Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Does the Man on the Turin Shroud really have a beard and moustache? (Or is the image an 'impactogram'?)

Once again, I opt to start a posting with pictures and the odd caption or two only.  Hopefully, they tell their own story. The verbal spadework can wait till later.


Remind you of anything?

Is the title of my posting justified? Might the image on the TS be some kind of 'impactogram' or maybe an 'impactograph'? (Sorry, I'm still struggling to find the difference between a -gram and a -graph).

Are the beard and moustache merely artefacts of 'impactography'?

More later (like some attention to those 'moobs' too - hat tip to Angel on shroudstory.com).

(some say it's phytoestrogens in the hops in beer wotduzit)

So what prompted this particular line of enquiry? Well, the idea has been slowly germinating for months, nay years, with previous references  to the TS face having a "pressed against glass" look about it, when one looks at the regions of highest image intensity (brow ridge, nose, upper lip, chin, chest etc).
Look to at the "beard" and "moustache" in that Enrie negative above, and compare with that of head hair. Why is the facial hair so much brighter in that image, i.e. so much darker in the corresponding positive photographs?
And why does that 'moustache' (arguably) look so un-moustache-like in close up?

Come to think of it, why is it not possible to differentiate between hair and skin on the TS image? Why is there no 'strandedness' to the hair?

Bob Geldof

Spot the strandedness that differentiates hair from skin in a conventional photograph

There's nothing that differentiates hair from skin in the TS image

Answer: the TS image is not a photograph, not even a proto-photograph (no detectable pigments, other than dehydrated ("scorched") linen carbohydrates).But if not a photograph, then what is it?

Is there evidence elsewhere of the TS image manifesting signs of an impaction factor in its imprinting mechanism?

The trouble is that away from the face and head, one lacks the angular prominences, and has to make do with flatter relief. Never mind, let's make the best of what's available, but choose those flatter reliefs that are the elevated planes when someone is recumbent, and in some kind of contact with linen.

That brings us on to the chest region, which is also well imprinted (possibly too well for a fella according to 'Angel' cited earlier.

New addition: July 3

Here's a twin image I wish to discuss today, still within the context of photographs versus  'impactographs'.

The picture on the right is a Durante 2002 "positive" from Shroud Scope.The one on the left is the much earlier (1931) Enrie black/white negative, but I've edited it to make it roughly comparable with the Durante image, first by reversing it, left/right, and then "inverting" the tones in ImageJ.

There's a striking difference between the two, notably the prominence of the chest region. In the Enrie image, the chest seems as dark as, say, the cheeks. In the Durante image the chest seems generally lighter than the cheeks.Correction: it's the lower chest that shows the difference.There are some curious anomalies re the upper chest that will just be noted for now.

When Angel and maybe others refer to 'feminization' it's presumably the Enrie picture that is being viewed, Would she have said the same about the Durante? Personally I doubt it.

So what created the illusion of feminization?  I believe it's a byproduct of the TS image being an 'impactograph', not a photograph. Moreover the abrupt transition from chest to abdomen re imprint density is where adjustment of contrast has greatest potential to over-emphasize, and that is what we see in the Enrie picture - an overemphasis, created by excessive contrast.

Why reiterate the distinction between the two types of  -graph in the context of the chest region?  Because there are no obvious reasons for expecting a large difference in image intensity in a photograph that shows chest and upper (solar plexus) abdomen in the same field of view. Why are we seeing it - especially in the contrasty Enrie pictures? Because the elevated, rigid chest region, whether of a real person or an effigy thereof impacts more on linen, suitably supported, than does the contiguous softer, lower lying area.

One other thing: if the TS image were a photograph, then who's to say the extra density is not chest hair? As noted elsewhere, it's strange kind of photograph that fails to differentiate between skin and hair.  If the TS were a photograph, it's strange kind of photograph!  So far from being semi-feminized, others might claim with equal justification from that "strange kind of photograph" that the TS man was supercharged with masculinization hormones.

I reject both those views re feminization via masculinization: the TS image is NOT a photograph, and should not be read as such. The pattern of image density in the chest region is nothing to do with either moobs or chest hair. It's everything to do with an unyielding structure called the upper rib cage, and its impact qualities when pressed against linen.

The next region to consider is the groin with those crossed hands. I believe it's providing strong clues as to the mechanism of imaging, and no, it's not dependent on any kind of radiation. Clue: look at the region where one hand overlaps the other (highlighted with yellow circles).

Enrie (left) Durante (right)

Note the absence of image in a band where one hand crosses the other.The most obvious explanation is a tenting of linen across the small height difference (approx 2cm)  between the back of the upper and lower hand. Tenting is to be expected in any 'impactograph'. It's not at all obvious to me how the effect can arise other other than by impaction and tenting.

Note too the paucity of body image around the crossed hands (lower abdomen, thighs), in the general areas indicated by white rectangles. This too can be most readily interpreted as a tenting phenomenon.

