindonology big shots have basically asked “why the need for cross-sections?”, believing that ultra-superficiality (whether strictly PCW or not) can be deduced without needing cross-sections. To which I say: my Model 10 says otherwise. And until you produce a cross-section of a TS image fibre, you have no business pronouncing dogmatically on image location, least of all using it as a springboard for your radiation-based modelling etc etc.

    I feel a new posting coming on, one where I really go to town on Model 10 -imprinted linen, showing two dozen or more naked eye v microscope views, the latter taken from different angles, different light intensities, different magnifications etc and, most important of all, side views versus those CUT ENDS!!!! Then let’s see if that PCW-only dogma can finally be made to go away, allowing sindonology to remain airborne, seeing likely mechanisms of TS body image formation through fresh eyes, aided v unaided, hopefully some fresh pilots too, ones that aren’t afflicted with supernaturalist tunnel vision…

    • Hugh Farey says:

      Well, that’s marvellous! Your first two paragraphs, explaining what you actually see when examining image threads from the side, are exactly the answer to the problem I posed in the first place! If only you’d written them earlier!

      “If the image is indeed threaded through the SCW, then it must be bold enough to be visible through the PCW (is it completely transparent?), or, if an individual fibre does not carry enough ‘colour’, then there must be a sufficient depth of fibres lying on top of one another for enough to be observable.”

      Now you have verified that an individual fibre does not carry enough ‘colour’ to be visible from the side, then the image must consist of a sufficient number of such fibres lying on top and adjacent to one another for it to be observable. And, true, in order to differentiate image fibres from non-image fibres, which may be indistinguishable sideways-on, your technique of looking at them end-on can confirm the difference, and perhaps identify the chromophore.

      • Colin Berry says:

        In response to the suggestion (charge?) that I’ve been holding back on crucial detail re side views, all I can say is this, Hugh. Microscopy is not about what one cannot see, or what one can scarcely see, far less make out in detail and interpret (as is the case with diffuse straw-coloured coloration). It’s about what one can see – which is densely pigmented cut-ends (viewing SCW cores without interposed PCW) with side views of the fibres leading up to those cut ends that are essentially colorless.

        Regardless of misunderstandings, real or imagined, I’m glad you have given me an opportunity to enlarge on the subject of those uninformative side views, switching the spotlight where it belongs, onto cut ends and SCWs!

        Now then, where are cut ends of TS squared (Turin Shroud and Transverse Sections) in the literatur? . If they aren’t there, why not? What could be simpler than taking one of Rogers’ sticky-tape fibres, slicing through an image fibre (plus tape) and mounting vertically on a microscope stage to view image fibres in cross-section. The failure to produce those cut end images, 40 years later, despite much chivvying on my part and others, doth pass all understanding…

  4. Colin Berry says:

    Have been going back to the early discussions that appeared on shroudstory, back in 2012, when the focus was on two seemingly mutually exclusive ideas – Rogers’ starch impurity hypothesis, versus the PCW idea from that 2010 Shroud Science Group review.

    Late correction: sorry, I meant to say “only two models worth considering”, not “mutually exclusive”.

    Consider this particular posting to be essential reading, entitled “Comment of the week by Thibault Heimburger”.


    Thibault was also prominent in the comments (where is he these days one wonders, having not shown himself, at least not on this site for some 3 years)?

    There are further useful observations, especially from Yannick Clement, sadly no longer with us.

    That posting confirms my hunch that it was the 2010 SSG review, with Giulio Fanti as prime mover, that was the first
    occasion when the allegedly ultra-superficial image confined to the PCW was first flagged up, initially to challenge Rogers, while at the same time creating a more favourable climate in which Giulio could promote his corona discharge hypothesis.

    Prof Fanti was on my list of 9 initial contacts notifying of my cut-ends finding. I responded to his request for my Model 10 image fibres by sending the best part of an entire imprint (my 14cm Galaxy Warrior, subject of previous postings). I have said there is no urgency – that he can do as much or as litttle as he wishes with my sample. What I would like to see at some point are cut ends or thin cross-sections of my Model 10 flour-imprinted fibres versus those yellowed by Giulio’s corona discharge alongside those of the Turin-housed linen.

  5. Colin Berry says:

    Here’s an experiment I hope to try soon, once I’ve laid hands on the two essential components (I’m flagging up intentions now so folk can know the way my thoughts are going, already hinted at in comments on this posting).

    The chief components (thus far none in the house)? White balloons (preferably sausage shaped) and smokers’ pipe cleaners (the fluffy sort with a bendy wire down the middle). The balloon will represent the PCW, and the pipe-cleaners, placed inside the balloon before inflating, the largely cellulose microfibrils).

