Tuesday, December 16, 2014

The definitive answer to the Shroud of Turin is plain for all to see in 400 year old paintings.

Here's a screen shot of a page from one of Dan Porter's lesser known but generally informative websites, dating back to 2009.

It confirms everything I have been saying for several months now, since February this year in fact.

The caption reads: In this 16th century painting, "The Holy Shroud" by Giovanni Battista  della Rovere, Jesus is depicted being wrapped in the burial shroud below. Above angels are shown displaying his image on the Shroud.

There's just one thing with which I would take issue, namely Dan's description "burial shroud". Who says it's a burial shroud? It's clearly the bolt of linen supplied by Joseph of Arimathea, used to receive the body from the cross as described in Matthew, Mark and Luke. But we cannot assume it was the same cloth that enveloped Jesus in the tomb, in which case it was not a burial shroud, and indeed may never have been intended as such (see the account in the Gospel of St. John that makes brief reference to Joseph of Arimathea, but none to his cloth, instead referring to Nicodemus wrapping the body in "windings").

So why my title: "The definitive answer"?

Answer: look carefully and one can see not only a fairly accurate representation of what we now call the Shroud of Turin (top half, held by angels) but a strong hint as to how the artist assumed the image to have been formed, i.e. as soon as the body was placed in the up-and-over linen at the foot of the cross, and not as we are usually led to assume, much later in the tomb.


There appear to be several variants of the above picture, presumably by the same artist , or, late addition,  his father, Gerolamo, see below) some clearer than others regarding crucial detail, and some probably restored (as Dan Porter believes to be the case in his recent posting , the latter being where I first spotted these two hugely important pictures.). Interestingly, one of those variants shows the imprinting from body onto shroud more clearly than the above  picture.



The mechanism of imprinting of the body image? Can there be any doubt that the artist wanted us to know that the image was a SWEAT IMPRINT.


Enlarged detail of the above. Note the soiling of the top surface of the linen. Soak- through of bodily sweat?
...and here it is seen vertically:



It's maybe a pity (from this blogger's non-authenticity standpoint ) that there is not closer correspondence between image and underlying body. Still, one cannot expect to have all one's Christmases arrive at once. Indeed, where scientitic research is concerned, it's not unusual to have one's Christmases postponed indefinitely, or replaced by April Fools' days.

His contemporaries would have been thoroughly familiar with that idea, given the existence in Rome of the venerated "Veil of Veronica", it too being (according to legend) an image left on a bystander's veil when she stepped forward to wipe SWEAT and blood from the face of Jesus as he passed, bearing his cross. In short, the image on the TS was seen some 400 or so years ago as a post-mortem equivalent to the Veronica, with the difference that it was depicted less as a painting, more as a genuine imprint, one that today we term a "negative". Indeed, one can crop out the TS image in the upper half of those pictures and show that even a modern photograph of a painting of an imprint (!) responds to tone inversion and 3D-rendering in ImageJ as well if not better than modern photographs of the TS. (See my comments and graphics on Dan Porter's site*  ones that I have to say were not well received!).

What I haven't mentioned yet is that this blogger/retired scientist does not regard the TS as authentic 1st century, as the artist above does, and as Dan Porter and most folk on his site do. I accept the radiocarbon dating (1260-1390) though would like to see it confirmed with samples from more sites.

