Modelling two distinct types of BAKED-IN crease in the still-enigmatic Shroud of Turin, ones that provide important clues to the image-imprinting mechanism.

The iconic Shroud image, Durante 2002/Shroud Scope after 3D enhancement in ImageJ. Note the prominent twin-track feature at chin level, the main interest of this and two previous postings.

This is the third in my series of postings on a feature (or rather, features) of the Shroud image which may tell us a lot about the way the image was created. The first was on this site, over two years ago:



Monday, February 6, 2012

Why does the Turin Shroud appear to have scorched-in crease marks? Tell-tale signature for medieval forging?

 I am more than ever convinced that the answer to the question in that title was a resounding YES! The creases or, rather, some of them, contain imprinted MEMORY of what was happening to the Shroud at the instant it received its 'body image' (Blood arguably came later as a part of an extensive re-invention exercise - see my other site).

Later, I did a second posting on that specialist Shroud site after being made aware by IT expert Mario Latendresse of his now invaluable Shroud Scope tool, and learning to adjust contrast to facilitate interpretation of small detail.

Shroud Scope 4: No matter what process mysteriously produced a negative ‘snapshot’ of the Man on the Shroud, it captured that of creases in the linen too. Why?

Posted on June 15, 2012 by colinsberry
 


I refer to what previously I have referred to simply as "creases". In view of comments made elsewhere, some helpful, some less so, I shall now have to be more precise in my nomenclature.

First. let me state an article of faith, one that will not be shifted unless evidence to the contrary is placed in the public domain (Shroud Science Group insiders' references to what one has shown another cannot be given serious consideration on this, an open-access website, where total transparency is everything).

I believe the sepia coloration of the crease marks under consideration, largely indistinguishable from body image, means they are essentially part of the image, sharing the same provenance. They are NOT handling creases that have arrived later, not even with the 1532 fire and its creation of burn holes, scorched edges etc etc. That is why I now refer here to "baked-in" creases. As will be seen, one can model two situations, one in which there were pre-existing fold marks in the linen, rectilinear along obvious short and long axes, as with sheets stored for future use in one's airing cupboard, and secondly (and more importantly) creases that were generated as an "accident" of the image imprinting process and immediately baked in as a kind of memory, even if the fabric has since been smoothed out. The memory is still there, if one knows where to look, and HOW TO INTERPRET what one sees based on the model (we scientists like our models, even if at times we sound as if we regard them as fact- as distinct from working hypothesis. Don't be deceived. It would be tedious to have to keep repeating that the model is merely a mental aid to interpretation that could be promiscuously dumped for another any time it ceased to be of value in interpreting new data).

(Double click on this and other images to enlarge)
White rectangle - site of a "Type 1A crease, with 'baked-in' appearance and presumed to be such pending firm evidence to the contrary.  A cryptic Type 1B crease is probably present in corresponding area on right hand side (with ridge rather than furrow type fold ) which failed to "bake in" at time of image imprinting.  Type 1 creases were present before image imprinting, due to way fabric was folded initially. Yellow rectangles: sites of Type 2 creases, baked-in S-shaped infoldings of linen, that are  presumed to have been created during the imprinting process due to mechanical ruction and entrapment of linen.

Here's a Shroud Scope close up, intermediate magnification, of the highly conspicuous crease at the base of the chin.  Note the twin track appearance, the subject of my first of 2 postings on creases, here over 2 years ago. What I failed to comment on before, having spotted it just a week ago, is the suggestion of there being more "baked-in image" above rather than below the central pale area, perhaps better seen on the right than left half. The asymmetry appears to be a real effect (see what follows) and is easily modelled.

This is a close up of the left half above,  with added contrast  (MS Photoeditor). While there is ample pigmentation/imaging above and below, the upper band could be described as  more discrete, regular  and concentrated than the lower.

This is the right hand side of that chin-level crease. Here the asymmetry is plain for all to see. Is the effect unique to this particular crease?

Here's a similar Type 2 crease from the dorsal side of the Shroud (inverted figure).  It's from the small of the back (note signature 'blood belt' for that location. While the imaging of the crease is primarily discontinuous - a series of blotches - note the asymmetry, with most blotches below the central crease line.

So far, the focus has been on Type 2 creases - which I consider 'tell a story' about the manner in which the Shroud image was imprinted by forcible application of a heated solid template to linen, sufficient to cause distortion of the fabric, and thus mechanical entrapment of invaginated folds. What about Type 1 - preexisting folds that were also baked-in by the thermal imprinting process.  This is a handy photograph, showing the intersection of Type 1 and Type 2, horizintal and vertical respectively.

