Yes, £100 prize on offer (from this blogsite owner) for the best Summary of the Shroud of Turin. (No strings attached on my part).
(See Entry 1 further down this posting, received April 20)! Hopefully there will be more to follow in due course!
£100 in UK sterling prize for best answer!
But there’s a strict word limit – a mere 200 maximum!
One small condition: there has to be at least one scientific observation (no, not, repeat NOT pseudo-scientific) preferably one that prompts further enlightening comment or debate, here or elsewhere in the coming days and weeks.
Deadline for submissions: 1 month’s time (Saturday May 16 2020).
The overall take-away message can be either pro- or anti-authenticity.
Judge? No, not me (Colin Berry, Shroud researcher of some 8 years standing, creator of my final Model 10) but my intelligent wife these last 50 years come July!
She will be given your submissions blind, i.e. with no names attached, and without my own prior opinion on them (but I’ll be on hand to supply answers to any questions she might raise: those answers may or may not betray my own thoughts on key issues)
Please use the Comments facility to submit your entry, or email me with your answer on sciencebod01 (at) aol dot com. Use a pseudonym if you wish, but real identity preferred.
PS : (Afterthought, added April 17).
If the 200 word limit gives problems, then here’s a word of advice: you won’t be penalized for focusing on the “unknowns”. In other words, don’t feel that the submission has to be complete in all respects (like known historical background, like the dimensions of the linen etc etc). It’s the input of crucial detail and your interpretation thereof that is being invited.
New update: April 18
Here’s a new development, one that goes some of the way to restoring one’s faith in the internet as a medium of communication for the SCIENCE (as distinct from pseudo-science).
Instant reply from the recently -revamped , more user friendly “Skeptics and Seekers” site to my communication sent less than an hour ago to the site owners.
..
It’s the IMMEDIATE response from the recently revamped Skeptics and Seekers to whom I penned a short note about an hour ago, flagging up this posting and its offer of a cash prize for summarizing current Shroud status (scientific).
Many thanks S&S (revamped). You are starting to look like worthy successors to Dan Porter’s retired shroudstory site. (Dan has been notified of this new development, as well as Hugh Farey (prominent commentator on the S&S site) as well as David Rolfe (Hugh Farey’s replacement as Editor of the subscription–only BSTS Newsletter, though not I have to say my favourite pro-authenticity-promoting, drum-banging ‘sindonologist’ by a long shot!).
Further update, April 19
Some time ago, the Shroud Alaska Group (Stacey Reiman and associates) published a handy list of those who have made greatest use of the internet to publish their thoughts on the Shroud. Most (but not all data is a count of comments placed on Dan Porter’s now lapsed shroudstory site (Dan I’m pleased to say is still going strong!).
Sadly however some are no longer with us – I’ve added RIP to three of the names at or near the top of the list – Max Patrick Hamon (France) , Yannick Clément (Canada) and John Klotz (USA) .
I was surprised to find myself third from top in the above list. The chief reason for using the internet was to serve as a means of publishing my own model-building experimentation as an online learning curve. Commenting on other folk’s sites was regarded as sideline, if only to encourage continuous feedback, whether positive or negative! Was the effort worthwhile (3,309 comments!). I’m thinking about it, especially as my name and ideas have today made a brief appearance as comments 69/70 on the Skeptics and Seekers site. Do I re-invent myself as a internet commentator or not? Would it make sense, now that I’ve completed my modelling (Model 10 – flour imprinting – ticking most if not all my own boxes re credibility)? I shall certainly hold off deciding whether to add more comment till after the deadline for entries – not wishing to create new distractions or renewed controversy. It’s other people’s opinions that are what’s needed and indeed requested at this point in time…
Here’s Entry 1 folks, received early pm, April 20 (please keep them coming!):
“The Shroud of Turin is one of the world’s most remarkable mysteries to date, its photo negative “3-Dimensional” superficial images that display the full length frontal and dorsal images of a man apparently scourged and crucified, continue to baffle modern scientists as they scramble to provide an explanation of just how such images may have been formed.
The bloodstains on the Shroud resemble the wounds that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was privy to in the Passion accounts of the Gospels. At the time of image formation, the Shroud Man’s body appears rigid as if in rigour mortis and there are no signs of decomposition present on the Shroud cloth indicating that the images were formed and the Shroud Man’s body removed from the cloth within days of his death.
So far, no naturalistic or artistic explanation has been able to fully account for all the image’s physical and chemical characteristics and what we do know of these incredible images seems to fulfill Dembski’s notion of “specified complexity” thus allowing for one to make a reasonable inference to their being intelligent designed. Given the “religio-historical” context of the images’ relation to Jesus, that designer must be God Himself!”
Entry 2?
Update, 21 April
There were 55 visits (“hits”) to this site by the end of yesterday, with 15 specifically addressed to the current Prize posting (see WordPress chart below):
The single red bar refers to the last full day’s data (Mon April 20), just 1 day short of a full week since announcing the present Prize comp’.
Update: Thur April 23
Oh dear. No hits whatsoever directed yesterday to this particular posting! But it’s not difficult to see why.
Enter (shroud of turin) into Google. Where’s this site on the first 10 pages? Answer – nowhere to be seen (but then few ‘blogsites’ get a look-in, the listed entries being mainly for MSM articles, religious outlets of one kind or another etc).
Enter (shroud of turin £100) and what does one get? Answer: still nothing on any of the first 10 pages. (Late on – Page 4, line 7).
Enter (shroud of turin prize) and what does one get? Halleluja : a listing of this site on Page 2 line 5 of returns.
Enter (shroud of turin £100 prize) and what does one get? Hooray! I’m there at the top of Page 1 listings,
But how many folk are likely to come across this posting if merely surfing the internet, if wishing to see what’s new? Scarcely any if the truth be told unless entering the term “prize” or, better still “£100 prize”.
Yes, I know Google supplies a time filter (Tools: Last 24 hours, Last week etc) but I rarely if ever find this site’s latest posting picked up in the department, and in any case I doubt if more than a few general internet surfers use the time filter to focus on latest additions to the http://www..
Never mind. This site was designed mainly as an online channel for reporting a long term learning curve in real time (as distinct from the kind of fait accompli one would report by way of polished presentations to the refereed literature, respected journals etc.). Yes, it has not escaped my attention that some Shroud enthusiasts – both pro- and anti-authenticity- use a halfway house, like PDFs to Academia and the like . (I’ll spare you my misgivings about that particular vehicle for publication dear reader – suffice it to say I’m am not hugely impressed). So many of those PDFs do so RAMBLE ON!
Update: Friday April 24
Have had trouble re-registering with Disqus in order to make a small but pithy point on the Skeptics and Seekers site. Here’s a screen shot of what I tried to send (initially):
Later: had a quick and welcome response from S&S: they will be looking into the Disqus glitch. Here’s how I responded:
Thanks S&S I’ll sit tight and see what happens. But my point is an absurdly simple one. The TS is arguably a (medieval) modelling of the crucified Jesus in linen-supported transit from cross to tomb – NOT as later laid out on a hard supporting slab. If J of A’s “fine linen” was held at both ends, deploying it as a stretcher, then the body would be in a U-shaped configuration left and right of the buttocks. In that configuration, hands could be over groin area without there being any need for those allegedly “overlong arms”. That leaves the question as to what was used for modelling – a real adult male in that U-shaped configuration, or a rigid statue mimicking the same, either capable of serving as a template for contact-imprinting. I could speculate on the latter, but some might think that it’s hard scientific logic that is required right now that can be expressed in just a few pithy words…
Update: the relationship between Skeptics and Seekers, Disqus and the intermediary “ReasonPress” does not make registering for Comments an easy one. I’ll spare you the details folks. Suffice it to say I’ve said above what I wanted to say about those allegedly “overlong arms”, so don’t need to go elsewhere to do so now. Naturally it would be nice if Skeptics and Seekers editors could transmit my message to followers of that site, so they at least know there’s another viewpoint existing out there – namely my own. I shall now let the matter rest.
