|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).
|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 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.