It's a lot harder to discern a Type 1 midline fold on the dorsal view (see bloodbelt and that blotchy Type 2 crease at left). In fact, I'm inclined to the view that the midline baked-in crease is exclusively a feature of the frontal side of the Shroud only, disappearing in the region between the frontal and dorsal images of the head. Modelling provides an explanation for this added asymmetry that I don't recall having ever seen commented on before (which means little, given the vastness of Shroud literature, much in conference proceedings).

Modelling of the more important Type 2 creases. Look carefully at the upper half, and you will see how the fabric was folded to create an intucked fold, such that there were THREE layers of fabric above the crease. When the hot template was applied, there was more intense scorching of the three-layer sandwich than of the single layer (for reasons that merit further investigation). When opened out and flattened one sees an asymmetrical  twin track arrangement, i.e. VERY DARK- LIGHT- DARK which matches that of the transverse Type 2 creases on the TS, the ones I consider were acquired at the moment of imprinting.
The lower half was a control, with the the same triple sandwich folding, but in the opposite direction.  It is still the triple sandwich side that acquires the more intense scorch.

Here's a schematic diagram, hastily put together with MS Paint, to summarise what happens when a hot template is placed across a Type 2 crease.

Explanation for the asymmetry of the twin-track of a Type 2 baked-in crease.

OK, I've been a bit naughty. I have discussed Type 2 before Type 1. That's probably a give-away to my sense of priorities. It's those Type2 creases that have captured and retained for posterity the genesis of the Shroud image from Time Zero (ignoring the history of the Shroud linen prior to imprinting). But it did of course have a pre-imprinting history. A 4.4 x 1.1m length of linen needed to be folded compactly before being pressed (or unpressed) into service as burial shroud. Given there were pre-existing folds (unless rolled up)  and even creases how would they respond to having hot template pressed against them?

 Here we see what happens when one imprints across a simple opened-out fold, either as a concave furrow, ie. V-shaped in cross section, or as a convex ridge (inverted V). The creases were ironed-in, to increase the odds of getting a result. Well, as you see, we got a result, indeed a striking difference between the two types of crease, Type 1A and 1B (furrow v ridge).

Modelling of a Type 1A  baked-in crease,

 Note the  narrow region of linen at the base of the V that has escaped being scorched, due to imperfect flattening-out of the linen for the brief time (a second or so) that the hot template made contact with the fabric.  Late edit: This is a match for the long axis midline "fold" that one sees on the TS frontal side - a twin track, pale centre, left and right rails of the same intensity. But I say it's a baked-in fold, or in current jargon, a Type 1 crease. 

If folk wish to provide a different provenance, based on those other imaginative models (radiation, gaseous diffusion etc) then fine, let's be hearing it, but I'm the one right now who has the experimental  AND theoretical model that together "tell a story". What's more, scorching by contact produces an image, and it's a negative, and it's 3D-enhancible, and , given the nature of thermal energy, it can be as intense or as superficial as one wishes. One does not get a third  degree burn from brushing lightly against a hot iron, painful though it may be. I say he contact scorch theory (that would include Luigi Garlaschelli's contact acid/thermal scorch) are scientifically coherent, if not down to the very last detail (some of which could be age and/or technique-related). But I would go further: all other rival models LACK SCIENTIFIC COHERENCE, with huge chunks missing, like failure to generate an image.


Now repeat the experiment, but with the creased linen turned over so that the V is inverted in cross-section. One has a ridge instead of a furrow in the linen:

Modelling the reasons why a Type 1B crease does not leave a baked-in image.

Note that with this reverse configuration there is scarcely if any interruption of imprinted image along the fold line. I would expect to have attracted much scepticism had I  tried to claim otherwise,

Type 1A (concave furrow) above - allows a symmetrical twin-track baked-in crease.
         Type 1B (convex ridge) - does not allow twin-track imaging.

                    

Speaking of the 'eye of faith' which (if one's honest) can all too often be influenced by prior assumptions, including one's latest brainwaves, I said earlier that I could only see Type 1A twin-track on the frontal side of the Shroud. Having failed to see it on the dorsal side, or at best the tiniest hints thereof, I'm now going to stick my neck out (or place head on the block) and suggest that it's absent because the dorsal side is a Type 1B crease. In other words, it's a ridge, not furrow, and so has failed to capture the imprint from a heated template as in the experiment and diagram above.

