Shroud of Turin: easily explicable, I say, as an IDEALIZED body-imprint. Think ingenious 14th century faking of Joseph of Arimathea’s “intended for stretcher-like transport only” linen. Think “FILM-SET” (Flour Imprint, Liquid-Migrating, Solid-Entrapping Threads).

Late insertion (Dec 20, 2020) It’s now 6 months to the day since I added this Final Posting (last of some 370 over a 9 year period). Well well. There’s been total silence – or nearly so – from the world of authenticity -promoting Shroudology these last 6 months re my “FILM-SET” Model 10!

Why? I think I’ve discovered why. One has only to look at the writings of the chief spokesperson for the so -called “Shroud Science Group” (Prof. Giulio Fanti of Padua University).

Here’s the offending article: “A Dozen Years of the Shroud Science Group”, 2014.

Here’s the particular passage, underlined in bright yellow – my addition – that leaves this scientist speechless:

Giulio Fanti, chief spokesman of the Shroud Science Group, is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Padua University, Italy.

Yet here he is, telling the world what CANNOT be reproduced scientifically.

What right does an ENGINEER have to say what experimental SCIENTISTS, pursuing their own specialist creative ideas and hypothesis-testing MO, cannot hope to reproduce scientifically – and indeed to claim they are wasting time and money in attempting to do so?

What we see here is arrogance, sheer overweening arrogance.

I say it’s time the SSG found themselves a new spokesperson. Either that, or change their name, omitting any reference to “science” in their present SSG title!

The next step?

There are two totally separate phases re model building.

First, establish facts, then present one’s explanation, aka rationale,

Second: then try to win over entrenched ideas.

Be patient as regards the latter.

Start of original posting…

“FILM-SET” (centre above): closest model yet to the body imprint on the Turin Shroud?

Link to Comments

2. -full-rovere-painting

16th/17th century artists  like Della Rovere had a simpler take on how the TS image came to be, uninfluenced by 19th century to-and-fro negative to positive conversions in the photographic darkroom.  They recognized that tone-reversed images could be generated via IMPRINTING, i.e. via physical contact alone, requiring  neither an artist’s brush, far less a sudden burst of supernatural radiation … Note, btw, the  negative (tone-reversed) nature of the dual body image as well as the two pots in foreground (oils? spices?   Hinted at additional aids to unintended body-imprinting in pro-authenticity context?).

Be warned folks. This is a long, long posting. But then it is the last of some 370 that this retired  Shroud-curious scientist has posted to the internet via this and other sites since the tail end of 2011!

If you’ve limited time, and are looking for a simple take-away message, then here it is: Shroud so-called ” science” should abandon its notion of the body image being “highly superficial” on image fibres, indeed confined to a mere 200 nanometres thick layer of chemically modified linen carbohydrate, aka the PCW (primary cell wall).

Hard scientific evidence for that oh-so-handy bit of pro-authenticity window-dressing, one that opens the glittering multi-department store door to Resurrectional snapshots by one means or another? 

shop window with flashes of radiation

Radiation aplenty from on high. All that’s missing is the Shroud of Turin….

Answer: essentially zilch, despite that much cited 2010 paper from 6 closely-closeted members of the SSG, aka Shroud Science Group, or as I would say, Shroud “Science” Group.  There’s science, and there’s “science”. ..

My Model 10 explains how the central pro-authenticity, dare one say,  drum-banging idea of a seemingly superficial body image (correction: “ultra-superficial” body image -confined we’re told to the PCW)  could have arisen through a simple experimental device deployed by the 1978 STURP team – namely to deploy STICKY TAPE  to strip off individual image fibres. The microscope was then focused on the tiny residue  of  faintly-yellow body image pigment  aka chromophore that came off with stripped fibres,  AS DISTINCT FROM THE MUCH GREATER MASS OF WHAT WAS LEFT BEHIND. Which was?   Chemical composition? Answer: probably, nay almost certainly, inter-fibre SOLIDIFIED  glue (micro-particulate Maillard browning products,  and no doubt maybe much else besides exuding at elevated temperature – 180 degrees C or more – from a roasting,  but closely monitored FLOUR IMPRINT).  Yes, those medieval  modellers of the J of A lien no doubt roasted (whether by oven or over open fire) until they got the right degree of colour, one that could  be communicated as  the age-yellowed body imprint  (plus blood stains) left on J of A’s “fine linen” , deployed as stretcher, en route from cross to tomb…

Its essential message: my flour-imprinting  (phew, final!) Model 10 is almost certainly the means by which the Turin Shroud body image was produced in the mid-14th century (as per radiocarbon dating). It was the second-stage heating step that generated the yellow/brown body image, comprising the same class of chemical end-products  – solid, albeit micro-particulate Maillard browning  products – first flagged up by STURP’s lead chemist (Raymond N Rogers) albeit via an entirely different chemical pathway with different starting ingredients!

Late insertion (July 7, 2020) : see tail end postscript, under heading (guess what?) , “Postscript”.

It has my latest thinking re the nature of what one really sees under the microscope when viewing my Model 10 image threads and fibres (and, by implication, maybe, just maybe , the Shroud of Turin!) . You may think you are looking at coloured image FIBRES. But might you in fact be looking at something else, something that might seem to resemble interspersed fibres within bundles (inviting that mystique-fostering  tag “half-tone effect”) but  which is, if the truth be told,  something entirely different ...?   

Nuff said for now.  Scroll down  to end of this, my Final Online Shroud Blog Posting, approx No 371, for RED postscript!

These photomicrographs of a Model 10 image fibre at two levels of magnification provide a foretaste:

image zone x4 v x10 cropped

Yes, image colour both faint AND blurred – but for a reason!

IMG_8780

Here you see a linen thread that has been partially unspun, and a drop of red dye then placed on a nearby unspun portion. The dye migrates at high speed in the gaps between fibres, then comes to an abrupt halt when the fibres are too far apart to permit capillary migration.  See later for the proposed relevance to the Shroud body image, based on my growing conviction that  the body image chromophore was generated initially as a short-lived liquid,  but only capable of migrating a few millimetres at most before turning into a high molecular solid (i.e. a melanoidin, aka Maillard browning product)

Summary (initially the posting’s Title!):

Shroud of Turin – herewith my final internet Report of an 8 year learning curve (concluding with the flour-imprinting Model 10).

Main conclusion: crucial second-stage ROASTING of a 14th century whole body FLOUR IMPRINT – designed to mimic an aged sweat-imprint left on Joseph of Arimathea’s “fine linen” (deployed EXCLUSIVELY stretcher-wise for cross-to-tomb transport!) momentarily generated thread-penetrating LIQUEFIED chemical species, the latter quickly depositing between linen fibres as a SOLID micro-particulate GLUE of , among other things, visible Maillard browning products. (That’s as distinct from the exclusive focus in the 1981 STURP Summary on largely-conjectural chemically-modified linen fibres per se as the sole origin of body image colour) .

Here’s how the core idea of this posting began, way, way  back in Oct 2014  on my science buzz blog site. The key word is FLOUR, more specifically white MEDIEVAL flour!

Flour Oct 2014 buzz

If I had to choose just one paper from the 370 or so this science bod has published on the Shroud of Turin these last 8 years, experimentally modelling the means by which the  pilgrim-attracting body image could  have been fabricated in the mid-14th century, it would probably be this.

(More editing to follow. Please bear with me…)

Apols for the posting’s  original exceptionally lengthy title.  Why so long? Answer: because it attempted to summarise my 100 month “learning curve”, the latter begun at the tail-end of 2011 no less, culminating finally in my 2015 Model 10, the basis for which took shape between 2012 and 2014.

https://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2015/05/modelling-turin-shroud-my-flournitric.html

Added note: 1 week after posting. Normally I leave postings untouched, free of alterations, afterthoughts etc. However, this being the last posting on this, my specialist Shroud site,  I reserve the right to edit at will. So please don’t take anything you read here as my last word on the matter. Blink and you may see a massaged passage or two – or worse – like deletions or indeed new insertions. 

What brought me into Shroud research?  Answer: it was an article in the UK-based Independent newspaper, Dec 2011, highlighting the claims of  Government scientists at Italy’s ENEA research institute. They  had made use (after hours as I seem to recall) of their employer’s pulsed laser beam generators to colour up linen. They claimed they had a model for the mechanism by which the Shroud acquired its faint yellow/brown body image!  Think flash of radiation!

independent dec 2011 uv lasers

No, not a 14th century artefact, as per report in Nature  journal on the tri-centre 1988 radiocarbon dating  (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) but a product of biblical Resurrection!

I baulked, as I suspect did many others! Here was my immediate response, posted to my science buzz site .

thermostencilling cropped dec 2011

It showed how one could  intercept and entrap conventional radiation (a mix of heat and light from a filament lamp) onto linen, using a black absorber of radiation, generating – guess what a yellow brown coloration.  No pulsed uv laser beams  are needed. What’s more, by drawing or imprinting with charcoal, one could fashion images of a sort (the Italians having overlooked to mention image production, being content with their trumpeted  “discoloration” of linen).

So what had led them down that particular road, one which featured  (one has to say) a highly unusual form of radiation, one that does not exist in nature, at least that we are aware of – laser beams with their totally-in-step wave forms being 20th century ?

The chief author was Dr. Paolo di Lazzaro

His name was one of 6 on a 2010 paper that had appeared the previous year,  all fellow members of the somewhat secretive and mysterious “SSG”  (Shroud Science Group) claiming among other things that the Shroud body image was highly superficial, confined to the outermost PCW (primary cell wall) of linen fibres, with none visible in the SCW (secondary cell wall of a damaged fibre) and, importantly, no mention of the possibility that the image colour might reside between linen fibres, as distinct from a chemically-modified PCW.

Back to my 2015 Model 10.

(Ignore the initial use of Model 8 nitric acid used to develop the contact  imprint of my own face. Computerised-imaging software  alone was shown to be sufficient to develop a negative tone-reversed Shroud like image – see the margin entry on on the top right hand side of this site’s Home Page. 

Here’s a reminder (to save you having to scroll back):

It shows the computer-enhanced image of my own facial contact imprint. Shame about that beard and moustache – both of which I lack,  generated as an artefact of  imprinting a facial prominence (chin!) under applied manual pressure (face first coated with imprinting medium – a wet slurry of flour and water – then pressed down onto a sheet of linen with underlying pillow to help mould the fabric to the facial contours – with a little flattening of the nose.  Do these incidental details  – “beard”, “moustache”,  “flattened nose”  ring any bells?). 

Oh, and here’s another application of essentially the same methodology to get an imprint off a small (14cm high) plastic figurine. (Note the extraordinary capture of fine detail, despite the 3D nature of the template):

galaxy warrior v roasted flour imprint

Here’s some quickie ImageJ processing of my Model 10  roasted flour imprint on the right,  done just 5 minutes ago for this posting,. First  step: light/dark inversion, then 3D enhancement. Yes, a mere 5 minute job!

galaxy inv then 3D im j post edit

Not bad, eh?

That’s  a brief glimpse of my flour imprinting methodology  used from a presumed  (14th century) adult male body  to fabricate the TS body imprint -front and rear  – probably using one (or maybe 2!)  of 6 or so Lirey clerics employed by the knightly battle-hardened Geoffroi de Charny – ostensibly to pray for his soul.    Those volunteers were probably also coated from head-to-toe, front and back with an imprinting medium (white flour too?) then had wettened,  contour-hugging  linen laid over the whole-body   – which was then firmly pressed manually from above  only (not sides!). Then the crucial step: roast the imprinted linen gently over a source of heat (red hot, flame-free wood or charcoal embers?) until the desired degree of yellow coloration had been obtained, then wash the imprinted vigorously with soap and water to dislodge loose-bound material, leaving a faint but firmly-bound residue.

Purpose? To simulate/mimic  the body imprint  that one could IMAGINE had been left by transport of a certain crucified body from cross to tomb in Joseph of Arimathea’s hastily- obtained “fine linen” (deployed stretcher-wise|).  .

Forget  the authenticity-smitten  STURP-initiator’s  early pro-authenticity “lateral distortion” arguments assuming body imprinting  via loosely draped, gravity- mediated (no manual-pressure) contact only at the later Stage 2 (Gospel of John only) tomb-emplacement  stage!).

Yes, that would have imprinted sides of body as well. But read the Bible!

J of A’s linen was NOT used for final burial in the tomb (and is almost certainly NOT a “shroud” in the sense of “burial shroud”.

It was a mimicking of J of A’s “fine linen” deployed for transport only – NOT final burial. Get that right, and everything else falls  into place where the Shroud of Turin is concerned (subsequent to its  radiocarbon dating to the 14th century, post the little we know starting with its exhibition in the remote village of Lirey by  the knightly G. de Charny, close associate of  his  monarch King John (“The Good”) , with whom he fought alongside to his death at the Battle of Poitiers , 1356,  chosen to bear his King’s ensign .

Pro-authenticity sindonology generally says next to nothing about the first recorded owner of the Shroud of Turin –   Crusader Knight G. de Charny – far less  speculate on why he – or his widow especially, post his death  in battle at Poitiers especially , may have instructed his private Chapel’s clerics to create the artefact (and later promote it as a genuine relic).

Mote to follow (via serial additions over the next few days tomorrow only).

June 21:

Here’s a flavour of the kind of research I’m doing right now with Model 10 threads – the assumption being that the methodology (flour imprinting/heating) was that deployed in the mid-1300s, that anything I can learn about Model 10 threads and component fibres could give insights to the Shroud.

First, here’s a quickie  experiment. Take a Model 10 image thread (faint yellow). Using sticky tape, place side-by-side with a non-image control thread from the same treated linen.

IMG_7930 pre-unspinning

Top: Model 10 image thread (yellowish); bottom: control, non-image thread – both from same treated linen.

Then, holding  the sticky-tape grips at both ends, first twist both threads clockwise  then anti-clockwise.  (20 one way, 20 opposite direction, 20 first way etc etc). Compare the ease with which the two threads can be unspun to separate the fibres within each thread:

Here’s how the two threads compare after a couple of hundred back-and-forth twists:

IMG_7950 unspinning image v non-image control

The darning needle was used merely as a weight, and reference to size. (It was not used to tease out fibres).

Yes, the fibres separate more easily on the control (non-image) thread. Why? That’s still a matter for speculation, but there’s an obvious explanation. The image chromophore was formed initially as a liquid which then proceeded to penetrate the channels between fibres via capillary action, which then solidified to form an adhesive that bound fibres together.  Implications? The chromophore is not an ultra-superficial layer confined to the PCW of image fibres. It’s present throughout  the interior of each image thread, occupying spaces between fibres. Strip out a single fibre, as Rogers did with his sticky tape, and you may well see a a thin coating on each fibre surface.  But don’t jump to conclusions. One could merely  be seeing what was left behind when the individual fibres were stripped away from their immediate neighbours.

The above experiment gives only a behavioural comparison between image and non-image-bearing threads. It rarely gives anything useful visually, such is the subtlety of the image chromophore, depending on whether fibres are viewed collectively in threads or well-separated from each other.  But there’s a variant on the above experiment that is presently being investigated (and shows promise). One places grip tapes just a few millimetres apart on each thread, and in addition to unspinning, one puts rhythmic pressure on the opposite ends, as if a concertina. That helps to gently separate the individual fibres, allowing one to view the appearance and/or disappearance of the image chromophore.   (Aside: should the combination of unspinning and ‘concertining’ fail to split up the fibre bundles, banishing from view that now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t yellow-tinted image chromophore  at the same time, then there is an ultimate solution – prod, poke and tease out  the cut end of an image thread with the finest darning needle you can find – under the microscope.

IMG_8095 image thread end plus needle tip

Observe the faint presence of particulate material, especially top left, where it seems that a solid-state glue has disintegrated as a result of separating fibres with the tip of the darning  needle (lower right)

Here’s the same after photoediting  (adjustment of brightness/darkness, colour, clarity) with a white circle and oval to highlight the places where a superficial frost-like  encrustation on the fibres is especially apparent:

white circling of encrustation img_8095

Were there ever to be a STURP Mk2, I would advise a second round of microscopy to seek out McCrone’s “sub-micron” particles. No, not jeweller’s rouge (superfine Fe2O3)  for late touching up as he claimed, but the same light-reflecting encrustation you see highlighted in the Model 10 image above. I suspect the latter to be solid-state Maillard browning products, lodged initially in inter-fibre channels, into which they had migrated in their briefly liquid precursor state. Those longitudinal streaks of invasive solid  were subsequently broken-up and better revealed when the above thread was teased apart into separate fibres using the point of a darning needle (white streak lower right)

(Oops. I see from current reading that Walter McCrone later retracted  his somewhat bizarre claim for a later addition via ‘touching up’  of an anachronistic superfine  post-18th century ‘jeweler’s rouge’ (American spelling). I’ll spare you the details. Where and how that retraction appeared is anyone’s guess given the  self-enriching $ paywall that blocks access to his 40-year-old Shroud findings on his still-surviving  microscopy.org site. 

McCrone references

Suffice it to say that the brief intrusion onto early Phase 1 STURP of  then ” microscopy consultant”  Walter McCrone who was later denied full STURP-associate status (reportedly for pursuing his own agenda) created huge areas of uncertainty  as to precisely what he saw. and /or correctly interpreted (or otherwise) under his microscope.  Try finding,  dear site visitor,  an image file on Shroud fibres under his name and you will see what I mean.  My own  body-fibre image researches thus far : zilch, absolute zilch! I shall  consequently make no further reference to McCrone’s  claims for “sub-micron’ particles if  likely to be seen  as a  means of bolstering my own final  Model 10 image chromophore.  A few strands of evidence  re the TS are  gold-plated. Not so that from the late Walter McCrone who basically “saw” under his microscope  basically what he wanted to see…  Such is the nature and vulnerabilities of science  versus “science”)

(Oops! That microscope-aided needling technique  above  for separating linen fibres from their neighbours comes with a little practice – and patience! Yes, back to the no-nonsense science…). 

I prefer to interpret what I see (or don’t always see)  from current experimentation at the thread and fibre level as a thin inter-fibre glue, as distinct from the ultra-thin membrane film confined to the PCW  (so beloved by those wishing to promote one or other kind of ‘radiation photography’ – closing their minds completely to  more down-to-earth image production from simple  medieval-era imprinting via physical contact, followed by  fairly-undemanding second-stage thermal processing. Like, er, you know, my Model 10!