Update: Sat April 25, 2020
Here’s a screenshot of something I posted onto my science buzz site, back at the tail end of 2014:
I think it could provide a number of useful insights into that claim for the arms on the TS being too long (while making due allowance for a degree of artistic licence, like face uncovered, on full display, arms draping down outside side etc). What it does is to show how a bow-shaped body in transit, supported only by linen and human porters CAN in principle have hands that are draped over the groin area, i.e. there are no grounds for thinking the “arms are too long”.
Here’s a simple experiment anyone at home can do right now: lie down on the carpet, then cross your hands. See how far they extend down your abdomen. Then ease yourself half upright using your ‘behind’ if you’ll pardon the expression as a pivot. What happens to the location of your hands? Which part of the anatomy can now be reached/covered? Now imagine a body placed into a sagging linen sling/stretcher with folded hands. Which part of the anatomy can likewise be reached, indeed covered over? Yes, the key word is “sagging”!
Sagging-under-own-weight is, after all , a common everyday phenomenon. It ain’t rocket science!:
Afterthought: the above configuration with head at highest elevation might also explain why the head HAIR of the Man on the TS body image hangs lank and straight, as if the head were vertical, or nearly so.
Nope, I suggest it is nothing to do with rigor mortis on the cross, as previously proclaimed, subsequently captured and preserved in the TS image. Or am I missing something? Do please let me know folks if you think I’m over-simplifying, cutting corners, seeking easy answers etc etc! We scientists (retired ones included) try to avoid acquiring those labels, preferring to focus on the hard evidence, i.e. capable of being tested, at least in principle by way of hands-on modelling!
Feel free to discuss here, or elsewhere (e.g. Skeptics and Seekers).
Update: Sun, April 26
Cast your mind back, folks to the plethora of claims, counterclaims, brainwaves, “simple” answers, blindingly obvious conclusions bla bla that have been made for the TS over the years, decades and centuries. Notice anything? There are invariably some missing words at the end, 7 to be precise, all simple and monosyllabic. And what might they be, you might ask?
“SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?”
In other words, there’s rarely if ever a declaration of intent to submit those “breakthrough ideas” to further testing, to see whether or not they stand up to closer scrutiny, to consider alternative explanations etc etc.
It’s saddening, indeed infuriating, to see the allegedly scientific method abused in this manner, treated as if a finger buffet from which one can pick and choose which titbits to sample, which to ignore and leave behind. Nope, science is not an exercise in light nibbling. Science is a multi-course sit-down meal, with specialist cutlery and condiments, ideally with appropriately-qualified back-up staff (chefs, waiters etc).
Science is a FORMAL DISCIPLINE!
(To those who say that science is too “empirical” to qualify as a formal discipline, I say: think one step beyond the preliminary empirical (hypothesising) stage. Think forward to the compulsory second step, namely subjecting any and all new hypotheses to OBLIGATORY , hard unforgiving experimental test!)
UPDATE: Mon April 27:
There’s a host of other seemingly minor detail that is hard to explain in terms of an imprint left by a body (whether real or MODELLED) that simply laid out on a hard linen-covered slab, but which CAN be explained if the body is slung for prior cross-to-tomb transport on linen supported by front and rear porters, with the posterior aka buttocks the lowest point.
I don’t intend to dwell in detail on the specifics right now, except to say this:
The “slung” model can account for:
(a) the so-called “blood belt” in the small of the back (clue: think additional weight-supporting cross-band that was grasped at each end by two more porters, making 4 porters in all!).
It can account for:
(b) the differential imaging of the feet (soles rather than topsides)
It can account for:
(c) the prominent chin crease, subject of a posting I did way back in 2012
and, probably (albeit more tentatively):
(d) more besides.
Further update: Here btw is the latest comment on the S&S site (no.73) from David Johnson, with a brief reference to me and this 8-years old site. Thanks David!
Posted by site owner David Johnson, Aprii 26, 2020
Seems my thinking still fails to set the world of sindonology on fire! Never mind! Science is first and foremost about establishing the facts… Razzmatazz comes later…
Speaking of razzmatazz, anyone wondering why the Shroud of Turin is trumpeted as if authentic, as if a matter of fact, could do a lot worse than Google (shroud of turin) as I did, just an hour ago (2pm, April 24, UK time). What does one see, in 2nd line entry, immediately after wiki? Answer: as ever: the shroud.com entry, penned by the redoubtable Barrie M Schwortz, President of STERA (“Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association). Now go to his current Facebook entry – updated a few hours ago – and what do you see?
Here are two screens shots of what you see – separated into two overlapping halves for ease of reading.
Top half: (my highlighting in RED)
Yes, 17 comments no less within 18 hours of posting. How come?
Now look at what’s immediately underneath:
Note the key words that explain why one may not be seeing all “17 comments”:
“Most relevant” is selected, “so some replies may have been filtered”
Anyone wishing to understand the true nature of so-called “sindonology” these last 40 years, attempting to make out that “authenticity” is a given, could do a lot worse than study the above update from the President of the Shroud (so-called) “Education” and (so-called) “Research” Association”.
What we see is blatant manipulation of the media, the internet especially. I shall say no more for now, this being a posting in which money comes OUT of my own pocket, £100 to be precise, not flooding IN as it does year after year, to STERA , having set itself up as a “non-profit making charitable society”.
That’s quite a gold mine your STERA has created for itself there, eh , Mr. Barrie M. Schwortz, STURP’s Documenting (non-scientific) Photographer.
Oh my, has STERA been coining it over the years, constantly flogging its pseudo-scientific pro-authenticity message, while posing as an organization allegedly interested” purely in “education” and “research”.
Your STERA is (in my long-considered) view a disgrace to modern-day civilization, Mr. Barrie M.Schwortz. I say it’s time your STERA closed up shop, and let science (real science) get a look-in.
Google please note – you too need to clean up your act where the Shroud and your search rankings are concerned. Put Mr. Schwortz’s shroud.com on Page 20, not Page 1 of your Shroud of Turin rankings! Facebook? Delete STERA ‘s shop window completely!
PS: my wife says that I’ve omitted an important question: how is STERA’s annual income being spent on “education” and “research” ? Over to you, STERA President?
Update: Thur April 30
Still just the one entry, and one more expected. Never mind. Nothing ventured, nothing gained! Maybe there are several more in the course of preparation, which will only be submitted at the very last minute – just short of the deadline – Sat May 16 – we shall see!)
Have just tried composing my own Summary. It’s not easy – being restricted to 200 words. But it does mean that one has to focus on the ESSENTIALS! (Rest assured my own Summary will stay under wraps for the foreseeable future).
Update, Tue May 5
Just a week and a half till the deadline for entries, and still just the one entry, with another possibly on the way.
Lost for ideas? One could do a lot worse than read John Heller’s “Report on the Shroud of Turin” (book published in 1983 by STURP team member). I would simply say this: there’s a particular paragraph that runs over onto a second page, just 277 words in length. If I had to summarise the pros and cons of the 1978 STURP Project in just a few sentences, I would focus almost entirely on that particular paragraph! It kinda says it all! Nuff said (for now at any rate).
Update: Thur May 7:
Alternative meaning for “STURP” (from close reading of John Heller’s book):
S (trampled underfoot ruthlessly) P.
Anyone care to guess what the “S” and “P” stand for? 😉
Update Sat May 9
Just one week till deadline (midnight, UK time, Sat May 16!)
While on the subject of initials, and what they do (or do not stand for) there’s Barrie Schwortz’s STERA (self–styled “Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association”)
How about this as a tongue-in-cheek dose of reality?