I consider it to be an elaborate and indeed ingenious medieval hoax. Why those adjectives? Answer: because our artisans realized they could not create an artificial sweat imprint using liquids to mimic dried yellowed sweat. they had to find an alternative methodology that produced what could be claimed to be an ancient sweat image. Likely technology? Thermal imprinting, aka contact scorching, off a heated metal template - probably. But my 'pseudo-sweat imprint' hypothesis does not stand or fall on whether the TS image really is a  simple thermal contact scorch. It is almost certainly the result of breaking chemical bonds on the most superficial of the linen fibres, and reforming in a new configuration that selectively abstract blue visible light , reflecting back filtered  light to the observers' eyes that looks yellow instead of white.  But while that chemical change may have been achieved by thermal modification alone, one cannot exclude alternative mechanisms that are entirely chemical, or maybe a combination of chemical and thermal. However, thermal imprinting explains neatly the 3D properties of the TS image. They were not intended, needless to say, anymore than the startling (and pleasing) result of Secondo Pia's tone-inversion were intended. Both those 19th/20th century findings were the result of a medieval artisan deploying an imprinting technique that generates those effects automatically - much better than would be the case of the TS image had simply been painted (Charles Freeman please note).

Back to the title:  Is this the definitive answer to the Shroud of Turin  visible in old paintings?

Answer: YES - almost certainly, as the above paintings demonstrate, but I don't suppose Dan Porter will be overjoyed at the use I've made of his website graphics.

Postscript: are the works of Giovanni Battista the only ones to show an up-and-over TS-like length of linen right next to the cross? Possibly. But a search through image files is beginning to turn up long sheets of linen appearing at the cross or the entrance to the tomb that might qualify for the description "TS-like".


See for example these passages from the biblearchaeology site:



11th century ivory - within a hundred years of the arrival of the Edessa Icon Byzantine art suddenly produces Lamentation art forms showing Jesus laid out on a large shroud in a manner resembling the Turin Shroud. Why? Gertrud Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. 2 (Passion), lower  panel of no. 595




 ...and later in the same posting:


The Christ figure depicted on threnoi and epitaphioi sometimes included special, unusual characteristics unmistakably specific to the Turin Shroud.  Wilson noticed an ivory in the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, a Byzantine Lamentation depiction from the early 12th century, that showed Jesus with his hands crossed over the wrists and lying on a shroud resembling a mattress (Wilson 1991: 151), all details also to be seen on the Turin Shroud but not seen anywhere else before the middle of the 10th century.  Additionally, the observer will note that the shroud’s length continues above Christ’s head, obviously meant to envelop the front as well as back of the body.  While the other figures have thumbs, Jesus’ hands have only four fingers. Finally, the diagonal lines giving the burial cloth a mattress-like appearance might be better understood as the artist’s naïve attempt to capture a zigzag, herringbone weave, a strong Turin Shroud feature.  There is good reason to believe that the naivete often shown in these arts is likely due to the artist not being privileged to see the actual shroud in the Emperor’s relic trove, but instead working from descriptions from those who did.

Some on the new Lamentation artwork like this early 12th century ivory carving shows numerous similarities to the Shroud of Turin – how many characteristics can you find? 5-1872 from Victoria and Albert Museum online (off site link).











Note the two ladders and supported feet in the above carving, indicative of the crucifixion that preceded the transfer to Joseph's linen en route to the tomb (though if that door in the arch represents the entrance to the tomb, it's somewhat problematical.

One shall continue searching for more images that gel with the Battista interpretation. Is it too much topo hope that one or more can be found showing the TS-like image in proximity to cross and Joseph's linen AND a bodily  imprint on the latter. What an extraordinary conjunction we have on those two Battista images!

Update: 22:40  Yes! Here's another, presumably from the same Italian school that was dedicated to depicting Joseph's linen in TS-like up-and-over mode:


Update: Wed 17th December

Oops. Have just discovered this picture an yet another site that adds an entirely new possibility where medieval or early Renaissance perceptions of image-imprinting were concerned.


Notice anything unusual? Jesus has only just been taken down from the cross, but is already being anointed it would seem by the two Marys. While there's no direct evidence of prior washing in this picture, though notice the paucity of blood, it opens the possibility that the imprint on Joseph's linen and by implication on the TS was perceived not as one of sweat, or of sweat exclusively, but as anointing oil. That's admittedly requires a stretch of the imagination, but then artists are not unknown for allowing imagination to stretch credulity.

Wednesday 12:40 pm

Have just discovered this additional graphic and information on  Giovanni Battista della Rovere on a Spanish language website:

Click to ENLARGE


Here's a Google translation of the accompanying text:


Click to ENLARGE

Am beginning to wonder if the Battista pictures showing both Shroud and Joseph's linen separately were commissioned by the House of Savoy as promotional material, so to speak. It might explain why there are so few in that genre, given I've been unable to find new ones not already shown.

Am still searching, and will add any further discoveries here.


  1. December 13, 2014 at 5:07 am
    Should anyone here still be in any doubt as to the power of modern 3D-rending programs to generate apparent 3D from entirely 2D imprints OR even centuries old artwork, here’s what happens when one takes the TS image from that painting above, gives it some additional contrast, and then uploads it into ImageJ.. (Charles: please note that the man’s imprint on the shroud has exactly the same monochrome colour as the1532 burn marks – hardly what one would expect of an artistic depiction of the TS from late16th/early 17th century if the latter had been the work of an earlier artist).


  2. Stan Walker MD
    December 13, 2014 at 8:39 am
    Colin, Thanks for pointing this out. The painting is a facsimile of the shroud. Of course it will have some 3D qualities. You are inadvertently supporting the authenticity argument.
    • December 14, 2014 at 6:28 am
      “Inadvertently” you say Stan Walker MD?
      If you think that, then you’ve clearly lost the plot, and/or have not been following its twists and turns these last few months.

      This painting above is, as eagle-eyed Hugh has confirmed, by one Giovanni Battista Della Rovere (1560 -1621)
      https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiammenghini
      or, contradictory dates elsewhere, see:
      http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/artist/Rovere,+Giovan+Battista+della
      It fits EITHER a pro-authenticity OR an anti-authenticity narrative.
      It all depends whether that TS image is an imprint of the body in question undergoing deposition from cross onto Joseph of Arimathea’s linen (lower half of picture)
      OR:
      a pseudo-sweat imprint created by a medieval forger to invoke the above scene.
      It’s the serendipity thing – to log on to this site as I did yesterday to find 16th/17th century paintings displaying the origin of the present TS as a blood AND (probably) sweat imprint too onto Joseph’s linen, whether a real historical event OR, as likely as not, a fanciful one (maybe a post-mortem echo of the legendary imprinting of the Veronica face-only image?). Christmas for me has come early this year, especially as Dan withheld the crucial top half of the first of the current crop of ‘Deposition’ pictures initially. (why Dan?).
      Am I not correct in thinking from the above picture that the double body image is being captured and imprinted BEFORE final preparations for interment, indeed even before arrival at the tomb, and that it is incorrect therefore to refer to Joseph’s bolt of linen as a burial shroud if it was intended merely as a temporary expedient, i.e. to assist with deposition from cross and transport to tomb? Sorry to have to repeat myself (see earlier ‘body bag’ posting).
      The scene in the above painting was in my considered opinion the chosen narrative that inspired, 350 or so years earlier, a highly elaborate but ultimately successful medieval HOAX.
      However that would not preclude pro-authenticity 1st century narratives, if one’s prepared, as so many here are, to dismiss out of hand the radiocarbon dating (which incidentally this blogger provisionally accepts, but would like to see confirmed, and indeed is appalled was never immediately extended beyond the corner chosen for initial testing).
      As I say, there was nothing “inadvertent” in what I wrote. I try not to do inadvertent, despite 2014 being the year I reached three score years and ten.

See also the posting "Only the Shadow Knows" on shroudstory for further debate on what is responsible for 3D properties of the TS via-vis model systems (scorch imprints, 2D graphics etc).

Update: Thursday 18th December 2014

In commenting on this posting, Dan Porter takes issue with my claim that the top half of Joseph of Arimathea's linen already shows a sweat imprint, despite just having been lowered, or re-lifted from the corpse. He thinks the dark discoloration could be something else, perhaps shadows of the people in attendance, and claims the light is coming from more than one direction.

Nope. I say that the artist was particularly keen to disabuse the viewer of that possibility. How? Look at the picture again, especially the faces, and the buildings in the distance, to deduce the direction from which most of the light is coming. It's diagonally from top left, as shown by my white arrows.In fact it may be coming in from behind the viewer as well, judging by the illumination of the corpse despite being under the sheet.


Now look at the nine figures. Which of them are capable of casting a shadow onto the linen? Answer: only the fellow with the cupcake head-dress on the extreme left. What's more, he and his hat HAVE cast a shadow, circled in yellow. No one else has,  obvious from the fact that the discoloration is nothing like as dark as that single shadow. Ipso facto, the discoloration is due something else.I say it represents the causative agent - bodily sweat- that the artist imagined/supposed  had finally produced the image of the TS in the top half of the picture.

PS: Why does Dan Porter describe this as a "bloody post"? Why the pejorative adjective? Is it the length that is the issue? Well, I've just spotted something else in the picture, that's about to make this posting even longer, so there.


Right at the bottom ones sees crucifxion-related hardware, shown by yellow arrows. They are (left to right): nails, claw-hammer and pincers.

Where have we seen at least one, or maybe two of those in another TS-related image? Answer: the Lirey Pilgrim's badge.

That helps cement the link between the TS and the cross (and immediate aftermath of removal from cloth to linen) NOT to the rock tomb and final preparations for burial. Put another way, it's a Matthew/Mark/Luke narrative, involving the first appearance of Joseph of Arimathea's linen, not a John-related narrative.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Too clever-by-half Google search engine goes from bad to worse...


The words entered into Google search were: typical composition linen cellulose hemicellulose pectin.

Immediately, the correctly-spelt, non-esoteric term "linen" was underlined in red as if a misprint.

The all-knowing, all-wise Google then suggested "lignin" as a replacement for linen.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?????

Yes, I know that search strings that incorporate the sequence (cellulose hemicellulose pectin) will maybe occasionally contain the non-carbohydrate term lignin too. But it's not for Google's algorithm to go second-guessing the accuracy of what one keys into the search box if not an obvious typo.

It's time Google stopped reinforcing all our worst stereotypes about recruitment policies in Silicon Valley. It's time Google stopped treating its software like a plaything. It's time Google protected the software coding from fresh-out-of-college types who seem to assume that users "out there" in cyber space are halfwits or morons.

As for 'googling' with a view to quickly locating what I vaguely recall posting somewhere or other
under my sciencebod pseudonym, and getting back a list headed

"These are the returns for science bob. Did you mean sciencebod?"

then words simply fail me.

Again I ask: WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?




Update: 15:50  Still 12 Dec

Yup, it's still happening. Google sciencebod, and the first return is "science bob". Damn you Google. A plague on all your servers.



This is arrogance on stilts.

Why doesn't Google simply add  a set-up menus option?

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

The Turin Shroud was not intended to represent the final burial shroud, merely an opened-out BODY BAG for transporting Jesus from cross to rock tomb.



Late addition ( Dec 4 ):  De Ciseri's  "Deposition of Christ" (1883). Was this post-crucifixion scene from the synoptic gospels,  featuring the sheet of "fine linen" purchased by Joseph of Arimathea, the inspiration for medieval fabrication of a whole-body analogue of the fabled 'Veil of Veronica', imagined as a sweat/blood imprint, the one we now call the Shroud of Turin?


Plus ça change - a modern-day body bag. (Leaving the face exposed in the De Ciseri painting above was of course artistic licence).