Here’s  btw is another experiment I did just yesterday.

It used threads taken from a Model 10 (roasted/washed  flour imprint of my own hand, comparing the behaviour of (a) image zone threads (b) non-image zone threads when the cut ends were dipped into a solution of red dye.

(I’ll say more in a minute as to why I’m reporting the results here. Suffice it to say the  results are not, repeat NOT earthshaking. They are here simply to give a flavour of my ongoing Shroud research aided by the three microscopes that sit side-by- side on the dining room table.

IMG_6625

Thread from non-image zone, left of centre; thread from image zone (faint yellow coloration), right of centre. Each end sits in its own puddle of red food colouring (anthocyanins etc). Snap shot at start, before dye has started to migrate  via capillary action along the two threads.

IMG_6631

The “Model 10” linen is shown in this photo. My imprinted fingers are just visible. The dye has started to migrate

IMG_6638

Here’s the result just over 20 mins later. Note that the dye runs further and faster along the control (non-image) thread. Curiously (?) it also looks a little darker, despite the absence of image chromophore. (Maybe the image-free thread can accommodate more dye having vacant unoccupied capillary channels to start with?). See following image and caption for a microscopic view.

Yes, here’s a microscopic comparison of  my Model 10 flour-imprinted linen stained with the same red dye (left side) compared with the non-image zone from the same sample, but also stained with red dye (right side). Illumination was from below (not above).

IMG_7447 left Mod 10 image + red dye, right, corr. non-image zone

The difference is subtle, but it’s there. provided one illuminates from below.  The existence of image chromophore on the left plus red dye gives a discernible difference. There’s another important feature too, not immediately obvious in the photograph, better seen through the microscope eyepiece.  I shall try to capture it on photo before commenting further.

Here’s the same photomicrograph as above. It’s been been lightly photoedited (colour, clarity). It gives a better idea of what one actually sees directly through the microscope eyepiece:

IMG_7447 left Mod 10 image + red dye, right, corr. non-image zone edited

As above: Model 10 imprint image zone (left), control, non-image zone (right) both after exposure of  the same sample of treated linen to migrating red dye.

Am I content to look at threads or even individual fibres from the side only, as seen above?  Good heavens no. What do you take me for?  A mainstream sindonologist? Nope, I’m a boring  old real scientist, one  who likes to tick all the necessary boxes. Am busy right now looking at  essential  cross-sections too. It’s not been easy, not having a microtome at my disposal for creating ultra-thin wax-embedded slices.

(Anyone wishing to acquire a microtome should  maybe take a look at this  commercial website  – giving a clue to the cost of suitable science-capable  microtomes, glorified ham slicers,  i.e starting   between about £300 and £800 .

http://www.brunelmicroscopes.co.uk/microtomy.html

(I personally have  invested a total of  4 figures  – £ sterling-  on my 3  increasingly sophisticated microscopes.  But given the virtually zero feedback  from ‘ mainstream sindonology’  on my  8 years of online communicated data and conclusions,  much of it microscope-based, I  shan’t be wasting a further penny of my  modest pensioner income on  expensive hardware!)

So,  by way of  makeshift alternatives,  I’m currently developing  rough-and-ready techniques for looking at stubs of threads and indeed individual fibres  END ON of ever decreasing length (am currently down to less than a millimetre!). Oh boy, is it subtle, at both thread and especially fibre level  – viewed, as I say,  END ON!

Similar results to the ones above have been obtained using other dyes (e.g. methylene blue, iodine solution, i.e. faster migration along non-image zone threads). The iodine test showed an additional feature of interest where image-zone threads are concerned, but I shall be keeping that to myself for the foreseeable future (see below).

Yes, as flagged up above, what you see here are my final experimental data being posted as an online learning curve. I’ve completed most of my learning now where the Shroud is concerned via some 370  postings here and on my sciencebuzz site, and via thousands of comments (literally) posted to other sites, notably Dan Porter’s now-finally retired shroudstory,com, via international skeptics forum, via skeptics and seekers etc etc.

But it has to be said: sharing one’s data online, inviting criticism etc etc has  to be largely a one way street. I summed up my frustration back in 2018, asking in a post title why my “simulated sweat imprint” Model 10  was getting no attention whatsoever, not even  references in the wider Shroud literature (bar Dan Porter’s site, this posting in particular used to temporarily reopen his site after a 3 year shutdown)), why there was no entry of this site  or its central idea on the 20 pages/200 Google  returns under (shroud of turin). I’v said in the past all I need to say about Google and its contemptible modus operandi. The one regret this blogger had about voting for Brexit in 2016 was that continued membership of the  otherwise tediously legalistic EU might finally produce an ultimatum to Google: either you clean up your act,  Google, or you are banned from European laptops and cellphones.

(Late insertion: see this article in today’s Mail, June 24, 2020,  confirming everything I’ve long suspected regarding overnight, secretive changes in the algorithms used to determine what does or does not appear in Google’s search listings.)

google algorithm mail

From Mail Online, 24 June, 2020.  (My highlighting in yellow of unannounced change in algorithm that determines rankings in Google search returns – reinforcing this science blogger’s similar disgust and contempt expressed periodically over a number of years).  That’s assuming, btw, that Google listings are determined purely by computer algorithm, that not a  single one of Google’s tens of thousands of employees are able – for whatever reason – to override that algorithm  – read human intervention…

I’ve decided to waste no more time where the internet is concerned. I’ll leave it to others to decide where I’ve done right, where I’ve done wrong. As I say, the last 8 years have been useful, allowing me to develop and report a learning curve on a tricky topic – one where one has no access to the actual material that is housed in Turin, one where one has to be content with modelling, progressing as I have done through 9 discarded or rejigged models before settling on my final Model 10.

( July 1, 2020 :  Late insertion – a retrospective view of my 10-stage model development between 2011/12 and 2015:  yes, I hesitate to admit it, but my Model 3 from October 2014 (see screen shot just added to the  top of this posting) was essentially a preliminary version of, guess what, the final Model 10?!  Why? Answer: I had taken one of the bas relief horse brasses used in Model 2 – direct heat-scorching off the heated template –  much criticized and rightly so by the impressive Thibault Heimburger – and as a variant, smeared it with oil, dusted with white flour (yes, WHITE FLOUR!),  pressed down onto linen to get an imprint, then held the imprint over a hot oven ring to get a yellow-brown negative imprint. Yes, a breakaway from  ‘simple’ one -stage scorching (Model 2) off  a hot metal  statue or bas relief, substituting unclothed whole-body male volunteer(s)!

Late insertion/correction oops it was. I was initially thinking that a coating of white flour on linen might render it more sensitive to scorching with a heated metal template – as indeed proved to be the case – yet another reason for  initially thinking of white flour merely as an adjunct to  one-stage Model 2, i.e. direct scorching off a hot metal template. It took a while (years!) for the full potential of white flour as an imprinting medium from whole body anatomy  onto linen, followed by independent second-stage heating of the  imprinted linen, to be appreciated!

It was the linen with its flour imprint that was heated as a bit of a side-show – or so it seemed at the time!  So why did I not immediately drop Model 2, and  proceed to promote variant Model 3 with its 2-stage process featuring flour as a mere sensitizer to heated metal template as the likely solution to medieval production of the Shroud body image (i.e. still a one-stage process)? Answer: I simply did not fully appreciate at the time that if an image could be taken from a metallic bas relief  horse brass using merely oil, flour and heat,   all available in the mid 1350s  – as per 3-centre radiocarbon dating – then the same could in principle be done with 3D human anatomy, whether a hand, face or entire body.  Oh. And one other thing – a  mere practical detail: I had also imprinted onto DRY linen in Model 3, getting a somewhat  unsatisfactory image that was excessively fuzzy and flaky in the extreme.  My later Model 10 used imprinting with dry flour onto  3D CONTOUR-HUGGING WET LINEN. So 6-7 years ago  I  unthinkingly moved on  immediately from Model 3 to Model 4 (imprinting with  an entirely different model deploying liquid tannins with added viscosity agents). Yes. my ‘head was turned’ by the briefly attractive Joe Accetta tannin-imprinting model, weaning me off, albeit briefly  from thermal imprinting.  Oops. Such is the nature of scientific investigation – one doesn’t always appreciate the pros of new developments, being hung-up on  the cons of practical details. It  occasionally, nay invariably takes time for theoretical implications to be  fully appreciated, given one was not born with Albert Einstein’s mental faculties.  On the other hand, think  super-IQ hares and  lower IQ tortoises …).

I had originally intended to round off this final posting with a summary of the main features of Model 10, and why I believe it to be the correct one, consistent with a 14th century modelling  (probably by Geoffroi de Charny’s home-based band of clerics) of the kind of body imprint that could, repeat COULD (in theory) have been left on Joseph of Arimathea’s “fine linen”, deployed as a stretcher between cross and tomb (no, NOT as the final burial shroud for tomb-interment, so not a recipient for a supernatural flash  of unspecified radiation at the instant of Resurrection, leaving a fanciful “proto-photograph” on the ultra-superficial primary cell wall only of linen fibres. (Or so we’re told in that SSG paper from 2010, whose chief author bombarded me  via email some 15 months ago with its 24 so-called Shroud  “characteristics”.  (OK, so a few of that  plethora of listed so-called “characteristics” were valid – but  many were anything but). I cannot ever recall seeing a so-called scientific paper, least of all in a peer-reviewed journal  in which half-baked fanciful notions are listed as “characteristics”, indeed in the title no less.  Prime example: the body image is confined exclusively to a 200nm PCW (primary cell wall).  That claim can be shot down on theoretical grounds alone!

SSG?  Shroud Science group? As I’ve said elsewhere,  that ghastly paper should be retracted, preferably by the SSG itself if it has any respect for the term “Science”. Failing that, especially if continuing its private chats behind its closed doors, its private online website etc, it should rename itself, (e.g. SRG, Shroud Research Group?). Change of name would not prevent it remaining the same remote, elitist, superior-than-thou entity that exists at present…

But it’s all be said before on this site, and, as I say, totally ignored for the most part.

What I shall do in the next few days and weeks is maybe create a list of what I consider my more significant findings, either in the home or the garage.

Comments are still invited, hopefully addressed to the science, though I don’t promise to respond to each and every one.

##################################################################

Postscript (yup,  frightfully overlong and repetitive in places, added June 23:

My current thinking re what was going on inside linen threads (maybe fibres too) is currently in a state of re-evaluation – based on the possible relevance of the capillary migration comparisons of image v non-image fibres shown above.

Here’s a possible scenario – though it’s not one that is easy to test, least of all with the real item.

Heat was deployed to create the yellow chromophore (whether from white flour or some other organic, i.e. carbon-based imprinting agent). It exuded from each flour particle in my Model 10 as a liquid – the mobility no doubt aided by the trace of oil that was smeared on the subject’s body initially to assist with even distribution and weak attachment of the flour. Chemical composition of the liquid? Complex, but one that can be summarised as precursors of melanoidins, i.e. Maillard browning products, essentially the same as those that are formed on the surface crust in bread baking etc.
That “goo” soaked into the underlying thread and its 200 or so constituent, closely packed fibres. It then proceeded to insinuate itself into the tiny spaces (aka capillary channels) that exist between each of the fibres, and then proceed to migrate a short, repeat SHORT distance between and along fibres. (When I say short, I mean millimetres rather than centimetres). Why not further? Answer: because the melanoidin precursors proceed to polymerise en route to form high molecular end-product melanoidins which are SOLIDS.

(Late insertion: I plan to do an experiment soon where I take a single thread of linen, enclose all but a few cm with aluminium foil, then dab the exposed part with oil and flour (i.e. Model 10) and heat the assembly, probably held horizontally over a ceramic hob. When the exposed stretch turns the expected yellow or brown, the aluminium foil will be stripped off. How far will the yellow colour have penetrated to either side of the part exposed to flour and oil (while still receiving some heat)?  Current Model 10 (July 2020) predicts that the colour will creep just a few millimetres or so  under the aluminium foil BETWEEN linen fibres via capillary migration before the briefly liquid melanoidin precursors polymerise and solidify, accounting for the distinct but SLIGHT fuzziness only of the TS body image.)

In other words, solid-state chromophore was quickly formed as a resinous type material that then partly (but not completely) blocked those capillary channels between the linen fibres. Now here’s the new thinking: when Mark Evans and others viewed image fibres they saw an amazingly-even colour within the threads that extended for a short length and then abruptly ended. It was that “either-or nature” of the even colour (either presence or absence, no in-betweens) which gave rise to the slightly licentious essential term “half-tone effect” and to what were termed “discontinuities”. (Let’s omit the reference to striations” which I don’t pretend to understand).
Now here’s the essential new input. It may have seemed – at a quick glance – as if they were looking at yellow fibres, aligned side-by-side, when viewing the image fibres. But there’s an alternative explanation.
Linen fibres are said to be polygonal in cross-section, i.e. like irregular pentagons, hexagons etc. That means that the channels between closely -spaced fibres may also be polygonal in cross-section, and then look for all the world as if yellow fibres when viewed from the side in intact linen threads. It was my failure to see, least of all focus with the microscope onto the fibres in my Model 10 threads – and Mark Evan’s notion of “half-tone effect” that gave rise to the thought that I might not looking at yellow fibres, but inter-fibre channels at least partly and in some instances fully occupied by a migrating liquid that had quickly solidified.

image zone x4 v x10 cropped

Left: Model 10 image-zone fibres at low magnification. Right: the same at x10 magnification. Note first the curious interrupted nature of the colour seen at low magnification, and somewhat smeared- out distribution of  colour. The colour is even more  patchy and smeared out at high magnification, hardly what one would expect to see if confined to fibres. I propose the colour is not  IN the fibres, or even a thin coating onto the fibres, least of all confined to the 200nm thick PCW.  I propose  it’s  trapped within capillary channels BETWEEN the fibres, having accessed (briefly) in the liquid state prior to rapid solidification to micro-particulate  Maillard  browning products generated by  Rogers’ amino-carbonyl reacions. . I say Model 10 is a valid model for the TS body image with its so-called “half-tone” effect, a term coined by Mark Evans for the peculiar  blurry nature and colour distribution seen under the microscope.

What about a vital cross-section (bizarrely omitted from “official” TS reporting on image threads and fibres)?  Ah, there’s the problem: I don’t have a microtome  for creating thin sections. My stubs of threads, placed end-up, are too thick to allow one to distinguish between fibres and inter-fibre channels, making it impossible to know where the colour is located:

IMG_8464

A Model 10 image-zone thread was placed in a fold of white sticky tape that was then cut to a short height, allowing the cut end to be viewed  end-on through a light microscope (top illumination).  Oh dear! No conclusions possible as yet with present home-based technology…

One thing’s for certain. One can take a Model 10 image-zone thread, pull it into two longitudinally to get two roughly equal halves with partially separated fibres, then examine under the microscope. What does one see? Answer: relatively little colour, compared with an intact thread, but here’s the crucial observation. The surface of the individual fibres is peppered with reflective “gritty” looking particles, almost as if sugar-coated (with the faintest hint of yellow). What is one looking at?  Answer: almost certainly the image chromophore – initially forming tubular plugs within the inter-fibre channels. When the threads are subject to rough treatment, the fibres separate and those tubular plugs then proceed to disintegrate into  masses of small  coating particles. Wasn’t there a reference  made to a “frosty” appearance to the surface of image fibres some 40 years ago, either by Ray Rogers or maybe Alan Adler/John Heller?

Back now to the red font passage, having concluded that brief excursion into home-based thread/fibre microscopy…

If  the image chromophore were to be mainly or even exclusively located  between fibres as packed solid-state Maillard rbrowning products, then there are two implications. First, my previous notion of chromophore getting across  the PCW into the SCW with its own inner cache of intervening channels between microfibrils may need to be qualified or even discarded. Why? Because soldification of the initially liquid chromophore mix between fibres, creating pseudo-fibres under the microscope may mean that the colour stays OUTSIDE the PCW, with little if any getting across.

What’s needed is a search for solid-state chromophore particles, whether between fibres or maybe albeit less probably microfibrils. Yes, maybe detectable under the microscope as sub-micron size particles as claimed by McCrone, but no, not iron oxide, but melanoidins formed by Maillard condensation reactions, as featured in Rogers’ model, albeit from entirely different starting materials (no, not a 14th century imprinting agent, like my white flour, but a claimed Roman era additive to early-stage linen – namely starch, interacting with body decomposition vapour ).

Let’s quickly summarise: the image chromophore was initially in the capillary channels between fibres. (It may later have invaded the capillary channels between the microfibrils of fibres, but that is no longer my major focus – we scientists being entitled to shift focus, especially if influenced by our own new experimental data – like that oh-so-crude experiment described here with the thread-penetrating coloured dyes).
But while a liquid initially, it only remained in that physical state for a short time, quickly becoming a solid (high molecular weight melanoidin). It then partially “clogged up” some but probably not all the inter-fibre channels (leaving others open in my Model 10 imprints for new entrants like my red dye etc).

When sindonologists came along, stripping out individual fibres with their sticky tape etc, they tore one fibre apart from another, demolishing the seeming “pseudo-fibre” that existed in the intervening spaces between channels. They homed in on the PCW outermost layer of the fibre, saw the colour they expected, failed to look at image cross-sections to see what might be inside the SCW (a single damaged fibre being cited as showing a colour-free SCW) and then went on to propose that the chromophore was located EXCLUSIVELY on the outermost surface of the PCW.
In so doing they overlooked the possibility flagged up here, namely that chromophore had clogged up a proportion of the channels between fibres during the imprinting process , and accordingly that the image chromophore was in fact a lot more dominant, dare one say omnipresent, than being merely confined to an ultra-thin PCW surface.
So, along comes mystique-promoting sindonologist, message-promoting bit between teeth, strips out (sticky tape or otherwise) a single fibre, sees colour on surface, and declares the image is confined to the most superficial layer of the fibre. Hey presto, that then opens the door to all kinds of radiation-generated proto-photography (1st century, approx 33AD!), miraculous, semi-miraculous, faintly miraculous (take your pick).