If one takes a length of paper to represent a Shroud and its two images, it's easy to see how reversal of fold sense comes about. If one wants a midline furrow for the entire length, one fold along the long axis first, then across the short axis. But doing a long fold is awkward. It's more natural to fold across the midline short axis first, before folding along the long axis that is now half its original length. Do it that second way, and one finds, maybe with a little application of  a hot electric  iron to reinforce crease lines, that the sense of the  fold reverses at the midpoint. If the frontal side is a furrow crease, then the dorsal side is a ridge, The apparent loss of that frontal side midline crease, just above the head, is now entirely explicable. But let's not lose sight of the main point, that I'm certain will be contested by those who have no time for the  (contact) "scorch" hypothesis. While those folds were there originally, they are no longer simply ancient folds that are visible for mechanical reasons only (bending/kinking of threads). They are visible as part of the sepia Shroud image because they were baked in by the hot template at the time of image imprinting. Sorry to have to repeat myself, but this blogger/science bod does not wish to see two years of research and thinking about those crucial Type 2 creases being scuppered by inappropriate comparisons with the more mundane Type 1 variety. Indeed, far from weakening my case for Type 2 creases being template-inflicted, so to speak, they strengthen it by my discovery that Type 1A folds, while not template-inflicted, were template-boldened-up by acquisition of twin-track scorch marks. The fact that the Type 1A pattern is not visible (that I can see) on the dorsal side, consistent with modelling, inspired by theorizing AND  plain common sense, greatly strengthens in my view the credibility of the contact scorch hypothesis.

Methinks that is enough for now. I had originally intended to finish on a polemical note, deploring what I consider the pseudoscience that is deployed in so-called "sindonology". The best indicator for pseudoscience is the instant dismissal indeed contempt that can be elicited by mere reference to the word "scorch", even without the qualifying "contact".  One may be an enthusiast for all kinds of alternative hypotheses for image formation, based on exotic types of radiation (uv laser generated, corona discharges, neutron fluxes etc etc) or the so-called naturalistic hypotheses based on chemical emissions from a real corpse. But what one cannot do is dismiss contact scorching out of hand, or expect to fob off this 'enthusiast' for scorching with tired old checklists that substitute anecdotal hearsay for hard experimental data. I shall not mince my words. The rejection of the scorch hypothesis by almost the entire community of 'sindonological*' investigators, including those with fancy titles, puts almost all of them firmly within the realms of pseudoscience, and deserving of my favourite tag : Mickey Mouse scientists.

As I say, I'd better stop right here, before I'm tempted to name names, or especially egregious instances of so-called 'scientific research' displaying one or more blind spots for physical, chemical and biological principles, and all too often designed to grab media attention.


*Unfortunate choice of term one might think.

 "Sindonological research" = SIN. DO NO LOGICAL RESEARCH.

Late addition: Have just discovered a third posting I did on that chin crease a bit more than a year ago:

Title:  Could this be clinching evidence that the shroud image is a contact scorch?

Second addition:  Here's a comment (below) that appeared a few days ago from someone who signed himself off as representing a "Sindonology" institute (I've withheld his name, preferring to stick to the issues). The contempt I mentioned earlier is clear. Well, I take a pretty dim view of  his idea of science as well, especially the selective quotation of the bits that suit one's case, so that commentator's pitch will be the subject of my next posting on this site. (Yes, I now regard sciencebuzz as my main site, feeling this particular topic is now less about the Shroud of Turin in particular, and more about the generic issue of pseudoscience and the manner in which it is propagated in the media, with dissenting voices rarely getting heard - far less consulted - even when they set up blog sites!)

Oops.  The quoted comment has disappeared, maybe a glitch of copying/pasting from one site to another. I'll try again later.,

Update: 25th March

Here's an interesting comment that has appeared elsewhere from a newcomer. I'll respond to it in my next posting here, as well as the Shroud 2.0 pictures that have just been posted.

