The Turin Shroud: The Image of Edessa created in c. 300-400 AD?

[MikeG]

How about showing the photos of the results of your experiments?

I've no interest in the shroud whatever, but am curious about the origin of the image. Baked-on flour stains seems rather easier to imagine in the 14th century than a relatively complex camera-obscura "photograph". I'll leave it for others to pick apart your chemistry.

 

[meccanoman]

How about showing the photos of the results of your experiments?

I've no interest in the shroud whatever, but am curious about the origin of the image. Baked-on flour stains seems rather easier to imagine in the 14th century than a relatively complex camera-obscura "photograph". I'll leave it for others to pick apart your chemistry.

I did a posting in August of last year which shows the flour-imprinting technology to good advantage (appearance before as well as after the final wash).

Put this title into your search engine to locate:

Might invisible ink technology (mere child’s play) have been superbly fine-tuned to achieve whole body imaging?

Then scroll down, past the imaging of plastic figurines, to the back of my own hand (Figs 11-13).

What do reckon? Valid model or not?

Thanks for the interest.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The current Model 10 this Shroud investigator/real time internet reporter proposed some 18 months ago is absurdly simple in principle (it's the details at the atomic and molecular level that are unknown, though that would not have bothered the medieval fabricators of the Shroud).

Briefly I propose that white wheaten breadmaking flour was the imprinting agent. But the fine powder particles had first to be attached to one (probably two) human volunteers. That required an initial swabbing of the naked volunteers with vegetable oil, a technique I had earlier discovered to work when working with metal bas relief templates.

The oiled volunteers then lie down on the ground, head to head, face up for the frontal imprinting, face down for the dorsal. The flour is then placed in a sieve, and sprinkled onto the subjects from above, probably a height of several cm or more. It is this vertical presentation of the imprinting medium, settling preferentially but not exclusively on the higher flatter relief, with maybe small amounts where that meets vertical relief at the sides, that can account for much of the image subtlety - avoiding the look of crude rubber stamp imprint.

Wet linen is then draped over the oil/flour-dusted subjects, probably the two simultaneously, and helpers proceed to press it gently so as to capture as much as possible of the higher flatter relief, avoiding the sides (thereby minimizing lateral false widening/distortion - though I suspect a little helps to avoid too narrow an imprint!).

The flour/oil- imprinted linen is then suspended in a large breadmaking oven or similar (as might exist in a country residence, many miles from the nearest town or city) and heating proceeds. There then follows the same kind of chemistry that accounts for the browning of flour dough to make loaves of bread. The browning depends on Maillard reactions between reducing sugars and amino-groups in the flour (the side chain amino-groups of lysine residues in protein are a prime candidate for those Maillard reactions, though there are others).


After 10 or 15 minutes in the oven (with the temperature up to 180 to 200 degrees C) one then has one's yellow or brown contact imprint onto virtually unchanged linen. (A little yellow discoloration of the latter is not a bad thing since it provides an instant 'aged' appearance).

The final step is to give the imprinted linen a vigorous wash in soap and water to dislodge the surface encrustation, leaving just a faint fuzzy image which has certain properties that might ring a bell. The image is a tone-reversed negative, it responds to 3D-rendering software, it displays a half-tone effect and discontinuities under the microscope, it is easily bleachable (ordinary domestic bleach will do - diimide has not been tested as yet).


Best I stop there and await reaction. Something less dismissive and/or combative than we've seen thus far would be welcome.

Others will point this out, but among the multiple flaws in your "solution" are the flat aspect of the cartoon (which cannot be produced by pressing, even lightly, a flat surface against a rounded object); the anatomically inaccurate and posturally impossible nature of the cartoon; and the fact that your technique would not produce an image vivid enough to have been displayed out in the open, as the CIQ is depicted as having been. How do you account for the fact that your technique would appear to be no more than a way to imitate the current nature of the cartoon, not the cartoon-as-it-is-described 700 years ago?

All of which, of course, simply begs the question as to why this technique would have been invented and assayed only once...

(Parenthetically, has any evidence of any "large breadmaking oven or similar", large enough to bake the CIQ without folding, ever been presented?)

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of ad-hoc dismissiveness for focus>

Why was there no mention of those earlier copies? Objective history? Or putting together a narrative that generates loads of self-publicity (handy if one's also a Mediterranean tour guide with senior citizens at the Captain's table hanging on one's every word!)?

