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

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

Your continued lectures on the subject of what comprises proper science are both sad and amusing. You have deflected or ignored, with a few exceptions, the most pertinent questions and criticisms of your beloved Mark 10, demonstrating little of the open-mindedness you claim to esteem. IMO a scientist worth the title is one who attempts to kill their own ideas in their infancy so as not to waste their time or others'. I worked with a guy who, if you stuck a pin in his idea, was likely to say "What a glorious defeat!" because he knew it put us that much closer to the right answer.

That's the perception of the scientific MO favoured here and elsewhere by homo interneticus. It possesses a certain parochial charm (notably in cyberspace) but has no practical utility whatsoever in the real world of open-minded, open-ended research, where the chief aim is to generate new testable hypotheses that, right or wrong, generate new data, new thinking, new hypotheses, still more new data etc etc.

PS: Has it not occurred to you that a Model 10, beloved or otherwise, could possibly have required killing one's own ideas along the way through Models 1-9? But the killing was not done from the comfort of an armchair, maybe wiki-aided from a laptop. Each of those Models 1-9 was the subject of its own experimental testing programme in which all preconceptions were laid to one side until the new data were in and current thinking, right or wrong, was re-evaluated. It's called science (the real constructive, model-building/model testing variety).

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

Your continued lectures on the subject of what comprises proper science are both sad and amusing. You have deflected or ignored, with a few exceptions, the most pertinent questions and criticisms of your beloved Mark 10, demonstrating little of the open-mindedness you claim to esteem. IMO a scientist worth the title is one who attempts to kill their own ideas in their infancy so as not to waste their time or others'. I worked with a guy who, if you stuck a pin in his idea, was likely to say "What a glorious defeat!" because he knew it put us that much closer to the right answer.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by meccanoman

That's the perception of the scientific MO favoured here and elsewhere by homo interneticus. It possesses a certain parochial charm (notably in cyberspace) but has no practical utility whatsoever in the real world of open-minded, open-ended research, where the chief aim is to generate new testable hypotheses that, right or wrong, generate new data, new thinking, new hypotheses, still more new data etc etc.

PS: Has it not occurred to you that a Model 10, beloved or otherwise, could possibly have required killing one's own ideas along the way through Models 1-9? But the killing was not done from the comfort of an armchair, maybe wiki-aided from a laptop. Each of those Models 1-9 was the subject of its own experimental testing programme in which all preconceptions were laid to one side until the new data were in and current thinking, right or wrong, was re-evaluated. It's called science (the real constructive, model-building/model testing variety).

And you are ignoring the fact that plenty of people here are saying that you may very well have a workable model. Are you not actually reading what your respondents write?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by meccanoman

That's the perception of the scientific MO favoured here and elsewhere by homo interneticus. It possesses a certain parochial charm (notably in cyberspace) but has no practical utility whatsoever in the real world of open-minded, open-ended research, where the chief aim is to generate new testable hypotheses that, right or wrong, generate new data, new thinking, new hypotheses, still more new data etc etc.

So then why are you wasting your time here among an audience you despise?

[Donn]

Originally Posted by abaddon

And you are ignoring the fact that plenty of people here are saying that you may very well have a workable model. Are you not actually reading what your respondents write?

^ Yeah.

Model 10's a good'un. The evidence needs work.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by Donn

^ Yeah.

Model 10's a good'un. The evidence needs work.

Thanks Donn. I generally know when I'm getting close (sindonology's control freaks instantly go into overdrive - with the result my site drops out of entry-level search engine listings (e.g under 'shroud of turin' plain and simple) first from google.com (USA) and now google.uk, google.ca etc).

Sindonology is an INDUSTRY that brooks no opposition!!!! Spare a thought for the poor dears: life's getting tougher by the day as sindonology runs out of new pseudoscience with which to bamboozle the media and faithful!

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by meccanoman

That's the perception of the scientific MO favoured here and elsewhere by homo interneticus. It possesses a certain parochial charm (notably in cyberspace) but has no practical utility whatsoever in the real world of open-minded, open-ended research, where the chief aim is to generate new testable hypotheses that, right or wrong, generate new data, new thinking, new hypotheses, still more new data etc etc.

Your priority seems to be prolongation of an enjoyable pastime. It's not my cup of tea but I can imagine it gives a lot of satisfaction. I doubt the part about open-minded but you have open-ended aplenty.

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by Garrette

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Excellent, thanks!

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

I asked for the conditions for the pictures taken by you; please help me understand what I'm looking at. Presumably it was taken under incident light, was it a tungsten source? Did you use any color correction, a physical or software filter or both? Why is there a rddish or pinkish cast to the image? I assume this was taken with a zoom scope, is that right? At what magnification?





I'm not sure what you mean by half-tone. I believe there are particles present in both images, but they'll never be seen using a zoom scope with a maximum magnification of 50 or 60X. I'm sure you know starch particles are roughly the same size as the width of the individual flax fibers.




No sign of this crust in the STURP tape lift samples, Mark Evans' photos or yours. Could it be because it's simply not there?

Please answer my questions, meccanoman.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by dropzone

[...] Leonardo[...] may have been as gay as a tree full of parrots,[....]

You almost made me choke!

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

Please answer my questions, meccanoman.

I'll give technical details if there are reasonable grounds for enquiring. In this instance, there's not, since we are merely talking about plain old light microscopy, an adjunct to ordinary eyesight. The only difference is that I saw a sharper image through the eyepiece, but had to replace the latter with solid state electronics in order to get an annoyingly fuzzier image that could be displayed on screen and uploaded to my site and then here in response to a reasonable request.

What you see is what you get - two subsets of fibres, one faintly coloured, the other uncoloured. That's the so-called 'half-tone' effect, an alleged characteristic of Shroud image-bearing threads according to the Mark Evans' so-called photomicrographs (which were strictly speaking only deserving of the description photomacrographs, and indeed would have benefited from (a) higher magnification and (b) some gentle teasing apart of individual fibres to break up the skeins.

Your comment that there was no evidence for encrustation in the tape-lift samples is totally at odds with Rogers' own claims, namely that the body image is not on the linen per se but on a highly superficial impurity coating, starch-derived, with Maillard/melanoidin browning products chromophore, one that is no more than 200-600nm thick, that is detachable when fibres are pulled out of the Mylar adhesive, leaving behind what Rogers described as "ghosts". My model differs in important respects: there are essentially two images. One is detachable solid encrustation which appears to be particulate on the Shroud we see today with added contrast (or 'edge-definition' which I consider to be a type of contrast as per cartoons) and which may or may not be present on a particular image thread. The other is the faint coloration of individual fibres that is probably non-particulate except maybe at exceedingly high magnification, e.g. x1000 (polymeric melanoidins being solids) and is essentially non-detachable, best described as a superficial stain, derived from seepage of a liquid from the initial oven-generated encrustation at high temperature, and which I consider to be the REAL enigmatic, iconic, ghostly permanent Shroud image that separates and indeed polarizes viewers into two factions: miraculists and non-miraculists.

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by meccanoman

I'll give technical details if there are reasonable grounds for enquiring. In this instance, there's not, since we are merely talking about plain old light microscopy, an adjunct to ordinary eyesight. The only difference is that I saw a sharper image through the eyepiece, but had to replace the latter with solid state electronics in order to get an annoyingly fuzzier image that could be displayed on screen and uploaded to my site and then here in response to a reasonable request.

Just as for your Zeke work, the details are unimportant to you; got it. You think the conditions aren't pertinent because you don't have an understanding of microscopy. Your respnses here and to the Zeke posts amount to "just take my word for it".

Quote:

What you see is what you get - two subsets of fibres, one faintly coloured, the other uncoloured. That's the so-called 'half-tone' effect, an alleged characteristic of Shroud image-bearing threads according to the Mark Evans' so-called photomicrographs (which were strictly speaking only deserving of the description photomacrographs, and indeed would have benefited from (a) higher magnification and (b) some gentle teasing apart of individual fibres to break up the skeins.

Well, at least his photos were in focus.

Quote:

Your comment that there was no evidence for encrustation in the tape-lift samples is totally at odds with Rogers' own claims, namely that the body image is not on the linen per se but on a highly superficial impurity coating, starch-derived, with Maillard/melanoidin browning products chromophore, one that is no more than 200-600nm thick, that is detachable when fibres are pulled out of the Mylar adhesive, leaving behind what Rogers described as "ghosts". My model differs in important respects: there are essentially two images. One is detachable solid encrustation which appears to be particulate on the Shroud we see today with added contrast (or 'edge-definition' which I consider to be a type of contrast as per cartoons) and which may or may not be present on a particular image thread. The other is the faint coloration of individual fibres that is probably non-particulate except maybe at exceedingly high magnification, e.g. x1000 (polymeric melanoidins being solids) and is essentially non-detachable, best described as a superficial stain, derived from seepage of a liquid from the initial oven-generated encrustation at high temperature, and which I consider to be the REAL enigmatic, iconic, ghostly permanent Shroud image that separates and indeed polarizes viewers into two factions: miraculists and non-miraculists.

If by encrustation you mean at the level of individual fibers then I agree. McCrone saw and took numerous photos of the chromophore particles clinging in clumps to individual fibers and small bundles of fibers. He also found a pale yellow substance on the particles and fibers that gave a positive test for protein, which he interpreted as the tempera medium for the artist's paint. And FWIW the adhesive on "Scotch"-type tapes isn't Mylar, it's typically acrylic-based. The backing of the tape could be Mylar (polyester).

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by meccanoman

PS: Has it not occurred to you that a Model 10, beloved or otherwise, could possibly have required killing one's own ideas along the way through Models 1-9? But the killing was not done from the comfort of an armchair, maybe wiki-aided from a laptop. Each of those Models 1-9 was the subject of its own experimental testing programme in which all preconceptions were laid to one side until the new data were in and current thinking, right or wrong, was re-evaluated. It's called science (the real constructive, model-building/model testing variety).

I tried to find the progression of your models on your web site, to no avail. Is there a history or summary of your modeling you can link to? I don't have time to wade through all of the shaggy dog stories and "he said-she said" drama to find your models. Thanks.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

Just as for your Zeke work, the details are unimportant to you; got it. You think the conditions aren't pertinent because you don't have an understanding of microscopy. Your respnses here and to the Zeke posts amount to "just take my word for it".




Well, at least his photos were in focus.




If by encrustation you mean at the level of individual fibers then I agree. McCrone saw and took numerous photos of the chromophore particles clinging in clumps to individual fibers and small bundles of fibers. He also found a pale yellow substance on the particles and fibers that gave a positive test for protein, which he interpreted as the tempera medium for the artist's paint. And FWIW the adhesive on "Scotch"-type tapes isn't Mylar, it's typically acrylic-based. The backing of the tape could be Mylar (polyester).

I got as far as the highlighted section and opted to proceed no further.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

I tried to find the progression of your models on your web site, to no avail. Is there a history or summary of your modeling you can link to? I don't have time to wade through all of the shaggy dog stories and "he said-she said" drama to find your models. Thanks.

Maybe you don't have an understanding of how to use search engines. I put (shroud of turin 10 models) into mine and found what you were looking for second from the top.

The 10 models are in Appendix 3 of my January 2017 'gluten fleck' posting (which incidentally gave evidence for a semi-particulate body image and/or imprinting mechanism long before Zeke came along).

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by meccanoman

I got as far as the highlighted section and opted to proceed no further.

Apologies, my logic was faulty. There were other possible reasons for not sharing the conditions under which you took your photos. None of the possibilities bodes well for a fruitful discussion. Thanks for your time.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

Apologies, my logic was faulty. There were other possible reasons for not sharing the conditions under which you took your photos. None of the possibilities bodes well for a fruitful discussion. Thanks for your time.

Goodbye

[meccanoman]

This message was sent a few minutes ago to the long-established (mid 19th century) Quekett Microscopical Club:


Hello all you splendid Queketteers, amateurs and pros alike!

Is there anyone here among you interested in the Turin Shroud? I refer in particular to the ongoing problem as to how it acquired its faint allegedly enigmatic body image (negative, 3D properties, peculiar microscopic properties - like the so-called half-tone effect, colour discontinuities etc)?

Rarely a month goes by without some new mind-blowing scenario - pulsed laser beams, earthquakes, nuclear radiation, Da Vinci dabbling with proto-photoigraphy etc etc.

I've been attempting to model the Shroud image for some 5 years, and have settled on what I call Model 10, aka the roasted flour imprint. Yes, it's mundane alongside the ones just listed, but there you go, that's science bizz.

(Smear back of hand with vegetable oil, sprinkle with plain white flour from above, shake off excess flour, drape wet linen over flour-dusted hand, press linen firmly to capture a flour-imprint, suspend linen in oven, roast (approx 180-200 C) till the imprint turns yellow or brown, wash vigorously to remove surface encrustation of Maillard browning products, to be left with an 'enigmatic' faint sepia stain - a negative image of one's hand and fingers that gives a 3D response in ImageJ).

It's the microscopy that proving the problem - the cylindrical 3Dness of linen fibres, their light-refracting properties. Having a bargain-basement microscope that relies on a web cam to capture (blurred!) images on a laptop screen does not help either.

There are two possible solutions: 1. Invest in a better DIY microscope, hoping someone here can give expert advice
2. Seek one or more collaborators who's interested in the Shroud, and willing to be supplied with my Model 10 fibres, maybe with a view to submitting a joint publication to Quekett's own peer-reviewed journal.

I think my Model 10 is the answer, confirming medieval manufacture in accordance with the radiocarbon dating (1260-1390) but if the image fibres fail to match up to the microscopic properties described by STURP and other investigators, then I'm willing to publically concede defeat (that being an occupational hazard of being a scientist, in this instance long-retired).

Here's a link to my specialist Shroud site:

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/

See also the recent thread on the International Skeptics Forum, where I participated as "meccanoman".

(Link provided to this site)

Colin Berry (PhD)