Most of the image intensity resides on the backs of the arms and hands, which are the first parts of a corpse (or effigy) that would impact upon a sheet of linen, regardless of the imprinting mechanism at the molecular level.

Back again: Friday July 4 (yes, my blog postings are living things, not set-in-aspic: reminder, for them as need it. Blog = web log). Others are free to use my content - but I do not exist purely to service their voracious appetite for something new to report each day.
Speaking of aspic:

Puts one in mind of another's "riposte by pdf", right down to the frozen in time and space hard boiled egg.

I was the subject for gentle reproof yesterday for my repeated insistence that the TS image is not a photograph. That's long been recognized, I was told. Yes, maybe, but that has not stopped folk continuing to interpret the image as though it were a conventional photograph. That's much is clear on the other site in the tedious replay (yet again) of the allegedly poker-hole punctuated alleged Shroud in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript.  The waters there have been further muddied by bringing another artefact into the dispute - the Manopello image. One throwaway comment caught my eye, namely that while the eyes are open on that image, they are "closed on the TS".

Eyes closed on the TS? Really? On what grounds can one state that with such certainty, given that the TS is not a photograph, and we know nothing for certain about how the image was generated, being at best able to conjecture?

Later this morning, this living creature of a blog posting will start adding Enrie and Durante images taken from Shroud Scope (thanks once again Mario L.) with and without the tweaking described above to make the two easier to compare, and then pose  the supplementary question "Does the image of the TS man really have eyes, and if so, could we ever know for certain from an 'impactograph' whether or not they are open or closed?"

'As is' images, 1931 Enrie pre-digital (left), 2002 Durante post-digital (right)

As above, as seen after applying that amazing inversion of tones first reported by Secondo Pia.

Well, does the man on the TS really have eyes, specifically closed eyes? Might that supposition be based on interpreting the above 4 graphics as if conventional photographic images (complicated by the fact that the TS image has been the subject of subsequent 20th/21st century photography)?

For what it's worth, here's my tuppenceworth. Folk viewing the above images interpret them as photographs, and the pattern-finding neural circuitry of the visual cortex mentally does the following:

It reads the upper arcs of the brow ridge as if they were eyebrows (shown yellow above). More importantly, they read the lower arcs (shown in white) as if the were the junction between upper and lower eyelids with the eyes closed.

Now look again at the non-edited photographs. What is shown as yellow and white above is merely image intensity on what arguably is an 'impactograph'. They are the imprints left by a coming together, possibly with some applied force, of linen and bony eye socket.

The graphics tell us little about what is in-between, except for some 'body image' that is there certainly, but representing what? If soft tissue,it might be a closed eye, but why not an open eye? And that's leaving aside the possibility that what was imaged was not a real corpse (whether Jesus, or a Garlaschelli-style volunteer, or Knight/Lomas torture scenario involving Jacques de Molay) but a bronze effigy, one in which eyes were open or closed.

Does further magnification, with or without tweaking brightness or contrast, assist in resolving the uncertainty?
Here's an HD image (weave clearly visible) that appeared some time ago on David Rolfe's 'Shroud Enigma' site

And here's the same after tone-reversal.  Ignoring the weave irregularity on the left above, do you see evidence of a closed eye? No, I don't either.

Finally. let's return to Shroud Scope, and select the HD  'face only' option, which I've tended to overlook or neglect in the past.

As-is image

Enhance contrast

So where's that meeting of eyelids, the indication of closed eyes? Maybe seen only on tone reversal?

Yup, that would seem to be the explanation. A pale zone in the as-is image at the bottom end of the eye socket that becomes promoted to "image" on tone inversion is then being read as a junction of eyelids.
Shall I say it one more time: the TS image is NOT a ...  oh, I give up.

OK, this blog posting is finally complete. Apologies for its length (but there's been lots of pictures to look at).

My next posting may take a look at the dorsal view of the Man on the TS, seeking evidence for and against impaction-imaging, and maybe suggest how the two sides came to be imaged onto the same length of fabric. Simultaneously, as in a pro-authenticity scenario?  Or separated in time (as becomes possible in a  medieval fabication narrative).

But first things first: at the risk of being accused of "jumping from one thing to another" (what we Brits call an agile mind) I must get back to the garage and the quicklime. There's some revised thinking to be tested, like creating a thermochemical hotbed first with quicklime with judicious additions of water, to see whether one create model 'impactograms' (or should that be 'impactographs" or even 'thermo-impactographs'?). What some folk seem not to realize is that a scientific/technological model can comprise numerous different facets that can be assembled or interact in different ways. It's not simply a matter of getting the science right. One has to get the hands-on technology right too, albeit at a risk of burning one's fingers - literally or metaphorically.

Update: Friday 11 July

I see there's a renewed claim on shroudstory.com for the TS man having teeth.

Here's the top-resolution picture (Face Only Vertical) with (my) added contrast from Shroud Scope at top magnification, before and after inversion in ImageJ.

Before inversion

After inversion

Do you see teeth?  I do not.

Here's a link to the full pdf file claiming presence of teeth.

No comments: