|Left: Turin Shroud hands, as-is 'negative' image. Centre: The same after a Secondo Pia style tone inversion in ImageJ. Right: The same after 3D-rendering in ImageJ.|
Anything that points to manual moulding of linen to a human subject, to produce an image that could not have resulted from gravitational pressure alone (as in a sheet of linen loosely draped over subject) has to be a pointer to forgery. That would be consistent with the radiocarbon dating too (1260-1390) to say nothing of the first recorded appearance of the TS in western Europe (public exposition, commemorative medal!) having been at the tiny village of Lirey, France in 1357 approx. To that can be added some new chemical intelligence from your host: nitric acid, my Stage 2 developer, not only converts a white flour imprint to a sepia coloured image. it imparts an instant 'aged look' to new linen. Nitric acid would also sterilize the linen, killing off all mould spores, bacteria etc, conceivably a factor in explaining its remarkable longevity and resistance to decay, even if a "mere" 700 years old.
What about those long spindly fingers? What if anything are they telling us about the genesis of the TS image? I'll spare the reader the ideas that have come from pro-authenticity so-called science - like bursts of x-rays emanating from a corpse undergoing resurrection to produce a radiograph on linen. (Yes, it's even been modelled using swallowed technetium-99m). Or that Jesus suffered from Marfan's syndrome.
See the fascinating feature on technetium-99 and other radiotracers in modern medicine entitled: "The element that can make bones glow."
In Luigi Garlaschelli's medieval forgery model, in which most of the body was imaged by manual 'frottage' with a powder or slurry (except for the head where a bas relief was used) the fingers were also seen as problematic. It was suggested they were painted on , and none-too-expertly.
In my now abandoned contact scorch model, the problem was that the need for a heated metal template (200 degrees C or higher) meant that nothing could be usefully done re the peculiar fingers. Their appearance would have been due to an anatomically-incorrect statue or bas relief.
However, this blogger did look briefly in mid-2014 at what happens when one imprints off one's own hands and fingers, using a non-toxic 'paint' as imprinting medium.
|Nutella imprints onto cotton.Left: linen moulded onto coated back of hand. Right: coated hand pressed downward into linen. The latter geometry produced the bonier-looking imprint.|
He made no attempt to conceal the choice of 'paint' - using Nutella, and attracting some ribald comment that sadly detracted from the science, namely that while TS finger length possibly remains problematical, finger width, including excessively spindly-looking fingers, does not, not by a long chalk (spindly or not), assuming the imaging occurred as a result of contact-imprinting under applied manual pressure. That's as distinct from those wacky pro-authenticity models that would have us believe that flashes of high energy radiation produced the image, operating across air gaps where there is (or cannot be) actual physical contact. I've expressed my views on that kind of pseudo-science previously, and shall say no more.
The more perceptive among my readers, well, reader (good morning Adrie) can probably guess what comes next. Correct. This blogger has deployed his new model, hopefully one that is less risible to lay folk than Nutella spread. Yes, it's that flour imprinting/nitric acid developing 'chemography' model, the one that Shroudology is for the most part either ignoring, dismissing or desperately seeking one-line put-downs that will efface it forever from the Shroudosphere, leaving sindonological research in the safe hands of the SSG (and assorted PR spokespeople on their various Shroudie websites).
Yes. I've been taking a closer look at how hands and fingers behave in the new 21st, sorry, 14th century technology.
Firstly, there are 4 chief modes in which one can imprint one's fingers onto linen.
|Top row, left to right: :1 and 2: imprint back of hand, fingers together; 3 and 4: back of hand, fingers apart; Bottom row 5 and 6: :imprint palm side of hand, fingers together, 7 and 8: palm side, fingers apart.|
Results: these are Kodak-printer (RIP) scanned images (not photographs):
|Hand imprints from two-stage flour/nitric acid model, using the 4 modes described earlier, as is without photoediting.|
|As above, after applying Autocorrect in MS Office Picture Manager|
Interpretation? See later.
But what about reverse side imaging (recalling that the TS image shows no reverse side image visible to the unaided eye, excluding that paper with somewhat opaque computer-processing that may (or may not) be artefactual? Be prepared for a surprise, dear reader, if you are not acquainted with two previous postings of mine from way back, when still wedded to the contact-scorch model (decree nisi now issued):
|Faint reverse side images? The kiss of death to the new model?|
|As above,with Autocorrect (with lipstick?)|
But take a hand lens to the above images, and ones sees that the brown coloration is not on the reverse side linen threads and fibres. It's in the interstices of the linen. How can that be? The interstices are holes or gaps created by weaving of threads at right angles (warp and weft).
As shown many moons ago, using a red marker pen initially as a modelling tool, the reverse-side "imaging" one sees above is an artefact of viewing (or scanning) the reverse-side image against a white reflective background. Here's the same, placing a black sheet behind the image to prevent (or largely reduce) back-reflection of coloured light:
|Here's the result when one electronically scans against a black background. Note that the "reverse-side" imaging has now almost entirely disappeared.|
|Nope. Only just visible. That impression/appearance of reverse-side imaging above was almost entirely artefactual, due to back-reflection of light through the interstices of the weave.|
This blogger is not going to be hurried into making rash conclusions. Neither does he take short cuts, or indulge in flights of fancy, unlike those demob-happy STURP seniors, post that oh-so-dreary 1981 Summary.
This is real science, plodding maybe, but it's the way this retired science bod chooses to operate. If folk on those other internet sites don't like it, then believe me I sympathise. They should seek their enlightenment elsewhere, supplied perhaps by the purveyors of happy-clappy pseudo-science. Maybe look back again in six months? Maybe there will be more blogging eye candy? Maybe not.
What's still to come? Maybe the suggestion that the TS image had to be manually assisted to get the hand and finger imprint we see, ie. a sure sign of forgery, requiring applied pressure. not just gravity effects on a loosely-draped sheet of linen.
Late addition :
|Linen draped loosely over hand - not sign of fingers, as seen when linen is applied to flour-pasted hand|
What you see above is the most scientifically-revealing image in the current posting, and dare I say, the most important in my 300 postings to date (I confidently expect more charges of arrogance). Loosely draped linen, hanging under the force of Earth's gravity alone does NOT conform to finer details of body contours, certainly not anything so discrete and detailed as the bunched fingers of the hand. (Yes, the test needs to be repeated with a weightier length of linen fully matching that of the Shroud, but I'm confident that the outline of individual fingers will NOT be seen through the linen). The only way those fingers could have been imaged - especially to get that bony-appearance, assuming a real person, not a statue - is if there had been (a) applied manual pressure from a second person, read medieval forger, and (b) an imprinting medium that allowed the impressed moulding and indentation of linen to the body's 3D relief to be captured and retained as a permanent image. That needs some kind of er, adhesive paste.
Like this, for example:
|It's almost as if my hand had been shrink-wrapped.|
Or there again, maybe not. Might it have also required the adhesive properties of a white flour paste in water, sticking linen to subject, aided by rapid water abstraction ("wicking") via capillary action into linen to give a sharpish flour imprint when the linen is pulled away? Maybe, maybe not.
Oops. Have omitted to comment on apparent finger width, depending on whether the fingers are held together or spread apart. Notice anything? The fingers look more spindly and unreal in the imprints where they are touching. Reason? The linen tends to 'bridge' the fingers, being unable to penetrate the narrow groove that separates them . When the fingers are held apart, the linen can loop down between the fingers, making contact with more of their sides. Result: some lateral imaging, aka distortion, that makes the fingers look fatter than in the bunched-together configuration. Having said that, the fat fingers are probably closer to their real width, as measured in a photograph, than the spindly ones. The spindly fingers of the man on the Shroud are prima facie evidence for imaging by contact, and ONLY by contact. It's time that imaging via models that depend on collimated radiation of unspecified wavelength, severely attenuated by air to explain 3D properties and apparent 3.7cm cut-off, are recognized for the pseudo-science they are. It's one thing to try and fit Shroud properties to a supernatural event. One cannot go inventing new science to make the connection, and expect real scientists to demur. Pseudo-science has to be seen for what it is: an abuse of the language of science to distort reality, to drive an agenda that is not supported by the available facts.
More later? Maybe. Maybe not. This is now a conversation with myself, or anyone who chooses to post their comment HERE.
Update: what this site needs is a handy symbol of the critical first step of the new model showing linen STUCK to a hand, defying gravity. The amazing degree of conformity between linen and physical contours, with fingernails clearly visible, at least in the model, would be impossible to ignore. Here's a flipped image from my archive file that will serve as temporary stand-in while I mix up some more paste and try to find a more salubrious background for photography.
The key words are: PHYSICAL ADHESION. Think PHYSICAL ADHESION.
Further update: there are two obnoxious individuals on the Porter site who are constantly trying not just to belittle my new model, but my scientific credentials as well.
I shan't dignify their ad hom with an individual reply - that would only encourage them to make further attacks. To the one whom tries to make invidious comparisons with another Shroud scientist, I suggest he do what I've just done, which is to google (dietary fibre resistant starch) and see who, in one of my chosen areas of research, different I might add from those whom he hero-worships, has accumulated the highest number of citations under Scholarly articles (which has just passed the 400 mark).
And to the 'lady' who trolls me constantly, and who bizarrely saw fit yesterday to ridicule me for the fact that my Shroud ideas receive no mention currently in wikipedia, I suggest she click on the wiki entry, visible above, for dietary fibre/resistant starch. There she will find my contribution recognized. The difference of course is that my resistant starch work was peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals, whereas my Shroud work is confined so far to the blogosphere (wiki stating not so long ago that it did not regard that arena as sufficiently reliable and/or authoritative - despite continuing to showcase a particular individual's highly partisan pdfs that are hosted by Dan Porter's pro-authenticity Shroud site, despite also not having undergone peer review - except my own - unacknowledged). Wiki really needs to be more vigilant AND consistent.
Further update: back to the science (I'm only here for the science):
Here are some pictures taken just a few minutes ago with the focus on that all-important gravity-defying ADHESION, the key methinks to successful imaging by contact, both in the 21st and 14th century:
|Linen adhering to pasted hand, conforming closely to anatomical relief.|
Fresh imprint left by flour paste on linen prior to chemical development.
|The dip reached as far as the triangular notch on the left. As-is, no enhancement. Note yellowing of flour imprint below notch, none above (latter serving as control).|
|As above, after Autocorrect in MS Office Picture Manager (but neither picture does justice to the yellow coloration seen with the naked eye, neither indoors nor outdoors in bright sun).|
|Note the pronounced yellowing in the limewater-treated sample - background as well as flour imprint.|
|Here's the same, with Autocorrect|