Late addition (Dec 4). Why assume that the Turin so-called "Shroud" is or was intended as a burial shroud, when the biblical account in the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) states clearly that body of Jesus was removed from the cross, placed into a sheet of linen supplied by Joseph of Arimathea, and then taken to the tomb? There is nothing there to indicate that the linen was intended as the final burial shroud, and indeed, when one reads the fourth gospel account (John) which mentions Joseph of Arimathea, but not his linen, the scene has moved  on to the tomb, and it's now Nicodemus who is making the preparations for interment, and doing so using "winding" linen that is used to incorporate spices and ointments.

So it's just as likely, if not more so, that the Turin Shroud, whether "authentic", or as this blogger believes "non-authentic" (a cunningly contrived medieval scam), is in fact Joseph of Arimathea's linen, used as a stretcher or body bag, bearing a blood and sweat imprint (probably simulated, not real) of both upper and lower body surfaces.  It cannot be called a burial shroud if there's a real possibility that its intended function was otherwise, and if indeed as seems probable it had been removed by Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea and replaced with a more specialized funeral garment or 'winding' (see the image from the Hungarian Pray manuscript below showing arguably both J of A's 'stretcher/body bag' under the body AND the winding strips in readiness.


Starting point of original posting:   This blogger/retired scientist has grown somewhat weary of arguing a case in detail, only to see "lite" versions appear on other sites, naming no names, that others read and misunderstand (for a typical ridicule-laden example see the appendix below).One has better things to do with one's time than  be constantly re-stating one's case, trying to correct misunderstandings that are NOT of one's own making.

Repeat: the  TS was intended to be seen as an ancient sweat imprint on linen. No, not an actual sweat imprint, as I was at pains to point out, but a SIMULATED, i.e. imitation sweat imprint, an imagined sweat imprint, a fanciful reconstruction of how a whole body sweat imprint (with liberal additions of blood too) might look some 13 centuries afterwards if  "suddenly" unearthed from goodness knows where and immediately placed on public display.

How was the 'sweat imprint' manufactured?  Answer: almost certainly as a faint contact scorch from a heated 3D metal statue and/or bas relief, accounting for the 'negative' image and 3D properties, but that's just a detail. The takeaway message is that the  TS image was a SIMULATED sweat imprint, a larger version of the much venerated Veil of Veronica (the latter having probably served as the inspiration for fabricating the TS to represent as a sweat and blood derived  whole body imprint).

But was it really a BURIAL shroud that was represented in that ingenious thought experiment?

Well, I've now developed that narrative a bit further, but rather than set out lengthy arguments and reasoning here, just to see my mission to explain come to naught, I'll adopt a two step procedure.

Please be content for now with another new claim:  the so-called Turin Shroud was never intended to represent the final burial shroud. It was a makeshift body bag used to transport Jesus from the cross to his final resting place, the rock tomb. It was simply to provide a dignified transport of a blood and sweat-soaked victim pending the final washing and anointing prior to final burial, probably in WINDING sheets.It was the body bag that received the sweat and blood imprint, NOT the final burial shroud enclosing a washed, anointed, perfumed body.

I shall now take my time in composing the next posting. It will explain how these latest ideas came about. The Lirey Pilgrim's badge played a key role in that thinking. There will even be a new explanation for what Ian Wilson described as the "blood belt".

The TS image in sweat and blood was on the up-and-over BODY BAG, not the final burial shroud.

Late addition: see the latest posting  (Dec 4) on my other site for a continuation of the theme, mainly in pictures:

A new take in pictures on an old artefact – the (not really a) Shroud of Turin, more an imaginative 14th century marketing wheeze.

APPENDIX 1 : what the NT has to says on the "linen":

Matthew, Chapter 28:  

57. When the even was come, there cam a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple.
58. He went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded to body to be delivered.
59. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth.
60. And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre and departed.


There is no evidence there that the linen cloth was intended to be used as the final burial shroud. Indeed, it's clear it was intended primarily for transporting body from cross to tomb. One is not entitled to assume that a sheet of linen used to transport a bloodied body then doubled as the final burial shroud, implying there was no cleaning of the body. How likely was that? Why would the Marys bring ointments etc the next day, unless it was intended to first wash the body - and then remove it from the soiled 'body bag' prior to wrapping in  fresh clean sheets?