I say no, repeat NO! All that was needed was for a briefly liquefied chromophore, generated by a second stage heating of an imprinting medium (probably wheat flour) to insert itself between the individual fibres of linen threads, to migrate a short distance (mm), then solidify, with or without further penetration within fibres, to form a resinous solid (particle?) between fibres. When the fibres were stripped out, hey presto there was an apparent chromophore coating on those fibres.

Late insertion: here’s a couple of graphics hastily put together a few minutes ago that sum up the current thinking:

First, here’s the model proposed by the 2010 SSG paper with the yellow colour  confined to the PCW of image fibres, polygonal in cross-section,  to which I’ve made an addition: namely the surrounding inter-fibre channels, also polygonal in cross-section (colour-coded in grey):

1A. polygonal starter conventional plus multiple PCW

There we see 5 image fibres in cross-section with the image colour confined to the 200nm thick PCW – shown above with exaggerated thickness. It’s a model that I reject entirely! Why? Note how I have surrounded each polygonal image fibre with an enveloping surround of inter-fibre channels, ALSO POLYGONAL IN CROSS-SECTION,  coloured coded GREY (as if lacking yellow colour!)

How has the above model been modified? Here’s a hastily-put together 3-part graphic that hopefully conveys the essence of the new thinking:

1B. fibre v inter-fibre channels

LEFT:  what one might expect to see under the microscope if the colour were present in image fibres only, but not, repeat NOT, confined to the PCW, but spread throughout the entire polygon. (It’s a model I considered but have now discarded), Centre: abandon the idea of colour being confined to the fibre cells .  CENTRE:  Re-start  from scratch with a clean slate where there’s no colour in the fibre cells per se or the surrounding inter-fibre channels; RIGHT: now put the yellow colour NOT in the fibre cells but into the surrounding inter-fibre channels, filling most or all those available space,  Leave the fibre cells devoid of colour – or largely so – whether PCW only, SCW only or both. The colour is now transferred to pseudo-fibres, i.e. longitudinal  inter-fibre channels masquerading under the microscope as if fibre cells, due to their near-identical narrow extended length  and similar polygonal cross-section!

Here’s a attempt to link what you see above with the earlier-described red-dye penetration experiment:

final with empty plus red dye-cebtre

Observe the solid white spot in one of the central inter-fibre channels. That’s to show that it does not need to be completely occupied, the spot representing an unfilled zone. That’s why red dye  – see earlier – can migrate via capillary creep  – albeit slowly along image-fibres –  because the latter, while partially obstructed –  are not totally blocked and sealed off  by solidified image pigment. ( Alternatively, some channels get used by image pigments, but not all, the latter available for later passage of red dye.)

Warning: the above schematic diagrams are first thoughts, which crystallized in my head just yesterday. On reflection, I’ve created too many inter-fibre channels, over and above what’s allowed by the polygonal cell walls of fibres. Here’s another slimmed-down version – probably more realistic with a greater ratio of fibre cell to inter-fibre space:

polygonal starter revised 2

Grey represents polygonal-shaped FIBRE cells, yellow represents inter-fibre spaces occupied by body image pigment. The schematic needs expanding to create more polygons that can then be designated  as fibre or inter-fibre – thus the provisional question marks.

Yes, the inter-fibre spaces should be totally bounded by polygonal fibre cells, as suggested in the revised diagram above.  But the revised diagram is not without its problems : it would fail to give coloration to all the polygonal walls of the affected fibre cell!   Drat!

In fact, why bother with polygonal geometry for inter-fibre channel cross-sections? Who’s to say it’s not just the fibre cells per se that are polygonal, with intervening spaces between them with no particular geometry that simply get penetrated by body image pigment, migrating through via capillary action.

polygonal fibre cells only

What you see here is preliminary reporting of a new hypothesis ‘on the hoof’ so to speak – but (sorry to repeat myself)  it’s my LAST POSTING on the Shroud, so I feel at liberty to flag up future directions for speculation, hypothesis generation, experimental testing and re-testing, amended hypothesis etc etc . It’s my understanding of that tedious oh-so-old-fashioned “scientific method”.  😉

Incidentally, my Model 10, with its feature of a migrating liquid, quickly solidifying to a high-molecular solid in the channels between linen fibres, gives an explanation for a rarely-commented upon feature of Shroud image fibres. I refer to the brittle nature of image fibres – recalling Rogers’ observation that they tended to fracture more easily than non-image fibres when pulled away from the Shroud with his Mylar sticky tape. Why?  Because the threads and especially their component fibres were rendered brittle by the presence of that solid intrusion between fibres. When the micro-pipes of intrusion broke, then it tended to break the adjacent fibres at the same time! I have yet to see an explanation for why an oh-so-superficial image layer on a 200nm PCW, a mere fiftieth or less of the diameter of a fibre, allegedly a mere ‘photograph, should render the entire fibre prone to fracture! Model 10 supplies the answer. Think briefly-liquid chromophore, turning to a solid in the blink of an eye!

Oh, and intrusive (albeit briefly) liquid chromophore also accounts for the so-called “double superficiality” aka reverse side image breakthrough. I’ll leave you to guess why, dear reader! Hint: the feature, described on Mario Latendresse’s splendid sindonology.org  site,  is restricted to those parts of body anatomy that would be most prominent (highest relief), i.e. nose and crossed hands laid across abdomen,  if imprinting via physical contact (applied manual pressure, no air gaps permitted). Nuff said.

Yes, I shall be following up my comparison of capillary creep along  Model 10 threads, image v non-image, with one of comparison of mechanical strength, i.e. proneness to fracture when dangled vertically, then loaded with weights.  No, I shan’t be reporting results to the internet (having drawn a line under that unrewarding chapter in 8 years of internet blogging).

Guess what? The image chromophore was  declared (SSG, 2010) to be exclusive (no ifs, no buts) to the outermost layer of those fibres, ignoring or overlooking that there was a more substantial presence BETWEEN the fibres, notably those greatly overlooked capillary channels between fibres . No,  NOT JUST the channel-facing surface of those fibres.  No  microscopic cross-section of an image fibre  was shown – an amazing  nay extraordinary omission (nuff said!). What we saw in 2010  is an unforgiveable skimping of necessary research.

Science cannot progress by skimping,  Science (REAL science)  progresses by obsessive attention to detail ( and yes, inviting all kinds of negative response in our modern age to nitpicking observers, online especially, forever on the hunt for alleged  hang-ups, ipso facto alleged character defects on which they can home in and feast).

To which I say, science as reported here these last 8 years with its MO  of obsessive attention to detail IS the REAL McCoy.  OK, so retired scientists  – like myself – may initially have seen the internet  through rose-tinted spectacles as an opportunity to deliver an online learning curve. But it does not alter one jot the basic MO of science (read: review available data, hypothesize, test hypothesis, re-review with additional data, critically scrutinize  previous hypotheses,  proceed if necessary to create new hypotheses, retest etc etc.).

Yes, I know, tedious, time-consuming. long-winded but that is the science MO. Beware those who, driven by their premature conclusions or assumptions, try to take short cuts, while declaring they are pursuing a scientific MO. Not so. They are substituting pseudo-science for the real commodity. There are no short cuts in science. For a prime example of a pseudo-science shortcut, see that 2010 SSG paper, claiming the TS body image to be ultra-superficial, confined to a 200nm thick PCW! Nothing could be more misleading, further from the truth (my view, based admittedly on a mere 8 years of internet reported model development via 9 stages of learning curve to my final Model 10!).
There are theoretical grounds for rejecting a body image exclusive to a 200nm layer (I’ll spare you the details). Suffice it to say it detracts enormously for the far more likely mechanism of BODY CONTACT image imprinting (no, not supernatural photography across air gaps!).
Yes, 14 th century physical contact imprinting, deploying a simple kitchen commodity (white flour, maybe with an oil accompaniment) as imprinting medium, followed by gentle roasting to obtain the desired degree of faint yellow coloration that can be said/claimed to mimic, whether by “forgery” or mere “simulation” an ancient body sweat imprint!()

Why the negative reception to flour-imprinting, not only from dyed-in-the-wool advocates of authenticity?

Simples: the world at large has gone overboard for the notion that the Shroud body image as some kind of photograph, regardless of time or place of origin.

Here’s a prime example, from the Stephen Jones never-a-shred-of-doubt, 100% pro-authenticity website (2011)

theshroudofturin.blogspot

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2011/10/shroud-of-turin-burial-sheet-of-jesus-4.html

Reminder from above!

galaxy inv then 3D im j post edit

The world at large cannot believe that Secondo Pia’s 1898 iconic reversed negative of the face of the Man on the Shroud could be the result of anything but some kind of photography. The idea that it’s fully realizable by initial imprinting as a contact negative,  then and only then  followed by photographic processing, simply doesn’t get a look in. The fact that Pia was allowed to enhance his photo of the Shroud face initially not only by the much-publicized reversal of  negative to positive, but by enhancement of tone, definition, clarity, dark v light balance etc simply gets ignored or glossed over.  Yes, late 19th century photography got the first look-in where initial  popularised media and public perception of the Shroud image was concerned. It’s never looked back since (at least not till the 1988 radiocarbon dating came along, reversing the attempts on the part of the dubious STURP enterprise to add its largely semi-scientific tuppenceworth (nay, multi-US dollars-worth) to the alleged Shroud “enigma”).

See this pdf  from the ‘Coordinator”  of the (so-called)  Shroud Science Group (SSG). Date?

a dozen years of the SSG by GF

One can save oneself a lot of time by going straight to the final paragraph!

” The author is convinced after 14 years of study that, despite the impossibility of confirming authenticity from a strictly scientific view with 100% certainty, that it is the only one “photograph” of Jesus Christ who resurrected from the dead.”

I could say more, but won’t (see gist of current posting – online reporting of a scientific learning curve is, or seemed to be, back in 2012 – a valuable internet facility – but is well-nigh worthless in terms of feedback – notably SCIENCE-BASED feedback.

Nuff said… Sorry. Someone had to say it… What one gets instead is wool pulled over the eyes, not just the upturned hem of a woolly hat, but bales and bales of half-processed fleece straight off the backs of sheep (SSG follow-my-leader sheep especially, nuff said)  …

Good bye folks. As I say, Comments are still open, but there will be no more postings .

FINIS

Colin Berry (retired PhD biomedical scientist).

Shroud-blogger, among other things (plus Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, current science etc) with a final total – yawn – of 371 or so Shroud postings, December 2011 – July 2020.

Onetime Head of Nutrition and Food Safety (1978-1990), Flour Milling and Baking Research Association, Chorleywood, Herts, UK.  (Early inspiration for my final flour-imprinting/roasting Model 10? Who says man cannot live by bread alone?).

RS paper 1986

Published  October 1986

BNF Task Force cover and members list

Published July 1990  (when I finally abandoned Govt. -funded scientific research – er, thanks Maggie! – for  private tutoring and secondary-school teaching , becoming Head of Science at an independent school in outer London ).

Contactable (spammers excepted) at: sciencebod01(at)aol.com

Postscript (added Aug 31, 2020)

Have just added a comment of my own to the end of this posting. It’s the end-stage in rounding off this FINAL posting of mine with a concluding message re the Shroud of Turin.

Here’s how it starts:

“So what’s the overall conclusion of this weblog and my two other TS-reporting internet sites, started in Dec 2011, now concluded with a total of some 370 postings?

Answer: It began with a strong critique of the claims made by …  “

Here’s something I’ve added to one of my own comments (Sep 2, 2020):

film-set model previoulsy Model 10

#################################################

Here’s a mass spectrograph I’ve found in the recent literature (2017) showing how Maillard browning products in a model system increase in number with increasing incubation/browning time. (Needed to illustrate one of my own appended comments – see below)

Why mention it here and now?

Answer – the above technology appears to provide a potential means for exploring the chemical make-up of the image chromophore (something that has evaded science for the best part of 40 years – and more!).

More to the point, it provides a means (hopefully) for distinguishing between rival models – notably the ones supplied by STURP (2 contrasting models – modified cellulose v Maillard!) and now my own Final Model 10 (“FILM-SET”).

No, we don’t need – as yet – to go the whole hog, i.e. to determine the detailed chemical structure of the image chromophore. No, far from it. Let’s be content (for starters) with determining whether or not the fragmentation pattern seen on mass spectrometry is that from a chemically-modified cellulose – as declared by STURP’s 1981 Summary – formed with no extraneous add-ons- OR whether it shows a better match with Maillard browning products, involving amino-carbonyl reactions in the first instance (the nitrogeneous amino groups supplied by additional non-cellulosic participants!).

Further Appendix: Screen shot of video supplied by Tamara for use in my return comment (preliminary)

Site visit statistics, Dec 7, 2020:

Still getting the visitors, despite some 5 months since putting up last posting (and 6 weeks since attaching last comment to that posting).

Heartening, I must say, most heartening (despite continued absence from Google listings under (shroud of turin) search!

Update (Jan 2, 2021)

I can presently be found (in a light-hearted mood) on the Boadicea Chariot site, run by an Australian called Bearsy and his Brit wife. Previously I have submitted comments only, going back 12 years and more, but today I was invited to submit a full posting!

About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin, shroud of turin,, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Shroud of Turin: easily explicable, I say, as an IDEALIZED body-imprint. Think ingenious 14th century faking of Joseph of Arimathea’s “intended for stretcher-like transport only” linen. Think “FILM-SET” (Flour Imprint, Liquid-Migrating, Solid-Entrapping Threads).

  1. Colin Berry says:

    Polite reminder to commentators – current or would-be. This site was set up to report the findings of hands-on experimental research in which an attempt is made by this retired scientist (one-time Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at the Flour Milling and Baking Research Association when based at Chorleywood, Herts, UK) to model the TS body image.

    It’s OK for ardent believers in the authenticity of the TS – notably as the genuine burial shroud of the crucified Jesus – to promote their beliefs here . My own position, based on an 8 year old learning curve, reported online day-to-day, week-to-week via some 370 postings, is that the TS is a medieval modelling of Joseph of Arimathea’s “fine linen”, deployed as a makeshift stretcher for transporting the crucified Jesus from cross to tomb. It’s a representation of the kind of imprint (realistic or otherwise) that a body, damp with perspiration and blood, might leave on a single sheet of fold-over linen as separate frontal v dorsal imprints, the two head-to-head body images becoming subsequently yellowed and rendered fainter via centuries of ageing. Blood is a more complex issue – but has been addressed.

    This comment is attached to my final posting (though it gives info on the focus and direction of my now less active ongoing research) which will no longer be reported in real time.

    See incidentally the painting at the top of the current posting. The notion that the TS was formed as a body imprint onto J of A’s linen, albeit authentic, is not my own: it’s been around since the 16th/17th century – maybe earlier:

    Forgive me then if I decline to get involved in further pro-v-anti authenticity arguments. I have made my position clear: the TS is a medieval imprint, probably deploying white flour as the imprinting medium, maybe as dry powder onto wet linen (especially for the fuzzier torso and limbs), maybe as a viscous slurry in water (especially for the sharper more defined features of the face) onto dry linen. The second step, post imprinting, involves heating to develop yellow or brown Maillard browning products, aka melanoidins, as first flagged up by STURP’s Raymond N.Rogers. Watch what happens when flour dough with its reducing sugars and protein amino groups is placed in an oven, gradually becoming bread! A final washing step with soap and water removed loose surface encrustation, the melanoidins then restricted largely to fine channels that exist between the numerous (200 or so) fibres that make up linen threads. Indeed, the image pigment aka chromophore, may not be on or within fibres, so much as BETWEEN them (see this posting) and easily mistaken under the microscope as if fibres, when in fact occupying, as I say narrow capillary channels BETWEEN fibres.

    I’m prepared to discuss via Comments the points raised in this final posting, raised on this posting alone. Everything else is now water under the bridge (given that I have settled on final imprinting models 9 and 10, having discarded 8 predecessors through systematic self-critical experimental testing., i.e. old-fashioned, no-nonsense science)

    Thank you for your understanding. Please don’t be offended if you post a comment and it receives no response. Here’s hoping this comment goes at least some of the way to explaining why …

    I shall have to stop here, today being a special day, today being my wife and I’s Golden Wedding Anniversary!

    Colin Berry
    25th July, 2020
    Herts, UK

  2. jacob pilavin says:

    I have a question about your model pro shroud people often claim that since their is no image under the blood. If this is true how did it survive being baked could the fragile blood clots survive? It is also claimed it would be near impossible to pain the blood on.

    I found the claim on Stephens shroud of turin blog you mentoid him before so I think you might be familiar. He used this document to back up his claim

    Click to access adler.pdf

  3. Colin Berry says:

    A very similar question was put to me just 2 weeks ago by Tamara Beryl Latham on the “Prize Contest” posting that immediately precedes this one.

    Here’s a link to my reply.
    #####################

    https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2020/04/14/100-prize-on-offer-for-best-short-summary-of-the-shroud-of-turin/#comment-13461

    #####################

    In brief, it was not real blood that was applied on top of imprinting medium, but something red but inorganic (and heat-stable) that would survive the heating step needed to develop image colour. It mentions the discovery by Prof.G. Lucotte and his colleagues in Paris of red clay in a facial blood stain they analysed. That clay, if used, would have imprinted first, i.e. under the imprinting medium, and could then have been painted over with real blood after the heating step..

    I trust that helps.

    • jacob says:

      okay thank you would you mind leaving me a source for this Lucottes work so i can verify it.
      I have also heard it claimed the blood can’t be painted on has it out of stereoregister with the clothe and allegedly shows differences expected from both between arterial and venous bleeding patterns
      the source for the claims is from again this stephen guy. The more I look into him the more a realize he has some wild ideas. Like how the carbon dating lab was hacked by the kgb
      http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2016/01/problems-of-forgery-theory-index-z.html#WI79

      Click to access ssi43part12.pdf

      • Colin Berry says:

        Here’s a link to the Lucotte studies you requested Jacob:

        Click to access n85part3.pdf

        ( Wasn’t able to find a simple URL as such – no need, however: see scroll bar for accessing the entire article!)