Sorry, I'm not usually this dismissive of rival ideas, but that "just a faded painting" theory is frankly unsubstantiated, even in historical terms, to say nothing of chemically illiterate, as stated earlier. Paintings do not fade to leave a negative (tone-reversed) image... Nor do they disappear when one adds chemical bleaches like hypochlorites or diimide, ones that work only on organic (carbon-based) pigments, not on the solid inorganic ones - metal oxides, sulphides etc - found on an artist's paint brush or palette.

Why was there no mention of your B&D breadflour technique? Objective history? Or construction of a narrative that accounts for the one-off nature of the cartoon? (For that matter, the postulated existence of a "large breadmaking oven or similar" that could, in fact, bake such a cloth?)

Thanks for the attempts to drive traffic to your site...

 

[meccanoman]

Others will point this out, but among the multiple flaws in your "solution" are the flat aspect of the cartoon (which cannot be produced by pressing, even lightly, a flat surface against a rounded object); the anatomically inaccurate and posturally impossible nature of the cartoon; and the fact that your technique would not produce an image vivid enough to have been displayed out in the open, as the CIQ is depicted as having been. How do you account for the fact that your technique would appear to be no more than a way to imitate the current nature of the cartoon, not the cartoon-as-it-is-described 700 years ago?

All of which, of course, simply begs the question as to why this technique would have been invented and assayed only once...

(Parenthetically, has any evidence of any "large breadmaking oven or similar", large enough to bake the CIQ without folding, ever been presented?)

Flour-imprinting is NOT a solution. It's a scientific model, my Model 10 in fact, an aid to interpreting existing data and for generating predictions and possible new or modified hypotheses. Why do you insist on viewing ongoing research as an opportunity to pour scorn onto the research investigator? Do you imagine yourself to possess all the answers? (If so, kindly explain how the body image on the Shroud was generated).

My Model 10 has withstood some 18 months of experimental hands-on testing, using a wide range of templates, human and inanimate. At no stage have I ever felt the need to embark upon a Model 11.

I can, or rather could, address some or all of your other points. But I'd frankly like to observe a change in tone from your end before doing so. I'm here to discuss - not to be subject to vilification. Reminder: manners maketh man.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Flour-imprinting is NOT a solution. It's a scientific model, my Model 10 in fact, an aid to interpreting existing data and for generating predictions and possible new or modified hypotheses. Why do you insist on viewing ongoing research as an opportunity to pour scorn onto the research investigator? Do you imagine yourself to possess all the answers? (If so, kindly explain how the body image on the Shroud was generated).

My Model 10 has withstood some 18 months of experimental hands-on testing, using a wide range of templates, human and inanimate. At no stage have I ever felt the need to embark upon a Model 11.

I can, or rather could, address some or all of your other points. But I'd frankly like to observe a change in tone from your end before doing so. I'm here to discuss - not to be subject to vilification. Reminder: manners maketh man.

"Methinks the laddy doth protest too much..."

 

[abaddon]

I can, or rather could, address some or all of your other points. But I'd frankly like to observe a change in tone from your end before doing so. I'm here to discuss - not to be subject to vilification. Reminder: manners maketh man.

You are not being vilified. Your claims are being robustly examined and challenged. There is a difference.

You signed up to a Membership Agreement in order to join this forum. I draw your attention to Rule 12 of that very agreement.

 

[meccanoman]

You are not being vilified. Your claims are being robustly examined and challenged. There is a difference.

You signed up to a Membership Agreement in order to join this forum. I draw your attention to Rule 12 of that very agreement.

You could have fooled me...

 

[meccanoman]

PS: If one is genuinely serious about wanting to robustly examine and challenge, quote unquote, then here's a tip. Put one's points to the other party one at a time, fleshed out with a bit of additional comment so that the recipient can properly appreciate the precise nature of the objection.

Don't be tempted to blitz with an onslaught of objections, unless one wants to be seen as attempting to bulldoze into submission.

I'm more than happy to entertain objections to the flour-imprinting model, but as I say, one at a time please. If this well-meant advice is ignored, I shall deal with the first point only.

 

[abaddon]

You could have fooled me...

Why should I even make the attempt? It seems to me that you are taking personally attacks, critiques and objections to your ideas, not your person.