Mark, Chapter 15

43  Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
44. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him, the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
45. And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
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.
47. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.


How likely is it that a length of cloth used to transport a bloodied body from the site of execution would double as final burial shroud?

Luke, Chapter 23

50  And, behold ,there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor and he was a good man and a just:

51... etc etc
52. This man went unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus.
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.
54. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
55. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day, according to the commandment.

John, Chapter 19

38. And after this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39. And there came also Nicodemus (which at the first came to Jesus by night) and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight.
40. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner is it of Jews to bury.


Observe there is no indication as to what was used to transport Jesus to the tomb. While the "clothes" used  to "wind" Jesus are described as linen, it seems fairly certain they used new material, different from that (unspecified) material used for transport. Might this be the source of confusion - the reference to linen used in two different contexts, one for transport in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and another different linen in John used for the final "winding".

Matthew, Mark and Luke describe a linen 'body bag' - unlikely to be used as burial shroud. John describes a linen burial shroud, with no indication as to what preceded it, if anything,  as body bag.



APPENDIX 2: 

New angle on that much over-hyped Hungarian Pray Codex: might that be Jesus on an opened-out body bag in the upper picture, with the replacement snake-like linen for winding in readiness?

APPENDIX 3:

Here's an example of what is allowed to appear elsewhere, laden with scorn and ridicule, with no attempt on the blog owner's part to intervene, correcting false impressions created by his own sketchy reporting, lacking crucial detail.


Antero de Frias Moreira
November 14, 2014 at 5:11 am
Why human sweat cannot produce a Shroud like imprint
Sweat is composed mainly of water with dissolved minerals lactate and urea.
It’s a fact that sweat glands have an uneven distribution in human skin, and the composition and quantity of produced sweat by a human depends on several factors.
Leaving aside speculations,, if we assume the corpse wrapped in the Shroud had profuse sweating before death, then almost all skin surface would be covered by sweat, and the uneven distibution of sweat glands in dermal structure would not matter., even hair would be soaked with sweat (unless it had been washed…)
Question 1- Is there any sweat chemical compound that reacts whith the polysaccharide layer involving linen fibers(Rogers theory) or pectin and hemicellulose of primary cell wall?
Perhaps lactate? urea?-
If so does it produce the same color tone?
AS FAR AS I KNOW THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED IN LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
Question 2- From a microscopical point of view IF sweat was responsible for color change of fibers, as a fluid it is, it would soak the fabric and probably there would be coloration on the other side of the cloth, and besides, contrary to what is observed on the Shroud there would be a continuum of colored fibers in «image» áreas ( I mean at microscopical level there would not be colored fibers and uncolored fibers side by side..)
The question of superficial fiber coloration at thread level would not be fulfilled either.
Question 3- A sweat imprint on cloth would be by defenition a contact imprint, ON THE CONTRARY THE SHROUD IMAGE IS NOT(al least in several anatomical áreas) A CONTACT IMAGE.
Question 4- If it would be possible to wrap a naked human body with its skin covered with sweat in a linen sheet with the aim of obtaining an image, the result would be as follows
(assuming that a color change would occur independently of the time elapsed to get it..)
It would be a contact-only blurred image, with different macroscopic and microscopic characteristics relative to Shroud image let alone the fact it would have no 3D encoding.
SWEAT THEORY HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPROVED, let’s not waste time speculating on old fashion and out of date issues,
regards
Antero de Frias Moreira
Centro Português de Sindonologia


Appendix 4

I never imagined for one moment that I was the first to propose the 'body bag' hypothesis, in view of the Gospel accounts making clear that 'fine linen' was used for immediate transport from cross to tomb. And here's a comment from David Mo that includes a French quote (my italics) making precisely  the same point. My immediate response follows:

