Can/must do better, sindonology than your performance thus far…
Here, dear reader, is what this retired PhD scientist considers to be sindonology’s 10 biggest mistakes. Assembling this list has taken some 7 years of investigation, reported (uniquely?) to the internet as a real time LEARNING CURVE, here and elsewhere.
It required well over 350 postings and thousands of internet-posted comments to arrive at my final solution (“Model 10”) to the so-called “Shroud enigma”. Better late than never!
Oh, and it’s neither a “Shroud” – if intended to mean BURIAL shroud – whether genuine or medieval imitation thereof – nor an enigma. No, not any more, not according to my final Model 10, that was arrived at in 2015, with sincere apols for the wordy unveiling, and since checked out carefully these last three years and more.
Why the negative title, negative 10-point message on this, my final posting? Answer? 7 years of posting non-negative messages have got me nowhere, absolutely nowhere, such is the defensive back-to-the-wall nature of ‘sindonology’ subsequent to the cold-water douche of the 1988 medieval dating. However, give me a little time, and I may append a short summary at the end of this posting, setting out in condensed form the numerous lines of hard facts and arguments that support this investigator’s final Model 10. In the meantime, there’s my expanded margin comments that hopefully address many, indeed most of the essential issues. (biblical, historical, image characteristics, chemical etc etc).
SINDONOLOGY’S 10 BIGGEST MISTAKES
1. Mistaken assumption that Secondo Pia’s discovery of the negative image via photography implies that ‘photography’ was required for initial image capture.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. There’s nothing weird and wonderful about negative images. Simple contact imprints (like muddy footprints on a white tile floor) are negative images, where dark tones on a light background replace light ones on a darker background.
Here’s a simple experiment anyone can do, a closer analogy to the Linen of Turin. All it needs is a wet hand, some dark fabric, a camera, and 3D-rendering software, e.g. ImageJ, freely dowloadable from the internet.
From this site’s recently deleted banner: Left: a negative image of my hand; Right: the same after tone reversal, now a positive. Were these images obtained via photography in the first instance? Answer? NO! They were obtained by contact imprinting – wetting of the hand, followed by pressing onto a dark fabric to obtain the initial negative imprint. Photography and software-mediated tone-reversal came later.
2. Mistaken assumption that the response of the body image to 3D-rendering software implies pre-existing “unique encoded 3D infomation”.
AGAIN, FROM THIS SITE’S PREVIOUS (NOW DELETED) BANNER: SEE THE WAY BOTH THE NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE IMPRINTS OF MY WET HAND RESPONDED TO 3D-RENDERING WITH IMAGEJ SOFTWARE: 1. The negative image pre-3D 2. The same negative image after 3D rendering ; 3. The tone-reversed positive pre-3D; 4. The same positive image after 3D rendering. RING ANY BELLS?
What price that “unique encoded 3D” as repeatedly claimed for the Turin Linen body image? Certain sindonologists (who ought to know better) seem to have forgotten something where the scientific method is concerned, like the need to perform CONTROL experiments so as to exclude the influence of other variables, whether instantly visible or not. (Think of science as being like crossing a minefield, gently waving a mine detector ahead of one.)
3. Mistaken conclusion that the faint body image is confined to the primary cell wall of the linen, with that supposed ‘ultra-superficiality’ needing some kind of subtle radiation-derived process.
Here’s a simple experiment anyone can do. Dip a linen thread into blue ink. Wait for the ink to climb, then follow with plain water. Then snip the stained thread with scissors and view under a microscope. Note the way the blue colour is scarcely visible, when viewed through the light-reflective sides of individual fibres The cut ends tell an entirely different story!
4. Mistaken assumption that the Turin “Shroud” should be viewed as a “burial shroud”, whether real or simulated. The biblical account from first three Gospels suggests otherwise (J of A’s linen being intended merely for dignified transport from cross to tomb).
Artistic licence? Or simply plain commonsense – based on the first 3 Gospel accounts relating deployment of Joseph of Arimathea’s “fine linen” merely to retrieve the body – not, repeat NOT the same linen as described in 4th Gospel as second-stage burial shroud. (Provenance? There is some doubt as to which 16th artist painted this – or a very similar rendering of the Deposition from Cross- see Dan Porter’s posting: https://shroudstory.com/tag/giovanni-battista-della-rovere/)
5. Mistaken assumption that the lack of lateral (“wrap around”) distortion of the body image rules out an imprinting mechanism dependent on obligatory physical contact (i.e. no air gaps).
See the contact imprint below (under Point 6) obtained from a plastic 3D figurine. Where’s the lateral distortion? Answer: there isn’t any: the imprinting medium (powdered white flour) did not settle on the sides of the figurine (being sprinkled from above). Moreover, the wet linen was pressed down onto the flatter upper surfaces only, not wrapped around the sides.
6. Mistaken assumption in the 1981 STURP Summary that the image chromophore was due to chemical modification of the linen cellulose, with no mention of extraneous additions – whether Rogers’ ‘starch impurity’ or more recent proposals involving use of white flour as imprinting medium , notably my own Model 10!
Roasted flour imprint onto initially white linen (right|) , taken from the 14cm tall plastic “Galaxy Warrior” (left)
Can flour imprints be taken from the human form? Answer – YES!