        Sorry, but as I said just recently via a comment on July 25, I have decided to say no more on the matter of pro- versus anti-authenticity, at least on an internet blog site (don’t get me started!).:

        https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2020/06/20/shroud-of-turin-final-report-of-my-8-year-learning-curve-entirely-consistent-with-my-final-flour-imprinting-model-10-crucial-second-stage-roasting-of-a-medieval-body-contact-imprint-to-mimic/#comment-13491

        Believe me, there’s a lot I could say, and indeed have done so, about the particular single-author paper you have chosen to highlight. I refer to its highly dubious claims re bilirubin in attempting to explain centuries-old blood that is “too red”, alleged release of liquid blood and serum from “retracted clots” that are (fancifully maintained to be) days old (!). My Models 9 and 10 see a modelling exercise of blood (and body sweat) still moist and easily imprintable from a body recently taken down from a cross – not days later after dispatch to a tomb).

        But as I say, that all in the past where I’m concerned: I’m only prepared now to comment (and hopefully get some feedback) on my own Model 9/10 thinking, developed and reported here and elsewhere over some 8 years via microscope-aided hands-on experimentation. Sorry, but that reluctantly is my final word on the matter.

        Best of luck with your own research. Warning: you have a mountain to climb as regards background reading! Beware projectile pie in the sky (like that particular paper you have cited)….

        • Jacob says:

          Could you go into a little more detail into the bleeding pattern and stereregstier claims

        • Jacob says:

          Could you recommend me some of your article’s that comment on this pro authenticity claims or other blogs and people that do so

          • Colin Berry says:

            Sorry, Jacob, but I’m no longer willing to comment here on my blog (correction – semi-retired blog) on other people’s claims. I’ve said why – my claims, nay simple all-embracing Model 10 developed over some 8 years via science-based hands-on experimentation has been systematically cold-shouldered by authenticity-promoting sindonology, including the so-called SSG. (Shroud “Science” Group).

            Yes, Model 10 focuses primarily on the body image, rather than blood, which appears to be your focus. But I discovered early on that while sindonology (STURP included) deployed the terms “blood” and “body wound” interchangeably, there isn’t a single unequivocal wound visible in the body image. ALL so-called “wounds” are present merely as blood stains “in all the right places”.

            I prefer to leave others to dwell on their own fantasies, having declared the TS to be a flour imprint that has been roasted to develop its coloration as Maillard browning products, followed by a final wash with soap and water. Blood (or “blood”) has been addressed in recent postings, the one prior to this posting especially, which incorporates the red clay reported by Prof. Lucotte and his fellow microscopists in Paris.

            Since Dan Porter finally closed his shroudstory site last year, the internet now lacks a TS-focused web forum, one which provokes comment via short pithy postings, welcoming comments from all-and-sundry.

            Here’s your opportunity, Jacob (and others of a similar persuasion). Create your own TS-focused website(s).

            No need to acknowledge this comment, Jacob. I’ve said all I want (or need) to say by way of reply to your own comments. This site is simply not the appropriate place for your kind of focus on particular details, that so-called “blood” especially, derived we’re earnestly asked to believe from biblically-distributed so-called “wounds”.

            The TS is of 14th century manufacture, as per radiocarbon dating.

  4. Colin Berry says:

    Here’s an email I’ve just sent to someone with a substantial of publicity clout in the MSM (who shall remain nameless, he and his media outlet each referred to as “X”!) seeking advice on how to sum up the TS controversy.

    Thanks X

    I was tempted to give you a recipe for your planned (x). . But given my aversion to the multitude of ‘pushy characters’ who dominate present day “sindonology’, I’m not willing to tar myself with the same brush. I’m just a boring old scientist, attempting to defend “science” as I understand the term!

    If at any stage you want a hard clinical take on ‘sindonology’ aka pro-authenticity ‘shroudology’ seen from the standpoint of a real scientist – one willing to denounce the kind of pseudoscience that has managed to monopolize past and present Google listings (worth an ( x) its own right !) then say so, and I’ll try to oblige.

    Science (real science) is prepared to sit tight, sometimes year on year, waiting to see how things develop. You will not see the same degree of patience and self-restraint on the part of those, desperate (for one reason or another) to promote their own Shroudie pro-authenticity, pro-miraculist propaganda – masquerading as science, monopolizing Google, monopolizing the mass media.

    I say the TS is a medieval genius of biblical modelling – portraying how J of A’s “fine linen” MIGHT have looked after transporting the crucified Jesus from cross-to-tomb. (Naught to do with post-interment burial shroud, as per 4th Gospel of John! Read the first three Gospels carefully, with its introduction to the otherwise mysterious J of A and his narrow but specific MO, spotlighting the role of his TRANSPORT fine linen. modelled, yes MODELLED in the 14th century!.).

    Sorry to have to spell it out so candidly.

    Kind regards

    etc…

  5. Colin Berry says:

    Have just been taking another look at Mark Antonacci’s book from Year 2000, entitled “The Resurrection of the Shroud” etc etc.”

    I have already done two severe critiques of aforesaid book: first, the cover picture, and second, the tail-end section entitled “Comprehensive List of the Shroud’s Unique Characteristics” (Page 279) which I addressed back in early 2017 (albeit as part of an Appendix to a posting addressed to something entirely different).

    (I’ll try to track down links to my aforementioned postings, many moons ago)

    Today I was re-reading Antonacci’s book, looking to see where “Joseph of Arimathea” and his “fine linen” gets a mention, and finding scarcely anything on that aspect (one which should surely be head of the queue, given the Gospel account in the first 3 chapters. Thus far, I’ve found scarcely anything re J of A from Mark Antonacci (legal attorney by profession).

    But what I had previously missed was the second and third sentences, yes SECOND and THIRD! sentences no less

    Here’s Sentence 2 of Antonacci’s book:

    “In ancient times, burial shrouds were wrapped lengthwise around a body, as shown below (ed. reference to a medieval painting, featured on cover of book, with crucial aspect blanked out by book’s title)

    Here’s the immediately following Sentence 3:

    Jesus would have been wrapped and buried (sic) in such a linen shroud.”

    So, dear reader, if you want to know why the biblical Joseph of Arimathea and his hastily-summoned up “fine linen” takes a back seat where pro-authenticity sindonology is concerned then look no further!

    Mark Antonacci’s book provides a clue, nay pre-emptive message, as to why things developed the way they did post the 1988 radiocarbon dating.

    Observe the manner in which Antonacci presented the TS from the word go as the FINAL burial shroud (read “Shroud” from 4th Gospel of John ) , with the focus exclusively on Resurrection as the mode of supernatural imaging, as distinct from more mundane contact-imprinting, en route from cross-to-tomb, whether 1st century or later re-modelled (14th century).

    Words fail me. How can a narrative become seized, nay hijacked in this manner, casting any and all alternative viewpoints into the Outer Darkness?

    I say it’s the triumph of Religious Dogma over Science, one which continues to operate (albeit less blatantly ) after a fashion to this day….

  6. Colin Berry says:

    So where do we go from here (with Model 10)? Ah yes, the 64,000 dollar question, one for which there are no easy answers.

    One might think (at first sight) that there’s a simple straightforward test – look for evidence of the linen plus flour imprint having been subject to roasting (180-200 degrees C perhaps). But how? Even STURP chemistry team leader Ray Rogers had no ready means of testing for his Maillard browning products, aka melanoidins, and neither do I. They are a condensed high molecular weight species with incredibly complex internal chemistry that does not lend itself to spot tests, given the multitude of fused aromatic rings.

    I’ve tried listing circumstantial evidence in favour of the linen having been heated. Category A (strongly suggestive) has just 3 ticks, Category B (weakly suggestive) has 9 (no less) and Category C (faintest hint of a link with applied heat) has 4. I’ll list them later if anyone’s interested.

    Might there be an alternative means of implicating heat, maybe indirectly. Yes, I do believe there is. The heating step is needed to develop the yellow-brown colour of the proposed flour imprint (so easily and quickly modelled in the 21st century home!). So maybe the first objective should be to detect traces of flour that have survived the heating step to respond to the kind of tests used for cooked cereal products. Which one do I have in mind? Answer: immunological tests for wheat GLUTEN, a storage protein that accounts for some 10-15% of the inner starchy endosperm of wheat granules, i.e. white flour.

    Antibody-testing kits are available for those who are gluten-intolerant. I say that the Turin custodians (or a possible STURP Mark 2) should waste no time in testing the TS body image v non-image control areas for WHEAT GLUTEN, albeit partially heat-degraded! I’ve already said in an earlier posting that at least some of the particulate flecks that are seen on the TS might well be wheat gluten that has survived both the roasting and final washing step (maybe spread around a bit by the latter, i.e. moving from image to non-image zones).

    Alternative suggestions invited for putting Model 10 with its flour-imprinting/heating stages to the test…

    Postscript:

    Here’s a couple of images. The first is a particular commercial gluten-detector meter. If/when it detects gluten in one’s next mouthful, the image of the wheat grain displays a new message underneath: “GLUTEN FOUND”

    Here’s the kind of meter-adaptation to a micro-scale I’d like to see applied to (guess what?) an image fibre from the TS, notably one or more of those flecks one sees scattered all over the TS. (Yes, that final 3rd stage washing step – needed to remove the surface-encrustation – read “crud” from 2nd stage -roasting – may well have re-located gluten-flecks from image zones only to the entire linen!).

    Final piccies below (for those who like visual aids).

    Top: a Mark Evans photo from STURP used in my earlier 2017 posting – see link above.
    Underneath: an added message appearing under the magic microscope : GLUTEN FOUND ?

    (We Doubting Thomas scientists preferring question marks – even where our own ideas are concerned – pending their crucial testing).

    I say it’s time mainstream (pro-authenticity) sindonology came out of self-protective cocoon (especially so-called privatized SSG – Shroud “Science” Group). I say it’s time mainstream sindonology began to consider the hard facts, generated by free-thinking science . I refer to REAL science – based on experimental modelling/ harsh evaluation of each and every consecutive model, until arriving at one that ticks most, if not all the boxes,. Like,, er, my Model 10, flour imprinting/second stage roasting/ third stage washing.

    Come on, pro-authenticity sindonology. If you think there are fatal flaws in my so-called Model 10, then kindly spell them out. (Oh, and please do so in a manner that alerts Google to the presence of this internet site, erased from its (shroud of turin) search returns some 2 years ago – without explanation).

    Message to Free World: it’s not just the “authentic 1st century TS” that needs to be placed under the critical eye of a microscope. It’s that global internet phenomenon, nay monster, innocuously calling itself “google. com,” that needs to be scrutinized with the utmost care.

    I say present-day Google is a threat to free speech, a threat to our Western democracy-based Free World, based on FREE SPEECH! Google is the pits – a re-appearance of an (albeit toned-down ) Soviet Union, pursuing commercial as distinct from political goals.

    An internet-search engine is supposed to open doors to new knowledge, new insights – not close them (least of all surreptitiously).

    Google needs to be stopped in its tracks – NOW!

  7. Colin Berry says:

    (Oops.Sorry. This is an earlier version of my following comment minus the “FILM-SET” acronym that now replaces “Model 10”. I messed up on the editing).
    I’ll try erasing it, once I’ve got the hang of the latest WordPress composing/editing technology).

    So what’s the overall conclusion of this weblog and my two other TS-reporting internet sites, started in Dec 2011, now concluded with a total of some 370 postings?

    Answer: It began with a strong critique of the claims made by certain members of an Italian Government laboratory (ENEA), widely publicized late 2011 in the UK media and no doubt elsewhere, namely that (a) the Shroud of Turin image could (and never would) ever be explained by means of conventional science (b) ipso facto it was supernatural in origin (c) coloration of linen by pulsed high energy uv excimer laser beams was the best that could be done right now to model the nature of the image chromophore.

    With the arrival (2015) of my final Model 10 (flour imprinting) and subsequent attempts on my part to rule it out of contention (without success!) I think I now know how that extraordinary claim on the part of those Italian scientists/technologists was arrived at. I could make a full posting, but won’t. The present one, as stated, is my last (let’s not dwell further on reasons, except to say that the internet is not the ideal medium for garnering useful feedback, as distinct from reporting one’s learning curve in real time)

    I’m presently assembling a narrative as to how sindonology came to take the wrong turning, heading off down that supernaturally-mediated dead-end (yes, DEAD END as far as science is concerned, as distinct from fanciful religion-proselytizing pseudoscience).

    This comment is already quite long. I’ll compose a follow-up for posting in a day or two, setting out where and how I believe the wrong turning was taken.

    Clue: it goes back to 1978, i.e. the ambitious STURP enterprise. It goes back to the yawning gulfs that existed between the sampling and examination of (a) whole TS linen (b) individual thread (c) separate fibres. It was not a “joined-up” enterprise! It was fragmented, with vital links missing between the three component parts… (Especially between thread and fibre – see current/final posting!).

    I’ll be claiming that the new ideas mooted in this, my last posting, derived largely from experimental modelling , fill most if not all the gaps in the existing body of relevant TS data. Result: what I consider a credible scenario as to how the TS was created in the mid-14th century as a “simulated sweat imprint” onto J of A’s fine linen, with no need whatsoever to invoke supernatural intervention (least of all pulses of high-energy radiation from Italian government-owned uv excimer lasers). Think red hot medieval charcoal embers, roasting a simple flour imprint onto wettened body-contour hugging linen…

  8. Colin Berry says:

    So what’s the overall conclusion of this weblog and my two other TS-reporting internet sites, started in Dec 2011, now concluded with a total of some 370 postings?

    Answer: It began with a strong critique of the claims made by certain members of an Italian Government laboratory (ENEA), widely publicized late 2011 in the UK media and elsewhere, namely that (a) the Shroud of Turin image could (and never would) ever be explained by means of conventional science (b) ipso facto it was supernatural in origin (c) coloration of linen by pulsed high energy uv excimer laser beams was the best that could be done right now to model the nature of the image chromophore.

    With the arrival (2015) of my final Model 10 (flour imprinting) and subsequent attempts on my part to rule it out of contention (amazingly without success!) I think I now know how that extraordinary claim on the part of those Italian scientists/technologists was arrived at. I could make a full posting, but won’t. The present one, as stated, is my last (let’s not dwell further on reasons, except to say that the internet is not the ideal medium for garnering useful feedback, as distinct from reporting one’s learning curve in real time).

    I’m presently assembling a narrative as to how sindonology came to take the wrong turning, heading off as it did down that dreary dead-end cul-de-sac signposted “Supernatural Haven” (yes, DEAD END as far as science is concerned, substituting fanciful religion-proselytizing pseudoscience).

    This comment is already quite long. I’ll compose a follow-up for posting as a tail-end follow-up in a day or two, setting out where and how I believe the wrong turning was taken.

    Clue to follow-up: it goes back to 1978, i.e. the ambitious STURP enterprise. It goes back to the yawning gaps that exists between the sampling and examination of (a) whole TS linen (b) individual thread (c) separate fibres.

    No, it was not a “joined-up” enterprise, not by a long chalk! It was seriously fragmented, with vital interconnecting links missing between those three component parts…

    It was, to put it baldly. a hotch-potch…

    I’ll be supplying a new name by, the way, for what I presently call “Model 10”. It’ll provide a clue as to the likely dynamics of TS body image formation…

    PS: Where’s “Shroudologist” Thibault Heimbuger MD (Paris-based physician) been these last 4 or 5 years with his keen eye for detail? Why did he suddenly disappear from the internet scene? I trust it wasn’t anything I said (while promoting final Model 10, back in 2015/16)!). We need both sides of the debate to be clearly articulated… We can then maybe arrive at a conclusion re TS authenticity or otherwise , based on the facts (repeat, FACTS!) Repeat: GAP-FILLED facts!

    PPS: Am thinking of dumping the term “Model 10”. What to replace it with? How about an information-conveying acronym?

    “FILM-SET Model”?

    FLOUR IMPRINT, LIQUID MIGRATION, SOLID-ENTRAPPING THREAD
    (No, not the Hollywood kind of film-set. More the molten candle wax kind, dripping onto a cloth spread over the mantelpiece!)

    PPPS: As flagged up earlier, this site is now being re-directed as regards primary function. Previously it was to report an 8 year learrnng curve, one that led to flour-imprinting “Model 10” in 2015. Model 10 has stood up to 5 years of critical scrutiny, on both my own and other’s part (notably that of Thibault Heimburger MD). So the site’s aim has now switched to promoting the message of Model 10. The latter has now been re-named as “FILM-SET” (Flour Imprinting, Liquid Migrating, Solid-Entrapping Threads). I have earlier today (Sep 3, 2020) amended both the title of the site (slightly) and that of this final posting (considerably!). There’s no point in hiding one’s light under a bushel. I consider that 8 years of constant application to the so-called “enigma” of the TS via experimental modelling has led finally to an solid answer, one that has stood up to no end of slights and criticism, – my own and others. Time now to draw a line under the learning curve. Time now to broadcast one’s message.

    How? Ah yes – there are no easy answers where that is concerned … The internet offers no easy answers…

  9. Colin Berry says:

    Here’s the 3-stage image of my newly-named “FILM-SET” methodology from 2015, originally called Model 10, which I added to this, my Final TS posting just two days ago.

    The penny has suddenly dropped. Don’t bother trying to prove that the image pigment (aka chromophore) is a Maillard browning product, formed by complex sequences of amino-carbonyl reactions between reducing sugars and proteins. I’ve already acknowledged – as did Ray Rogers – that Maillard browning products pose hugely difficult problems where chemical analysis is concerned.
    But a thought’s just crossed my mind, after looking at that central image – i.e. the negative brown imprint. Don’t even think about determining its precise chemical make-up, even if that might one day be possible.

    No, all one has to do is blitz a small sample of the TS body image chromophore at the molecular level in a mass spectrometer and observe the mass spectrum of low molecular weight breakdown products generated. Then compare and contrast that pattern with the one obtained with (a) the FILM-SET method (b) rival alternatives, notably Rogers’ pro-authenticity version of the Maillard chemistry, plus the one put forward by other STURP-team members, notably Adler and Heller’s chemical modification of linen cellulose per se (no outside agents!) via dehydration, oxidation and conjugation etc.

    As I say, there’s no pressing need at this stage to identify the individual fragments. Simply put the mass fragmentation spectra side by side, and see which model-building process – mine, STURP’s and maybe others – provides the closest match.