November 26, 2014 at 3:48 am
More interesting:
« L’autre Suaire qui porte aussi une empreinte du corps de Jesus-Christ est celui qu’on appelle le saint Suaire de Besançon. La peinture n’y est pas si forte ni les traits si distinguez que le Suaire de Turin. C’est ce qui a fait dire à ceux qui ont donné l’histoire de l’un & de l’autre, que celui de Turin avoit servi à envelopper le corps tout ensanglanté à la descente de la croix, & que celui de Besançon avoit servi à l’ensevelir après qu’il eut été lavé & embaumé ».
It was a common belief that the mark of Turin Shroud was made with blood.


November 26, 2014 at 3:55 am
Snap. I had arrived at precisely the same conclusion this morning, namely that the TS was a “body bag” used to transport from cross to tomb, and NOT used as a final burial shroud.


(with a link to this posting).







Appendix 5


Ian Wilson no less has expressed views that chime with mine (my bolding)


Wilson concurs with this as a possible explanation: "Although this may have been a me re chin band, it implies a more substantial piece of linen, and an alternative interpretation is that it could have been the Shroud we know today. The root meaning of sudarion is sweat cloth, and the Shroud may have been intended as a temporary wrapping to soak up the sweat and blood from the body prior to a more definitive burial, which would have taken place after the Passover Sabbath."

Appendix 6

Here's the most recent comment from Nabber re my sweat imprint hypothesis:

Nabber
November 26, 2014 at 9:47 am
It was not a sweat imprint, and here’s why:
As the Wiki says, “there is no doubt that there was an image displayed in Rome in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries which was known as the Veil of Veronica. The history is, however, PROBLEMATIC.” Nowhere can you reliably document that the image was a sweat-print. The only inspection: in 1907 in St. Peter’s when Jesuit art historian Joseph Wilpert inspected the image, he saw only a piece of light-colored material, faded, with two faint rust-brown stains. On the contrary, all the medieval paintings of the Veronica intended to show an actual colored portrait of Christ’s face (miraculously imprinted, they thought) and were not portrayals of a sweat-print, leading any honest analyst to conclude that the Veronica was originally a PAINTING. Even the common medieval “rube” would have known that a face-print is not created from someone rubbing the sweat and blood off of a man’s face–only a messy blob. Therefore, anyone, cleric, artist, common-man, would have supposed the Veronica was a miraculous image and not a sweat imprint.

My answer (posted here only) : let's not get hung up on what substances comprised the Veil of Veronica as it existed in the 14th century. If as I suggest it was used as a model for simulating the burial shroud (or body bag) of Christ, it may be those artisans did not know either. But they could have fallen back on the legend of the Veil, which we're told did not really get going till the 14th century, namely that there was a wiping of sweat and blood from the face of Jesus, that there was a momentary "imprint" of his face, blotchy or otherwise, and what happens then is a matter for conjecture (and artistic licence). It's the concept that matters, namely that a contact image can be made from the body to cloth.  Image enhancement is a secondary consideration.

The thing we have to keep uppermost in our minds is that we have an alleged burial shroud that carries not only the blood of the deceased, blood being a bodily fluid, but a negative imprint too that is faint yellow.If there's one bodily fluid, why not another? The most obvious candidate for an imprinting fluid has to be sweat, especially as it accompanies exertion and trauma.  What's more we have a reasonable precedent for that in the Veil of Veronica provided one does not get bogged down in all the secondary artistic or miraculous add-ons.

A negative image, as per Turin Shroud, is most unusual, and cries out for a rationale. A putative sweat imprint provides the rationale. Frances de Sales in 1614 regarded the TS as an image comprising blood AND sweat.


  Appendix 7

Comment from Thomas on shroudstory.com, Thursday 4th December and my reply

Thomas
December 4, 2014 at 1:35 am
Colin I for one have no resistance to the idea. It’s one I’ve always held.