Snapshot-Taker Embellishing Evangelizing Effervescing Emanating Exuding Expropriates Ennobling Entrenching Enthroning E??????? Relic Authenticity
Apols: it may take me a little while to decide on the optimal E word for Barrie Schwortz’s individual, indeed unique take on the Shroud of Turin,. It’s one which he proselytizes year in, year out, decade after wearisome decade via his extensive, annual STERA-subsidized globe-trotting, minimally-reported in dribs and drabs on his egocentric website outlet (to say nothing of periodic excursions into social and mass media via Facebook etc). Sorry, Mr.Schwortz. This dyed-in-the-wool scientist does not care for your style, least of all your carelessness with the scientific facts.and.or failure to report fairly and squarely on new findings, both mine and others. Oh, and stop dismissively labelling experimental Shroud-modeller Luigi Garlaschelli as an “atheist”. He is first and foremost a University-based Professor of Organic Chemistry. It’s time you started to show proper respect for professional expertise.
Speaking of Garlaschelli, I see from re-reading his 2018 paper with Borrini that he too has proposed a near-identical reason to my own (see earlier) re the crossed hands:
Screen shot from the Borrini and Garlaschelli paper
The authors refer merely to a body that was ” supine and flexed ” simultaneously, with no reference to being slung across the length J of A’s sagging linen (indeed, lying on a flat surface instead – albeit with head raised, allowing hands to extend to and cross over groin region). Never mind the difference in explanation: we are both of us agreed on that need for the raised head with any and or attendant effects on torso, regardless of reason. Skeptics and Seekers please note (sadly still no new comments on that site, indeed some further mysterious unexplained deletions!). Come on, S&S – do please sharpen up your act!
Update: Mon May 11
Just in case folk think I’m unfairly singling out a particular individual for criticism, here’s my list of (a) ‘heroes’ and (b)’villains’ where Shroud SCIENCE is concerned. ( I use the two terms figuratively, natch)
‘Heroes’ :
(1) Thibault Heimburger
(2) Sam Pellicori
(3) Luigi Garlaschelli
(4) Emily Craig
(5) David Goulet
(6) Dan Porter (with reservations)
(7) Hugh Farey (with reservations)
‘Villains’ :
(1) Barrie Schwortz
(2) David Rolfe
(3) Stephen Jones
(4) Robert Bucklin
(5) Giulio Fanti (with reservations)
(6) John Heller (& his personal recruit, Alan Adler) with reservations
(7) John Jackson (with reservations).
Excuse me for reserving the right to add others to this preliminary listing.
Update: Tue May 12
Just 4 full days to deadline (tomorrow (i.e. Wed), then Thur, then Fri, then Sat). Doesn’t time fly?
Am occupying my mind right now, wondering what I would have done had the continuation of STURP into the late 20th/early 21st century been in my hands. That’s as distinct from its peripheral (?) Documenting Photographer. No. let’s focus instead on its much downplayed Optics/Spectroscopy/Image Analysis specialist instead, the one who flagged up direct body-imprinting via physical contact. (Yes, I refer to the gifted Sam Pellicori, dismissed in a late paragraph of the (scientifically) dubious John Heller).
What would I have called the successor to STURP (certainly not Barrie Schwortz’s arrogant, overweening dare one say ego-promoting “STERA” with him as President no less!).
Am thinking about it. Kindly watch this space, correction, this tail-end to an overlong posting!
…
Have quickly arrived at an admittedly first draft of what I (personally) would have called “STERA”, had I been one of the truly science-based 40 or so members of STURP , notably the inspired Sam Pellicori. Yes, wishing to extend, albeit tentatively, STURP’s enquiry, post 1978, without, I hasten to add, any attachment or affiliation to one or other religious sect (far less its ego-promoting, mere snapshot-taking non-scientific Documenting Photographer!):
I would have called it (nope, not STERA) but, guess what, SENSE?
Yes, a different acronym. Why? Meaning of SENSE ? Answer:
Scientific Exploration Negates Shroud Ecclesiasticism”
(Definition of “Ecclesiasticism“ (online): “EXAGGERATED attachment to the practices and principles of the Christian Church”.
Update Friday May 15
Here’s the SECOND entry to arrive for the Prize Compo, just one day short of tomorrow’s deadline. Sat May 16, midnight). I’m keeping the contributor’s name confidential for now, given it arrived by email, as distinct from Comments:
The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth preserve in the Cathedral of Turin, Italy. Two body images and reddish blood-like stains suggest that Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped in it after Crucifixion, and that both body and wounds left imprints. However, experiments suggest that, if they were indeed imprints, body or cloth must have been in a different position when the body images formed than they were during formation of the blood traces. The body image is made up by darkened linen fibres; thorough examination of the Shroud in 1978 identified no distinct traces of paint. It was found that the colour can be dissolved using diimide. This suggests the dark colour being due to conjugated double bonds in the linen structure, formed either thermally or chemically. A radiocarbon test in 1988 dated the Shroud to 1260–1390, which coincides with the first documented appearance of the Shroud in Lirey, France, in the 1350s. But this did not shut the debate – even as a 14th century artefact, the Shroud would be rather unique, and to be highly venerated, there was no need for a relic to bear particular features like a body image at the time. The mystery continues.
I add the references (which should not count in the 200 word limit):Blood trace and body positioning:
Matteo Borrini & Luigi Garlaschelli, A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin, J Forensic Sci, January 2019, Vol. 64, No. 1, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.138671978 investigation, especially diimide:J. H. Heller and A. D. Adler, “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 14 (1981), pp.81-103.Rogers, Raymond & Arnoldi, Anna. (2002). Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237460281_SCIENTIFIC_METHOD_APPLIED_TO_THE_SHROUD_OF_TURIN_A_REVIEWRadiocarbon Dating:Damon, P. E.; Donahue, D. J.; Gore, B. H.; Hatheway, A. L.; Jull, A. J. T.; Linick, T. W.; Sercel, P. J.; Toolin, L. J.; Bronk, C. R.; Hall, E. T.; Hedges, R. E. M.; Housley, R.; Law, I. A.; Perry, C.; Bonani, G.; Trumbore, S.; Woelfli, W.; Ambers, J. C.; Bowman, S. G. E.; Leese, M. N.; Tite, M. S. (1989), Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature. 337 (6208): 611–5. https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03rUniqueness of the Shroud if it was medieval:Hugh Farey (2018), The Medieval Shroud: The beginning of an exploration into its Purpose, Process and Provenance. https://www.academia.edu/35960624/THE_MEDIEVAL_SHROUDKind regards,
Thanks, contributor. To others reading this I say: do please keep those entries coming, folks, albeit just 36 hours short of final deadline! CB 11:09 am, Fri May 15
Update, Sat May 16, 2020
It will shortly be midday, here in the UK. Final reminder: there’s just 12 hours remaining for you to submit your 200 word Summary of the Shroud, i.e. by midnight tonight. Sorry, but late entries will not be accepted!
Update Sun May 17 (am)
Copy of email sent to my wife:
“There were two submissions for my Prize compo, neither of which I have shown you thus far.:
Here first, shown in red, are the conditions I laid down:
… there’s a strict word limit – a mere 200 maximum!
One small condition: there has to be at least one scientific observation (no, not, repeat NOT pseudo-scientific) preferably one that prompts further enlightening comment or debate, here or elsewhere in the coming days and weeks.
Deadline for submissions: 1 month’s time (Saturday May 16 2020).
The overall take-away message can be either pro- or anti-authenticity.
Judge? No, not me (Colin Berry, Shroud researcher of some 8 years standing, creator of my final Model 10) but my intelligent wife these last 50 years come July!