    Late addition: here’s a mass spectrograph I’ve found in the recent literature (2017) showing how Maillard browning products in a simple model system (simple starting materials that is) increase in number and/or complexity with increasing incubation/browning time.).

    From: Evolution of Complex Maillard Reactions, Resolved in Time:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03691-z

    Late addition: I’ve made the following addition to the mass spectrograph shown above to make it clearer what it shows:

    I’ll leave it there for now… Except to say this. I’m now 99% certain that my FILM-SET methodology will give the closest match! It’s taken the best part of 9 years and 370 or so postings to make that kind of prediction (100% scientific, given it is capable of being put to the experimental test, unlike so much that passes for, er, “science” where sindonology is concerned!).

    Incidentally, visitors to this site could be forgiven for thinking I’m over-exaggerating with that “99% certain” statement above. Press me harder and I might be tempted to round it up to 100%. Why?

    I’ve spent the last couple of hours with paper and pencil, listing reasons that support my case for powder, notably white flour imprinting, followed by roasting and rinsing. I have reached a mere 25 telling points thus far … Yes, 25 no less! I’d be happy to post them as a new comment to this, my Final Posting, should anyone wish to view, and indeed find fault!

    Science if 50% or more about acknowledging and responding to alleged faults. Science by its very nature is open to – and indeed invites- criticism!

  10. Jacob says:

    How well does this model replicate the 3d information on the real shroud?

    • Colin Berry says:

      3D-processing of a 2D image involves a combination of two entirely separate inputs:

      1. The pixel-by-pixel mosaic of 2D image intensity.
      2. The manner in which the computer software is set up to raise degree of image intensity, pixel by pixel onto the new and entirely man-made third dimension, i.e. the z axis at right angles to the initial inputted xy plane.

      As such, nobody, myself included, should feel the slightest obligation to replicate a 3D-enhanced version of the TS body image. Any 2D model of the TS, relevant or not to the actual TS, will display a 3D response, at least with ImageJ (I can’t speak for the original VP-8 as deployed by STURP’s Bill Mottern and John Jackson). (Oh, and let’s not forget the initial light/dark reversal applied to an otherwise unattractive negative image which adds an extra ‘serene’ quality to the final result! A quick 5 minute sketch of the TS face with stick of charcoal back in 2012 responded amazingly to a combination of tone reversal and 3D image processing!) .

      https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/a-scientists-eye-view-of-how-the-iconic-turin-shroud-image-could-have-come-into-being-a-happy-accident-of-thermographic-and-photographic-inversion/

      I believe that’s all one needs to say in response to your question. If you disagree, then here’s a suggestion. Create various 2D graphics with MS Paint or similar, then enter them into ImageJ, then play around with settings until you get a result you like. Then give the 2D input and final 3D result to a friend or neighbour as printouts, totally devoid of text, and challenge them to reproduce your result.

      Be prepared for a puzzled expression on their face….

      • Jacob says:

        Thank you know what I think I will try that make some new relic and pawn it to some church.

      • jacob says:

        If I understood you are you saying the alleged 3d information is a optical illusion?

        • Colin Berry says:

          Computer-aided 3D-processing of an inputted 2D image will inevitably possess a degree of optical illusion, Jacob, depending on the settings one selects (notably the z-scale control in ImageJ, which one can leave at its default value of 0.1, as I generally do, or be increased to exaggerate relief).

          If it’s a computer-generated 2D graphic, then everything one sees on screen or a printout is an optical illusion – the “3D-ness” is entirely computer generated.

          (2D graphic, generated with MS Paint, before/after 3D-processing in ImageJ)
          Suppose however that one inputs a 2D imprint off an item with shallow 3D relief (a coin, medal, horse brass etc, all displaying “bas relief”). The 3D-rendered image is then not entirely an optical illusion, being influenced by the effect of the real-life 3D-ness at the imprinting stage.

          ( Scorch imprint from heated horse-brass, before and after 3D-processing)
          Then move one step further up the ladder, and imprint off a fully 3D template, like a figurine, statue or real-life human anatomy, living or dead, and there’s now a further input from real-life 3D-ness which may or may not be fully expressed, depending on manner of imprinting, computer settings etc

          I get the impression, right or wrong, that you have yet to get acquainted Jacob with ImageJ or other 3D-software. If so, why not do so? Then you’ll better understand why it’s impossible to give a simple yes/no answer to your question.

          Things get even more complex and subtle if one inputs a photograph, whether positive or tone-reversed negative. There it’s the interplay of light and dark from angled illumination that is the pre-processed input of real-life 3D-ness.

          Contact imprints are thankfully less tricky items to deal with, especially if one has seen the item per se that is being imprinted.

          (Photograph of imprint of my wet hand onto dark-coloured fabric, before/after tone reversal and 3D-processing)

          But that’s not the case where the TS is concerned! Imprint? Proto-photograph? I know which of those two I prefer, but have no actual 3D item (or semi 3D bas relief) I can summon up to prove my case. But then neither does the starry-eyed authenticity-proselytizing brigade with its claims for imaging via radiation as distinct from physical imprinting, whether 1st or 14th century!

  11. Jacob says:

    This method is very simple and seems to recreate a lot of the shroud properties. How long has the knowledge for some one to does existed? I could image a early Christian making something like this to back up their stories

    • Colin Berry says:

      Thanking your for your continuing interest, Jacob, now displaying a hint of support that had been missing , or seemingly so, from your previous comments (while recognizing that I may have misunderstood, if only because English is apparently not your first language)..

      Here’s a copy of an email I sent to a relative this afternoon (name omitted of course). It sums up my current frame of mind re success or otherwise in getting one’s science-based message across regarding the Shroud (plus interest in a second enigma – Stonehenge – one that also gets lots of attention in our newspapers).

      Thanks xxxxx
      There are too many vested interests where my two main “unsolved enigma” researches are concerned to expect anything to happen soon.
      Personally, I’m prepared to sit tight and let the boring old scientific facts (aka truth) make its presence felt ever so gradually. If not this year, then hopefully next year, maybe even a decade’s time.
      I might not be around to see each of the two Big Days (Shroud plus Stonehenge). But it’s fun all the same, monitoring progress month by month, albeit snail’s rate of progress at times – especially at this particular moment in time (!).

      Kind regards
      Colin

  12. Colin Berry says:

    Update, Sep 23, 2020 Have just this minute replaced the tag line for this site that sits to the right of the Title. It now reads:

    Sindonology has an EIB scale that runs from 1 to 10 (occasionally higher). EIB? Ever Increasing Barminess.

    😉

  13. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Hi Colin!

    Ain’t it grand to be original. 🙂

    Jesus and the World’s First Selfie (Shroud of Turin): Get the Science Behind It!
    Larry Galen Larson
    81 views•Sep 21, 2020

    • Colin Berry says:

      I’m just 4 mins into your lengthy (53mins!) video, Tamara, and what do I find but this alleged account of Mark Chp 15, verse 46:

      Now compare what’s written there with what I see in my King James bible (admittedly ancient, left by a relative):

      “And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre, which was hewn out of a rock … etc etc”

      Notice the TWO important differences, dare one say discrepancies. The video version omits to mention FINE linen, making it unlikely it was intended as the final burial shroud, but then goes on to specify “SHROUD”, not referred to in my copy.

      Sorry, Tamara, but I’m not impressed, given the video version already slants towards the notion that J of A’s fine linen was intended to be the final burial shroud, contrary to the version supplied by John, viewed in conjunction with the 3 preceding Gospels.

      I will watch the rest of the video in due course, but shall be in no hurry to do so…

      PS: Here’s a late addition I made to posting back in Dec 2018:

      Late insertion: I’m pleased to see that Petri Paavola in Finland shares my views on the almost universal misinterpretation (at least in mainstream sindonological circles) of the account in the final Gospel, supposing the linen referred to there as othonia (plural) is J of A’s fine linen, described differently in the first 3 Gospels as sindon (singular), i.e. single sheet, never intended for use as final burial shroud.

      ##################

      Why all the fuss? Answer: it’s all to do with whether or not the body image on the Shroud (medieval or, less probably, a truly authentic relic) is really a “selfie” (i.e. proto-photograph relying on some kind of radiant energy) or merely a contact-only imprint, e.g. left by a moist body .

      A body image left on John’s “winding” burial clothes with separate head cloth, would have looked entirely different from one left on a single sheet of J of A’s transport linen, folded over and around the head only, merely for the purposes of transport not, repeat NOT the sides of the body as if additionally intended for all-enveloping burial shroud!

  14. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin, Too funny!

    I was referring to the word “selfie.” Thought it was you who coined the phrase and why I referenced originality. Yet, with regard to the Shroud, it depends on which version of which Gospel you are reading and how each author chose to describe the cloth.

    Matthew 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth.

    Mark 15:46 And he bought fine linen and took him down and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

    Luke 23:53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

    John 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

    Ta Ta!

    Tamara Beryl Latham

  15. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    The image on the video depicts Jesus being wrapped in a linen cloth, similar to Matthew’s version. The John version is reminiscent of the Jewish burial custom, where the body is wound with strips of linen. Who is to say Jesus wasn’t first wound with strips of linen and then the Shroud was wrapped around the mummy strips and then the Sudarium (head wrap) was placed over the head and tied at the neck?

    With that scenario in mind, one author would write wound (referring only to the strips of linen that were wound around like a mummy) and another author wound write wrapped, with reference to the Shroud and how it was draped about the body.

    I believe wrapped vs. wound referred to two different pieces of linen clothes (strips and shroud).

  16. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    correction: penultimate paragraph “another author would…”

  17. Colin Berry says:

    My 9 years or so of model-based research allows me to summarise the means by which the Turin Shroud was produced in just 99 words, Tamara.

    The narrative is based entirely on the King James version in the Gospel of Mark (the one we have both quoted) featuring a single sheet of ‘fine linen’ used to receive a crucified body from the cross for stretcher-like transport to a nearby tomb (with total body concealment). .

    The subsequent deployment of wind-around burial clothes, as per Gospel of John, plays no role whatsoever in my ‘simulated version’ of J of A’s single commodious sheet, least of all your double layer!

    Let me know if you’d like to see my absurdly simple 99 word summary, Tamara. I’d be only too happy to oblige…

    • Colin Berry says:

      Two days have passed without a response. Oh well, that’s the fickle nature of the internet and its assorted users for you!

      It would be a shame methinks for my 99-word summary of that misleadingly-called so-called “Shroud” to go to waste. Here it is, bolded up, for anyone out there in the wild blue internet yonder who’s interested:

      The TS is a modelling of J of A’s fine linen that notionally acquired a blood/body imprint en route from cross to tomb.

      The body imprint was produced via dusting with white flour (probably with an initial smear of adhesive oil) onto the naked body of an adult male, followed by dribbles of Mark 1 blood (Lucotte’s red clay?) in ‘all the right places’.

      The imprinted linen was then roasted to produce browning of the image, as per bread-baking.

      The final step involved washing with soap and water to leave that faint tone-reversed (“negative”) body image.

      Enjoy, grind your teeth, spit blood (whichever takes your fancy)!

  18. Colin Berry says:

    Have just come across this pdf posting from Barrie M Schwortz, flagged up on his STERA/shroud.com site 4 months ago:

    Click to access bsreview2020.pdf

    Schwortz should stick to the thing he’s good at – like the documenting photography he did 40 years ago for STURP, and leave science to the scientists. Real scientists know that statistical correlation does not imply scientific causation.

    Science and statistics are two entirely different entities. Spurious correlation by amateurish would-be, self-appointed “scientists” is the prime enemy of science…

    PS: I copied and pasted what I assumed to be the URL for the site in question. Instead, Page 1 of the pdf appeared instead, with no (immediately obvious) link. Try entering the title into your search engine, dear reader, if you wish to read the entire swipe at sceptical TV documentaries. (Alternatively, click on the correct symbol at the top of the Page 1 above). See also if you can spot the spurious correlation that would have us believe there was imaging across air gaps, i.e. 1st century “selfie” proto-photography, a far cry from what I consider to have been 14th century powder-imprinting (with a gradation of contact pressure – and thus powder transfer – when imprinting off a 3D subject with raised relief AND recessed hollows!

    PPS: I see that Barrie Schwortz referred to me on his website back in October 2018 as “avowed Shroud skeptic”. That is a ludicrous description to level at an experimental, self-critical, hypothesis-testing scientist at the best of times. To deploy it 30 years or so post the 1988 radiocarbon-dating (1260-1390 AD) renders it bang-out-of-order. Any default description, were one to be needed, would surely be “avowed Shroud-believers, C-14 rejectionists etc.” for folk of Schwortz’s disposition (who have made no move that I’m aware of to get the C-14 dating repeated if they think it’s wrong – as distinct from their serial OTT nitpicking plus intermittent mudslinging).

  19. Colin Berry says:

    My wife and I decided to watch a 2016 cinema-release film on the telly last night called “Risen”, starring Joseph Fiennes and others. No prizes for guessing the subject matter, which was the Crucifixion and its aftermath, Resurrection and Ascension included, seen through the eyes of Pilate and his Roman henchmen, plus that of the 11 apostles minus Judas.

    A certain something stuck in this craw, (guess what?) so I wasted no time in looking up the wiki entry on the film. Here’s what it says right at the end of the entry (my bolding) :

    “Michael Foust of the Christian Examiner gave it 4.5 out of 5 stars and called it “a detective-type story that is inspiring and moving.” “Yes, Risen is historical fiction, but it’s largely harmonious with the Gospel story , incredibly well-done, and not much different from those Sunday School discussions many of us take part in week to week,” Foust wrote.[17]”

    So why, pray tell us, was the face of the Man on the Turin Shroud shown on a single sheet of linen left in the tomb? That film was made 28 years no less after the radiocarbon dating, giving the TS a medieval origin (1260-1390)?

    That’s not all. The risen Christ is shown in close-up, showing his hands to a disciple. Guess where the nail wound is sited. Yes, the WRIST, as per Turin Shroud . No, NOT the palm of the hand, as supposed conventionally (whether right or wrong mechanically, which is very much open to debate, given the huge number of gaps in our knowledge).

    Our media, cinema films included, have it seems been taken over by propaganda machines, substituting fanciful pseudoscience for hard facts. Shame on the makers of “Risen” for lending further credence to a mythical entity, one that DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE GOSPELS!

    PS: Have just discovered that Dan Porter flagged up the trailer for the movie back in August 2015 on his now defunct shroudstory site:

    https://shroudstory.com/2015/08/29/risen-the-movie-featuring-the-shroud/

    Guess what? His posting even includes a somewhat blurry screen shot of THAT face on the shroud improperly endowed with historical authenticity!

    PPS: here’s a sentence from Presbyterian pastor Jordan Rimmer, written on the website of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

    https://www.pts.edu/blog/risen-movie-review/

    “The movie was clearly written from a Catholic perspective. There is a strong emphasis of Peter’s leadership and Jesus passing authority to Peter. The movie also shows the Shroud of Turin—a burial cloth with the impression of a crucified face believed by some to be Jesus”

    Taken with other info, like the film’s low budget, I wonder if there’s anyone else thinking what I’m thinking as to the film’s real purpose! Clue: that appearance – albeit brief – of the unmistakeable Shroud of Turin! Probably best I stop there… 😉

  20. Colin Berry says:

    I’ve tried hard over the years to avoid jumping to conclusions.

    But there’s now not a shred of doubt in my mind. Where ‘sindonology’, correction Sindonology, is concerned, one is dealing with a highly organized, integrated, centrally-controlled Colossus. Its devious, underhand MO is probably dictated by a potent admixture of (a) religious and (b) financial considerations. But be aware: there may be other inputs that are not immediately obvious. Like ‘anti-this’ or ‘anti-that’…

    I could break off finally right now, leaving the above as my final conclusion, reached after some 9 years of observation and reporting.

    But I shan’t. I’ll simply look now for continuing evidence that backs up my case, namely that Sindonology (specifically the pro-authenticity variety, with missionary zeal, missionary bit between teeth) is an organized Colossus. From where it’s emanating is anyone’s guess.

    I’m not pointing the finger (just yet) to specific quarters. We scientists try not to rush to final hard-and-fast conclusions (unlike so many Sindonologists, naming no names).

    PS: Have thus far been able to list 24 points (no less) for suspecting that there’s been a behind-the-scenes Colossus pushing its stridently pro-authenticity line. Some of my listings may be wrong. But all of them? All 24? I doubt it somehow!

  21. jacob says:

    Collin what’s your opinion on the claims that the shroud is a photo negative?

    • jacob says:

      Also if the shroud does have this alleged proprieties is it explainable under your model?

      • Colin Berry says:

        Did you see the lengthy detailed reply I posted to your question on Sept 22, Jacob? I went to some trouble, inserting a number of graphics, but as I say, not so much as a simple acknowledgement came back in return. Forgive me if I decline from answering your latest questions if you’re not willing to stay the course. You shouldn’t be using the internet to impose on others.

        • jacob says:

          I am sorry I didn’t know I was suck a annoyance I hope you can forgive me. I will be busy for the next couple of months so you will be rid of me,

          Best Wishes
          Jacob Pilavin

          • Colin Berry says:

            Thank you Jacob for the long-awaited reply.
            But I’m puzzled by your saying you’ll be absenting yourself from the internet for 2 whole months no less!
            I seem to recall someone else absenting himself from the world at large (admittedly pre-internet) for a mere 40 days and 40 nights in the so-called wilderness (i.e.1 month and 10 days or thereabouts).
            So what’s keeping you so occupied?
            Have you signed up to monastic orders (preliminary Phase 1, compulsory silence)?

  22. Colin Berry says:

    Suppose I had to choose a SINGLE ‘before v after’ image-transformation graphic to convey the scientific principle underlying the Turin Shroud. But with one important proviso: not using the TS per se but a carefully selected variant, one that was also centuries old! What would it be?

    How about this one?

    The image on the left is a brass rubbing (* see credits at end) How was it made? Answer: take a bas relief of the gent and his missus, cover with a sheet of paper, then rub a stick of charcoal (or, better still, graphite or wax/lampblack) across the engraved brass, preferably , as I say, with slightly raised bas relief. Result – a tone-reversed negative, where light becomes dark and vice versa.