The two images below with original captions were initially posted to my sciencebuzz site, way back in May 2015 . (Thus far, not a single mention from sindonology !)
Additional info (April 2019): They show initial Stage 1 flour imprints of my own face , i.e. without further Stage 2 colour development. The added definition in the second image was produced entirely by adding extra contrast in a photoediting program. (NB: the angular human nose does NOT prevent crease-free imprinting as some maintain, not if sufficient manual pressure is applied to flatten and partially distort). Ring any bells?
7. Premature radiocarbon dating, needing disfiguring removal of single chunky fabric rectangle. C-14 dating should have been postponed till the procedure worked with single excised threads, taken from multiple sites to exclude charges of “repair patches”.
Late addition (26 July 19) : anyone who thinks I’m being over-fussy could do a lot worse than read this article that appeared today in one of Britain’s tabloid newspapers, 30 years after what consider a mere ranging-shot exercise, NOT to be bandied around (Nature Journal etc) as if the definitive answer.
8. Failure to identify the chemical nature of the image chromophore, especially to discriminate between chemically-modified cellulose and a chemical modification of extraneous coating (notably a Maillard-reaction involving starch or flour coating to generate high molecular weight melanoidins).
Here’s a homely analogy from the internet:
The cellulose of linen is extraordinarily resistant to discoloration by heat (“scorching” in common parlance). Note the absurd lengths that sindonology goes to in order to “model” the body image on the Turin Linen as chemically-modified “cellulose”(e.g. STURP’s concentrated sulphuric acid, ENEA’s pulsed uv excimer laser beams etc etc. ). Forget cellulose. Think extraneous additions, i.e. imprinting media, that are easier to thermally discolour, notably the white flour in my Model 10. White flour yellows via entirely different chemistry (notably Maillard amino-sugar reactions producing high molecular weight melanoidins as end-products, as per bread and other baked flour-based products. End of chemistry lesson…
9. Pseudo-pathology based on assumption that bloodstains can be equated with body wounds, despite absence of any evidence for there being tears, punctures etc in the imprinted body image per se .
Take with a pinch, nay fistful of salt anything said by those using the terms “blood” and “body wounds” interchangeably, regardless of their forensic qualifications (especially when performing an “autopsy” on a mere B/W photograph, with unknown image-capture process,
10. Failure to give proper recognition to the key role in French medieval society of Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Lirey, first documented owner of the Linen, close confidante and fiercely loyal comrade-in-arms to his monarch, King Jean II (“The Good”).
G. de Charny was prime mover in creating the “Order of the Star” (See wikipedia entry):
Possibility that the Linen was intended initially as a centrepiece for Star ceremonial, rudely interrupted by death of G.de Charny at the Battle of Poitiers, 1356. bearer of the Oriflamme,to say nothing of the capture/ransom of his monarch.
Expect some or all of the above 10 points, some 7 years in the making, to be fleshed out in the coming days and weeks. (Future additions will be dated and appear in blue font)
The above list was also posted yesterday as Comment No.18 on Dan Porter’s current shroudstory posting.
Here’s a screen grab of that 1981 STURP Summary.
STURP Summary (1981). Sorry it does not enlarge…
See the highlighted sections – yellow for claims that I say were both premature and TOTALLY mistaken, appearing in my list of “10 biggest mistakes”. There’s also highligting in red for the one that really sticks in the craw of this long-term modeller of the Linen body image. (Yes, not just “sulfuric acid” as stated but the CONCENTRATED reagent – one of the nastiest chemical reagents imaginable! (What possible relevance does CONCENTRATED sulfuric/sulphuric acid have to experimental simulation /reproduction of the body image for goodness sake!!!!).
Here’s what concentrated sulphuric acid does to a carbohydrate (cane sugar, aka sucrose). In seeking out the elements of water, it strips off all the hydrogen and oxygen, not to leave a brown but BLACK residue (charcoal, elemental carbon!).
Now read what STURP’s John Heller MD wrote in his 1983 book “Report on the Shroud of Turin” (my bolding).
The conjugated carbonyl is the end product of dehydrating acid oxidation. … We felt that we should be able, therefore, to make a pseudo-image fibril by immersing it long enough in concentrated sulfuric acid, which is a strong dehydrative oxidant fluid in addition to being a powerful acid. We began by using using nonimage background fibrils. After thirty minutes in sulfuric acid, they had the right color and chemistry of an image fibril. …. In sum, the microscopic corrosion of the pseudo-image fibrils was correct, as were the straw-yellow color and the chemistry and the physical infrared observations. We had a match “
Fancy – deploying CONCENTRATED sulphuric acid to make the case for the body image being a product of chemical dehydration (made worse by making an initial pitch for it being a product of oxidation!!!). You couldn’t make it up (well, you could, if you were a member of STURP’s tiny , largely self- selected elite of all–knowing, supposedly versatile, wide-ranging chemical “experts”).
It’s time that STURP’s amateurish armchair chemistry is revealed for what it is – pure imagination, pure fantasy, and seemingly fixated from the word go with the notion of “mystery”.
April 5th, 2019
My definition of the Turin “Shroud” (sic)
It’s an imaginative reconstruction, mid 14th century, of how Joseph of Arimathea’s “fine linen”, deployed to transport the crucified Jesus from cross to tomb, might have looked after:
(a) simultaneous imprinting of still moist bodily sweat and blood
(b) centuries of ageing of the sweat imprint so as to acquire a faint, scarcely visible yellow colour.
The term “shroud” should be avoided, given it is then assumed to mean “burial shroud”. That then serves as the cue for the majority of sindonologists to attribute the body image to a burst of ‘resurrectional radiation’ on the third day. (Leaving aside the highly improbable physics, chemistry and biology of body-imaging via self-generated radiation, it totally ignores the transport aspect set out in the first 3 Gospels, as well as the pointers in the fourth Gospel (John) to the replacement of J of A’s linen after arrival at the tomb with more specialized burial clothes. )
Best then to refer to the “Turin Linen”, omitting all mention of that ambiguous, misleading and indeed tediously misused term “shroud”.
Update: Whoopee! Dan Porter has highlighted this latest posting of mine on his shroudstory forum (thanks Dan):
Still Friday April 5
A listing of “10 biggest mistakes” is quite an imposition on the reader, newcomers especially, if they are seen as independent from each other, each needing their own specialist background.
But that I’ve just realized is not the case.
The 10 can be split into 3 groups – The Primary Mistake (just ONE particular item in my list of 10), the Secondary Mistakes (a compounding of the error of the Primary Mistake), of which there are EIGHT no less, and a single Tertiary Mistake (unrelated to the major Primary/Secondary Mistakes).
I’ll be back shortly with the classification.
I’m back (still Friday April 5, 2019)
Here’s that three -way classification (subdivided into Primary/Secondary/Tertiary)
First, the crucial mistake, highlighted in RED, repeated verbatim, arguably the one from which 8 of the other 9 follow in “flawed logical sequence”, aka “compounding the error” based on the faulty initial premise re primary intended use of Linen (transport v burial shroud).
Mistaken assumption that the Turin “Shroud” should be viewed as a “burial shroud”, whether real of simulated. The biblical account from first three Gospels suggests otherwise (J of A’s linen being intended merely for dignified transport from cross to tomb).
(If viewed as a contact imprint onto J of A’s linen, then one can immediately dismiss most if not all the other 9 points, based on the notion of the image being the result of Third Day resurrection)
Originally No.4 in my list of 10.
And here’s the list of 8 Secondary Mistakes, which are labelled (a) through to (h) – compounding the error of the Primary Mistake)
(a) Mistaken assumption that Secondo Pia’s discovery of the negative image via photography implies that ‘photography’ was required for initial image capture.
See my banner!
Originally No.1 in my list of 10.
(b) Mistaken assumption that the response of the body image to 3D-rendering software implies pre-existing “unique encoded 3D infomation”.
(No, contact imprints are also tone-reversed negatives).
Originally No.2 in my list of 10.
(c) Mistaken assumption that the lack of lateral (“wrap around”) distortion of the body image rules out an imprinting mechanism dependent on physical contact (no air gaps).
No, the body image lacks sides, so lateral distortion is at best an irrelevance…
Originally No.5 in my list of 10.
(d) Mistaken assumption in the 1981 STURP Summary that the image chromophore was due to chemical modification of the linen cellulose, with no mention of extraneous additions (whether Rogers’ ‘starch impurity’ or more recent proposals involving use of white flour as imprinting medium (my own Model 10).
Once whole body imprinting via contact is placed at the top of the short list, to match J of A narrative, beautifully conveyed in the de Rovere painting, then one has to consider not only 1st century authenticity, but 14th century ‘reconstruction’ (or as less charitable souls would say, “forgery”).
Originally No.6 in my list of 10.
(e) Pseudo-pathology based on assumption that bloodstains can be equated with body wounds, despite absence of any evidence for there being tears, punctures etc in the imprinted body image per se .
Indirect evidence for a “reconstruction” inasmuch as there is not evidence for imprinting of body wounds, except as bloodstains, i.e. nothing in the body image.
Originally No.9 in my list of 10.
(f) Failure to identify the chemical nature of the image chromophore, especially to discriminate between chemically-modified cellulose and a chemical modification of extraneous coating (notably a Maillard-reaction involving starch or flour coating to generate high molecular weight melanoidins).
Assumption that the cellulose had to be the target for image acquisition failed to consider the medieval “reconstruction” scenario that is an offshoot of the J of A “transport” scenario. Reconstruction of a body imprint allows for the introduction of an extraneous imprinting agent.
Originally No.8 in my list of 10.
(g) . Failure to give proper recognition to the key role in French medieval society of the first documented owner of the Linen, namely Geoffroy de Charny, close confidante of his monarch, King Jean II (“The Good”). G. de Charny was prime mover in creating the “Order of the Star”. Possibility that the Linen was intended initially as a centrepiece for Star ceremonial, rudely interrupted by death of G.de Charny at the Battle of Poitiers, 1356. bearer of the Oriflamme,to say nothing of the capture/ransom of his monarch.
We have a motive for medieval reconstruction of J of A’s linen, not necessarily in the first instance as “forgery” intent on deceit, but as a ceremonial prop/totem etc
Originally No.10 in my list of 10.
##################################
(h) Just one excluded from my list, namely the notion that the TS body image is confined to the primary cell wall. that a major driving force where suggestions of “resurrectional radiation” are concerned, but cannot be eliminated on strength of the J of A transport focus. Explanations have to be sought (and indeed can be obtained) elsewhere via direct experiment with linen fibres, dyes, imprinting media etc.