She will be given your submissions blind, i.e. with no names attached, and without my own prior opinion on them (but I’ll be on hand to supply answers to any questions she might raise: those answers may or may not betray my own thoughts on key issues)
Please use the Comments facility to submit your entry, or email me with your answer on sciencebod01 (at) aol dot com. Use a pseudonym if you wish, but real identity preferred.
PS : (Afterthought, added April 17).
If the 200 word limit gives problems, then here’s a word of advice: you won’t be penalized for focusing on the “unknowns”. In other words, don’t feel that the submission has to be complete in all respects (like known historical background, like the dimensions of the linen etc etc). It’s the input of crucial detail and your interpretation thereof that is being invited.
Entry 1.
“The Shroud of Turin is one of the world’s most remarkable mysteries to date, its photo negative “3-Dimensional” superficial images that display the full length frontal and dorsal images of a man apparently scourged and crucified, continue to baffle modern scientists as they scramble to provide an explanation of just how such images may have been formed.
The bloodstains on the Shroud resemble the wounds that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was privy to in the Passion accounts of the Gospels. At the time of image formation, the Shroud Man’s body appears rigid as if in rigour mortis and there are no signs of decomposition present on the Shroud cloth indicating that the images were formed and the Shroud Man’s body removed from the cloth within days of his death.
So far, no naturalistic or artistic explanation has been able to fully account for all the image’s physical and chemical characteristics and what we do know of these incredible images seems to fulfill Dembski’s notion of “specified complexity” thus allowing for one to make a reasonable inference to their being intelligent designed. Given the “religio-historical” context of the images’ relation to Jesus, that designer must be God Himself!”
########################
Entry 2.
The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth preserve in the Cathedral of Turin, Italy. Two body images and reddish blood-like stains suggest that Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped in it after Crucifixion, and that both body and wounds left imprints. However, experiments suggest that, if they were indeed imprints, body or cloth must have been in a different position when the body images formed than they were during formation of the blood traces. The body image is made up by darkened linen fibres; thorough examination of the Shroud in 1978 identified no distinct traces of paint. It was found that the colour can be dissolved using diimide. This suggests the dark colour being due to conjugated double bonds in the linen structure, formed either thermally or chemically. A radiocarbon test in 1988 dated the Shroud to 1260–1390, which coincides with the first documented appearance of the Shroud in Lirey, France, in the 1350s. But this did not shut the debate – even as a 14th century artefact, the Shroud would be rather unique, and to be highly venerated, there was no need for a relic to bear particular features like a body image at the time. The mystery continues.
The contributor of Entry 2 has appended the following (my bolding of sub-section headings)
“I add the references (which should not count in the 200 word limit):
Blood trace and body positioning:
Matteo Borrini & Luigi Garlaschelli, A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin, J Forensic Sci, January 2019, Vol. 64, No. 1, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.13867
1978 investigation, especially diimide:
J. H. Heller and A. D. Adler, “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 14 (1981), pp.81-103.
Rogers, Raymond & Arnoldi, Anna. (2002). Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237460281_SCIENTIFIC_METHOD_APPLIED_TO_THE_SHROUD_OF_TURIN_A_REVIEW
Radiocarbon Dating
:Damon, P. E.; Donahue, D. J.; Gore, B. H.; Hatheway, A. L.; Jull, A. J. T.; Linick, T. W.; Sercel, P. J.; Toolin, L. J.; Bronk, C. R.; Hall, E. T.; Hedges, R. E. M.; Housley, R.; Law, I. A.; Perry, C.; Bonani, G.; Trumbore, S.; Woelfli, W.; Ambers, J. C.; Bowman, S. G. E.; Leese, M. N.; Tite, M. S. (1989), Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature. 337 (6208): 611–5. https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03r
Uniqueness of the Shroud if it was medieval:
Hugh Farey (2018), The Medieval Shroud: The beginning of an exploration into its Purpose, Process and Provenance. https://www.academia.edu/35960624/THE_MEDIEVAL_SHROUD
###############################
Please let me know, some time today if possible, which of the two entries should win the £100 prize. Feel free to add a few comments if you wish, whether praise or criticism. Only seek my opinion as a last resort, and then preferably on matters of fact, notably scientific fact, as distinct from my own somewhat coloured opinions.
###########################
Update: Mon May 18
We have a winner! It’s Dr.Ulf Winkler (I’ll supply biographical details later. Suffice it to say he’s no stranger to Shroud research, having co-authored a conference paper with Prof. Giulio Fanti way back in 1998).
I’ll post the judge’s comments (from my wife) later in the day. Yes, the winner was her considered choice, not mine!
17:45, May 18
Here’s my wife’s observations on each of the two entries:
“Both entries were interesting in their different ways, but I have chosen Entry 2 as the winner, even though I cannot agree that “there was no need for a relic to bear particular features … at the time.”
As regards Entry 1, my belief is that, although I would have been very happy for the carbon dating tests to have shown a first century AD origin, the Almighty created very gifted people who carried out these tests and I see no reason to doubt their findings.”
Congrats to Ulf Winkler In Germany. £100 (or the euro equivalent if he prefers) will be winging its way to him soon. My commiserations to realseekerministry. (You win some, you lose some).
Postscript: May 26
Have been wondering what to do by way of a follow-up posting to this one.
I usually ignore anything that Stephen Jones says on his head-bashing pro-authenticity site. But it’s hard to ignore the appearance, yet again, of the Shroud’s negative (tone-reversed) image as evidence of photography itself, i.e. miraculous proto-photography, i.e. 1st century era Resurrectional photography.
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2020/05/problems-of-forgery-theory-z-evidence.html
The term that springs to mind is “black comedy”! Don’t be surprised if “black comedy” appears in the title of my next posting. Don’t be surprised if accompanied by negative (tone-reversed) imprints reported some 18 months ago are given prominent status in the posting.
Why? Because they were obtained by contact imprinting of my own hand using, wait for it, powdered BLACK charcoal (cue BLACK COMEDY!!!!). Photography (secondary photography that is ) was used merely as a means of conveying my charcoal imprints, viewed directly through my own eyes, to others on the internet living scores – maybe hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Yes, it’s time someone blew the whistle on the ludicrous misrepresentation of “tone reversal” (i.e. negative image) making it out to be, as Jones maintains – an exclusive pointer to “photography”, i.e imaging across air gaps, as distinct from imprinting merely by contact.
Imprinting via direct contact to get a negative tone-reversed image was a fact of life long before the appearance of 19th century photography (the latter allowing for the first time imaging across air gaps onto a light-receptive photosensitive emulsion).
One had merely to walk across a white tiled floor with muddy footprints in the first century AD (or historically before and after) to create a negative (tone-reversed) image!
###########
Appendix (see Comments):
https://poetrypoem.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?sitename=tamaraberyllathamthepoet&item=home
https://poetrypoem.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?sitename=tamaraberyllathamthepoet&item=home
…
My answer to the steeped-in-mystique Turin Shroud - evolving gradually from some 10 years of science-based experimental modelling. 
I did briefly consider flagging up what I consider the worst instances of ‘pseudo-science’. But I then thought better of it. Why?
Well, first I’ve spelled out the glaring examples on this site and elsewhere on and off for the best part of 8 years, so don’t want to keep banging the same drum.
But there’s a second reason: I don’t wish to influence in any way the submissions that I hopefully get in response to this posting, not wishing to cramp folks’ style at the outset .
Whether my wife gets irked or not by any appearances/reappearances of what I consider pseudo-science, blatant or otherwise, is entirely up to her. She knows my views on most of the worst instances (of which I quickly listed 10 already in a hastily scribbled summary this morning, albeit kept to myself…).
But as indicated already, I’m delegating the adjudication to someone other than myself, and it’s for her to have both initial and final say. My interest right now is in what appears spontaneously from the blogosphere or elsewhere, without provocation, and least of all with any kind of prompting or guidance on my part!