 

[abaddon]

PS: If one is genuinely serious about wanting to robustly examine and challenge, quote unquote, then here's a tip. Put one's points to the other party one at a time, fleshed out with a bit of additional comment so that the recipient can properly appreciate the precise nature of the objection.

Don't be tempted to blitz with an onslaught of objections, unless one wants to be seen as attempting to bulldoze into submission.

I'm more than happy to entertain objections to the flour-imprinting model, but as I say, one at a time please. If this well-meant advice is ignored, I shall deal with the first point only.

Sorry, it is not up to you to determine who may or may not ask which questions nor when they may do so. Anyone may post anywhere on any topic on a public discussion forum.

If you post anything which exhibits a cornucopia of glaring flaws, why would you be amazed at a cornucopia of objections coming right back?

 

[John Jones]

PS: If one is genuinely serious about wanting to robustly examine and challenge, quote unquote, then here's a tip. Put one's points to the other party one at a time, fleshed out with a bit of additional comment so that the recipient can properly appreciate the precise nature of the objection.

Don't be tempted to blitz with an onslaught of objections, unless one wants to be seen as attempting to bulldoze into submission.

I'm more than happy to entertain objections to the flour-imprinting model, but as I say, one at a time please. If this well-meant advice is ignored, I shall deal with the first point only.

Jabba? Is that You?

 

[Hokulele]

I'm more than happy to entertain objections to the flour-imprinting model, but as I say, one at a time please. If this well-meant advice is ignored, I shall deal with the first point only.

My biggest objection is that your draping technique would provide a distorted image of a human face. The cheekbones, particularly as they lay further back from the nose, would appear "stretched out" when the cloth is lifted from the face. This distortion is why map makers have to develop complicated formulae for expressing a 3D object on a 2D medium.

 

[Slowvehicle]

My biggest objection is that your draping technique would provide a distorted image of a human face. The cheekbones, particularly as they lay further back from the nose, would appear "stretched out" when the cloth is lifted from the face. This distortion is why map makers have to develop complicated formulae for expressing a 3D object on a 2D medium.

...thus the ad hoc suggestion of a bas-relief "mask"...

 

[meccanoman]

Why should I even make the attempt? It seems to me that you are taking personally attacks, critiques and objections to your ideas, not your person.

I have already responded in some detail to particular comments made here to my experimentally-based Model 10 (flour-imprinting). I refer to the one or two that are worded in moderate and clearly-articulated language.

So try me on the issues that may concern you. But do please confine comments to the science (hypothesis formulation and testing etc). That's what I do, that's why I'm here - to discuss the science. If I continue to get the needless flak, for no apparent reason, then I shall move on. Pronto.

 

[Hokulele]

...thus the ad hoc suggestion of a bas-relief "mask"...

That would generate the same issue, though. A bas relief mask is still a 3D object. The only difference is that it has a background, rather than being free standing.

Edti: Why go through all this silliness? Wouldn't it be simpler (if the chemistry proved accurate), to just paint the image with oil, then shake and bake?

 

[MikeG]

Well OK then, as I have had a reasonable discussion with you so far. How about answering the in-principle objections raised by SlowVehicle? First and foremost, that the shape as represented on the shroud is so out of proportion that it couldn't have come from contact with a human body, whatever the process.

 

[meccanoman]

Well OK then, as I have had a reasonable discussion with you so far. How about answering the in-principle objections raised by SlowVehicle? First and foremost, that the shape as represented on the shroud is so out of proportion that it couldn't have come from contact with a human body, whatever the process.

Edited by Agatha: 

Please address the arguments made, rather than attack the arguers.

Try inputting the following title into one's search engine, attaching the date Jan 2016:

Contact prints from a 3D figure will always be wider and suffer from wrap-around distortion. True or false?

 

[MikeG]

You have enough posts now I believe to be posting links directly yourself. Otherwise you can put links in the format "www dot whatever dot com" and someone else can make the link for you. That is acceptable practise here.

Never mind "him checking out his pre-conceptions". How about you explain the obvious distortions, such as the overly long arms and odd head size, and tell us if you have satisfied yourself that a contact print, of whatever method or technique, would have produced such odd looking features?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What about the figure on the shroud not hsving the proportions of a real person?
It looks like a stylised painting.