Originally No.3 in my list of 10.
#########################################
Yes, just a single misfit with the crucial defining J of A transport factor:
Mistaken conclusion that the faint body image is confined to the primary cell wall of the linen, with that supposed ‘ultra-superficiality’ needing some kind of subtle radiation-derived process.
This is not directly related to contact imprinting v supernatural imaging, since it relates more to the microscopic structure and properties of linen fibres. (See details elsewhere for how the eye could be deceived into thinking that the body image is ultra-superficial, when in fact concentrated within SCW cores, largely invisible to outside observer if attempts are made to view through a reflective PCW sheath, without taking the trouble to look at cross-sections).
Overall summary: the Big Mistake where the so-called “Shroud” is concerned is no. 4 in my list, namely the blind spot for viewing it as J of A’s TRANSPORT LINEN (Gospels 1-3 inc) , and instead viewing it the specialized burial linen(s) as described in Gospel 4 (John).
Eight (yes 8!) of the 9 remaining mistakes (no less!) can be seen as a compounding of the error (aka “blind spot” ) of failing to observe the biblical reference to “fine linen” , aka J of A’s linen, of failing to match with the upmarket herringbone weave of the Turin Linen, opting instead for a perceived role as ‘mere’ burial shroud linen that did not need to be of the highest quality, not being viewed by crucifixion spectators outwith the confines of the final destination at a cramped rock tomb.
Saturday April 6, 2019
Posted to shroudstory:
-
-
-
April 6, 2019 at 1:29 am
Dan writes (my bolding)
“Right away I agree with number 2. First of all the word encoded is misleading. In face, calling it 3D is misleading. It does seem to exhibit 3D characteristics. Those who assumed, therefore, that the cloth covered a body were making a serious mistake. It could have but it also might not have. Sadly, an assumption was treated henceforth as a fact.”
He still seems to be moving towards a supernatural explanation for the body image. But it’s one that he has previously suggested does NOT depend on radiation, but presumably some other mechanism, thus far unspecified.
My advice, for what it’s worth – don’t be too quick to discount simple image capture via physical contact – as has happened with 90% or more of radiation-fixated sindonology (excluding Rogers’ credulity-straining diffusion model)
Here’s a list of 10 reasons for starters (simply the first that came to mind):
1. The entire body, front and rear, hair and skin, displays a fairly even image intensity all over, which, with absence of brush strokes, pain pigment etc, suggests use of an imprinting medium
2. The bloodstains we’re told were acquired before body image. Taken together with lack of evidence for wounds in body, the reliance on blood only to identify woundsites, implies not just an imprint-like nature for the blood, but arguably for the body image too, indicative of contact-process.
3. The negative tone-reversed body image is also consistent with imprinting via contact (while not ruling out other mechanisms, albeit less likely).
4. Lack of sides to body image is also highly suggestive of imprinting via contact, in a manner that either (a) keeps linen clear of sides or (b) deploys an artificial imprinting medium that is apllied to frontal v dorsal surfaces only – NOT sides – so as to convey an instant impression of contact imprint to the first-time viewer.
5. Then there’s the absence of any obvious imaging mechanism other than contact imprinting, unless resorting to ‘supernatural mechanism’ (whether involving self-generated radiation, whether electromagnetic or subatomic particles, electrostatic discharges etc etc). In short, imprinting by contact needs to be actively disproved before resorting to supernatural alternatives.
6. The arguments advanced by Jackson, other STURP team members and subsequent investigators that attempt to summarily dismiss imprinting by contact simply do not stand up to close scrutiny. Lack of conspicuous lateral (“wrap around”) distortion is a case in point (being totally irrelevant – see Point 4 – in the case of a body image that lacks sides, for whatever reason). Claims that there must have been imaging across air gaps – allegedly ruling out contact imprinting – invariably assume a pro-authenticity loosely draped linen, relying entirely on gravity for partial contact, failing to consider the alternative of medieval manufacture, deploying applied MANUAL DOWNWARDS PRESSURE to permit maximal contact between linen and subject, the latter precoated with an imprinting medium, closing up most of the air gaps (excluding deeper hollows such as eye sockets etc).
7. The greatest image intensity is seen for regions of higher relief on a recumbent body – like nose, forehead, chest, crossed hands etc. That is entirely to be expected of imprinting via physical contact. It admittedly would not exclude other mechanisms of image capture, notably a photographic means that yielded a negative image. But the onus is on proponents of the latter to provide solid evidence of such a mechanism that did not rely on a foreign substance as radiation-sensitive photographic emulsion with accompanying developing agent. If an emulsion-free system is envisaged, e.g. relying on some image-capturing mechanism that linen molecules per se can utilize, then there has to be detailed modelling, at least to win over us party-pooper sceptics. It is not sufficient to wurble on about “oxidized” or “chemically dehydrated” cellulose (least of all STURP’s eye-glazing combination of both acting simultaneously, modelled with – wait for it – concentrated(!) sulphuric acid).
8.Pathologist Robert Bucklin was perhaps the first to point out the distortion of the nose in the facial body image. That, with its accompanying medical details, like separation of nasal cartilage from overlying tissue etc, was immediately attributed to beating with a blunt instrument, maybe a clenched fist. But there’s an alternative explanation that fits with contact-imprinting: a real face, with its awkward nose, WAS deployed (as distinct from a bas relief substiute as others have proposed). The nose was simply squashed flat and partially sideways by that applied manual pressure referred to earlier. (I once imprinted my own face with distorted nose using a flour slurry and manual pressure way back in 2014!).
