Funny how things go around and come around. I read a wonderful book on this very subject in 1968 called "The Great Orm of Loch Ness" by Ted Holiday. He made a great case for Nessie being a giant worm or mollusk. The book is very much worth the read.
Thanks for reminding me about Alan Mills, Stuart. It's some years since I last read "The Second Messiah", but it's still on my Kindle, ready for a re-read. My chief reservation as regards the singlet oxygen mechanism was that this particular form of active oxygen is far better at destroying pre-existing colour than creating new colour.
It's the colour associated with conjugated double bonds that is particularly susceptible - single oxygen adding across the -C=C- linkages to form dioxetanes, interrupting the highly extended and delocalized cloud of electrons on which light absorption and subtractive colour in organic chromophores often depends. I'm not saying their mechanism is wrong, merely that it's not mainstream singlet oxygen chemistry (a field with which I'm personally acquainted, having done some research in Philadelphia in the early 70s with J.D.Ostrow MD on the photochemistry of bilirubin, resulting in a paper proposing a novel singlet-oxygen mediated mechanism!).
Explaining why a medieval knight came to display the Shroud of Lirey ("shroud" being a misnomer in my view if, as I believe, it was intended to represent Joseph of Arimathea's linen deployed in conceal-and-transport mode for a recently-deceased corpse - NOT as final burial shroud) may take a little time to organize and summarize. The ingredients are all there for what I consider a plausible narrative, indeed for 3 or 4 different ones - each highlighting some facet or other of the colourful Geoffroy de Charny's carefully-laid plans re his so-called "private chapel", ho ho, aided and abetted by King John The Good no less. It may be a day or two before I'm able to pare things down to essentials, but most of the raw material is in that lengthy review I did of the late Dorothy Crispino's research (see earlier link above).
Hi Colin, I think you’ll find a few others receive alerts for this thread as well. You seem to be one of the few, perhaps the only one, here with credible research on the subject. I admit I found some of the Knight/Lomas chemistry inventive even though most of it was based on Dr Alan Mills’ work. It’s worthwhile adding that Knight and Lomas themselves admitted to literally stumbling upon the shroud story in their research of the history of Freemasonry and specifically de Molay – I was waiting for a follow-up from them of sorts on the matter. I’ll visit your blog for further information and hopefully that can explain the question I ask which remains ‘Why fake an image of a man interred or otherwise on a piece of cloth?’
Well, that is a surprise, to find that at least one previous commentator is looking in on this dated thread and/or receiving alerts informing of new comments.
The matter of the Shroud's earliest recorded history is something that interests me greatly. The Knight and Lomax hypothesis re the imprisoned/tortured Jacques de Molay hypothesis was interesting, indeed ingenious. But some of the chemistry was, how shall we say, a little inventive, especially the singlet oxygen involvement, lactic acid etc. One feels there should be known precedents before buying into that. For a while I had my own J de M theory based on his having finally been slow-roasted at the stake. Might the TS have been produced as a scorch off a hot metal template intended to represent the terrible fate of the Templar Grand Master. I'll spare you the details of that experimental programme and why I finally abandoned it in favour of something without an obvious Templar connection (except that Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Lirey, first recorded owner of the Shroud, was thought by celebrated genealogist Noel Currer-Briggs to have been the nephew of the almost identically-named Geoffroy de Charney, one of de Molay's closest lieutenants who died alongside him at the stake in that fateful day in Paris approx 1314. (is there an edit facility?)
Anyway, to cut a long story short, the focus where this investigator is concerned is now squarely on the Lirey Lord of the Manor, not an obscure country squire as so many sindonological sites would have us believe. He was in fact one of the highest in the land, a favourite of the King (John The Good), who was a prime mover in founding the Order of the Star, based it's said on England's then recently formed Order of the Garter. There are at least two reasons why Geoffroy was the one who came to proudly display the Shroud and create that fascinating Lirey badge (and the Machy mould for a second variant). However, this comment is already too long, and my coffee is getting cold, so I'll post this, and be back later with more about the circumstances that could have inspired Project Shroud circa the 1350s in medieval France. Please stay tuned.
Here's an excessively long and wordy link to something I posted recently re Lirey history:
Colin, why would anyone want to ‘fake’ or ‘paint’ a shroud produced during the middle ages? There are no other articles like it from the time before, during or after. You haven’t sold me on your hypthesis I’m sorry. I’m still leaning toward the Jacques de Molay theory as laid out by Knight and Lomas.
Did White Europeans orignate from central asia and killed the let's say middle easterners in europe. our skin looks so much like a chinese then a greek. A lot of chinese south korean and Japanese are white while greeks are not. The msot popular interative map only shows the asians going in to Ukraine and staying there. While the middle easterners founded the whole of europe but stopped at 8000 years ago. Not The Italians culutre dates back from 2000 bc 4000 years ago wouldn't it make sense thsat central asians kiled middle easterners and then went to Italy and Italy founded the rest of europe to me it makes perfect sense. Greece is obviously from Middle east so I feel like we are more like the chinese than Middle eastern this fascinates me. So my theory would be Centeral asians killed middle easterners and went to Italy from italy and beyond changed to such a differnt culutre. I mean cmon so many asians are white like us. Plus it quite easy to get your eyes changed.
There’s a persistent theme on display in the preceding comments here. It’s the problem faced by anyone attempting to imprint off a 3D subject – living, dead or statue - onto linen. It’s variously known as “lateral distortion” arising from the so-called “wrap-around effect”.
Sure, it’s easy to demonstrate for oneself at home, say by smearing one’s face with chocolate spread or similar, then lying down and getting someone to press linen onto and around the sides of one’s face. Sure, the result could be the so-called Agamemnon mask-effect, one where the face looks far too wide, showing that “lateral distortion”.
But what’s this got to do with the Shroud of Turin one might ask? My answer: precious little, if anything, provided one starts by making some reasonable assumptions, like:
1. The Shroud is of medieval origin, if one accepts the radiocarbon dating, warts an’ all.
2. Someone – a medieval artist or mere artisan - set out to model what a double-body IMPRINT onto linen might look, first when fresh, and then aged for many centuries.
3. That same individual then did some trial experiments, so became quickly aware of the image distortion that can result from using a 3D subject to produce a 2D imprint.
4. That individual did not abandon the project. Instead he persevered to produce the image that today we call the Turin Shroud.
So how did he get a realistic-looking body image? Answer: he didn’t. That was not his goal. His goal was to produce what would be immediately perceived as a CONTACT IMPRINT. It did not need to look too realistic, like a well-executed painting. Had he done so, folk would have scarcely given it a second glance (“Oh look, another devotional work of art”). No, he wanted an image that was strangely unrealistic, and in that respect could be said to have been successful beyond his wildest dreams.
So what did he do “right” in terms of producing a highly credible artefact, suggestive of a real body imprint onto a sheet of linen?
Answer: he wanted an image that was what today we call a “negative”. Parts of the anatomy that an artist might show in lighter tones, notably the light-reflecting prominences such as nose forehead, chin etc, would be shown dark, and parts that an artist might show as dark, due either to being in hollows, like eye sockets, or in the shadows cast by prominences, would be shown as light. Why the need to reverse the tones? Because that’s what happens when one imprints off a 3D template, instead of placing it in the light and painting it, or taking a modern photograph. Our medieval ‘modeller’ would have been fully aware of the tone-reversal that occurs with contact imprinting, from artefacts like brass rubbings, heat scorches from hot irons etc.
All that remained was to obtain that negative imprint in a manner that made it IMMEDIATELY obvious to a first-time viewer that it was an imprint, not a painting. That required imprinting off the highest relief only, studiously avoiding the slightest hint of wrap -around effect. The end result was to produce an imprint akin to that of a footprint in wet sand – negative with “bits missing”. How might that have been best achieved? It was a question of ensuring the technology was fit-for-purpose, as indeed it was. How was, or might that, have been achieved?
End of Part 1. Part 2 is in preparation and will follow in due course.
I have placed a copy of this comment onto my own site:
I seriously doubt they will be as naive as our archeologists are today. Especially a toilet. and mirrors. I dont get how the word, Sanitized will be strange to them ? Since humans no matter where when and how, will always have germs. Even in space...
Perhaps the wall was made to avert growing blowing sands so their city, villages would not have to be concerned about sand storms so much. But over time their city got buried, best to try dig there, see if theory is correct.
Walls have been built throughout time, as long as beings were capable of such feats. The Pontiff has massive walls around Vatican City to keep the riff raff out. There was the "Walls of Jericho." Fortresses were built with thick walls to keep folks out. Castles had moats and high walls. Churches built walls around their property. Walls have been used as effective barriers for as long as they have been left standing. The Great Wall of China was used a barrier to keep invaders out. We have walls around our yards to keep the neighbors out.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Funny how things go around and come around. I read a wonderful book on this very subject in 1968 called "The Great Orm of Loch Ness" by Ted Holiday. He made a great case for Nessie being a giant worm or mollusk. The book is very much worth the read.
Thanks for reminding me about Alan Mills, Stuart. It's some years since I last read "The Second Messiah", but it's still on my Kindle, ready for a re-read. My chief reservation as regards the singlet oxygen mechanism was that this particular form of active oxygen is far better at destroying pre-existing colour than creating new colour.