So it’s over to you folks. Do please take the time to communicate your current thinking as regards the Shroud. But please (a final word of advice): don’t crank the same old pseudo-science handle and expect to pocket £100 …
This is a good (and generous) idea i think Collin 🙂 Hat’s off to you and your wife. I think i will enter :p How many, roughly, have entered so far may i ask ? I hope you and your own are keeping well during these strange times. Regards.
Good to hear from you again Lee. Thanks for the appreciative comment.
There have been several hits recorded by WordPress stats on this my latest posting (now 2 days old) but yours is the first to flag up an entry.. Splendid. Let’s hope you have started something!
I look forward to reading your submission in due course.
Entries will of course be published as and when they arrive, since the aim of the contest is to stimulate new and informed debate on the Shroud. But beware Lee: you’re only allowed one entry, so take your time with the composing!
PS: I realize the downside of publishing entries as soon as they are received (read: plagiarism with later subsequent entries). Rest assured that I will be on the look out for plagiarism – and, more to the point, so will Mrs.Berry (she assures me!).
Was looking forward to reading your submission, Lee, in the 200 word summary prize compo. But nothing arrived by midnight (yesterday) the deadline for entries. I hope it wasn’t anything I said in my comment above, or on the posting itself, that made you change your mind. Do let me know if that was the case…
Hey Colin, sorry i have been very busy, i did intend on entering your competition but i have had to sort a few personal issues out over the last month or so, so it was nothing that you had said lol, nothing you said was even remotely offensive to be honest matey. I will write a short piece if you want and send it over, just because you said that you were looking forwards to reading my submission 🙂 Warm regards, Lee
Sorry to hear that real life intruded, Lee, diverting you from more pressing concerns.
Yes, I, and no doubt others, will be interested to hear what your 200 word summary
would have said – had real life briefly kept a respectful distance.,
Feel free to submit here as a better-late-than-never comment.
Colin,
This is Dale from the old S&S. I hope that you have been keeping safe and healthy in these times. Just wanted to say thank you on behalf of David, Hugh and Teddi for advertising their new show on your website and I am glad that you enjoy the new site. I’m sorry to hear that you were not a fan of the old site as I did put a lot of time and effort into providing quality substantive shows for people.
I know that part of that bad experience was indeed my fault for some of the heated exchanges that happened in those comments and so I do apologize for my role in bringing that about. That said, at the end of the day, I’m interested in sharing truth and knowledge about God and the Shroud with people, all people. On that front, you may or may not be interested to know that I did make sure to give your theory/experimental research mention on my new Shroud Wars debate between Hugh Farey and Mark Antonacci where they give their take on it here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cPd0a_oLCY
Or blog with sources from the guests for people here = https://realseekerministries.wordpress.com/2020/04/19/shroud-wars-debate-round-5-mark-antonacci-pro-shroud-vs-hugh-farey-shroud-skeptic-teddi-pappas-as-cross-examiner/
Take care,
Dale
Thanks Dale. Rest assured I shall be reading your latest internet debate with interest. Forgive me if I refrain from passing comment (positive or possibly negative) at least until after the deadline – May 16 – has passed for entries to my Prize Competition. For me at any rate, it has to be ‘one thing at a time’
Take care now, you and all your fellow commentators. I for my part am retreating into my scientific shell for the next month or so. I’ll report shortly on the day-to-day stats to the current posting (i.e. total daily site “hits” from wherever, together with specific log-ins to the current Prize-entry posting)..
Thus far, I’ve received just the one ‘statement of intent’ to submit an entry. Hopefully there will be more (but rest assured: a single entry would receive the prize, whether carefully-considered 5 star or, perish the thought, a rush job 1 star!).
That great, thanks Colin as obviously at the end of the day, I think we all just want to know the truth as best we can about the Shroud and that is what really matters at the end of the day 🙂
No worries on the comment thing, happy for you to focus on your research as that is more important anyways.
As to your challenge, I wasn’t planning to do so, but given that you’ve only had one person take you up on it, I will take a stab (but feel free to keep the 100 pounds and donate it to a charity of your choosing in my name (if I win).
Shroud summary proposal;
“The Shroud of Turin is one of the world’s most remarkable mysteries to date, its photo negative “3-Dimensional” superficial images that display the full length frontal and dorsal images of a man apparently scourged and crucified, continue to baffle modern scientists as they scramble to provide an explanation of just how such images may have been formed.
The bloodstains on the Shroud resemble the wounds that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was privy to in the Passion accounts of the Gospels. At the time of image formation, the Shroud Man’s body appears rigid as if in rigour mortis and there are no signs of decomposition present on the Shroud cloth indicating that the images were formed and the Shroud Man’s body removed from the cloth within days of his death.
So far, no naturalistic or artistic explanation has been able to fully account for all the image’s physical and chemical characteristics and what we do know of these incredible images seems to fulfill Dembski’s notion of “specified complexity” thus allowing for one to make a reasonable inference to their being intelligent designed. Given the “religio-historical” context of the images’ relation to Jesus, that designer must be God Himself!”
P.S.- Note that was 199 words 🙂
Thanks Dale. I’ve copied and pasted your entry to the main body of the posting (anonymously in that location only, so as to render first readings ID-free, at least for now). Just say if you’d prefer me to edit/delete your entry from this Comments section, if desiring total anonymity pending adjudication. If I don’t hear back, I’ll assume you’re happy for things to stay as they are. TTFN.
There was no reply button your comment Colin, so yeah just say I’m happy for you to leave it up and do whatever you wish, feel free to put my ID or leave it off, I’m happy to go with what works best for you there 🙂
Take care,
Dale
WordPress gradually tapers off/squeezes out responses to a lead comment. Exceed WordPress’s comment-limit and you re-emerge, re-born, re-invented as if starting a new thread.
Bless ’em… 😉
Oh OK, gotcha yeah I’m not an IT guy so didn’t know that. Thanks for explaining that 🙂
Yet again, Dale, the recently revamped Skeptics and Seekers site is proving to be a bit of a disappointment. Your comment, the one addressed to me, has been deleted without a word of explanation as to why, or as to who decided on deletion.
https://skepticsandseekers.squarespace.com/shroud/shroud-wars-reboot-teddi-vs-hugh
(Was it your good self, by any chance, and if so why?)
There’s also been an abrupt halt to the posting of further comments (currently stalled on 75, down from the previous 76).
Hardly, if I might say, the kind of internet “presence” and/or continuity that invites/encourages return visits. . 😦
Hey Colin, I’m sorry you are disappointed in the new site, again that has nothing to do with me as I’m not a host on S&S anymore, so if you are unable to post on the Shroud page just email David and I’m sure he will fix that up for you- I know that I was being spammed initially when I posted my first two comments on there. But yeah, it’s not me that is preventing you from commenting there.
As to the deletions of some my own comments, I sometimes do that for my own reasons, it had nothing to do with you, as far as I know we are good. I deleted some of my own comments as I posted them up for an immediate purpose (though I’m glad that you saw it yourself) and I felt it was best to take them down so as to not distract from the substantive debate of Hugh vs. Teddi and/or Shroud information which is why people are there (hopefully). But yeah, sorry not sure if you are upset over so-called “dirty deleting”, but I’ve never bought into that rule myself as I think people are allowed to do what they want with their own comments. But yeah, nothing to do with you there, we’re good 🙂
Thanking you for taking the trouble to reply Dale (5.04pm).
There’s not a lot I wish to say, except this. Knowing when to withdraw from a supposedly serious internet website (especially one that attempts to function simultaneously as if a branch of social media) is in my view as important – if not more so, in fact – than knowing when to engage in the first instance. Some things are arguably best kept separate – there being a time and a place for everything – especially one that doesn’t leave mysterious unexplained gaps in the discourse!
Thanks anyway you for your submission – the first to arrive. Let’s now wait and see what my adjudicating wife has to say in 3 weeks time when all the entries are in. Till then – farewell and take care.
OK thank you for your take on that issue, I will take it under advisement. I look forward to coming back in a few weeks to see who the winner is 🙂
Change of plan regarding the subject of the next posting. Email conversations have caused me to focus on what I now consider to be the crucial and relevant feature where experimental modelling of Shroud body image is concerned. (I’m thinking in particular of the emphatic claim made back in 2010 by Prof Giulio Fanti and fellow SSG members that the body image is not only superficial at the fabric and thread level, but at that of the individual fibre too – being confined we’re told to the outer most PCW (primary cell wall), a mere 200nm thick. (That’s about 1/700th of the thickness of the page of a book!).
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ist/jist/2010/00000054/00000004/art00001?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf
Tomorrow I shall start a new line of research operating with individual linen FIBRES. They will be removed from linen threads by appropriate means, placed on a glass slide, and a drop of diluted ink carefully placed alongside but not actually touching. The point of a needle will then be gently deployed to get the ink into direct LATERAL contact with the fibre. I’m not expecting to see much in the way of ink migration along the length of the fibre. But what I shall be looking for is evidence that ink can migrate into the interior of the fibre, i.e. the SCW (secondary cell wall) probably via capillary channels that exist between microfibrils that make up the core of the SCW.
No, it’s not the easiest of systems to investigate, dealing with material at or close to the microscopic level, but let’s see how we get on. Anything of interest will be reported as the next posting on this blog site (NOT in the so-called peer-reviewed literature – I’ll spare you my reasons for not bothering with it, except to say I’ve long considered it largely unfit for purpose where the reporting of new unconventional approaches are concerned, i.e. blazing new trails!).
It’s proved relatively easy – if somewhat fiddly – to separate individual fibres from linen threads.
Yes, they are a decent length – 2cm and more – which means they can deposited on a glass slide next to a puddle of coloured ink or similar, and by careful poking with a needle, the ink brought in direct physical contact with the fibre via its side ( no, not cut or broken ends)/
As predicted earlier – see previous comment – there’s no obvious migration along the fibre.
But how much penetration of ink can occur directly and radially across the PCW into the SCW? It’s now a case of fishing the fibres out of their puddles of ink and looking for evidence of ink crossing the PCW into the SCW. Yes, look at FIBRE CROSS-SECTIONS!
That’s tomorrow’s experiment – the clincher one might say – one that puts the notion of “image superficiality confined to the PCW” to a much needed critical and necessary long overdue test.
OK, so it’s simply ink etc that’s being used right now as a model for TS image chromophore. See my Model 10 (flour imprinting. Maillard product chromophores) that I’m now attempting to model with simpler dye colourings.
I say that the Turin Shroud should be regarded (scientifically) as an ingenious 14th century “icon”, maybe (maybe not) posing as a genuine 1st century “relic”. (Probably not in the first instance, pre death of G.de Charny in battle , but let’s move on).
Let’s see what results appear tomorrow, via nuts-and-bolts modelling with simple fibre-penetrating chromophores
OK, I’ve done those crucial starter experiments with ink penetration into isolated or bunched linen fibres (flagged up in my last comment, posted here 3 days ago).
Yes, I achieved the predicted results, based on the hunch that the inner SCW (secondary cell wall) of linen fibres could (and indeed) would act like a sponge towards external agents, applied to linen fibres from the outside. The PCW is no barrier to penetration of outside agents across the PCW into the SCW!
I’ll post preliminary results tomorrow.I hope to post preliminary results some time in the next few days, a week or two at the most. No, they are not technically perfect, but fine-tuning can I venture to suggest wait for another day.What matters right now are:
(a) establishing basic scientific principles
(b) evaluation of existing models of linen fibres, notably the 2010 Fanti et al claim that the body image on the Shroud of Turin.is highly-superficial, confined to the PCW alone, with absolutely no SCW penetration whatsoever
(c) my recommended directions for future research – including the testing of this long-retired scientist’s ideas and preliminary results by modern-day professionals in their much better-equipped laboratories.
(My 3 microscopes and cameras have done sterling service – but they do have their limitations!)..
Why shouldn’t the internet, blog sites especially, serve as a catalyst for triggering new research directions, especially when existing ideas have painted research into a largely inescapable corner..
Colin Berry
PS: here’s a heavily edited copy of a recent communication I had with someone regarding my current line of experimentation with ink penetration across the PCW of linen fibres into the SCW. I’ve omitted all non-essential observations:
Hello xxx
(Deleted introduction)
… I’ve already flagged up numerous objections to the 2010 Fanti/SSG paper.
The chief ones are as follows:
1. There was no cross-section of a image fibre to support the claim re the image being on the PCW only. Evidence for the latter was almost non-existent, based almost entirely – indeed exclusively – on failing to see colour through the side of a single damaged fibre.
2. There was not a single mention the internal complexity of the SCW – “Microfibrils” failed to get a single mention. The SCW was treated as if a core of solid cellulose, so the possibility that it might have a sponge-like capacity to soak up and store external agents, whether image chromophore OR my simple ink, applied externally, failed to get a look-in.
(Deleted sentence)
3. An attempt was made to seek support from 3 other (deceased) Shroud modellers – Rogers with his “impurity layer” and Heller/Adler with their crazy modelling with conc. sulphuric acid to get chemically-resistant cellulose to turn yellow or brown. What we have in the final analysis is a mishmash of Fanti, SSG, Rogers, Heller/Adler.
(Deleted passage)
4. Image fibres are mechanically-weaker than non-image fibres, breaking across their entire width more easily when Rogers applied his sticky tape. Why should modification of an exceedingly thin outer PCW coat weaken the entire fibre, 50 times or more thicker? That demands an explanation – none was forthcoming or even attempted.
I shall continue to collect data from ink penetration experiments, considering them to be relevant, revealing the true nature of the SCW as a sponge-like interior. Not only does the SCW store external agents, it can also conceal them, whether due to penetration into the microscopic channels between microfibrils, or due to the reflectivity of the outer PCW or maybe both simultaneously.
(Deleted sentence)
So expect another posting on my 8 years old specialist Shroud site at some point in the not-too-distant future. I shall take my time, trying to get decent (reasonably sharp) microscopic pictures of ink that has penetrated across the PCW to enter the SCW as an experimental model, crude or otherwise, for image imprinting onto linen, especially via my Model 10 (flour/heat enabled) to generate a Maillard end-product, albeit via a different mechanism for Rogers’. I maintain my Model 10 mechanism to have been fully realizable in the mid-14th century. It proposes a fibre-penetrating role for liquid, even if making a temporary appearance at the heating stage. It would account for:
5. The particulate nature of the image chromophore claimed by McCrone’s microscopy, with theoretical assistance from:
6. Adler’s ingenious “khaki” mechanism whereby liquids that cross permeability barriers can then solidify, becoming preserved in situ as trapped micro-particles unable the to return whence they came). McCrone claimed the particles to be artist’s iron oxide pigment. I say they were high molecular weight Maillard end-products of amino-sugar reactions as first proposed by Rogers.
Regards
Colin
Oh dear. It’s not as simple as I first imagined (I use the term “simple” loosely, given one is dealing with that highly elusive Shroud body image, modelled with my flour imprinting procedure – whether a truly accurate imitation or not).
So what’s causing a major rethink? I’ll hold off giving a full (and possibly premature interpretation of current research findings) just yet!
Suffice it to say that the focus of my previous thinking was on the SCW, as a counter to the notion that the body image was exclusively located on that mere 200nm thick PCW.
There is now an additional factor to consider, based on what I’m now seeing with current experimentation at the individual fibre level. There’s another place to consider that could accommodate/store/conceal/hide some (but probably not all) body image chromophore, namely the capillary channels that exist between linen fibres.
Why might they be important? I can give experimental evidence for the existence of those capillary channels based on the remarkable speed with which diluted ink and other soluble pigments can migrate up or along linen multi-fibre threads (pre-imprinting I hasten to add – stand by dear readers for some new eye-opening data!). So what are those mysterious fluid- absorbing capillary channels doing there? Are they natural to natural, pre-processed flax fibres and their bunching within the plant stems? Or are they an artefact of flax-processing to make linen?
I try to keep an open mind on that score, but for the moment, here’s an observation. A crucial step in linen production is the so-called “retting” process. It uses natural microrganisms to break the glue/cement that exists between flax fibres. The chemical nature of that cement? Answer: natural pectins. Retting used nature’s pectinase enzymes to break down that cement, to free the fibres from their locked-together association with adjacent fibres, creating a more flexible assembly. Linen threads have greater internal give if/when uncemented rigidly to their neighbours. .
But what is left behind if one breaks down the cement between flax fibres, preserving the fibres in linear assembles, i.e. bunched side by side? Answer? spaces, longitudinal channels. In short, might those channels be the explanation for the rapid migration of ink etc that can occur along linen threads?
Have we overlooked a storage space for at least some of the body image chromophore? Might the physical state (and colour) of the chromophore within the inter-fibre channels be different from that of chromophore that has managed to penetrate the SCW by getting across that ultra-thin PCW (surely no physical barrier worth speaking of) ?
Might we have an explanations for Mark Evans’s “half-tone” effect, “discontinuities” etc? Might it be nothing to do with image colour WITHIN fibres. Might it be to do with image colour exterior to the the fibres, looking for all the world as is image fibres, – when in reality in narrow capillary channels between fibres, looking as if fibres? Are coloured channels between fibres, highly regular in shape, i.e. seemingly thread-like- being mistaken under the microscope for image fibres?
In conclusion, there’s still much groundwork to be done, even if it’s on my dining room table with the aid of my three light microscopes, each with its pros and cons).
So my next posting may take a little longer than originally flagged up, and may get an even rougher reception than the SCW-focused notion first presented some 18 months ago.
Science never stands still. I blame new data myself, damned new data that overturns existing assumptions, even if, I’m glad to say, not destroying one’s original models completely, merely adding additional facets and complexities. Such is Shroud research ( genuine experimentally science -based research I hasten to add!).
Yes, if I had to give one word that sums up the subtlety of the Shroud body image, it would be “retting” (nature-assisted man-made modification of flax to turn it into linen).
The combination of Phase 1 retting ( a combination of Mother Nature and human inventiveness) plus Phase 2 medieval ( contact imprinting from a probably live naked male – maybe a Lirey cleric ) accounts for the subtlety of the Shroud body image.
But I may be wrong. Science always entertains the possibility, nay probability that it may be wrong, if/when deprived of the all the essential facts. Indeed, that’s the essence of science (hypothesize, test, re-hypothesize etc etc ad finitum) .
So let’s keep seeking out those facts, despite no easy/immediate access to actual Shroud fibres on which to conduct testing of new ideas. As of now, one has to content oneself with model-building, as/when further Shroud fibre samples become available.
Could you maybe let me have a mere thread or two, Turin, spanning image v non-image areas? Does not 8 years of research by this (retired) scientist via hundreds of internet postings (always inviting criticism, unlike those peer-reviewed journals ) not warrant a tiny sample or two – scarcely noticeable,, especially if taken from the less-photogenic dorsal side? Give me a thread or two for experimentation, – testing for current ideas dear Pope- and I would then ask for no more…
After all, you esteemed Francis, you the current Pope, unlike your predecessor, describes the Shroud as a “holy Icon”, not, repeat NOT, an actual authentic 1st century relic, influenced as you are, no doubt, by the radiocarbon dating. Yes, it seems like me, and many others, you are not impressed by the attempts to dismiss the radiocarbon dating..
Colin Berry
June 18, 2020
Hi, Colin.
You may have already seen this article, but I’m including the link for your interest. You will have to use Google translate (Italian to English). Enjoy!
Article of June 19: “The Shroud, the real mystery: a corpse cannot leave its image on a cloth”
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fit.aleteia.org%2F2020%2F06%2F19%2Fsindone-mistero-impossibile-cadavere-propria-immagine%2F
Best,
Tamara Beryl Latham
Hello once more Tamara
I had a brief glance at the article.
Am trying to think of an appropriate analogy.
Imagine an Amazonian tribesman stepping out the jungle for the first time, and saying to a westernized villager: “So what are these “photographs” I’ve heard so much about?” – and being shown a Technicolor Mickey Mouse cartoon!
That account of the Shroud can be compared with a Technicolor Mickey Mouse cartoon!
Colin,
Saw your latest facial impression utilizing the contact imprint technique.
My reply : So, you’re Shroud Jesus. LOL!
Best,
Tamara Beryl Latham
Thanks for commenting on that facial imprint of myself, Tamara. But no flash of radiation was needed, just a two stage process of facial and/or whole body imprinting with white flour (see Emily Craig’s flagging up of powder-imprinting from 20 years or more ago). I can supply a link if you need or wish!).
Yes. my flour imprinting Model 10 technology, unlike simple direct Model 2 scorching, requires second stage heat-development, a bit fiddly admittedly, and indeed a final wash. But none of those steps were beyond the capability of medieval devotees of the (probably) Catholic faith, seeking to convey a message of hope to visiting pilgrims, namely that the Gospel account of J of A’s “fine linen”, deployed for transport of a crucified Saviour from cross-to-tomb – had left a memento for all time.
My latest (and FINAL!) posting, now just 2 days short of a month old – has attracted zero comments thus far. Any observations you would care to make – pro- or anti-authenticity – would be more than welcome!
Be assured of a polite and measured reply- even if I don’t concur with every word you say. Others too are welcome to comment. I still retain an open mind (or try to!) where the TS is concerned.
Colin, I will comment further on the weekend, as I have a surgical procedure tomorrow.
I still disagree with you referencing the flash of light responsible for the Shroud’s embedded image.
Did you see my final analysis on Dan Porter’s site?
Article: “No, really, why is there an image on the cloth?”
Tamara Beryl Latham says:
April 12, 2019 at 2:41 pm
https://shroudstory.com/2019/03/18/no-really-why-is-there-an-image-on-the-cloth/
Short bursts of UV radiation is really how I believe the image was formed, as detailed in the link above.
Best,
Tamara Beryl Latham
P.S. The Pagan Federation from the UK used my Holocaust poem.
Starts at 2:06 on video
Pagan Federation – Holocaust Memorial Day 2020 – YouTube
Jan 27, 2020 · Holocaust Memorial Day 2020. Words by Pagan Federation Vice Present, Sarah Kerr. Poem – The Holocaust – A Poem of Remembrance by ©Tamara Beryl Latham. Music – Avinu Malkenu by ©Barbara Streisand …
In reference to your statement, “Others too are welcome to comment. I still retain an open mind (or try to!) where the TS is concerned.”
Just remember to keep in mind the old cli·ché about catching more flies with honey than vinegar. 🙂
https://poetrypoem.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?sitename=tamaraberyllathamthepoet&item=home
Hi, Colin.
You’re flour image is impressive and you obviously spent quite a bit of time in its perfection. However, there is one sticking point.
The case you have proposed is opposite to the science attributed to the Shroud, where blood was determined to be positioned on the Shroud prior to the formation of the image itself.
With your scenario the blood would have to have been added to the flour image at a later time, because the heat process would have destroyed the blood cells. Correct or not?
See the following:
“Red blood cells are very sensitive to heat. In 1865, Max Schultze used a light microscope to see changes of blood cells at increased temperatures.”