9. The alleged ‘boniness’ of certain parts of the body image (fingers especially), plus the indications of teeth being imaged etc – features that prompted August Accetta MD to self-dose with x-ray emitting technetium isotope (!) – are fully consistent with image-capture via physical contact. Underlying bone, teeth etc mean the overlying linen gets subjected to greater pressure.
10. It’s not at all clear why there should be hints of a reverse-side image, albeit face and hands only, albeit faint and fragmentary, by any ‘supernatural’ alternative to simple contact photography. In contrast, the latter provides a simple explanation: an imprinting medium, probably liquid, if only temporarily, can traverse the entire width of the linen at points where there is maximal applied manual pressure, i.e. precisely those regions with highest raised relief and/or resistance-offering underlying bone or other hard tissue (faced, crossed hands etc).
-
-
And here, as a pithy way of bowing out after some 7 years of fruitless endeavour, is a final warning sign. It’s aimed at anyone else who might feel tempted to meet sindonology head-on.
Adieu! (though Comments will remain open, for how long I can’t say).
Appendix ( image needed by way of a final goodbye to shroudstory.com!)
.
OK, so I exaggerated somewhat with that brick wall graphic above. Sindonology is not a totally sealed-off brick wall, incapable of any cogent response whatsoever.
Here’s a truer, fairer presentation of sindonology , deploying the same metaphorical licence:
Addition: Wed April 10, 2019
Hot from the BBC’s website – first ever piccy of a “black hole”!
Remind you of anything? Like, er, irreversibly sucking in negative comment, that disappearing into the mysterious black centre entirely without trace, while radiating its own preferred message, via an observer-friendly, luminous warm glow radiated back to the outside..
Further addition (appendix) , added April 11, 2019
Here’s an image that Dan Porter has displayed to accompany his latest posting:
And you wonder why sindonology is still mired in obscurantism, distraction techniques, downright deception!
Basis of my objection? Where are the sides on the Linen’s body image, as expected from above? Why is there an image of the face if there was, as indicated above, a separate face cloth?
Why do we have to put up with this kind of perverse nonsense, year after year after year?
For goodness sake, Dan Porter specifically, plus sindonology generally: get your act together. Start addressing the facts, limited though they are.
Stop introducing needless distractions and falsities. like that image above, one that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the likely origins of the Linen’s body image ( it having frontal v dorsal body images only (NO SIDES!).
Sorry to say it Dan, but each passing day sees you sink ever further into ever deeper obscurantism. Give it up, Dan, and NOW!!!! Return to your content and blissful retirement… You are, sad to say, past your sell-by-date…
No doubt I’ll be there too in a few years or so. In the meantime, I’ll keep on telling it the way it is…
Saturday 13 April, 2019
Yes, I knew I’d seen that ludicrous image before somewhere: Dan Porter used it to front what must surely be one his most haughty postings ever, and attempt to put down this retired scientist by lining up “experts” – not just one but two.
(I’ve added the red box to highlight the first of two experts lined up against me (the late Diana Fulbright). The other, appearing later was the late Rev Kim Dreibach.)
When is a Sindon Not a Sindon?
Go to that post, see what the two apparently incontestable “experts” claim using arguments with their oh-so-well well-concealed fatal flaws.
See my immediate response, see the manner in which my rival claim for the meaning of “sindon” (J of A’s means of transporting from cross to tomb, not, repeat NOT intended as final burial shroud).
See the fatal flaw in Diana Fulbright’s 24 page pdf – namely the caption she gave to that mock-up of the Man in the so-called “Shroud”) to which Dan Porter is so enamoured.
Again, my red highlighting. Talk about a circular argument, the creation of an endless loop which Dan Porter wanted me to to accept as incontestable advanced scholarship!
See the way things are left in the air, as if I’ve failed to counter the totally dud arguments from those two ‘experts’ harvested by star-struck Dan Porter.
See the way Dan Porter resurrects that same hugely misleading image for his current posting, as if it were a representation of the facts.
See the way my simple point re there being a primary and secondary input of linen is studiously ignored, both then, and now currently, nearly 4 years later, by Dan Porter, and indeed by sindonology in general, failing as my arguments do to bolster the ”mystery’ of the so-called “burial shroud”.
I give up!
I shan’t be wasting a further second of my time, posting on the simple, brutal FACTS regarding the Linen.
Not when one finds oneself systematically sidelined in the present fashion, as has been happening now for some 7 years.
But that won’t prevent me tacking occasional acerbic comments onto the end of this, my final posting.
Oh no… Oh no!
Final Update (May 20, 2019): This site , including Comments facility, is now closed. I placed my final comment on Dan Porter`s shroudstory site yesterday:
( Postscript: Maybe the title should have read “11 biggest mistakes”! Why? STURP’s chemistry team leader (Raymond N. Rogers.RIP) finally adjudged the body image on the so-called “shroud” to be a so-called “melanoidin” ( i.e. a high molecular resinous end-product of complex Maillard reactions involving NOT the linen fibres per se, but substances later acquired as surface additives – let’s skip the detail).