    White pipe cleaners inside the inflated balloon will be a reference control, albeit a boring one, probably showing nothing worth seeing. But suppose one took several pipe cleaners, then coloured up just one, say with paint or dye, to make it yellow, and then inserted it into a bundle of uncoloured ones, with or without twisting the bundle (probably better with twisting to reproduce the alleged helical as well as longitudinal manner in which microfibrils are arranged within linen fibres, to say nothing of keeping the ‘microfibrils’ bundled up together .).

    Place the pipe cleaner bundle with coloured ‘strands’ here and there inside the balloon, inflate, then stand back and observe, with or without a bright light source. Can one spot the discrete coloured ‘strand(s)’ through the “PCW”, or is there maybe just a diffuse honey-coloured appearance that fills most of all the interior of the balloon. If not, try smearing Vaseline over the outside of the balloon (or even inside?) so as to render if more reflective to light (either reflected light or tramsmitted light that has come through the balloon from the opposite side from the viewer.

    In short, can one model a coloration that is faint and diffuse, despite originating from dense pigmentation that originates in (more correctly around*) one or more “microfibrils’ (pipe cleaners)? Might the model help drive home the need to view cut ends of Turin linen fibres to be certain of what’s where, and not go jumping to premature conclusions based on naked eye only or partial micrsoscopy that is still an external view only, prone to all kind of ‘tricks of the light’?

    *There’s a variant on the above model that also needs testing if to better represent my Model 10. Instead of colouring an entire pipe-cleaner, just run some colour between two or three of them, so as to model colour occupying inter-microfibrillar spaces/capillary channels, as distinct from the microfibril itself. But that’s just a minor detail where initial modelling is concerned.

  6. Colin Berry says:

    Hot from the press: first result from testing the SCW-localised chromophore hypothesis using a white balloon (to represent the outer PCW of a linen fibre) and coloured/uncoloured pipe cleaners inside the balloon to represent microfibrils with or without associated chromophore.

    First, here are the experimental components, purchased this very morning:

    1. Balloons and pipe-cleaners

    2. After placing inside the balloon then inflating, then photographed with transmitted light (overhead light).

    The preliminary result looks quite promising, offering an alternative view to the notion of the Turin Linen body image being “ultrasuperficial”, i.e. confined to PCW only, but I shall say no more for now. Except this: think of an SCW location, one which may well have created an impression of PCW superficiality if viewed externally through that interposed semi-transparent (translucent?) outer layer. Cross-sections of Turin image fibres are essential if true locations need to be known… Do those cross-sections exist or not? Did STURP not bother to do cross-sections? Surely not! So where were they published, if at all?

    PS Is it my imagination, or might there be an ever-so-faint DIFFUSE yellowish glow around the pipe cleaners? In other words, the colour delocalises somewhat from its actual physical source becoming nebulous. Next experiment? Insert yellow pipe cleaners ONLY into a balloon, maybe with their ends covered in white tape (to avoid the contact-coloration with inside walls of the balloon). Can that yellow nebulousness be amplified as to be seen as an inevitable accompaniment, namely that colour is not totally lost when viewing through a translucent skin, but spread around and diluted, i.e. smeared out and rendered faint and homogenous?

    PPS: Nothing useful came from the follow up experiment, using yellow pipe cleaners only. (Am having to dispense with the idea that enclosure of colour within a translucent enclosure can create unexpected effects, like coloration of the entire volume). So the focus is back where it started, namely to image fibres being rendered largely indeed totally invisible when viewed from outside intact threads or individual fibres, due to their being in a minority. The latter is clear when one looks at my cross-sections: the speckled appearance of cut ends is evidence that it’s the mixing of coloured v uncoloured fibres, with coloured in a minority, that may account for the failure to see Model 10 image fibres except in cross-section. It remains to be seen whether the same can or (hopefully) will be shown for Turin Linen.

  7. Colin Berry says:

    Great thing, this ‘ere Internet. The “Shroud Science Group” comes along in 2010, stating ‘authoritatively’ that the Turin image is not only superficial at (a) fabric and (b) thread level, but at (c) individual fibre level too – not bothering to provide a scrap of hard evidence. Being the “Shroud Science Group”, publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, nobody questions their superficiality claim, far less challenge it.

    So it becomes the set-in-stone “truth”, the basis for that scientifically bankrupt ENEA -distributed headline of Dec 2011, claiming the Turin Linen had to be supernatural in origin, given the alleged/casually assumed ultra-superficiality of the body image, “confined to the outermost PCW”, given that lasers are needed we’re told merely to reproduce the image coloration. i called it Mickey Mouse science at the time, and that is still my view!
    And what happens when I come along, years later, with my Model 10, showing how linen can acquire an image that penetrates the secondary cell wall (SCW). I’m told by a big shot commentator on Dan Porter’ s recently resurrected site (not Dan himself I hasten to add) to provide evidence that it’s NOT on the PCW, despite my providing microscopic evidence via cross-sections that it’s SCW located.