December 4, 2014 at 2:18 am
Pleased to hear it Thomas. But have you considered the implications? Imprinting onto a linen sheet used immediately after ‘taking down’ generates an entirely different narrative (or possible narratives) than imprinting much later onto the same sheet or a replacement one. It’s not an area I’m not keen to get into, having said many moons ago that much of what has been written re ‘re- bleeding’ from old wounds, ‘unclotting’ , etc by this or that mechanism (fibrinolysis, serum exudates of retracted blood clots etc) strikes me as counter-intuitive, indeed credulity-stretching. None of those complicated some might say contrived scenarios are needed if the imprinting occurs, whether 1st or 14th century, from a real or simulated corpse in which the wounds are still relatively fresh. But all of that overlooks the elephant in the room – the time constraints imposed on imprinting of a secondary body image. If the TS is J of A’s linen sheet, then who’s to say it was not replaced with something else (like Nicodemus’s linen) prior to imprinting of body image by supernatural processes? Who’s to say that medieval hoaxers had no intention of “modelling” a supernatural imprinting of body image – and were content to propose a Veronica-like imprinting of sweat as well as blood onto the transport linen en route to the tomb?
I may be totally wrong re imprinting mechanisms, but am sure about one thing: the biblical record simply does not justify the description Turin “Shroud” if there’s no evidence that the sheet of linen was ever intended to be used as the final burial shroud. It should be re-named the Turin Linen, or maybe “Turin Imprint”, leaving open the possibility of it being a larger post-mortem analogue of the pre-mortem Veil of Veronica. Any miracle would be less to do with ‘resurrection -imprinting’ than morphing of a sweat-imprint into a negative image of a recognizable human being.

 Appendix 8

Second comment from Thomas on shroudstory.com (different thread)  and my reply:

Thomas
December 4, 2014 at 3:12 am
Seeing this reminded me of the abrasion we see on Christ’s right cheek on the shroud. What chance of this on a bas relief?
It’s a level of detail one would really not expect to see in a 14th century “fake”

 My reply:
December 4, 2014 at 3:40 am
How can you describe what you see (yellow pointer?) as an “abrasion” Thomas, when it’s indistinguishable in character from surrounding body image?



All one can say surely is that it’s an asymmetry in the facial features, one that cannot be readily explained without knowing the precise mechanism of image imprinting (which was definitely not photography).



Appendix 9 (needed to make a point elsewhere)

Notice a faint reverse-side image? It's an artefact - the filtered light (red) is being back-reflected from the white background through  the interstices of the weave.The 'reverse side image' largely disappears when the fabric is placed on a matt black surface.

Appendix 10


and here are the steps that lead from template to 3D-enhanced image that I shall proceed to post to the current discussion on shroudstory.com (for Todds delectation especially, as he seems impressed by what can be accomplished by simple scorch technology and ImageJ):
1. Thermal imprint from brass crucifix onto linen with damp underlay.


2. Close up of thermal imprint (cropped from above picture, with loss of feet).


3. Simple tone reversal in ImageJ (use Edit Invert).


4. After 3D rendering and flipping left/right  in ImageJ for easier comparison with initial template.

Appendix 12




Appendix 13:






Appendix 14:



Appendix 15


 For the attention of Charles Freeman.

Were you aware Charles that the original Stonehenge was painted in patriotic colours? Unfortunately, owing to the depredations of time, the pigments have all detached and the fallout swept away by westerly gales. All we are left with now is that drab grey stone. Pity.

Btw: it's also rumoured that they ran out of white paint and left the job unfinished. Either that, or they got bored and went off to the Stone Shifters Arms for a jar or two of the local scrumpy, and were never seen or heard of again.

 Appendix 16


Sunday, October 21, 2012



Appendix 17 (needed to make a point elsewhere)





















Appendix 18









Appendix 20





Appendix 21




Appendix 22




Appendix 23







Appendix 24

Colour optical illusion