This posting had an Introduction in draft stage, but to keep the length down, I've made that the subject of a separate posting, immediately preceding this one.
Preface to my next posting, one that pinpoints the liberties being taken with so-called modelling of Turin Shroud "cloth-body distances".
Here then, without further ado, are 10 reasons, based on Shroud Scope/Durante 2002 imagery, for thinking that the Turin Shroud is simply a contact print (think "rubber stamp").
1. The negative image (reversal of normal light/dark tonal values).
Skip this and other accompanying blurb in italics if all you want to know is what's in the 10 point checklist of the title. Scroll down: look for the bold font against numbers 1-10 inclusive.
The negative double image is undoubtedly the most distinctive, dare one say iconic feature of the Turin Shroud. Was it a result of a 1st century miracle, or is there a more mundane explanation that fits with the radiocarbon dating (1260-1390)?.I believe it is the latter. An attempt was made to simulate a "sweat imprint", a medieval fixation where claimed images of Jesus were concerned (hordes of pilgrims queued to see the "Veil of Veronica" despite it having no biblical provenance).
A sweat imprint, whether real or (more probably faked) has to be a negative image to stand any chance of being seen as credible. Any medieval artisan , producing the TS from scratch, would have, needed to ensure that any simulation of aged sweat would be a negative image, capturing highest relief only. He could not afford to have it look like an ordinary painting, no matter how well executed. So, no paint brush or brush marks. Instead: find a means for imprinting onto linen from a 3D or semi-3D template, where only the highest parts of the relief, in direct contact with the cloth, leave behind a "sweat-like" imprint. Thermal imprint, e.g. heat scorch? Maybe. Indeed that's the most probable, but chemical or thermochemical technologies, while having their difficulties, are not excluded. (See the impressive Garlaschelli reproduction, using a 2-stage technique that is best described as first purely physical ("frottage") and then thermochemical (heat-assisted etching of linen with a presumed acid-contaminated ochre pigment used for frottage).
Skip this and other accompanying blurb in italics if all you want to know is what's in the 10 point checklist of the title. Scroll down: look for the bold font against numbers 1-10 inclusive.
The negative double image is undoubtedly the most distinctive, dare one say iconic feature of the Turin Shroud. Was it a result of a 1st century miracle, or is there a more mundane explanation that fits with the radiocarbon dating (1260-1390)?.I believe it is the latter. An attempt was made to simulate a "sweat imprint", a medieval fixation where claimed images of Jesus were concerned (hordes of pilgrims queued to see the "Veil of Veronica" despite it having no biblical provenance).
A sweat imprint, whether real or (more probably faked) has to be a negative image to stand any chance of being seen as credible. Any medieval artisan , producing the TS from scratch, would have, needed to ensure that any simulation of aged sweat would be a negative image, capturing highest relief only. He could not afford to have it look like an ordinary painting, no matter how well executed. So, no paint brush or brush marks. Instead: find a means for imprinting onto linen from a 3D or semi-3D template, where only the highest parts of the relief, in direct contact with the cloth, leave behind a "sweat-like" imprint. Thermal imprint, e.g. heat scorch? Maybe. Indeed that's the most probable, but chemical or thermochemical technologies, while having their difficulties, are not excluded. (See the impressive Garlaschelli reproduction, using a 2-stage technique that is best described as first purely physical ("frottage") and then thermochemical (heat-assisted etching of linen with a presumed acid-contaminated ochre pigment used for frottage).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