” At elevated temperatures, the red blood cells change from the biconcave discs to the spheres with small spicules. The transformed red blood cell were called echinocyte.”
https://atlasofscience.org/heated-red-blood-cells/
This is just a humble opinion, Colin.
Best,
Tamara
Hello again Tamara
I trust your op’ went well (presumably it did or you wouldn’t be revisiting my less-then-electrifying site quite so speedily).
The blood-before-image question was one that Adler and Heller flagged up, and one that I had to get my head around while working my way systematically through a total of 10 models, no less. It was the final ones, 9 and 10, that finally provided an answer, namely an initial imprinting step, followed by second stage heating.
I’ll spare you all the thoughts that went through my mind. Here’s the final explanation.
Stage 1 – the body image (pre-blood!) imprinting step – started with a thin smear of oil over the body of a naked 14th century adult male, followed by a dusting with white flour.
Stage 2 involved adding a Phase 1 precursor of something in liquid dribbles (“Agent X”) that might look at first sight like aged blood from recent wounds (dark red or brown etc) but unlike real blood would/could withstand heat.
Stage 3 was the joint body/”blood” imprinting step (i.e. drape the treated body with linen, press down firmly to get a dual body/”blood” imprint (with “blood” making the first contact with linen, i.e. blood before body image!).
Stage 4 was the roasting step that turned the flour imprint yellow or brown, but had no effect on the appearance of Agent X (“blood”) .
Stage 5 was the final washing step with soap and water to get rid of loose encrustation, leaving just a faint negative (tone-reversed) body imprint, plus a suggestion of “blood”, correction, “aged blood” in all the right locations (scourge marks, crown of thorns, nail wounds, lance in side etc).
So what was Agent X you might ask? Until recently one could only guess as to its nature.
But we now have a clue. It’s from Professor Gerard Lucotte (a microscopist in Paris) and his colleagues. (Sorry, I don’t have a link to hand, but can supply one later). They have reported the presence of particles of red clay in one of the blood stains they examined.
Here’s my explanation, tentative though it is at present.
Initially red clay slurry, i.e. Agent X, was trickled on top of the flour-coated subject to represent blood where it was needed. Then the linen was draped over and pressed down. The blood, correction “blood” imprinted first, without flour between it and the linen.
The imprinted linen was then roasted to give a body imprint with fainter red-brown regions where “blood” was meant to be seen and correctly interpreted. Then, and only then (after the final washing step) real blood, or a close approximation thereof, was carefully painted over the red clay-imprinted stained regions.
Evidence? Minuscule admittedly at present, but in addition to explaining Lucotte’s finding, the above explanation, aka hunch, might also account for “blood” being reported by STURP and others as “much redder” than expected for aged blood . It’s the underlying red clay that makes it look “too red”.
Thanking you for your interest. I wish there were more like you – asking pertinent questions…
Colin
You’re welcome, Colin. No, I added that second comment the same day and had the surgery the next day. I was out of commission Friday afternoon, Saturday and I’m doing well today, Sunday. Thanks for your concern.
Your scenario with regard to using an oil to smear over the body would have disturbed the dirt that was located on Shroud Jesus’ nose, knee and feet. As well, the dirt contained travertine aragonite limestone, a rare form found in Jerusalem rock tombs. Remember, Jesus fell on His knee and Simon, the Cyrenian carried the crossbeam. These dirt samples on the nose, knee and feet were analyzed and found to have originated at the Damascus gate, near Golgotha.
As well if you look at the spectral data and the conclusion drawn, referencing the impossibility of an artist adding the dirt) on Stephen E. Jones’ site, you will see there was little probability of that occurring.
See the following:
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2018
Dirt #30: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
DIRT #30
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2018/12/dirt-30-other-marks-and-images-evidence.html
Polite suggestion to a current commentator: 😉
Create your own Shroudie WEBsite (but try to avoid including too many all-enveloping sticky strands, unless, that is, you’re a Shroudie spider intent on catching, entrapping and cocooning any and all passing flies!).
https://wordpress.com/create-website/
Known Shroudie spiders, with sticky-strand websites: Barrie M. Schwortz, Stephen Jones, David Rolfe to name just three.
PS: On afterthoughts, our stridently pro-authenticity “Shroudology” is not a single cobweb at all. It’s a mind-boggling multiplicity of separate but interlinked webs::
After a while, one comes to recognize each and every web, endlessly displayed and re-displayed, designed to attract and entrap the gullible – or merely over-impressionable…
Colin, you can’t just throw out a theory and not expect a reader with an opposing view to counter your argument. You speak of science, but what you are suggesting is not scientific.
If I did have my own Shroudie WEBsite I would have no alternative but to defend my theory, as you should on your website. There will be some who agree and some who don’t; yet, the author must defend his or her beliefs or give legitimate reasons for non-beliefs to those who have opposing views. It’s not personal, but “proof” works both ways. That, my friend, is science.
In order to be legitimate, either your theory or the Shroud theory must pass every single scientific test. Both theories can’t be correct and time alone will tell which one is the winner and which one the loser.
I’m now about to use a spray of white vinegar and coconut oil to release myself from the sticky web of Sir Charles, before I end up in a flour bath. 🙂
Take care!
Best,
Tamara
P.S. You don’t have to tell me how to design a website. I’ve had three that I designed since 1996. The first one’s name, “Mirror of my Soul,” was taken by Paul Diamond. It was listed on Geocities. It’s now in an archive under oocities. And now Paul Diamond doesn’t have his site anymore. What a waste of my time.
Tamara Beryl Latham – Mirror of my Soul
https://www.oocities.org/tblatham/index.html
If one of the Hollywood actors decides he/she wants to use the name “Science Buzz,” your site will confiscated too. So, I’m not wasting my time on designing any more websites.
Colin, I meant to say Neil Diamond.
Ta ta for now, Tamara. You are free to post more comments here if you wish. But don’t expect an instant reply! 😉
Colin, I never expect an instant reply from you.
I’ve been working on the Shroud sonnet for the last few days, so I’ll leave you with my first draft. Please remember the sonnet is written in iambic pentameter and this is my personal contribution to Shroud science. 🙂
The Shroud of Turin (Sonnet)
By Tamara Beryl Latham, ©2020
Did He anticipate that we might find
solutions to the bloody imprint He
laid down upon the cloth, unless we’re blind
and can’t discern the truth? Is what we see
an artist’s painting touched with ochre red
or blood that’s real, but has not oxidized?
Will science find a man who’s long been dead,
yet shown us proof that He was brutalized?
The linen weave entwined with cotton may
have skewed the Carbon dating some opine,
but skeptics say it’s just a fake and they
doubt its pollen came from Palestine.
Will we know soon the truth about the Shroud
or must we wait ’til every knee has bowed?
Dear Colin,
Hi! I can’t recall where I saw this comment from you, but you stated somewhere that the Shroud imprint was only on the front and back of the cloth and not on the sides.
If the man on the Shroud was Jesus, our LORD, and He wanted future generations to see what He endured for our sins, there would be little need for Him to include an image of the sides of the Shroud, since the most important details (His wounds) are covered completely on the frontal and dorsal images. The wounds and the blood are what was important then, as well as now.
Equally, your flour image, although impressive, must be subjected to and pass the same scientific tests as did the Shroud. Same with Luigi Garlaschelli. It’s not enough just to duplicate the image, nor is it fair. As another example, the Youtube video
Vatican researcher (Barbara Frale) discovers Jesus death certificate on Holy Shroud
Colin, I don’t expect a comment from you, but you might think about it and include some data on the scientific testing of your image. Without it, there is, unfortunately, no comparison to the Shroud. 🙂
Wow! This is not the video I posted, but strange that it is how I said the image was formed, even a decade ago.