It's the colour associated with conjugated double bonds that is particularly susceptible - single oxygen adding across the -C=C- linkages to form dioxetanes, interrupting the highly extended and delocalized cloud of electrons on which light absorption and subtractive colour in organic chromophores often depends. I'm not saying their mechanism is wrong, merely that it's not mainstream singlet oxygen chemistry (a field with which I'm personally acquainted, having done some research in Philadelphia in the early 70s with J.D.Ostrow MD on the photochemistry of bilirubin, resulting in a paper proposing a novel singlet-oxygen mediated mechanism!).
Explaining why a medieval knight came to display the Shroud of Lirey ("shroud" being a misnomer in my view if, as I believe, it was intended to represent Joseph of Arimathea's linen deployed in conceal-and-transport mode for a recently-deceased corpse - NOT as final burial shroud) may take a little time to organize and summarize. The ingredients are all there for what I consider a plausible narrative, indeed for 3 or 4 different ones - each highlighting some facet or other of the colourful Geoffroy de Charny's carefully-laid plans re his so-called "private chapel", ho ho, aided and abetted by King John The Good no less. It may be a day or two before I'm able to pare things down to essentials, but most of the raw material is in that lengthy review I did of the late Dorothy Crispino's research (see earlier link above).
I think the
Egyptians being black is a very probable one, Lots of possibilities if one opens ones mind.
Hi Colin, I think you’ll find a few others receive alerts for this thread as well. You seem to be one of the few, perhaps the only one, here with credible research on the subject. I admit I found some of the Knight/Lomas chemistry inventive even though most of it was based on Dr Alan Mills’ work. It’s worthwhile adding that Knight and Lomas themselves admitted to literally stumbling upon the shroud story in their research of the history of Freemasonry and specifically de Molay – I was waiting for a follow-up from them of sorts on the matter. I’ll visit your blog for further information and hopefully that can explain the question I ask which remains ‘Why fake an image of a man interred or otherwise on a piece of cloth?’
Hello Stuart
Well, that is a surprise, to find that at least one previous commentator is looking in on this dated thread and/or receiving alerts informing of new comments.
The matter of the Shroud's earliest recorded history is something that interests me greatly. The Knight and Lomax hypothesis re the imprisoned/tortured Jacques de Molay hypothesis was interesting, indeed ingenious. But some of the chemistry was, how shall we say, a little inventive, especially the singlet oxygen involvement, lactic acid etc. One feels there should be known precedents before buying into that. For a while I had my own J de M theory based on his having finally been slow-roasted at the stake. Might the TS have been produced as a scorch off a hot metal template intended to represent the terrible fate of the Templar Grand Master. I'll spare you the details of that experimental programme and why I finally abandoned it in favour of something without an obvious Templar connection (except that Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Lirey, first recorded owner of the Shroud, was thought by celebrated genealogist Noel Currer-Briggs to have been the nephew of the almost identically-named Geoffroy de Charney, one of de Molay's closest lieutenants who died alongside him at the stake in that fateful day in Paris approx 1314. (is there an edit facility?)
Anyway, to cut a long story short, the focus where this investigator is concerned is now squarely on the Lirey Lord of the Manor, not an obscure country squire as so many sindonological sites would have us believe. He was in fact one of the highest in the land, a favourite of the King (John The Good), who was a prime mover in founding the Order of the Star, based it's said on England's then recently formed Order of the Garter. There are at least two reasons why Geoffroy was the one who came to proudly display the Shroud and create that fascinating Lirey badge (and the Machy mould for a second variant). However, this comment is already too long, and my coffee is getting cold, so I'll post this, and be back later with more about the circumstances that could have inspired Project Shroud circa the 1350s in medieval France. Please stay tuned.
Here's an excessively long and wordy link to something I posted recently re Lirey history:
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/what-hap...
Did people find any symbols / patterns / characters etc. on these artifacts?
Colin, why would anyone want to ‘fake’ or ‘paint’ a shroud produced during the middle ages? There are no other articles like it from the time before, during or after. You haven’t sold me on your hypthesis I’m sorry. I’m still leaning toward the Jacques de Molay theory as laid out by Knight and Lomas.
Such an interesting post! Lot to know from <a href="http://www.google.com/" rel="nofollow">google</a>. This article is worth reading.