    Now imagine the original creator of the brass rubbing had been shown the graphic on the right, and asked to say how they thought it was made from the initial image. Answer? “Amazing! Truly amazing! How on earth was that achieved? Has there maybe been some kind of miracle!”

    But there wasn’t of course. It involved two consecutive steps.

    First there was tone-reversal, using photography – whether deploying 19th century technology (e.g. Secondo Pia’s silver salt photography) or modern- day digital pixel-processing equivalent.

    Second step: enter the tone-reversed photo into ImageJ software or similar to get a hint of 3D-enhancement.

    Yes the 3D effect is somewhat modest, I grant you, but then the initial template, as stated was at best a bas relief, not fully 3D.

    Conclusion: it’s absurd of sindonology to go banging on endlessly about 1st century ‘selfie’ proto-photography, relying on bursts of radiation, whether natural or supernatural. The technology for converting negative tone-reversed imprints into more realistic light-reversed images, especially if 3D-enhanced, is readily available to anyone and everyone these days. Get real all you authenticity-proselytizing sindonologists. Abandon the “selfie” line. It’s frankly pseudo-science, aka complete twaddle.

    Think of the TS as comparable to a brass-rubbing, albeit with a key difference. The initial template was probably a real fully-3D human being, imprinted via a direct-contact powder-imprinting technique, as distinct from a shallow inanimate bas relief carved wood or metal casting.
    ##################

    * The particular brass rubbing used in this comment featured in a Telegraph article from Jan 2009. Here was the caption and credits:

    A brass rubbing at Upchurch in Kent showing an unknown married couple, 1360 CREDIT: Photo: THE MONUMENTAL BRASS SOCIETY
    See my posting from way back in Jan 2016, showing the initial brass-rubbing, subject of a reader’s comment.:

    https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/who-says-science-cant-explain-the-shroud-of-turin/

    1360! That’s almost the same year as the first documented appearance of the TS in Lirey, France. So the first cohorts of pilgrims to view the TS would have been entirely at home with 2D “negative” (tone-reversed) imprints, even if describing them with a simpler vocabulary! Like “body prints”.
    ########################

    As I said a while ago, the 1978 STURP initiative, held up recently as a model (we’re informed) of good science, makes not a single mention in its 1981 Summary of the negative tone-reversed nature of the body image. Bizarre! Truly bizarre! Instead it places the spotlight on what it refers to as “unique encoded” 3D! Equally bizarre, if not more so!

  23. Colin Berry says:

    Sudden brainwave, correction, brainstorm.

    My idea for a new STURP (Mark 2).

    S(upernatural) T(uning), U(ndiscovered) R(adio) P(rogrammes )

    Key component: GALENA (lead sulphide)

    Why galena? It was used in ancient times as glaze for pottery (religious pottery included, religious pottery especially!) .

    But in relatively recent times galena crystals were also for something far more telling and dramatic!!!!!

    Yes, galena crystals were later discovered to pick up radiowaves from the aether. Yes, galena was the crystal deployed in those cat’s whisker crystal radios (self-powered by those same incoming radiowaves, no battery needed!)

    So get busy all you sindonologists with STURP Mk2! Attach wires to ancient lead glaze ceramic pots – especially those with, er, um, images of your Saviour. (Sorry if I sound maybe a tad sceptical re the biblical account post-Crucifixion. Where do modern-day viral pandemics fit in with Salvation – slaughtering indiscriminately on a global scale?).

    Expect to get radio messages – albeit faint – from On High! Put the MSM (Mainstream Media) on alert! Tell them that Minorstream Media radio will shortly be transmitted through your ancient religious pottery, maybe assisted with specialist headphones (price list in preparation).

    It just needs careful and appropriate amplification, aka fine-tuning, enabling the entire world to tune in to another heaven-sent message, the latter rooted in Mainstream Science needless to say. Yes, a similar fusion of the Old and the Dramatically New, as per 1981 STURP Mk1 sindonology (faintly-stained linen but with “unique encoded 3D” etc etc) ! 😉

  24. Colin Berry says:

    Comment No. 40 from me (yet again) on this my Final Posting (Posting note, approx. no 370, not comment).

    Here be a close-up picture of a particular body image zone on the TS. ( Expect credits later)

    It shows evidence which, in my humble opinion, demolishes completely the notion that the body image represents some kind of photographic ‘selfie’. snapshot

    Rather it supports the ideas re a briefly-liquified chromophore obtained via medieval heat-assisted powder-imprinting presented in this Final Posting, i.e. with its focus on CAPILLARY MIGRATION of IMAGE CHROMOPHORE within or, more likely, BETWEEN the individual fibres of the linen threads.

    Anyone care to guess why? Can you, dear reader, spot the give-away? Clue: look for the presence of a rogue entity, one that deviates from the overall pattern! Then compare and contrast it with its immediate surroundings.

    Btw: the same photograph is deployed by David Rolfe for the Home Page of his BSTS Newsletter (100% pro-authenticity!) website! Did he fail to spot the (give-away!) anomaly?

    • Colin Berry says:

      Update: here’s a screen shot of the BSTS Home Page, displaying (guess what?) the particular rogue entity which should firmly rule out any notion of the body image being any kind of ‘proto-photographic’ selfie.

      I’ve added some red arrows to highlight the anomalous myth-destroying feature alluded to in my earlier comment, the one that should by rights consign selfie-photography to where it belongs (namely, the garbage bin of history!).

      Whether one gets listened to or not by the tub-thumping fraternity of pseudo-scientists, still promoting their alleged “resurrectional image capture across air gaps” via “flash-emanation of entirely mysterious unspecified radiation” is an entirely different matter…

      Sorry, but I’m just a boring old (retired) scientist, asking for, nay seeking, the hard evidence, as I have been doing since my first internet-posting in December 2011!

      Yes, nearly 9 years ago.

      But still no adequate response from anyone recognizable as a genuine fellow-scientist (Thibault Heimburger MD excepted) !

      That’s my beef – and always has been – these last 9, almost 10 years! SCIENCE, or lack thereof

      Yes, this entire posting, this entire website, is essentially a SCIENTIFIC response to those UK newspaper headlines that appeared – way back in Dec 2011- stating that Italian Government (ENEA) scientists had managed to duplicate, using their employers’ uv microwave lasers, a coloration on linen that duplicated the “subtlety” of the TS body image.

      Sorry, but pseudoscience as per Italian governmental sources no less – demanded a reply from science – real science that is!

      The 370 or so postings on this site since Dec 2011 are a response to those claims emanating from an officially-approved official Italian governmental source no less!

      Call it an over-reaction if you wish. This retired scientist thinks otherwise.

      This retired scientist thinks that real science needs protecting from the ever-present inroads of myth-making media-promoted PSEUDO-SCIENCE!

      There you have it, dear readers – my own humble opinion – based on some 30 years of pursuing (and publishing!) REAL SCIENCE!

      That is my final comment on my final posting where the so-called “Shroud” of Turin is concerned.

      No, the “TS” was not a “shroud”, least of all a “burial shroud”. It was a medieval (prob. 14th century) mock-up (aka simulation, aka ” forgery”).

      I’ve said all I want to say. Further words would be wasted on the closed-mind, authenticity-promoting fraternity, posturing as if scientists.

      You may fool some, Shroud-promoters – but you don’t fool me.

      Goodbye. Have a good (years-to-come obsession-free) mind. For now, at any rate, you are a blot on modern-day science.

      • Colin Berry says:

        Yes, this website (after some 370 or so postings from its founder way back in 2012!) is now complete from me – i.e. long-retired scientist Colin Berry.

        Yes. The site’s still open (temporarily, at any rate, for a few months or so) to new comments.

        Yes, commentators welcome as ever, regardless of opinion, pro- or anti authenticity.

        But nothing more from me personally, the site’s founder. End of. (Sorry Jacob, Tamara. and other recent commentators: no offence intended where recent commentators are concerned).

        Bye! Have said all I wish to say! (The internet having proved something of a let-down – let’s not dwell too long on that increasingly sordid detail).
        But a certain MSM site – one that shall remain nameless for now – has expressed interest in publicising my FILM-SET, i.e. powder-imprinting model, aka Model 10.

        So let’s play a waiting game. Let’s see if there are better means of getting one’s no-nonsense science-based ideas into the public domain, one that bypasses the now totally-debased, totally corrupted, internet medium, invariably linked finally to its ever-jingling cash-registers. Thank you, Google and others. You are what is known rhetorically as “the absolute pits”, slime-laden from top to bottom).

        (I set out in late 2011, regarding authenticity-fixated sindonology as a major disaster area in scientific terms. But that viewpoint has since been supplanted by a different one, hugely more important in human terms.

        Internet search engines, Google’s especially, are a major disaster area where communication of new UNBIASED thinking on controversial topics is concerned.

        The sooner those ”internet giant’ bodies like Google etc get broken up into manageable parts , operating INTERNATIONALLY according to BASIC HUMAN PRINCIPLES, the better.

        It’s time a breath of fresh air entered the internet search engine scene. America – allegedly a defender of freedom – should be taking the initiative – not leaving it to other countries like the UK, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand plus rest of Commonwealth, EU, Japan, Latin America, etc to clamp down on obsessive commercial greed that devalues our reputation, deserved or otherwise, as truth-prevailing, freedom-promoting societies.)

        See this posting I put up ( from well over 2 years ago).

        https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/why-is-my-simulated-sweat-imprint-nowhere-to-be-seen-in-googles-top-150-rankings-under-shroud-of-turin-unlike-those-eye-glazing-announcements-for-shroud-replica-goes-on-display-etc/

        (But there are plenty from me like them, before and after, all in the same vein, criticizing a particular internet search engine especially):

        Sindonology is, scientifically speaking, a mere hazard-for-the-unwary hole in the ground. Google et al are, by way of contrast, the ABSOLUTE PITS, as stated earlier, with their internet click-baiting, cleverly mind-capturing, mind-ensnaring but entirely commerce-focused slime-coated walls

        ########## FINIS ###########

        Am still contactable by email:

        sciencebod01(at)aol.com

  25. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Hi Colin,

    Sorry to say, I’m having problems at home (maintenance and family). I’m not deliberately avoiding you, but if that was your last post, I will take this opportunity to wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

    A chemistry friend of mine once gave me a piece of galena when we were undergrads taking an inorganic chemistry course. He went on to acquire a Ph.D. in crystallography. Galena has a beautiful octahedral, mirror-like, cubic crystal form. I probably still have the crystal somewhere.

    You may want to look at the Syrian Eastern Orthodox (Peshitta), Aramaic translation of the Bible. If you recall Jesus spoke Aramaic.

    For your convenience I have included the following:

    Analysis of Peshitta verse Matthew 27:59
    Matthew 27:59 – ܘܫܰܩܠܶܗ ܝܰܘܣܶܦ݂ ܠܦ݂ܰܓ݂ܪܳܐ ܘܟ݂ܰܪܟ݂ܶܗ ܒ݁ܰܚܝܳܨܳܐ ܕ݁ܟ݂ܶܬ݁ܳܢܳܐ ܢܰܩܕ݁ܳܐ ܀

    Translations

    (Etheridge) And Jauseph took the body, and wound it round in a cloth of pure linen,

    (Murdock) And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a winding-sheet of clean linen;

    (Lamsa) So Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a shroud of fine linen,

    (KJV) And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

    Best,

    Tamara

    T

    • Colin Berry says:

      Thanks for relating your personal encounter with the remarkable galena crystal (lead sulphide, PbS) Tamara.

      On a different subject I see it’s just one of your 4 supplied translations of J of A’s linen that (misleadingly in my view) refers to it in a highly ambiguous fashion as a “shroud”. The dubious and indeed much-exploited “s” word does not appear I’m relieved to see in the other three.

      It’s the Lamsa/Aramaic version that is currently pushing the descriptor “shroud” (linguistic justification?) Are you aware that his book received a somewhat unfavourable review just over a month ago on an Amazon site?

      Here’s a copy-and-paste of the entire comment (have corrected the misspelling of the author’s surname). You may wish to skip the opening plug for the King James’ Version of the Bible.

      Linda Schmailes
      1.0 out of 5 stars God’s not in it
      Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 16 September 2020

      “This was my second time reading the bible in full and here are my take aways about George Lamsa’s translation. The first time reading the bible I read the KJV. I would highly recommend for anyone reading the bible for the first time, KJV is the best way to go. Even tho, at first, the language maybe a challenge after a while you WILL encounter the spirit of the King! You will feel the aliveness of the KJV text in your spirit, especially if you consume large chunks everyday.

      Please don’t worry about not understanding every word of the KJV, it’s an exercise in training our spirit’s not our intellects!

      OK, so to Lamsa. Everyone who is thinking about purchasing this text; STOP!! please please please please, I urge you, do your research on who this man actually is, how he came to write a translation of the Bible and why. When I started, the text it felt flat and I didn’t understand why. But by the time I turned into the book of Ezra the spirit of this ancient scribe rose up and shouted to my spirit NO MORE!

      I immediately stopped reading, I wasn’t sure what was happening but it dawned on me that perhaps Lamsa had got something wrong with this translation, something was very much off. I perceived, that somewhere in this translation. the truth was not being told. From the beginning it didn’t feel like sacred text but I didn’t make the connection. It’s as though the spirit of Ezra, a priest and a scribe, a staunch defender of scripture said enough is enough! I love the idea that those who sit in the host of heaven still fight for what they devoted their lives to and that their spirit’s continue to drive us to all truth!”.

      Link:

      (Again, I’ve supplied what looks for all the world like a routine URL from the top of an internet display, only to find it displays here as a a highly dominant space-greedy ad’ instead. It remains to be seen how long I shall persist with the internet as a medium for accessing the ‘public domain’ , watching it self-corrupt on a never-ending basis. It’s the so-called internet giants – Microsoft, Google, Amazon. Facebook etc – who are the major culprits. Shame on the lot of them).

      PS: From an internet search: biographical details on George Lamsa:

      George Lamsa
      Biography
      George M. Lamsa was an Assyrian author. He was born in Mar Bishu in what is now the extreme east of Turkey. A native Aramaic speaker, he translated the Aramaic Peshitta Old and New Testaments into English. Wikipedia
      Born: 5 August 1892, Şemdinli, Turkey
      Died: 22 September 1975, Turlock, California, United States

  26. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    If Jesus spoke Aramaic, who better to translate what He stated than another person who speaks Aramaic? There is a difference between Latin, Greek and even Hebrew and Aramaic.

    As an example.
    In the KJV Jesus remarked,
    “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle…”

    Lamsa, Aramaic translation:
    “It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle.”

    What makes sense, Colin, in comparison to a thread going through the eye of a needle?

    KJV – Thread – Camel – Eye of a neele

    Lamsa Aramaic translation – Thread – Rope – Eye of a needle

    Do you see the analogy?

    Quote from Linda Schmailes on the Aramaic translation: “I immediately stopped reading, I wasn’t sure what was happening but it dawned on me that perhaps Lamsa had got something wrong with this translation, something was very much off.”

    My reply: Much off. Give me a break!

    Nuff said!

  27. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Correction: KJV – Thread – Camel – Eye of a needle.

    Inserted message from Site Overseer, Tue Oct 27, 2020: your latest comments have been noted Tamara. But as stated, the site owner himself has decided to make no further comment, no matter how engaging the topic. He’s said all he wants or needs to say in his capacity as a retired experimental/model-building scientist as distinct from internet debater. Please don’t take personal offence.

  28. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Noted: Happy Retirement. 🙂

  29. Colin Berry says:

    Here’s a link to a posting I made today on my sciencebuzz site. It proposes what I believe to be an entirely novel interpretation of the role of WOODHENGE, and by extension – the initial proto-STONEHENGE too:

    https://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2021/02/an-entirely-new-explanation-for.html

    Essence of the idea: Woodhenge was a stockade retreat for those farmers on Salisbury Plain TOGETHER WITH THEIR LIVESTOCK if or when they came under attack from the indigenous hunter-gatherer community, armed with their flint-tipped bows and arrows etc.

    We have an explanation for the 6 concentric circles of timber posts, 168 of them in all. The outer circle was the main barricade against penetration of arrows. Inner circles were used for tethering livestock, and as sheltered locations from which arrows could be fired back…!

    Colin Berry

    Feb 21, 2021

  30. Colin Berry says:

    The following was posted to the “Tales of Times Forgotten” site earlier today

    https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/24/sorry-the-shroud-of-turin-is-definitely-a-hoax/#comment-26901

    It’s a ‘summary of a Summary’ ( i.e. my brief critique of the 1981 STURP Summary:

    (The italics, bolding etc, all of which had to be manually formatted , one item at a time, has failed to copy-and-paste. Thanks WordPress (host of both this site and t’other one)..

    Use the link above to see a more user-friendly version, one which distinguishes between what STURP said, sentence by sentence, and my own insertions./annotations). (I frankly don’t have the inclination far less energy to go through tedious formatting a second time in one day, but may use the ‘Edit Commen’ facility at at some future date).

    A Summary of STURP’s 1981 Conclusions (my annotations being in plain font – IGNORE !!!)

    No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.

    One hardly thinks that conventional artistic methods and materials would have been used on something that was intended to look like J of A’s “fine linen” etc. The investigation should have started with CONTACT IMPRINTING, especially as the latter was acknowledged – see below- for the blood, regardless of the otherwise uncertain nature of body image transfer mechanism.
    Added to which: how likely is it that one or more artists would have painted a tone-reversed negative if intended to represent an imprint (think muddy footprints on a white-tiled floor)? The question is especially pertinent given the two-sided image overall, on linen, not canvas, looking for all the world as an IMPRINT – not a conventional artistic creation. Contact imprinting should have REPLACED conventional artist’s pigments, artist’s brushwork etc. as prime initial focus. (Just as well, given that it would be near impossible to paint in in a manner intended to look as if acquired as a negative imprint akin to brass-rubbing!)

    Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!! There is nothing at all unique about the response of the TS body image to 3D-rendering computer software, whether the early VP-8 or the more modern day Image J etc. I have used the latter extensively to create 3D versions of graphics with no 3D history of their own whatsoever, e.g. generated using MS Office Paint. The manner in which the software works is no mystery. An image is scanned, converted to tiny square pixels. The image intensity of each pixel is determined, then raised proportionately on an entirely artificial, man-made third axis (so-called vertical “z”, as distinct from planar 2-dimensional “xy”). The resulting “needle forest” of pixels is then smoothed of by the same computer software to produce the “look” of a 3D object viewed from a distance with the naked eye. No magic, no miracles! It’s slick, certainly, but in reality mere digital processing of inputted data according to pre-programmed computer software.

    Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death.

    Yes, but that’s referring to a real body, coated in funeral lotions and/or generating its own secretions of blood and perspiration. There’s no reference been made to the substances that might be associated with a simulated victim of crucifixion, living (probably) or dead. In short, STURP’s 1981 record is seriously incomplete. Already we see a systematic drift towards an exclusively pro-authenticity-directed-cum- suspiciously slanted narrative.

    It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood.

    Yes, we see here a crucial acknowledgement of there having been at least some actual physical contact, if only to acquire the bloodstains (whether the latter be real or artificial).

    However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

    That’s yet another extraordinary observation to appear in a short Summary, making its claims: (a) that the facial image exhibits “high resolution” that has been displayed by photography, and then to claim: (b) that the image cannot therefore have been acquired via contact alone
    We have to remember that we are dealing with an unusual imaging situation – one in which a faint scarcely visible negative tone-reversed image has been acquired in the first instance, then, IMPORTANTLY, photo-processed to generate what we are supplied with finally.
    Note the initial step in making the negative image more easily visible, i.e. by using photographic technique to increase image density relative to white background. That alone should deter one from making “too good to be scientifically explicable” conclusions, even if that body torso fails to respond as well. Secondly, there’s the visual impact of converting an alien-looking reversed-tone negative into a more familiar-looking positive. Yes, the final image may look remarkably photograph-like after the two stage process. But that does not, repeat NOT make it an actual photograph (especially if it’s a comparison between response of torso versus that of face. (Who’s to say they weren’t simulated separately, using a more careful refined technique with face compared with torso and then added separately to the linen?).
    What we see is a distinctly unscientific attempt to cut corners in making that INTERNAL side-by-side comparison between relative definition of face and torso, failing to look at the situation from the wider perspective of real versus simulated body images, contact-imprints especially….

    The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics.

    Ho hum…

    Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry.

    Ho hum…

    For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint.

    Ho hum…

    At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team.

    Ho hum…

    Do tell us more…

    The scientific concensus (sic) is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself.

    Really? That’s news to me, even 40 years post the STURP Summary’s publication

    Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes.

    Really?

    A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat.

    The second of those two (“heat”) is indeed almost certainly relevant – highly so. But “sulfuric acid”? What possible relevance is that to the TS image? Which kind of H2SO4 are we referring to? The dilute bench acid – strong as acids goes – but non-dehydrating, generally without associated charring or browning on organic (carbon-based) chemicals? Or concentrated H2SO4 instead – an entirely different beast – beast being the operative word – one of the nastiest lab-based chemicals known to man (and thus of even less relevance to the TS!).

    However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

    Why should one expect to have a single item with a faint double-body image – with no record as to where it originated and/or how it was formed – and expect after a mere week or so of probing it in Turin, with mere stripping off of surface fibres with sticky tape- and expect to understand immediately the “totality of the image”? Pray tell us which planet were you living on, dear STURP?
    Maybe if you had focused on contact-imprinting, instead of dismissing it so summarily, you’d have gained some insights into the nature of the body image, even if failing to understand it in its “totality”. One step at a time please… It took this researcher a total of 10 models to decide how that body image was simulated (with Model 10 having much in common with starter Model 1 I later realized!).

    Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

    You are the main reason why the image remains a mystery, STURP. You failed to do your job properly and thoroughly, getting hung up on minor distractions, dead ends etc etc. In short, you failed to perform in the manner expected of broad, open-minded unbiased science, looking at a problem from as many possible angles simultaneously. I say we need a new STURP Mk 2.

    We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist.

    How can one conclude that the image is that of a real scourged man, given that scourge marks are represented in blood exclusively, with no visible signs in the body image? “Crucified”? Again, one sees bloodstains only at the supposed sites of crucifixion, etc – nothing in the body image per se!

    The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.

    Composed EXCUSIVELY of hemoglobin? Serum albumin of the right type, proportions etc? Why toss in this kind of questionable generalisation – right at the tail end of a so-called Summary?

    The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

    Yes, the problem remains unsolved. But who’s fault is that – primarily – given there’s been the one detailed look at detached fibres only (stripped off with contaminating sticky tape) -namely by STURP in 1978 – and the later radiocarbon dating ( some 10 years later, approx. 14th.century).

  31. Colin Berry says:

    My chosen medium in late 2011 was the Internet, namely as a response to MSM misinformation and crass pseudoscience.

    The Internet (websites, blogsites etc) turned out – over the course of the next 9 years – to be a complete and utter dead loss.

    Rampant commercialism etc, notably via corrupt and debased search engines etc rules OK –
    thanks Google etc

    The sooner the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple etc etc get fenced in, restricted, reformed the better…

    They are all, in their separate ways, enemies of science, indeed truth, nay modern civilization…

    I say it’s time to clamp down on these back-door enemies of progress and enlightenment.

    • Colin Berry says:

      Postscript to yesterday’s comment from myself.

      I got to wondering which of the many claims made in favour of the TS being authentic was in my considered view the worst in terms of science/pseudoscience.

      I listed the worst of them, stopping after 30 mins or so at No.11 in the ever-growing list.

      Next step? Score each of them on a scale of 1-10 in terms of gross misinformation/misrepresentation of pros versus cons.

      Just 1 of the 11 scored 10 out of 10.

      There were close runners (1 at 9/10) , 3 no less at 8 or maybe 9/10 , etc etc.

      Anyone care to guess which of the claims topped the list at 10/10?

      Clue: it’s highlighted prominently in the 1981 STURP Summary!

      The same claim still gets repeated over and over again to the modern day. The claim is junk – pure junk!

      (I could have expanded this comment to include each of the 11 inadmissible claims. But see the comment that preceded this one. Why bother with further debate and argument – given the futility of doing so while the likes of Google etc are in charge of internet search engines, deciding whose postings and associated views to display, whose to exclude completely with no attempt to explain why?).

      See this headline article from the Daily Mail in 2020 (and much since): “Google and Facebook behave like monopolies etc”.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8451583/Google-Facebook-behave-like-monopolies.html

      See especially the accusation of quietly de-listing for no apparent reason – leaving one to guess as to what’s happening behind Google and FB’s law-unto-themselves closed doors…

  32. Colin Berry says:

    As flagged up a while ago, this retired TS researcher can no longer be bothered reporting results via the internet – thanks to the likes of Google and other search engines.

    But that does not mean that new experimentation is finished – far from it – only that I no longer feel any obligation to publish findings ‘hot from the press’.

    Nor does it mean that new lines of experimentation will be kept secret – I may still indicate where current thoughts are heading.

    New idea? Those who have followed this site since late 2011 will know that I have a low opinion of STURP’s claim/unwarranted assumption that the TS chromophore is chemically-modified cellulose.

    My final Model 10 reckons it to be heat-modified flour-imprinting medium, i.e. yellow or brown Maillard reaction products, successfully modelled I maintain in numerous ways.

    How might the Model 10 be tested using the real TS, in the event of new samples of image threads being harvested?

    Answer: there’s a chemical reagent that is capable of dissolving cellulose, namely cuprammonium hydroxide, aka Schweizer’s reagent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizer%27s_reagent

    What’s more, the cellulose can later be re-precipitated by acidification.

    Procedure? Take TS image-bearing linen, dissolve in cuprammonium hydroxide. Then subject to gel-filtration chromatography to separate coloured and uncoloured species according to molecular size.

    Aim to separate chemically unmodified high molecular weight cellulose from (probably) smaller molecules that are flour-derived yellow or brown chromophore.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size-exclusion_chromatography

    Promising feature? The technique is capable of being modelled in the first instance, i.e. to check or confirm that Model 10 flour/heat imprinted linen is indeed separable into two components – the major one being chemically unmodified cellulose, the minor being the coloured, flour-derived image chromophore.

    Yes, the cellulose of linen threads and fibres will dissolve, releasing entrapped microparticulate chromophore. Yes, a hint there of Walter McCrone’s microscopy – but with a difference. The residue of solid will not analyse as jeweller’s rouge (aka red ochre, aka iron oxide). Instead it will analyse as Maillard amino-carbonyl reaction products, generated by heating a body-linen contact- imprinting medium based on externally-applied wheat flour.

    I hope to check out the proposal in the near future – but, as stated, will be in no hurry to publish findings via the internet.

  33. Colin Berry says:

    A short comment from one “jp” appeared on my Stonehenge site just yesterday, which mentioned the Shroud of Turin as well.

    Here’s a cut-and-paste of jp’s comment, followed by my reply:

    jp says

    02/06/2021 at 3:18 am
    Is this a one time post or are you coming back full time? Will you cover other topics or revisit the shroud of turin?

    Reply
    Colin Berry says:
    02/06/2021 at 9:43 am

    My two pet subjects, chosen for detailed and prolonged study back in 2012, were the Shroud of Turin and , separately needless to say, Stonehenge.

    Why those two in particular?

    Answer: in both instances our ears were being constantly assaulted via the mass media etc with what I considered to be unsubstantiated, usually agenda-pushing pseudoscience.

    9 years later I have alternative explanations – Model 10 for the TS, i.e. .a medieval simulation of Joseph of Arimathea’s linen having captured a body imprint en route between cross and tomb, and Stonehenge as a location for tethering and breeding heavier livestock – offering protection at the same time from enemy arrows.

    Here, for 2021, is an entirely new theory for Stonehenge – and its REAL purpose! A tether-point – for heavyweight cattle especially – at a Communal Livestock Breeding Centre (“CLBC”)!

    I decided at the outset to use the internet as sole means to report each of the two learning curves.

    The task is now essentially complete.

    It remains to be seen whether the mass media picks up on the new thinking, or continues to broadcast the same old propaganda, year in, year out.

    The mass media and the internet appear to operate as if in separate compartments, as if the other did not exist. When did you last see an MSM journalist contributing to comments at the end of an internet website posting?

    I consider my own limited task to be largely complete, jp, though I still welcome comments and feedback.

    Thank you for your interest.

    ##############################

    • Colin Berry says:

      PS to above:

      As stated, I now consider my 9-year old practical task completed where the TS is concerned.

      The end-result – Model 10 simulated sweat imprint from flour imprinting/heating/washing – ticks all the boxes where this previously hands-on researcher is concerned.

      Getting the message across is another matter!

      How?

      I’m not going to add further postings to this strictly science-based site.. But my much-older sciencebuzz (blogspot) site has been idle for a time:

      https://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/

      Expect to see some pithy (media-friendly) summaries there of the TS controversy/enigma/mystery shortly.

      The focus will be on what I consider a much (indeed totally) ignored facet of the TS body image – namely its head-to-toe, front and back HOMOGENEITY.

      Yes, the key word should be HOMOGENEITY! I say it (mechanically, non-artistically) says it all… 😉

      Nuff said for now…

      • Colin Berry says:

        June 6, 2021

        The flagged-up task is now at an advanced stage. It took a while to decide on the best approach – one that would be simultaneously informative, dare I say educational , while internet/MSM journalist friendly. Seemingly trifle in detail? Not so, being the crucial fact-from-fiction distinguishing detail needing to be confronted and resolved!

        I believe I’ve hit on the answer – one that in retrospect I should maybe have adopted and articulated years, nay a decade or so ago.

        And what might that be, you may well ask?

        Answer: view (and interpret by stages) the TS as if viewing through eyes for the first time , initially mid-14th century, as displayed at Lirey, in northern France, then – at progressive stages through the following centuries – as more and more facts, more interpretation appeared.

        No, don’t mince one’s words where all-too-often mis-interpretation, rose-tinted, agenda-driven or blatantly false narratives are concerned, Tell it the way it is! Lay it on the line!

        Chief point needing to be made? “Shroud” of Turin is/was a loaded term, failing as it does to distinguish between a Cross- retrieval reception via Joseph of Arimathea’s DEPOSITION linen, and the later transfer, linen A -to-linen B FINAL burial clothes (“sindon – singular – first 3 Gospels – versus “othonia” – burial clothes – plural) – final John narrative only.

        I’ll try to complete the posting for my otherwise neglected science buzz site in the next few days or so…

        • Colin Berry says:

          If I had to choose just one reference to the TS from way-back (early 16th century) history, which would it be?

          This one will get special prominence in my forthcoming science buzz posting.

          Why?

          Because it interprets the TS (correctly in my view) as a sweat/blood IMPRINT (genuine or otherwise).

          Thank you Cardinal Gorrevod for saying what needed to be said,, over 400 years ago:
          My bolding

          “In April of 1534, Pope Clement VII sent his envoy, Louis Cardinal Gorrevod, to make an official recognition of the Shroud and have it repaired. Cardinal Gorrevod knew the Shroud well. For over four decades, he had been intimately associated with the Savoy family, and profoundly devoted to the Shroud. Many times, his hands had held it at expositions and ceremonies. It was he who first suggested that the image was formed by sweat and blood. And it was he who, in 1506, successfully intervened with Julius II to grant Carlo III’s petition for a liturgy and feast of the Shroud”.

          Click to access ssi02part6.pdf

  34. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin says: “Thank you Cardinal Gorrevod for saying what needed to be said,, over 400 years ago: It was he who first suggested that the image was formed by sweat and blood.”

    Tamara Beryl Latham says: Yet, it was Thomas DeWesselow, in his book “The Sign,” who precisely explained the origin of Christianity and its relation to the Shroud image. Thomas went on to claim how that specific image tied in with Paul’s statement that the resurrected Christ was viewed by 500 people. (Jesus appears to about 500 hundred people on a mountain in Galilee, 1 Corinthians 15:6.)

    This Youtube video also has an image of a hospice male who left an imprint, similar to the Shroud image, on the bedsheet.

    Thomas DeWesselow – The Shroud of Turin

  35. Colin Berry says:

    Here’s a handy website I’ve just discovered , reminding me about de Wesselow’s book from some years ago. It lists numerous “key points” that are said to back up the barrage of pro-authenticity theory that came with his one-off book.

    https://thesignbook.wordpress.com/key-points-book-highlights/

    This sceptic has looked through the long long list to remind him of what the book claimed.

    A triumph of imagination certainly. But when it comes down to the hard facts, when one scratches beneath the surface of the multitude of assertions made, then in my case the arithmetic is somewhat sobering.

    You believe what you wish Tamara. Christianity with its somewhat cursory account of the Crucifixion and (especially) its aftermath is open to a wide range different interpretations.

    I for my part am a hard-headed scientist, albeit long-retired, latterly of humanist rather than Christian persuasion (having given up on my local Baptist church at about age 15 – initially influenced in main by a combination of chemical textbooks/home laboratory later supplemented with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution). I take on trust about 5% of what is offered. in de Wesselow’s book. As for the other 95% – best not to ask… 😉

    Postscript (added June 20, 2021):

    It’s now exactly one year to the day that I put up this, my final Shroud posting on this my “Shroud of Turin without all the hype” site”! (The latter is condensed to a single word in the website’s address, needless to say).

    A new phase began yesterday, with a comment I placed on Hugh Farey’s “Medieval Shroud” website, calling for a new STURP Mark2! It lists a dozen or so mainly experimentally-based points that need addressing – or in some cases, re-addressing.

    Link:

    https://medievalshroud.com/neither-science-nor-catholic/

    See Comment No 4, dated June 19, 2021. (Thus far, no response).

  36. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin says: “You believe what you wish Tamara. Christianity with its somewhat cursory account of the Crucifixion and (especially) its aftermath is open to a wide range different interpretations.”

    Tamara’s reply: True, a wide range of different interpretations, but only one of them is truth.

    Colin, I too have read De Wesselow’s book several years ago and what stood out to me (as having the ring of truth) was that Jesus was both seen and spoken with 11 times and all with His disciples. The other incident (12th) was that He was SEEN by 500. In that account, given by Paul in Corinthians, Jesus was only seen. No one spoke with Him.

    Therefore, the logical deduction, as concluded by De Wesselow, was after the resurrection the disciples both saw and spoke with him while the 500 people only saw (what they perceived) as His resurrected image. They were convinced, because of the wounds and blood on the Shroud it was the resurrected Jesus.

    Referencing Darwin, I must admit I was impressed with his prediction there would be a moth with a 12″ proboscis to drink the nectar from the Madagascar Star Orchid. Unfortunately Darwin never
    lived .to see it . .Even now, the signs of His second coming are all around us. Have you even noticed the disappearance of species, the devastating floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, sickness and disease. All these like no time in history. Of course He stated no one would know the day or time, but we should be able to read the signs.

    I will look at your link.

  37. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Something happened with the typing after Darwin never lived to see it. The next line was Jesus’ prophecies have also come true. Even now…

  38. Colin Berry says:

    Hello again Tamara

    Yes, I’m aware of the several encounters described between an allegedly ‘risen’ Jesus and his disciples. But there’s a major omission. Nowhere in any of the 4 Gospels (which I’ve just re-read) is there anything that might be described as a ‘spectator account” in real time of either the Resurrection or Ascension. The language deployed is somewhat evasive, to say the least, bordering on mumbo jumbo.

    So is it any wonder that de Wesselow felt the need (or saw an opportunity) to attempt a headline fusion between (a) the first of those two, i.e. Resurrection, lacking as it does biblical exactitude and (b) an alleged and enigmatic burial shroud comprising a single linen sheet (despite there being no specific reference to anything remotely comparable to the TS as we know it).

    But feel free to reject what I’ve just said: I don’t pretend to be a biblical scholar, having restricted my reading today to the tail end of each of the 4 Gospels.

    Those Gospel accounts cannot make life easy for any devout Christian intent on proselytizing either a MIRACULOUS Resurrection nor subsequent Ascension. Neither features any witness accounts of there being a ‘flash of light’ or similar.

  39. T says:

    Colin says: “Nowhere in any of the 4 Gospels (which I’ve just re-read) is there anything that might be described as a ‘spectator account” in real time of either the Resurrection or Ascension.”