11th biggest mistake? Failure of fake science sindonology to take Rogers’ real science seriously, failure to consider a return visit to Turin to test body image fibres for the presence of Rogers’ MELANOIDINS – no matter how formed …
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Rogers in this regard, namely that the body image “chromophore” (colour-conferring chemical) is almost certainly a melanoidin. Where we differ is in how it was formed – Rogers’ starting materials being “authentic 1st century”, mine being non-authentic mid-14th.
Never mind. What matters right now is the absence of a simple spot-test for melanoidins that can be applied (belatedly!) by the Turin custodians to the so-called “shroud”.
This investigator is working on that right now, i.e. possible state-of-the-art spot tests for melanoidins, guided by a 1972 paper. But I will not, repeat NOT, be publishing further new findings in real time. No, I have now drawn a line, albeit reluctantly, under that futile, counterproductive exercise of reporting findings in real time. Why? Because that fake science that calls itself “sindonology” (Thibault Heimburger MD excepted) has persistently shown itself over the last 7 years to have no time for real science – indeed, displays a distinct and unmistakable aversion! I for my part now have no time whatsoever for ” fake science sindonology”. Nuff said…
Update: Aug 20, 2019: here be a screen grab of a posting made to my sciencebuzz site:
Personal note:, added 18/09/2019: this multi-site (now long-in-the-tooth) blogger attended his old school reunion (Bishopshalt, Hillingdon, west London outskirts ) on Saturday 7th September. It attracted some 30 or so ‘Old Uxonians’ who had arrived in 1956, having passed their “11 plus exam” leaving 7 years later in 1963 (or earlier).
I’ve revived an old website called Dreams and Daemons (retired in 2006!) to display my own photos of ex-colleagues and more besides.
Here’s a group photo of most of the attendees, assembled in the Ornamental Gardens, next to the magnificent (recently restored) conservatory:
Yup, we’re all now 74 or 75! Yet it somehow seems there’s a mere decade or two missing when one meets up again – in some cases over a half-century later.
One has to say: genetics beats environment hands down, Mother Nature slipping us individually into essentially timeless moulds – from which there’s no escape … Good job too, I say. Who’d attend reunions if everyone had transmogrified into near or complete strangers!
I
##########
Update: June 18, 2021
This comment from authoress Marisa De More appeared yesterday under my “About” tab. That tab being largely inconspicuous – WordPress please note – and comments thereto being absent under Latest, I’m copying and pasting here):
Here’s my preliminary reply to Merisa, hopefully welcoming in tone:
More to follow shortly
My answer to the steeped-in-mystique Turin Shroud - evolving gradually from some 10 years of science-based experimental modelling. 
Hi Colin
About how long would you say you have talked about the Turin ( Years ) and how many comments would you say you have left on here about the Turin ?
Thank You !
Hello Steve
I first started posting on the Linen at the tail end of 2011, being hugely irritated by Paolo Di Lazzaro posting his wishy-washy uv excimer laser twaddle under the auspices of his employer, an Italian government laboratory (ENEA) no less. I objected strongly to newspaper headlines that screamed how scientists had declared the Linen to be supernatural, that we should all think about theology as well as philosophy bla bla. Up to that time I had been posting on numerous diverse topics on my sciencebuzz site.
There’s been some 350 or so postings since then, mainly on this site, and some recent statistics from the Shroud Alaska Group’s Stacey Reiman says I’ve posted well over 3000 comments, many here of course, but most mainly on Dan Porter’s recently resurrected shroudstory site plus a couple of hundred or so on the internationalskeptics forum. .
How much longer I continue posting remains to be seen. Probably not for long, given that a lot of Linen enthusiasts find the science (REAL, as distinct from pseudoscience!) a bit of a turn-off, much preferring their ‘resurrectional radiation’ to cold hard physics, pretending one doesn’t exist…
Thank you for your interest.
Hi Colin
The reason I asked you these question is because I find it strange.Here you are commenting on a piece of cloth that obviously has you interest. A LOT. Tell me who is it your trying to convince that this cloth is fake.Thats right YOU ! A Lot of people who have excepted that God and Christ are real and that the Bible is true.It spells it out for you clearly.Ive told you and my family and countless people in my life what I had seen.I’ll say it to you again and the Bible states that many people will make it by the skin of there teeth.But Im hoping you wont come to that upon your last breath when its time for your passing over.All is true,I excepted Christ into my life and I did come to him with a crying heart.The holy Sprit entered my body and I heard the holy sprit with a cry of chant.And when I herd this it was like hearing the sound of Indians singing.Next I was in my bedroom one day and lost complete strength in my body and drop to my bed.I was slain by the Holy sprit that took me to Hell.There I could see people faces in the flames ,a wall of faces crying out of the flames.Was this a vision or an actually glimpse of Hell.I have seen Christ in the flesh and was awaken in a state of such calmness that I never felt before. While laying I had awaken and was looking at my dresser at the end of my bed and it was if I was in slow motion.When turning my head towards my wife that was laying next to me it was not her face I had seen.It was the same face of the Shroud Of Turin.The difference was his face was real with long white hair and beard.His eyes where closed but the features of his face where of the exact of the Shroud.For the seconds that I had seen him I will never forget that.When I turned my head back facing the ceiling my only words where I believe lord I believe.When turned my head back to look at him again It was my wife laying next to me.At different parts of my life God has showed me so much and without even asking.Did you know God promises us a new home one he Is make for each and everyone of us.He took me to see It I believe and It was breath taking.Huge mountains and valleys with the ocean front with the flight of flying over all of It with no legs ,no body but just the view from my eyes.I pray that all people in this world could see what I had seen. But they think there so smart and I must say Brave with a touch of Stubborn to be so bold to close there eyes to the truth that stares at them everyday they get out of bed.Im so glad that I did not harden my Heart to speak to God and ask him to except me into his kingdom and asking him to forgive me for my hate and wrongs in this messed up world we live in.He could see my heart was true.My name is now in the book of life.The science close there eyes but some have changed there ways and thoughts about God.You see you just aren’t going to get away that easy because your Soul is more important to God than you think It Is.