Did White Europeans orignate from central asia and killed the let's say middle easterners in europe. our skin looks so much like a chinese then a greek. A lot of chinese south korean and Japanese are white while greeks are not. The msot popular interative map only shows the asians going in to Ukraine and staying there. While the middle easterners founded the whole of europe but stopped at 8000 years ago. Not The Italians culutre dates back from 2000 bc 4000 years ago wouldn't it make sense thsat central asians kiled middle easterners and then went to Italy and Italy founded the rest of europe to me it makes perfect sense. Greece is obviously from Middle east so I feel like we are more like the chinese than Middle eastern this fascinates me. So my theory would be Centeral asians killed middle easterners and went to Italy from italy and beyond changed to such a differnt culutre. I mean cmon so many asians are white like us. Plus it quite easy to get your eyes changed.
Good article about new show and new project
There’s a persistent theme on display in the preceding comments here. It’s the problem faced by anyone attempting to imprint off a 3D subject – living, dead or statue - onto linen. It’s variously known as “lateral distortion” arising from the so-called “wrap-around effect”.
Sure, it’s easy to demonstrate for oneself at home, say by smearing one’s face with chocolate spread or similar, then lying down and getting someone to press linen onto and around the sides of one’s face. Sure, the result could be the so-called Agamemnon mask-effect, one where the face looks far too wide, showing that “lateral distortion”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon
But what’s this got to do with the Shroud of Turin one might ask? My answer: precious little, if anything, provided one starts by making some reasonable assumptions, like:
1. The Shroud is of medieval origin, if one accepts the radiocarbon dating, warts an’ all.
2. Someone – a medieval artist or mere artisan - set out to model what a double-body IMPRINT onto linen might look, first when fresh, and then aged for many centuries.
3. That same individual then did some trial experiments, so became quickly aware of the image distortion that can result from using a 3D subject to produce a 2D imprint.
4. That individual did not abandon the project. Instead he persevered to produce the image that today we call the Turin Shroud.
So how did he get a realistic-looking body image? Answer: he didn’t. That was not his goal. His goal was to produce what would be immediately perceived as a CONTACT IMPRINT. It did not need to look too realistic, like a well-executed painting. Had he done so, folk would have scarcely given it a second glance (“Oh look, another devotional work of art”). No, he wanted an image that was strangely unrealistic, and in that respect could be said to have been successful beyond his wildest dreams.
So what did he do “right” in terms of producing a highly credible artefact, suggestive of a real body imprint onto a sheet of linen?
Answer: he wanted an image that was what today we call a “negative”. Parts of the anatomy that an artist might show in lighter tones, notably the light-reflecting prominences such as nose forehead, chin etc, would be shown dark, and parts that an artist might show as dark, due either to being in hollows, like eye sockets, or in the shadows cast by prominences, would be shown as light. Why the need to reverse the tones? Because that’s what happens when one imprints off a 3D template, instead of placing it in the light and painting it, or taking a modern photograph. Our medieval ‘modeller’ would have been fully aware of the tone-reversal that occurs with contact imprinting, from artefacts like brass rubbings, heat scorches from hot irons etc.
All that remained was to obtain that negative imprint in a manner that made it IMMEDIATELY obvious to a first-time viewer that it was an imprint, not a painting. That required imprinting off the highest relief only, studiously avoiding the slightest hint of wrap -around effect. The end result was to produce an imprint akin to that of a footprint in wet sand – negative with “bits missing”. How might that have been best achieved? It was a question of ensuring the technology was fit-for-purpose, as indeed it was. How was, or might that, have been achieved?
End of Part 1. Part 2 is in preparation and will follow in due course.
I have placed a copy of this comment onto my own site:
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/
thank article !! article really helped us good luck.
I seriously doubt they will be as naive as our archeologists are today. Especially a toilet. and mirrors. I dont get how the word, Sanitized will be strange to them ? Since humans no matter where when and how, will always have germs. Even in space...
Perhaps the wall was made to avert growing blowing sands so their city, villages would not have to be concerned about sand storms so much. But over time their city got buried, best to try dig there, see if theory is correct.
They Strongly resemble the plethora of ruins in South Africa, The Adam Calendar.
Why does the Wheels remind me of the structures at Golbeki Tepi?
Walls have been built throughout time, as long as beings were capable of such feats. The Pontiff has massive walls around Vatican City to keep the riff raff out. There was the "Walls of Jericho." Fortresses were built with thick walls to keep folks out. Castles had moats and high walls. Churches built walls around their property. Walls have been used as effective barriers for as long as they have been left standing. The Great Wall of China was used a barrier to keep invaders out. We have walls around our yards to keep the neighbors out.
(The 'Utter nonsense!' was in reply to Jamie Rose's archeology claim.)
Utter nonsense!
Sorry, I live in Europe. And the roots of me and my family lie where I live now. :P
Pages