Steve Hammond

March 23, 2014 at 4:49 pm | #9

First post here from someone who has been fascinated for years by the shroud. I’ve been catching up on old posts here and on Colin’s blog. I am a physician (gastroenterologist) so no particular expertise regarding the shroud, but of course familiarity with science. I lean toward the shroud being authentic, but I applaud Colin’s probing endeavors and research and think it serves a valuable purpose.
That being said, I don’t yet buy that the creases he points out are “cooked in.” I see lots of creases on the Enrie and Durante images on Shroud Scope. Many of these are far from image areas and should be very different from the neck and head creases Colin points out as they should not be “cooked in”. (It would be interesting to see the enhanced images in these areas.) Also, I find it interesting that the neck crease crosses the lower edge of the non-image area lateral to the face, which is,according to Colin, an area of non-contact with the bas-relief. I find it hard to believe a crease could be “cooked in” in this location under Colin’s scenario.
Just some thoughts…

Last time I cut-and-paste from that site, the item had disappeared by the time I next logged on. Let's see if Steve's comment sticks. While it's here, click on the blue hash 9 (comment number) to be taken to the (vexatious) thread in question with site proprietor in full interventionist club-wielding mode.

Update: New comment added to same site by Mike M, who posted the Shroud 2.0 pictures:

Mike M commented on Pictures to Consider for the Posting: “Baked-In Creases. Really?”.

in response to Dan:

Mike M sent these along to go with Baked-In Creases. Really?  . They are from his iPad. I will leave it to him to explain them in comments. (You should be able to click on the pictures and get larger versions): Sorry, Mike, for the delays. #1 #2 #3 #4

Thanks Dan,
This is further to the previous post where it is claimed that the double track creases (with a clear centre is evidence for a scorch. Although, as you have indicated they can be caused by any image formation mechanism (natural or supernatural), checking them in Shroud 2.0 shows those double tracks off-image thus they can’t be produced by the hot statue as Colin has postulated (check the legend on the top right corner for the location of the crease). Furthermore, The crease below the chin shows the image continuous, so the colourless middle is not really that colourless.

See my next posting Mike. (Is he aware I wonder of my image re-invention hypothesis,that attempts to explain the curious testimony (April 14, 1503) from Antoine Lelaing, one that I have previously interpreted as an attempt to artificially-age the Mark 1 Shroud, not efface it as Lelaing supposed?).

I have responses prepared in rough outline for both Steve H and Mike M, but will hold off posting for a bit, maybe a day or two, while waiting to see what if any other points are raised.

Latest comment into this running archive:

Mike M commented on Pictures to Consider for the Posting: “Baked-In Creases. Really?”.

in response to Mike M:

Thanks Dan, This is further to the previous post where it is claimed that the double track creases (with a clear centre is evidence for a scorch. Although, as you have indicated they can be caused by any image formation mechanism (natural or supernatural), checking them in Shroud 2.0 shows those double tracks off-image thus [...]

Colin, I realize you never claimed images # 3 & 4 were a double track creases. How could you when they are clearly off-image. # 3 sure looks like one though, lighting factors applies for all the creases not just the off-image ones. I included #4 because Hugh referred to it, IMHO it doesn’t look like a double track crease, there is an interesting double line to the right of it (at an angle) that looks like an imperfection in the weave, may be Mario was referring to that? The main point is; 1-the creases you mentioned extend off-image & 2- the middle line below the chin contains image information

Update: Some one (naming no names) has tried to question the validity of my contrast-enhanced images, It's odd he should choose to do so now, given I did over a dozen postings in 2012, showing the extra discrimination that could be achieved, e.g. between body image and bloodstains, without ever making claims that accompanying colour differences were real. In other words, the contrast control was used purely as a aid to visualization and discrimination within a particular image, not to make any extraordinary new generalist claims. It's what scientists do - we twiddle with the controls to see the subject more clearly, to make a better photograph.

Anyway, here's a graphic I have just added to one of those 2012 postings to show the modest changes that accompany step-by-step increases in contrast, after first making a minor adjustment (downwards) to brightness.

Shroud Scope/Durante 2002 TS face with step wise increase in contrast.The accompanying colour changes are incidental.

Oh, and here are some new settings with the same maximum contrast, but decreased brightness, showing one end of the chin crease where it crosses the hair.

Click to enlarge

Update: here's a photo-edited picture of the TS chin crease from Shroud 2.0, copied/pasted from shroudstory.com, with altered contrast/brightness (done in two steps).

Shroud 2.0 photoedited

I say that the "baked-in" look is still there, and feel justified in homing in on this particular feature. One needs only one baked-in crease to sustain the case for a mechanical element in the imprinting process of the Shroud image to give enhanced imaging on a raised feature (like an S-shaped Type 2 crease!)

And here's my new high contrast/low brightness settings applied to the chin crease. Wow!

Click to enlarge

Update: new posting: "Dear critics. Please be on the lookout for a new Mark 3 model etc"