Your Still I My Prayers, God Bless Colin
Sindonology could be said, sad to say, mere shorthand for not telling things the way they are, but, if the truth be told, the way it would like them to be. Read partisan, goal-directed pseudoscience (not science as claimed)!
In short, sindonology is – for the most part, albeit not entirely – primarily engaged in an insidious, never-ending search for those tasty. headline-catching, mind-turning titbits of so-called ‘persuasive insights ‘, pressing its claim for the Linen’s authenticity.
As for its use, nay abuse, of the so-called ‘peer-reviewed’ literature – words fail me. (In passing: I spent many a year as an “anonymous” referee for numerous scientific and medical journals, acquiring an intimate knowledge not only with how the system works – but also its acute vulnerabilities!).
Yes, these last few years, I have seen the ‘peer-reviewed’ literature being shamelessly exploited by sindonological chancers and other opportunists, most having an axe to grind, one that shall remain nameless. What we see is a major scandal, still unspotted, or at any rate still unreported upon by the MSM!
Kindly cease referring in hallowed whispers all you dreamy-eyed science-smitten folk out there to “peer-reviewed literature”, as if intellectual gold dust.
Where sindonology’s concerned, it’s all too often pseudo-scientific base metal disguising itself as science-based gold dust, pretending to be objective, in reality, pushing its true-believer tunnel-vision pro-authenticity message.
Yes, the real issue here is less to do with sindonology per se. It’s more to do with the manner in which agendas can be infiltrated into the mass media, via those oh-so-accommodating “peer-reviewed journals” immediately followed by skilfully and timely implanted Google-friendly “press releases”.
Not so much “fake news” as “flawed, doctored news, underpinned with pseudoscience.” .
There, I’ve said it. Someone had to. Someone had to blow the whistle on the travesty of science (as distinct from pseudoscience) that is pro-authenticity, straw-clutching sindonology.
Postscript: Unless or until sindonology can show (via repeat testing) that the Linen is 2000 years old (not 700 as per 1988 testing) then there’s a need for some plain speaking (a follow on from my comment yesterday). Sindonology should cease using peer-reviewed journals of a scientific nature in which to publish further papers. There can be no possible justification for posting anything further as regards the image or the blood, at least where science is concerned, given we are dealing with a medieval reconstruction, or as some would say, forgery, albeit by means still to be fully determined.
Repeat: sindonology should desist from using peer-reviewed journals. Sindonology should instead come out from behind the protective paywall afforded by those journals. usually lacking any means of leaving comments, favourable or otherwise. Sindonology should avail itself of – and indeed expose itself to – the open-access internet to further argue its case and/or defend its existing claims.
It could do a lot worse than log onto Dan Porter’s recently revived and respected shroudstory site and start to leave constructive comment. (It should also give up on the deplorable practice deployed in the past of using that site to make hit-and-run attacks of folk like myself, pouring out bile, often larded with personal attacks, failing to respond to one’s responses. The culprits know who they are…).
I personally will not be contributing further to Porter’s site unless or until sindonology’s chief spokesmen and women appear there OR, if they prefer, set up a comparable open-access internet site of their own. (preferable without paywall, Facebook etc). The Shroud Science Group really has no business operating as what Porter recently described as “semi-private”, not if it continues to have “science” in its title. There is no place for the private or even semi-private club where science is concerned. It’s a contradiction in terms, given that science is about hypothesis/testing and OPEN REPORTING of its claims and findings. Oh, and let’s not forget those suppositions either, often omitted, assuming we, mere seekers after truth, are (a) mindreaders and (b) find no fault whatsoever with what we mind-read.
Hi Berry Well I can see Im way out of my league here speaking to someone who’s much smarter than me.I cant even imagine how NOAH felt with the people crying who wouldn’t listen with the rains falling.I wont be making anymore comments.I see know reason to,Some people are better off on there own.Besides God said for the ones who refuse to acknowledge him he will deal with them directly himself.So my witnessing is done here. Berry ,the very Best Of Luck
See the latest update to my current, indeed final posting on this site.
Welcome though it was at first sight to have Dan Porter’s shroudstory site return as a web forum, following his 3 year break, attracting comment once again from all and sundry, it’s now become abundantly clear that the blogmeister himself , given his observations, is not part of the solution. He is part of the problem…
Yes, sad to say, it’s become clear that despite the light touch and seeming subtlety, he has (and always has been) part of the problem – for reasons one can only guess at…
PS: Well I never: French medic Thibault Heimburger MD has reappeared after a 3 year absence from the internet (at least from English -speaking sites). He’s added a comment to Dan Porter’s current posting (that dreadful though fortunately only partially destructive fire at the Notre Dame cathedral).