    Tamara says: Would you say Mary Magdalene was a spectator after the fact? Mary (corruptible man) saw the risen Jesus and He said to her “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father.” This tells me, since He and his garments were white as snow, that His body (at that point) was incorruptible, which is indicative of the resurrection, but not the ascension.

    John too saw Christ in His glorified body and also stated His raiment, his head and hair were white as snow. Rev. 1:14.

    We too will be purified with fire, just as silver is refined, before entering into heaven or facing God,
    since He cannot look upon corruption in any of its forms.

    In truth, there was no spectator at the point of resurrection, but it was said the head cloth was folded and placed in a place by itself. What was the Sudarium of Oviedo if not a head cloth?
    (John 20:6-7)

    And since both the Sudarium and Shroud covered the same man, then obviously the Carbon-14 dating of the Shroud was in error. Both cloths should have dated to the same time period. The Sudarium was C-14 dated to 700 AD, but was mentioned by Antoninus of Piacenza, in 570 AD and has been in Spain since 631 AD.

    Why does no one use deductive reasoning?

    By the way, Jesus also said at the end of time, the sun would no longer give her light. And what are we working on now regarding climate change…making attempts to block out the sun.

    Link:
    Should We Block the Sun? Scientists Say the Time Has Come …

    Mar 25, 2021 · WASHINGTON — The idea of artificially cooling the planet to blunt climate change — in effect, blocking sunlight before it can warm the atmosphere — got a …

    Go figure!

    • Colin Berry says:

      John Chp 20, verses 11 -18 inc relates the narrative you describe. Yes, it ends with Mary (Magdalene) finally recognizing the risen Jesus.

      But that’s not how it begins. It begins initially with Mary seeing first “two angels” and then, second, in verse 14, it says:

      “And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus”

      In other words, it’s the narrator who INITIALLY identifies the figure as Jesus, not Mary herself.

      In the following verse 15, it goes on to say : “She, supposing him to be the gardener (etc etc)”.

      Why the failure to recognize Jesus immediately? We’re not told!!!!! We’re not given the slightest hint!

      It’s not until the figure identifies himself as Jesus, addressing Mary by name, that she then, and only then, proceeds to address the figure as Jesus.

      Sorry, T (and/or Tamara), I simply cannot accept your claim that the risen Jesus was recognized IMMEDIATELY as Jesus. He (or “he?”) had to announce himself as such to elicit Mary’s “recognition” if one can call it such.

      I regard the quoted passage as typical of the post-Crucifixion Gospels – riddled with baffling wooliness and uncertainties – open to any number of different interpretations, depending not just on what we are told by the Gospel narrators, but, more importantly, NOT TOLD!!!!!

  40. Colin Berry says:

    Have read, and re-read the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection and Ascension, Tamara (“T” as well?). I’m not anti-Christian – far from it (Christianity having brought civilization to huge parts of the world).

    But I have to say this. The post-Crucifixion Gospel accounts (plus your earlier one-off reference to Paul in I Corinthians claiming an address by the allegedly post-Resurrectional Jesus to a crowd of 500 – receiving no Gospel back-up whatsoever!) features an unmistakeable quantity – a sceptic’s CREDIBILITY GAP!

    If I had to sum up in a few words, it would be to compare those tail-end Gospel accounts with Aero Chocolate – welcome on certain taste-buds certainly, but full of oh-so tiny holes!

    No, not a solid factual account. Spongy in the extreme, I declare, giving little if anything hard to bite on…!

    Apols for spelling it out the way I have, Tamara . Consider the above to be a one-off statement of (non-) religious/philosophical standpoint. (But not – I hasten to add – necessarily anti-religious!)

    (I’ve gained far more satisfaction during life thus far from atomic and molecular theory, theory of evolution, climate change etc etc as a way of understanding the world around us – life-enhancing generally albeit occasionally risk-prone and hazardous – a bit of a lottery one might say).

  41. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin says: “But that’s not how it begins. It begins initially with Mary seeing first “two angels” and then, second, in verse 14, it says: “And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Why the failure to recognize Jesus immediately? We’re not told!!!!! We’re not given the slightest hint!”

    Tamara says: Colin, you must seek to find.
    God wants you to use the brain he gave you to figure things out. He won’t give you the answers.

    Have you made the connection between the two angels and God in the flesh (Jesus) as the third? God in the flesh makes an appearance in the Old Testament and Jesus appears as God in the flesh in the New Testament. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

    Go back to the Old Testament where God speaks to Abraham at Mamre about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Outlined below.

    Genesis 18:2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

    Genesis 18:22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.

    Genesis 19:1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.

    Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens.

    Deduction: Three angels mentioned (Two were angels and the third was God in the flesh).

    In the tomb after the resurrection, Mary saw two angels and the third, after recognizing Jesus as the gardener, was God in the flesh. After the ascension, God in the flesh (Jesus) becomes God the Father (spirit form).

    Mary, more than likely didn’t recognize Jesus right away, because He was gardening and probably bent over at the waist hoeing the ground. When He stood up is more than likely when she recognized Him.

  42. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin says: “I’ve gained far more satisfaction during life thus far from atomic and molecular theory, theory of evolution, climate change etc etc as a way of understanding the world around us.

    Tamara says: And I have questions with such things as the initial primordial soup and how amino acids, as the building blocks of life, could form complex molecules without the placement of protecting groups, as in an organic synthesis.

    You say “climate change” without ever realizing that too is in accordance with the prophecies of Jesus concerning the end of time. And if you look at the biblical sequence of life, both plant and animal, you will see it follows in a distinct order.

    The face of Jesus on the Shroud (negative image) is the face we will all see at the end of life. Scientists use the words climate change as a cover for what they themselves are doing to the climate. Shooting plasma into the ionosphere, placing nanosized aluminum particles into the sky to reflect sunlight away from earth, and by using either silver iodide, potassium iodide or solid carbon dioxide (dry ice) to seed clouds does far more damage to the natural balance in and on the earth than leaving things alone.

    And so it is said, global warming is man made, but who are the men making it?

  43. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    P.S. Colin, I failed to mention your impression is an excellent example of duplicating the Shroud of Turin image. Even though I believe the image formed by short bursts of UV radiation,
    given off by the body of Jesus at the resurrection, you should be proud of your accomplishment. 🙂

    I still can’t believe you spent so much time on attempting to prove your point.

    • Colin Berry says:

      Thank you Tamara. There’s a profound generosity of spirit on display in your comment.

      As a child, I acquired the following from the opening page of a birthday prezzy book sent by a US relative on how to make things at home with scissors, paper, cardboard, glue etc:

      If a task is once begun
      Never leave it till it’s done
      Be the labor great or small
      Do it well or not at all.

      I’ve had to modify that slightly since tackling the Big Question re the genuineness or otherwise of the TS:

      If a task is once begun
      Never leave it till it’s done
      Be the labor great or small
      Steer clear of holes that swallow all…
      😉

      PS: If you wish to know why I consider the proposed radiation-generated image to be a non-starter, Tamara, please let me know, and I’ll add a further comment.

      Suffice it to say that it’s to do with IMAGE v BLOOD colour on the TS – as seen and interpreted through the differing lenses of rival theories!

  44. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin, yes apparently you don’t procrastinate, but instead take the time and effort to finish what you’ve started. And that’s admirable.

    I had my own motto (similar to what you outlined) that enabled me to finish tasks or projects at work that were extremely difficult and most of them with time constraints. I used to say to myself, “You can’t finish until you start.:” It worked every time and before I knew it the job was done. Taking one small step at a time works well, especially when one is multitasking. My mother always said to me as a child, “I can’t gets nothing done each day, I can gets great things done.”

    Hopefully (in the not-too-distant future) the formation of the Shroud image will be resolved.

    You are at liberty to stick to your theory, Colin, but I must adhere to what I believe. Since it appears time is winding down, we will all know who is right soon.

    Remember, on the second coming of Jesus, He will enter through the boarded up Golden Gate, also referred to as the Eastern Gate, in Jerusalem. Now that will be a glorious sight to see.

    Best,

    Tamara

    • Colin Berry says:

      I see you have been posting comments to the Internet re the TS since 2008/2009, Tamara:

      http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2008/02/shroud-of-turin-may-not-be-fake-after.html

      (see attached Comments)

      I shall take my time in responding to the points you proffer Tamara – given you’ve done loadsa homework these last 13 years or more!

      We share one thing in common (maybe more) – a preference for the human dimension when it comes to discussing the TS. (Not in my view a suitable topic for the traditional so-called “peer-reviewed” scientific literature, there being no objective role for so-called “peer review” when handling so religio- dubiously-scientific an issue!).

  45. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin says: “I shall take my time in responding to the points you proffer Tamara – given you’ve done loadsa homework these last 13 years or more!”

    Tamara says: Colin, yet, if you’ll notice, referring to the 13 years or more, my story has never changed. I never had to do homework, but included scriptures only to back up my points.

    Jesus appeared to me when I was initially attempting to solve the relationship between Christianity and Science. He said, ‘It’s like Einstein’s theory.’ And He showed me many biblical scenes that happened through the eyes of Mary Magdalene. Some things that were shown to me were in the Bible and some things not. Yet, there was one common thread. In all instances the face of Jesus in my visions/reality was exactly that as the one who appeared on the Shroud of Turin.

    When I first saw that face on the back of Ian Wilson’s book, “The Shroud of Turin,” I was really amazed and said to myself, “So it was true,” meaning that was the real Jesus, the one I had seen so many, many times. After this is the point that I started researching .

    For this reason, I will never have doubts about the Shroud. I know it will be proven authentic eventually.

    And although I admire your scientific approach in attempting to prove, like Luigi Garlaschelli, the Shroud was not the resurrection cloth of Jesus, I know it is. Why? Because He allowed me to be inside the tomb just prior to the resurrection (as if I were Mary Magdalene). Most all things I’ve spoken of were things Jesus allowed me to see first-hand (as Mary Magdalene) and His face was ALWAYS the same face as that on the Shroud of Turin.

    Therefore, Colin, speaking from my point of view, I wear the cloak of truth (an honest shield) and scientific data is not necessary to back up my arguments. It is as if He made me an eyewitness to most stories in the New Testament gospels. In time, all the world will bow on bended knee before Him.

    The reason there are quite a few things in the Bible that don’t make sense is either because of incorrect interpretations that have been handed down through time, or because of missing parts or sections of the story.

    I’ve certainly been accused of heresy, because I’ve said the Holy Spirit was female and the Mother, but so be it. Some refer to the Holy Spirit as Sophia or Wisdom.

    The Trinity is a family unit (Father, Son, Mother) just as God wanted for the world and more than likely it was the reason when I began researching the relationship between science and creation the voice said, “It is like Einstein’s equation.”

    The Trinity – E = mc^2
    (Three separate or interchangeable entities under one Godhead)

    E = God, the Father, Energy
    m = Jesus Christ, the Son, mass/matter
    c = Holy Spirit, the Mother, speed of light

    Remember Carl Sagan (although not the author) used the limerick to emphasize light’s speed and how it would be if we were to travel faster than light.

    There once was a lady named Bright,
    who traveled much faster than light.
    She set out one day,
    in a relative way,
    And returned the previous night.

    Referencing the speed of light in the theory of relativity, the Holy Spirit was and is able to move faster than light’s speed, so (c) is not a constant, like it is in Einstein’s theory and Energy and mass will change accordingly.

    Although no normal object moves faster than the speed of light, but the Holy Spirit was able to accomplish this. And since its mass becomes infinite (Jesus carries the world on His shoulders) so does the energy required to move it (God, who exists as Energy is infinite)

    Food for thought: So, does this explain why God finished the world and its contents in 6 days?
    I believe it does.

    7/2/2021 Time: 11:00 AM Central Time

    Best,

    Tamara

    • Colin Berry says:

      What a pity, Tamara, your Saviour did not invent something that was amazingly way ahead of its time – like penicillin, or a bicycle. That would have made people sit up – including we sceptics in the 21st century!

      Anyway, we know where each of us stands, so shall we now call it a day, content to go our separate ways?

      So please don’t be offended if I now focus on the things that interest me – ones that clearly do not figure greatly in your own thinking… Each according to his or her own leanings – spiritual or scientific…

  46. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Remove the word “but” in the first line of the penultimate paragraph. 🙂

  47. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin says: “What a pity, Tamara, your Saviour did not invent something that was amazingly way ahead of its time – like penicillin, or a bicycle.”

    Tamara says: LOL! Too funny Colin, but He did, He invented mankind.
    Why do you suppose He invented the brain? And why did He place man above ALL the other animals in His kingdom?

    If you were familiar with the healing properties of herbs from various plants and trees, you would see that God blessed mankind with everything needed to prevent and heal sickness and disease..

    As an example, we use Eugenol for a toothache, but God gave us cloves. Eugenol is nothing more than a steam distillation of clove powder.

    Speaking of penicillin, here are 7 natural antibiotics, given to mankind by God: Garlic, Honey, Echinacea, Ginger, Goldenseal, Oregano and Clove.

    And mankind has just recently found the natural essential oils, like peppermint, rosemary, thyme, patchouli, cedar, sage, lavender, etc. are quite effective as insecticides. I use them all the time and they are not toxic, because they are natural products.

    Nutraceuticals and herbal medicines are growing fields in the pharmaceutical industry. Saffron may prevent multiple sclerosis and turmeric may be effective for diabetes and are currently undergoing clinical trials.

    Yes, Colin, you are at liberty to focus on things that interest you, but if I am correct (and I believe I am) when the time comes for your very own salvation, will those things have any interest to Him?

    I shall leave you to enjoy your retirement. 🙂

    Tamara Beryl Latham

    • Colin Berry says:

      Ta ta then Tamara. Have a good life (plus afterlife too in your case).
      As for me, I’ll be content post mortem to push up the daisies (preferring as I do to get to the root of things)! 🙂

  48. Tamara Beryl Latham says:

    Colin says: “I’ll be content post mortem to push up the daisies (preferring as I do to get to the root of things)! 🙂”

    Tamara says: As in L 7?

    Ta Ta 🙂

    Tamara Beryl Latham

  49. Colin Berry says:

    Changing the subject 😉

    I have previously called STURP to account for failing to check out this or that (no need right now to repeat myself). But there’s one major failing that still needs to be flagged up. And what might that be, one might ask?

    Answer: not only the failure to give serious consideration to medieval forgery – notably the deployment of direct imprinting as distinct from painting – but especially a failure to embark on any kind of actual modelling exercise – i.e. deploying materials available 6 or 7 centuries ago. (Exception: Ray Rogers and his technical starch-coating/Maillard product hypothesis – but still pro-authenticity in terms of fairly-immediate post-Crucifixion image-capture).

    Instead, 30 years and more post STURP – we witnessed those bizarre headlines coming from ENEA in Italy – stating that its uv excimer lasers had been able to reproduce the TS image coloration on linen – hinting strongly at Resurrectional radiation etc – while making no attempt whatsoever to generate a recognizable body image – as distinct from mere coloration.

    You couldn’t make it up.

    Well, you could, providing you equipped yourself first with those tunnel-vision spectacles that are so prevalent in pro-authenticity-seeking Shroud so-called “science”.

    When, for goodness-sake – can we expect to see the inauguration of STURP Mk2, staffed by genuine scientists – viewing the TS from ALL angles, not merely those that seek to concentrate on a particular pro-authenticity narrative ( notably STURP leader’s 3rd Day Resurrectional radiation-generated “selfie” photograph, “uniquely” responsive he and his STURP claimed, to 3D-enhancing software etc.).

    It’s high time that we returned to Square 1, and took a fresh new look at ALL OPTIONS for image-generation – not just the ones favoured and focused on by STURP’s largely self-selected band of pro-authenticity promoters and their largely tight-lipped, over-awed associates.

    I repeat – it’s time for STURP Mark 2 to appear – given the failure of STURP Mark 1 to create a lasting-impression (to say nothing of the 1988 radiocarbon dating to 1260-1390 – much derided by enthusiastic advocates of authenticity – but also inviting further testing to check-out the original result on a more extensive range of samples).

    PS: Here’s my chemically-detailed 11-point Action Plan for a STURP Mk2 posted just a few days ago as a comment to Hugh Farey’s website

    https://medievalshroud.com/neither-science-nor-catholic/#comments

    Late PS:

    See also the following post (+ my comments!) on the same site:

    https://medievalshroud.com/iiij-elles-qt/

  50. Colin Berry says:

    I hesitate to say it folks, but there’s a thought that has been growing in my mind for some months, nay years if the truth be told.

    Sindonology (aka “Shroudology”, call it what you wish) has not just withered on the (over-fertilized) vine these last few years but finally in fact DIED THE DEATH!

    Sorry to put it so baldly.

    But if you seek evidence, then take a look at the latest posting from STERA Prezzy Barrie M Schwortz (originally STURP’s Documenting Photographer, now much transformed!):

    https://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm

    If I had to sum it up in one word, what would it be?

    Answer:

    Yawn! One long profound yawn…

    STURP, STERA, sindonology, shroudology etc etc have simply drawn a blank with their previously insistent, mind-numbingly repetitive, pro-authenticity message.

    I say it’s high time they acknowledged reality: they have failed to ‘deliver the goods’ on their miraculous flash of light-at-end -of tunnel- pro-authenticity message, despite the lashings of so-called “science” – correction, largely PSEUDOSCIENCE!

  51. Colin Berry says:

    As stated – well over a week ago – the arguments put forward by pro-authenticity Shroudology now bore me TOTALLY to tears.

    There’s been no attempt worth speaking of to respond to one’s own pithy criticism of what’s previously been deposited (usually with great pomp and ceremony) into the arena – internet or elsewhere.

    Let’s not mince our words: there’s been no new ideas worth speaking of these last few years (yes, YEARS!). Most of what we see and hear is the endless replaying of old (and indeed largely discredited) themes

    See then my current sciencebuzz posting for something new and (to me at any rate) much more interesting. To what do I refer?

    Answer: the hugely-under-rated Ace2Ace carpet cleaner (allegedly for picking up pet hair only).

    I say it does a lot, lot more.

    It rejuvenates old carpets – spectacularly! It’s hugely, HUGELY under-rated!

    https://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2021/07/ace2ace-carpet-cleaner-one-truly.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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