    In other words, I’m treated as if a total novice, despite a lifetime of scientific knowhow and experience, instantly challenged, expected to prove a negative. That’s despite providing positive evidence for it being in the SCW, of my Model 10 (yes, tried and tested “model” only, no apologies needed) with passing swipes at the quality of my ORIGINAL cross-sectional photomicrographs!

    You couldn’t make it up. The intrusion of pseudoscience into sindonology – from folk who should know better – using the internet to posture as if supreme court judges – is a complete and utter turn-off.

    I construct and test models. Model 10 has been under critical scrutiny and refinement for some 3-4 years, and thus far not found wanting, unlike its 9 predecessors.

    In future I shall only respond here or elsewhere to questions directed at MY models – not, repeat NOT, other people’s untested and invariably half-baked ‘instant solutions’. (like the Turin body image being confined to the outermost PCW – so handy for those attempting to sell their notion of supernatural ‘photography via ‘self-generated’ radiation , without so much as a hint of biblical back-up

    Just testin’

    Late PS:

    Posted the above image to Dan Porter’s resurrected shroudstory site earlier today. Here’s some of the accompanying comment:

    Here’s an image, hot from the press (well, my Model 10 imprint, microscope and camera) that summarises Dan’s posting, and this investigator’s claim that a crucial piece of data is indeed missing:

    Top left: my Model 10 imprint. Top right: the Mark Evans photo of the image area showed earlier (turned through 90 degrees)

    Lower left: the cross-section from my Model 10. showing strongly pigmented SCW cores of image fibres.

    Lower right : a question mark. (Where for heaven’s sake is the corresponding cross-section for the Turin Linen, maybe not whole fabric, maybe not whole thread, but surely one from a single dispensable image fibre at least?

    How can anyone claim that the TS body image is confined to the ultra-superficial PCW if they have never bothered to do a cross-section?

    I’ll spare readers of this site the reasons for re-iterating the gist of Dan’s posting, except to say this. There are those who profess to be “scientists” who haven’t the first clue about its essential modus operandi . Suffice it to say that cutting-edge science is not just about putting forward new ideas. It’s about framing them to make testable hypotheses, and then proceeding to test them!

  8. Roundup says:

    Here is the first tester of an alter ego I will be using repeatedly in the Comments on this my own site.


    I have provided what I believe to be a joined-up solution to the Turin Linen “enigma”. It explains: (a) how it was made (by flour imprinting /roasting/washing) (b) when it was made (mid 14th century as per radiocarbon dating) and (c) why it was made (as a ‘simulated sweat imprint’ , i.e. “faked” body image, as might have been left on Joseph of Arimathea’s “fine linen” en route from cross to tomb. (I say it’s high time the term “shroud” as per “burial shroud” was discarded).

    The final task is to patiently go through all my 350 or so postings on this site, started early 2012, to write a brief summary, saying which aspects contributed to the final Model 10, which did not.

    I will continue to invite and post topical comments under my original ID (Colin Berry) if and when I see fit. The new username (Roundup) is to separate my archive summary from more topical comments.

    Yes, I know “Roundup” is the name for a commercial weedkiller, helping to maintain a tidy and presentable garden! A hint of double entendre seems quite appropriate! (There’s my own long-established weeds that need disposing of; there’s also a constant arrival from outside, here and elsewhere of seeds of invasive choking weeds against which some defence is needed …)

  9. Roundup says:

    1st archive dredge-up from this site, posted under Roundup ID (yes, that’s me, Colin Berry, the blogsite owner)

    Here’s for starters is a lightly edited copy-and-paste of my very 1st posting on this site: Feb 12, 2012 (just over 7 years ago)


    Opening words:

    This new blog is a spin-off from the author’s ‘science buzz’ site,

    and is dedicated to exploding the myth that the Shroud of Turin defies explanation by modern science.

    It does not. The Shroud is FULLY explainable in terms of basic technology that was available to medieval entrepreneurs, some of whom, in that highly God-fearing era, were keen to attract pilgrims – to say nothing of the spending power they brought with them.

    Why should God’s work be available free of charge, they probably thought? Capitalism, or just earning a crust, had its roots established long before Adam Smith.

    Here’s a link to my science buzz site, with some 20 or so postings devoted to the Shroud.

    End of cut-and-paste.

    Here’s a listing of each of all 21 of those initial toe-in-water postings to my sciencebuzz site:

    1. Friday Dec 39, 2011
    “The Turin Shroud – could it have been produced by thermo-stencilling?” (ed. now labelled “Model 1”)

    2. Sunday Jan 1, 2012
    “How to make your very own Turin Shroud at home – while choosing your own image”

    3. Tuesday Jan 3, 2012
    “Tom Chivers – re that Turin Shroud: you are the first (possibly second) person to be thermo-stencilled …”

    4. Tuesday Jan 3, 2012
    “More progress in improving my thermo-stencilling technology for simulating the Turin Shroud”

    5. Thursday Jan 5, 2012
    “What produced the image of a crucified man on the Shroud of Turin? Was it really formed from a corona discharge of ultraviolet light?”

    6. Friday Jan 6, 2012
    “Overview – attempts to reproduce the image on the Shroud of Turin with simple technology available to medieval forgers”

    7. Friday Jan 6, 2012
    “Weblog: further experiments to reproduce, albeit approximately, the Turin Shroud by non-supernatural means, e.g. by thermo-stencilling”

    8. Saturday Jan 7, 2012
    “The Turin Shroud elicits ever more bad science… which the media dutifully reports as cutting-edge…”

    9. Sunday Jan 8, 2012
    “The Shroud of Turin- was a lightly baked mummified skeleton and thermosensitized fabric used to produce the image by thermo-stencilling?”

    10. Wed Jan 11, 2012
    “Sure, the Turin Shroud has a 3D-encoded image of a crucified man. So how come the 1532 scorch marks come up in glorious 3D as well?”

    11. Sunday Jan 15, 2012
    “Why the cavalier and disrespectful treatment of the Turin Shroud – folding it down its midline?”

    12. Tue Jan 24, 2012
    “The Shroud of Turin – think of it, if you will, as a medieval EuroDisney, designed to attract thrill-seeking tourists, oops, sorry, devout religious pilgrims…”

    13. Friday Jan 27, 2012
    “Forget those miraculous flashes of ultraviolet light – was the Turin Shroud produced simply with medieval technology – heat conduction and scorching?”

    14. Monday Jan 30, 2012
    “The Turin Shroud – a bit of bas-relief”

    15. Monday Jan 30, 2012
    “Turin Shroud – beware computer-corrected and/or otherwise manipulated images”

    16. Tue Jan 31, 2012
    “My new sandpit theory for how the Turin Shroud was produced – as a medieval hoax”

    17. Thursday Feb 2, 2012
    “How was the Turin Shroud faked? First experimental test of my sandpit theory”

    18. Thursday Feb 2, 2012
    “A step-by-step guide to faking the Turin Shroud (on a miniature scale – but it’s the principle that matters)”

    19. Saturday Feb 4, 2012
    “Does the Turin Shroud carry a designer label – showing how it was made (immediate contact with a HOT body)?”

    20. Monday Feb 6, 2012
    “Why does the Turin Shroud appear to have scorched-in crease marks? Tell-tale signature for medieval forging?”

    21. Tuesday Feb 7, 2017
    “One final post from this science bod on why he thinks the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake”

  10. Colin Berry says:

    Stop Press!

    Have in the last hour confirmed my (some might say) counter-intuitive claim that the linen fibre is capable of concealing its contents, partially or completely not only to the unaided eye – but even under the microscope.

    (Why? On account it would seem of the mirror-like reflectivity of the outermost PCW , i.e. primary cell wall), concealing what’s been captured/entrapped by the secondary so-called cell “wall,” and its multiple longitudinal microfibrils – and spaces in between!

    Yes, the SCW can act as a “sponge” , an absorbent trap for adventitious newcomers – and hiding them from those who fail to do cross-sections – or merely cut edges – for microscopy).

    How? I’ll spare you the details dear reader, except to say this.

    All it takes is some new modern-day linen, a bottle of ink and a microscope to prove my point!

    It ain’t rocket science!

    Once sindonology ceases to treat this retired scientist as a non-person, he’ll supply experimental details and (fully captioned) camera-shots – not before…

    Here’s a taster of the kind of image I am seeing with the new model system, using nothing but new linen, ink and water, one that demonstrates that faint coloration need not be the result of PCW-only location:

    Think reflectivity of that outermost PCW – essentially a wrap-around mirror – preventing the observer from seeing what’s within (comfortably ensconced within the cores of the SCW.

    Yes, admittedly counter-intuitive, some might say, but nonetheless, lurking out of sight – unless, that is, one takes the trouble to look at cross-sectional cut ends, which STURP/Walter McCrone apparently failed to do!).

    Still, nobody’s perfect!

  11. Chuck Hampton says:

    I love the pic of the radioactive warning sign under the “linen cloth”. I’m presuming the forger went to Michael’s or Hobby Lobby for the baloons and other cool supplies. Image formation during transport to the tomb would be an undisputed miracle.
    I love your writing. It’s got that skeptics angry edge and wit. And oh so colorful.
    Well done

    • Colin Berry says:

      Thanks Chuck. Compliments are few and far between in the Land of Sindonology.

      My eldest son competed in the Boston Marathon some years back. Had he taken as many wrong turnings as mainstream sindonology, he’d still be pounding the sidewalks as we speak, probably half way to California by now… Or Mexico. Or Canada…

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.