Hopefully he will give some hint or clue as to what’s kept him away from the anglocentric internet. Thus far, no one’s responded directly to him, despite his having 3 (yes 3!) pdfs!) prominent in the right hand margins of the Porter site. (2 were laying in heavily to my evolving views on the nature of the body image – but they were based on my modelling direct scorching off hot 3D or bas relief templates- antediluvian Model 2 of 10 -.quickly – nay, slowly – abandoned.
Hello again Thibault! Nice to have you back (with one or two tiny reservations). Do please look in on this site, do please add a comment or two.
What are your current views on the Turin Linen? What are your views on my own current thinking?
PS: I was on the point of posting the following (in italics) to the shroudstory site, but decided to stick with my final “adieu”:
I said “adieu” to this site a week or so ago Thibault” (“final goodbye”).
But your reappearance after an absence of some 3 years cannot go uncommented upon. Not here, not where I’m concerned, being now terminally disillusioned with the creeping obscurantism where Dan’s back-from-the-dead site is concerned.
I’ve invited you to post a comment on my own site, by way of renewing contact, by way of ascertaining your own cogent views on where we’re at with that still challenging Linen.
I may have disagreed with you 85% of the time, but respected your grasp of detail.
As I say, I’ve given up trying to communicate with ‘sindonologists’ , given their pro-authenticity tunnel vision, to say nothing of their failure to address or respond to one’s specific points. There’s only so long that one can wait in the wings, being treated as a non-entity.
This retired scientist (real scientist!) is still ready and willing to communicate with other real scientists, however., ones trained and willing to examine the evidence – ALL the evidence.
See the latest posting on my sciencebuzz site – the latter created some 10 years ago – addressed to fellow real scientists, ones that is who are ready and willing to confront and challenge media-propagated pseudoscience in all its various dreary truth-bending manifestations!
Link
.
See http://www.shroud.com for the STERA President’s Nov 6 Fall Update.
There’s one throwaway line that sticks in this scientist’s craw, coming as it does from someone appointed to STURP as the Documenting Photographer (with no background in scientific research that I’m aware of).
Sadly it’s part of an obituary: apols to the bereaved if I pass over those details and just copy/paste the nitty gritty:
“… further testament to the quality of the scientific research developed by the STURP team during their years of Shroud studies”.
Yes, there was some quality research lurking in the STURP findings, notably the ability of certain specialized chemical reagents like diimide, N2H2, to bleach the image chromophore ( Walter McCrone’s survivors at his Chicago Institute, still banging on about their founder’s “red iron oxide” kindly note). But you wouldn’t know it from perusing that short 1981 Summary, full of its amazing omissions (e.g. not a single mention of the negative tone-reversed image to say nothing of other misleading data (like that dreadful image-modelling with CONC sulphuric acid!).
I could also mention the pro-authenticity slant, nay prostrate submission, hardly appropriate one would think for someone with the grandiose title “President of the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association”.
Education, my foot! Research, my foot! Never-ending crank-the-handle stream of narrow-minded blinkered propaganda more like it…
Link to the posting on my science buzz site re the inadequacies of that 1981 STURP Summary
It’s now just two weeks short of a full year (April 4, 2019) since my “final” Shroud posting. I had not intended to supply any updates, postscripts whatever.
But the coronavirus-inflicted “self-isolation” of this 70+ year old (now voluntary/self-imposed it seems, despite initial suggestions from the UK Govt and media that it would be compulsory) has caused me to rethink.
So there may be another posting in two Saturdays from now. OR, there again, maybe not, if only to review progress or otherwise in conveying one’s seemingly unfashionable thesis (“Model 10”, simulated sweat imprint, repeat SIMULATED SWEAT IMPRINT! da da )… How? Mechanism? Vehicle?
Answer: entirely, I repeat ENTIRELY via the internet. Maybe not (new posting), that is.
I’m thinking about it.
Watch this space (correction, SITE, which still attracts a few visits – typically 15 or so per day).
One thing I shan’t be doing on April 4 (see previous comment) is going over old ground, arguing my internet-delivered case for the so-called “Shroud” being of medieval fabrication. No, the research aspect, based on scientific modelling, has proved to be a near-complete waste of time, there being scarcely any internet or other feedback worth speaking of (bar one or two exceptions) , especially since the shroudstory internet forum (pros largely outweighing cons) finally pulled down its shutters).
But I have to mark the first anniversary of my “last” (substantive) posting somehow. The question is how …
I think I’ve arrived at an answer, though it won’t please everyone.
I’ll start with two lists: the first will be the 10 best quotes I’ve received regarding my own research, immediately followed by what I consider the 10 worst. (The choice will be highly subjective, needless to say, some might consider a tiny bit self-indulgent)
Then, at leisure, on the same posting, I will add, probably in instalments, what I consider the 10 best and 10 worst statements made over years, nay decades, regarding the “Shroud” and its likely origins in general, excluding all reference to my own studies.
I’ll be back on April 4, 2020!
Have just added this comment that arrived yesterday from Marisa De More under the “About” tab as a PS to this previous posting:
Here’s my prelim reply to Marisa: