In a well-structured assessment of the Scientific Method, Otangelo Grasso (ably assisted by ChatGPT or one of its peers) has analysed my experiments with yellow ochre tempera, and the words of the title above occur no less than fifteen times in his review. Unfortunately, as we shall see, the review is really only a well packaged exercise in confirmation bias, and in my opinion actually demonstrates much more success than the 27.3% he generously allots my “complete failure” at the end of his review. My equally impartial assessment awards myself 87.5% !
[This post is based on an assessment Grasso sent me, and I was going to wait until it was more generally available, but a recent comment at a different post, to the effect that all medievalists are mad, has prompted me to offer this now. I was going to delete his comment, and may yet. If you only want to be rude, you can do it elsewhere.]
The score is based on a pass/fail assessment of 22 criteria, which, rather like John Jackson’s ‘Critical Summary’ and Giulio Fanti’s ‘Critical Compendium’ are plucked rather indiscriminately from the cloud of ‘truths about the Shroud’ which find acceptance among the authenticist community, however poorly substantiated, repetitious or even contradictory. Before going into detail, here are Grasso’s and my own assessments of how well I did!
Before going on, readers with nothing better to do might like to try to guess what some of these criteria actually mean! Anyway, for a deep dive, here we go:
1). Superficial Depth.
Grasso combines two characteristics here, and it is not clear that he really understands the difference between them. One is that it is generally assumed that the colouration of the Shroud does not penetrate individual fibres further than the primary cell wall, and the other is that the colouration does not penetrate the threads, seeping between the fibres, beyond the first few layers. The first could be due to a chemical alteration of the primary cell wall of the flax fibres (Heller & Adler), a thin covering over the top of the flax fibres (Rogers), an intermittent layer of sub-micron pigment particles (McCrone), or a mixture of one or more of the above (Garlaschelli, Farey). Grasso fails my experiment by stipulating that the colouration is no deeper than 0.2µm, which is an article of faith (based on the thickness of a flax fibre primary cell wall) rather than fact. He then says that my particles are too big, which I deny, my binder penetrates the “fibre interiors,” which it doesn’t, and “chemical absorption beyond surface boundaries” which is unclear.
1).a) Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: PARTIAL SUCCESS
1).b) Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
2). Single-Sided Imaging Predominance.
This is really an extension of (1). The claim is that i) the colouration does not penetrate the individual fibres (see above), ii) the colouration does not seep between the fibres to penetrate the threads (see above,) and iii) the the colouration does not seep between the threads to appear on the other side. This criterion addresses the third. To my mind, there is minimal evidence that there is any seepage through to the back side of the cloth, and no surface colouration of that side caused without such seepage. Much of my experiment was designed for just that, and it worked. However, Giulio Fanti thinks there is surface colouration of the back side of the Shroud, so I allowed some seepage to demonstrate that too, although I appreciate that Fanti supposes that it is not seepage, but an electrical phenomenon that actually creates it. Grasso invents “possible contact transfer during folding” and “secondary impression from primary image,” and “localised phenomenon, not systematic bilateral formation,” which I don’t fully understand, but which my experiment does not exclude.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
3). Three-Dimensional Distance Encoding.
Grasso’s understanding of this is weak, and his rejection of my experiment based on supposition rather than observation is unjustified. Contrary to his statement, the VP-8 Image Analyser studies do not “demonstrate that Shroud image intensity correlates quantitively with hypothetical cloth-body distance relationships,” unless the body is a bas-relief. The recent paper by Moraes and its discussion by myself demonstrate that. Furthermore, it is clear from my experiment that what appears to be the transfer of image across air gaps between the “body” and the cloth can be explained, and is demonstrated, by the pouncing hypothesis. Grasso is quite wrong to suppose that “contact dabbing produces only a relief map of direct pressure points, not a comprehensive distance-encoded projection.” Even Giulio Fanti, who otherwise dismissed my experiments in equally as cursory a manner, admitted that my 3D representation was ‘allowable.’
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
4). Negative Appearance.
Grasso does not discuss this at all, but accords my experiment a “Pass” so I will not dwell on it.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
5). Cellulose Oxidation Mechanism.
According to Grasso, the colour is entirely due to the “intrinsic cellular oxidation and dehydration, not foreign material deposition,” and claims that any extraneous material, such as ochre and protein, is wholly absent. His evidence for this is very weak, and contradicted by other observations. In particular, he considers that “C=O stretching bands characteristic of carbonyl formation,” and “cellular degradation products consistent with oxidative aging” have been observed spectroscopically in image fibres, but not non-image fibres, which isn’t true. However, my own experiments in generating this kind of degeneration do not demonstrate the degradation of cellulose using vinegar as clearly as I would like, so I’ll admit to only partial success for this criterion.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: PARTIAL SUCCESS
6). Binary Fibril Response.
According to Grasso, “electron microscopy reveals that individual fibril anonymous exhibit binary colouration states – either fully coloured or completely uncoloured, with no intermediate grades.” This is wholly untrue, and the source he gives doesn’t substantiate it. The fact that my experiment doesn’t fit this particular supposition in no way invalidates the experiment.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: DELETED FROM CRITERIA
7). Stochastic Fibril Distribution.
According to Grasso, “within image regions, coloured fibres are distributed in apparently random patterns among uncoloured neighbours, creating a stippled or mottled appearance. This stochastic distribution suggests a probabilistic colouration mechanism.” Again this is simply untrue, as any examination of Mark Evans’s photos will demonstrate. The fact that my experiment doesn’t fit this particular supposition in no way invalidates the experiment.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: DELETED FROM CRITERIA
8). Surface Fibril Limitation.
This is exactly the same as Criterion 1 or 2. – – – We need not pursue it.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: DELETED FROM CRITERIA
9). No Thermal Damage.
Lists of negative criteria are somewhat selective and bound to be largely meaningless. The Shroud has no seaweed on it, and my experiment does not use seaweed. The Shroud image shows no thermal damage and that my experiment does not involve thermal damage. Great.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
10). High Spacial Resolution.
Grasso claims that the Shroud “exhibits image details resolved to approximately 0.5mm scale, including fine facial features, hair patterns, and wound details.” This is utterly untrue. Even at its finest, 5mm would be a better value, and most of the Shroud struggles to achieve 15mm at best. However, Grasso does concludes that “contact methods can theoretically achieve high resolution limited by relief sculpture quality,” which is quite true, and which my experiment demonstrates.
Grasso: RESULT: PARTIAL SUCCESS – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
11). Blood Temporal Precedence.
This is a poor criterion by any standard. Firstly, of course, I don’t think there was “blood temporal precedence,” and secondly, the blood is strictly irrelevant to the image mechanism.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: DELETED FROM CRITERIA
12). Blood-image Non-Interference.
This is merely an extension of the previous one, and is to be ignored for the same reason.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: DELETED FROM CRITERIA
13). Human Blood Biochemical Signature.
Whether the blood is human, non-human or even paint has no bearing on the image making mechanism, so this criterion is another to be ignored.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: DELETED FROM CRITERIA
14). Anatomically Accurate Blood Image Spatial Correlation.
Grasso gives this complete failure status because I didn’t experiment with blood at all, let alone dribble it appropriately over my image. It has no bearing on what I actually did.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: DELETED FROM CRITERIA
15). Orthogonal Projection Geometry.
According to Grasso my “dabbing technique necessarily follows cloth surface topology and contact pressure gradient, producing geometric distortion incompatible with orthogonal projection.” What he really means is that because the Shroud image was produced by orthogonal projection, and I didn’t use it, I must be wrong, but that’s relying on an assumption that I don’t recognise. His evidence for “parallel ray projection” is three-fold:
a) “Consistent facial feature proportions despite cloth draping.” Actually no cloth draping over a real head scenario produces realistic facial features, however the image is formed, but cloth draping a bas relief certainly does.
b) “Absence of perspective distortion expected from contact methods.” My experiment actually demonstrates ‘absence of perspective distortion,’ while any method involving a realistic head only works if the cloth is horizontal.
c) “Uniform image clarity independent of presumed contact pressure.” Sadly I can’t work out what this means. I’m not sure it means anything.
The bottom line is that a bas relief dabbing technique can produce an accurate representation of the relief, both visually and when ‘converted’ into 3D using appropriate software.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
16). Distance Intensity Correlation Qualification.
The explanation for my failure of this criterion is heavily dependent on pre-suppositions that I do not pre-suppose, and on predictions which are not borne out by the results. Thus:
“Mathematical analysis of VP-8 reconstructions reveals that image intensity follows specific distance-related functions.” Clearly not. The VP-8 images look nothing like actual bodies, but they do look like bas reliefs.
“Contact pressure mapping cannot generate these relationships because:
“• Pressure varies with cloth elasticity and body service curvature.” On the contrary, it is precisely because the pressure varies with cloth elasticity and body service curvature that these relationships are accurately reproduced.
“• No mechanism exists for calibrating pressure to distance.” A mechanism could certainly be devised if necessary, but it’s not necessary. The success of the pressure variation mechanism is demonstrated by the accuracy of the 3D model.
“• Contact binary states (touching/not-touching) cannot encode continuous distance functions.” Clearly they can; that’s precisely what the pressure variation is about.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
17). Human Proportions.
Grasso does not discuss this, but grants me partial success, as whether my image is ‘correct’ or not anatomically depends on the sculpture it derives from, not the method. As the proportions of the body are a continual source of dispute even among authenticists, it cannot be said that a medieval sculptor is likely to have been any less precise. If the carving forms part of the criterion, then my method is a complete success, if it isn’t then this criterion is irrelevant.
Grasso: RESULT: PARTIAL SUCCESS – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
18). No lateral sides.
Grasso awards me a ‘Pass’ for this without further discussion, so I’ll go with that!
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
19). Natural Edge Transition Characteristics.
According to Grasso, “Image boundaries [on the Shroud] exhibit natural intensity fall off rather than sharp cut off lines.” He does not say what is “natural” about having blurred edges. Real people do not have blurred edges. Images of real people do not have blurred edges. Images formed by cloths stretched across bas reliefs and lightly dabbed with colourant can, and have been shown to, have blurred edges. At least Grasso acknowledges that.
Grasso: RESULT: PARTIAL SUCCESS – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
20). Absence of Diffusion Signatures.
This is a complete reversal of the previous criterion. Instead of image boundaries exhibiting “natural intensity falloff,” image edges now “exhibit sharp transitions without the gradual intensity falloff characteristic of diffusion processes.” In terms of the Shroud, this is simply wrong. In an attempt to discredit my experiment, Grasso says:
“• Solvent penetration follows capillary action.” There is no evidence for this. To be fair, solvent discolouration is too weak to observe clearly, so this is an instance when absence of evidence is not truly evidence of absence.
“• Pigment migration occurs during washing.” This is as true of the Shroud as of anything I’ve done.
“• Concentration gradients develop during drying.” There is no evidence for this.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: PARTIAL SUCCESS
21). Uniform Imaging.
Grasso doesn’t say what he means by this. It may simply be a restatement of 6 or 7. He grants me a ‘Partial Pass,’ so I’ll generously go with that.
Grasso: RESULT: PARTIAL SUCCESS – – – Farey: RESULT: PARTIAL SUCCESS
22). Fold-Independent Image Quality.
Apparently, on the Shroud, “historical fold lines and creases show no correlation with image intensity variations, indicating that formation occurred under uniform conditions independent of cloth deformation states.” I disagree with this entirely, and it confuses two important features of the Shroud today. None of the folds and creases on the Shroud have anything to do with the image formation process. They are clearly related to the cloth’s treatment over the last 300 years, or so. On the other hand any draping or wrapping of the cloth over or around a body produces numerous folds, which it is true, are not at all indicated in the image. This is powerful evidence that no such folds were present when the image was formed, suggesting a more or less flat cloth, such as occurs when one is draped over a bas relief. Far from failing this criterion, the fact that my experiment shows no folds or creases in the image is strongly supportive of its likelihood.
Grasso: RESULT: COMPLETE FAILURE – – – Farey: RESULT: COMPLETE SUCCESS
Final Grade: According to Grasso: 22.7% – complete failure. According to me: 87.5% – jolly good try!
So what is the impartial observer to make of all this? Well, I can’t really say, not being sufficiently impartial, but I will direct him to one or two points he might like to consider.
Firstly, it is the medievalists’ contention that we don’t know enough about the specific characteristics of the Shroud or its image to be able to be definitive about how it was made. Authenticist comments like: “they think they have proved…” and “convinced they have solved everything” are not only wrong, but, if the commenter has actually read the researchers’ own work, dishonest.
Secondly, it is the authenticists’ contention that a list of definitive characteristics can be drawn up, and that unless they are all perfectly adhered to, any attempt to duplicate the method by which the image was created must be considered a “complete failure.” Each authenticist has his own list, each different in some ways from the others, and each depending on a particular selection from the mass of conflicting data available, and the rejection of all the rest. This is not only rather subjective, but, if the commenter has actually read the researchers’ own work, dishonest.
Correction: I wrote the following:
Additionally, you mentioned that red ochre can also contain a hydrated form of Fe2O3 called Fe2O3. However, if that’s the case, the “red ochre” actually has some yellow ochre in it.
The second “Fe2O3” should, instead, read as Fe2O3.H2O (the hydrated form of iron-oxide which is yellow ochre.)
Hi, Hugh,
Thank you very much for your explanation and clarification.
You mention that Morris, Schwalbe and London’s estimates derived EXCLUSIVELY from radiation reflected from the SURFACE of the cloth, and that this does not include any sub-surface iron.
With the X-ray fluorescence examination performed by Morris, Schwalbe and London on the Shroud, itself, during STURP’s 1978 on-site examination of the Shroud, they collected 23 spectra from the Shroud, itself (not Shroud fibers from sticky-tapes.) One of these 23 areas was of pristine cloth which had an iron level of 6.8 micrograms cm^-2 . The INVISIBLE iron in this pristine cloth is consistent with its being derived from the retting process. However, as Adler informs, such cellulosic bound iron is on the SURFACE of the thread’s fibers. So, there would not have been a problem with detection of this iron via X-ray fluorescence.
Additionally, you mentioned that red ochre can also contain a hydrated form of Fe2O3 called Fe2O3. However, if that’s the case, the “red ochre” actually has some yellow ochre in it. And, if that’s the situation, such red ochre cannot be made from pure hematite–since pure hematite is anhydrous. If the hematite/red ochre is impure, then, as you know, there are (very, very likely) going to be some problematic contamination issues with manganese, cobalt nickel and/or aluminum exhibiting 1% or more contamination from such an iron earth pigment (but, unlike, iron acquired from the retting process or heme bound iron.)
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
Red ochre is primarily the iron oxide Fe2O3, which is composed of two atoms of iron (atomic mass 56) and three of oxygen (atomic mass 16). Thus the proportion of iron in iron oxide is (2×56) / (2×56 + 3×16) = 0.7.
If 17µg represents 0.7 of something, then the ‘something’ has a mass of 24µg.
To explore a bit further (and I know you like to do that), red ochre can also contain a hydrated form of Fe2O3 called Fe2O3.H2O, in which, by similar calculations, 17µg of iron converts to 27µg of hydrated iron oxide.
Red ochre can also contain varying amounts of silicon oxide, aluminium oxide and magnesium oxide, but these are all white/colourless.
If the iron was the form of pure metal, then 17µg of iron actually represents 17µg of iron!
Morris, Schwalbe and London’s estimates derived exclusively from radiation reflected from the surface of the cloth, so did not include any sub-surface iron.
Experiments to determine the visibility of red ochre can be found at a blogpost called… um… The Visibility of Red Ochre, at medievalshroud.com. It was authored by me!
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
I’ve got a question about your paper, “How was it done?” When I print out your paper, it’s on page 6 (and is in the second paragraph underneath the McCrone and Nitowski photographs.) Here, there is the mention of 17 micrograms/cm^2 of iron that was estimated by Morris, Schwalbe and London in the nose area on the Shroud, and you mention that this converts to about 24 micrograms/cm^2 of red ochre. The citation that you give is the Morris, Schwalbe and London paper, but I’m not noticing that conversion to red ochre in the Morris paper.
Additionally, I’m guessing that you mean that this amount POTENTIALLY converts to red ochre as the amount given was purely for iron levels–not necessarily iron-OXIDE–since, to my understanding, X-ray fluorescence does not detect oxygen.
Also, you mention that “[a]s investigated in a previous article, this is very easily visible on a white background.” Could you please specify what article is this “previous article” and who authored it?
Thanks,
Teddi
Hi Gerardo,
After I sent a piece of cloth with an image on it to Giulio Fanti, he wrote a review of my experiment in the immensely respected and peer-reviewed Medical & Clinical Case Reports Journal, called ‘Turin Shroud: Example of Claims against its Authenticity and Comments.’ I responded with a paper in the same Journal called ‘Turin Shroud: A Medieval Technique,’ which was in turn commented on by Fanti again in ‘Commentary On: “Turin Shroud: A Medieval Technique” .’ All these papers can be found simply by Googling their titles.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Mark,
I don’t think anybody has claimed that the image lies deeper than the cell wall, except that Heller & Adler saw ochre particles inside the lumen of some fibres, resembling a test result they had achieved by making “khaki,” to wit: “impregnating linen or cotton cloth with solutions of iron salts, precipitating iron hydroxides onto and into the fibres with alkali, and then dehydrating, producing oxide particulates ‘fixed’ to the cloth.” They attributed the Shroud’s “khaki” entirely to scorching blood or migrating water stains.
I am familiar too with Fanti’s article, Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality, in the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, and think it is very valuable. Figure 9 shows a fibre whose primary cell wall has split, exposing the secondary cell wall. The scale bar shows us that the intact fibre is about 15µm thick, and that stripped of its primary cell wall it is about 13µm thick, suggesting that the primary cell wall itself is about 1µm thick. Would you agree?
As it happens I don’t think it is very easy to use any kind of colourant to penetrate beyond the cell wall, and certainly not paint. Nevertheless, the fact that the image doesn’t penetrate it is waved about like some kind of banner, as if it, in itself, refuted the ‘paint’ argument, when I don’t think it does at all. Microscopists routinely use dyes that discolour the primary cell wall but nothing else, to produce clear images for further investigation.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hello Hugh,
I didn’t know about your “experiments with yellow ochre tempera”. Where can I read more about them?
Hi Hugh,
From the perspective of someone who is new to “shroud studies”, much seems to rest on the uniqueness of the body image. More than anything this seems to be based on the superficiality of the colouring on the shroud fibrils , which Fanti and others say is limited to the primary cell wall (what is said to be the 0.2µm layer). They also provide photographic evidence of this in the 2010 article in the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology. Since you have seen many images of shroud fibers, do you have any counterexamples where the coloration actually extends to the medulla? Perhaps such images have been published somewhere, I would be grateful for a reference.
Hi Otangelo,
Yes, in the end I decided your comment was, on balance, more humour than abuse, so, as you see, I’ve left it. It was quite a fine balance. Just because abuse is funny – which in places it was – doesn’t mean that it is not abuse. I think I particularly object to your insistence, in almost everything you write, that medievalists claim to have proved something, or are convinced they have solved something. This kind of arrogance is a feature of authenticist hubris, not of the explorations of medievalists, so stop it.
I haven’t yet read the four references you list above (indeed I didn’t know of their existence so thanks for pointing them out) so I’ll do that before further comment on your latest list of criteria, but before I do, I would like to refer you to my reply to Franz, below. If you make a statement about the Shroud – such as the 0.2µm layer, or the anatomical fidelity – I’d rather see the evidence for it than reference to somebody else’s papers. As I say below, I’ve seen the papers and I disagree with their conclusions. Try to be a bit more specific about the data which tells you they are correct; then I may be able to be more specific about why I disagree.
Finally, the main difference between the ochre tempera hypothesis and the DUV hypothesis is that I have a piece of cloth with an image on it, and you don’t. All your assessments of whether it “works” or not are guesses. When Paolo achieved his little patch of discolouration, he finally decided the radiation had to be in a series of little bursts, of very specific duration over a very specific time. When I’ve seen your demonstration of such an experiment, I’ll be delighted to offer a constructive review.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hugh,
Your remark about “all medievalists being mad” and the possibility of deleting my comment struck me as rather spirited – but let’s clarify one point from the outset. My original write-up wasn’t meant as rudeness. It was, quite sincerely, a gesture of good-natured English humour. The caricature and theatrical tone were deliberate, not dismissive. Comedy works best when exaggerating genuine incongruities – and in this case, the gulf between your experimental outcome and the Shroud’s integrated image properties seemed ripe for parody. If the humour misfired, I do apologize. I value these exchanges and the chance they offer to refine, confront, and sharpen competing models.
Your reference to the “22 criteria” as a folkloric cloud of authenticist wishlists prompted a helpful revisit. I cross-checked Jackson’s Critical Summary and Fanti’s Compendium line-by-line against my own framework. Outcome: four additions emerged – wrapping-distortion compatibility, off-image blood presence, dorsal/ventral density parity, and a no-putrefaction window. That expands the set from 21 to 25. And no, this isn’t shifting goalposts. It’s how scientific models mature: weak claims are dropped, robust ones retained, and new constraints added as confirmatory evidence accumulates. It’s not theatre. It’s a goal-directed process. And to pre-empt the usual chorus: this is not a doctrinal list curated for apologetic comfort. It’s a functionally integrated evidential harness derived from peer-reviewed, published observations. If your mechanism satisfies the full constraint set, let’s score it together. If not, revise the mechanism. I’ll be the first to cheer if it clears the bar. Until then, let’s keep the bar firmly where the evidence sets it.
A Clarifying Introduction: Comparative Framework for Evaluation
This response conducts systematic comparative analysis of two competing hypotheses against empirical Shroud data. It is a shortended version. The full response can be found here:
A response to Hugh Farey’s article: ” Result: Complete Failure “:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688p225-the-shroud-of-turin-christ-s-evidence-of-the-resurrection#14132
https://www.academia.edu/143739540/A_response_to_Hugh_Fareys_article_Result_Complete_Failure_
Tempera Simulation Hypothesis: Medieval artist using ochre pigment and egg-yolk binder via contact-dabbing over bas-relief.
Deep Ultraviolet (DUV) Photochemical Hypothesis: https://www.academia.edu/143735291/The_Shroud_of_Turin_25_Essential_Image_Formation_Requirements_and_Deep_Ultraviolet_Photochemical_Hypothesis
Two-phase process:
1. Phase I: Contact-transfer of blood/serum establishing observed stratigraphy
2. Phase II: Brief directional DUV exposure (193–248 nm) causing ultra-superficial, binder-free oxidation of cellulose fibrils
Evaluation Framework: 25 testable constraints from peer-reviewed analysis including ultra-superficial depth (≤0.2–0.6 µm), absence of foreign pigments/binders, binary fibril response, 3D distance encoding, blood-image stratigraphy, and single-sided imaging with thread-level “double superficiality.” https://www.academia.edu/143734765/The_Shroud_of_Turin_A_Unified_25_Constraint_Scientific_Framework_for_Image_Formation_Mechanism_Evaluation
Key Question: Which hypothesis satisfies these constraints without ad-hoc assumptions or dismissing data?
The DUV hypothesis was constructed bottom-up to explain these constraints with specific, falsifiable predictions and physical mechanisms. The tempera hypothesis, while producing visual likeness, fundamentally fails to replicate the Shroud’s integrated forensic phenotype. Evidence consistently points from artistic fabrication toward unique photochemical event.
1. Superficial Depth
Farey’s portrayal of superficial depth wavers between minimization and evasion. His assertion that <0.2μm fibril crown constraint is "an article of faith" mischaracterizes published empirical benchmarks. Jackson, Fanti, and STURP analysts converge on the sub-micron superficiality threshold via SEM and XPS depth-profiling. DUV's near-threshold photon delivery at 193–248 nm stops chemical propagation before thermal diffusion. Conversely, Farey's tempera exhibits pigment penetration, binder-induced capillary diffusion, and inter-fibril cementation — all incompatible with the Shroud’s ultra-superficial chemistry. Ironically, the very depth that his technique achieves invalidates it. Scientific rating: DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
2. Single-Sided Imaging
Farey claims his method avoids reverse-side color seepage, yet his own protocol intentionally introduces it to satisfy Giulio Fanti’s opposing model. This backpedaling is puzzling. The Shroud exhibits strictly single-sided imaging at the cloth level (Fanti & Maggiolo 2000), with a known absence of dorsal reverse patterns. The DUV hypothesis explicitly predicts this: limited penetration depth, no liquid transport, and spatial confinement by fiber topology. Tempera application, by nature, violates all three conditions. The occasional faint reverse marks on the Shroud are localized, not systematic. Again, engineering seepage to simulate select phenomena is artistry, not science. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
3. Three-Dimensional Distance Encoding
The core issue here is not merely a 3-D look, but mathematical correlation. VP-8 analysis showed consistent mapping between optical density and hypothetical cloth-to-body distance. Farey’s dabbing method may produce pseudo-reliefs, but it fails the regression test. The DUV hypothesis, operating under finite beam divergence and intensity drop-off with distance, naturally encodes depth information—transforming anatomy into graded image density. No artistic analogue does this without deliberate staging. Garlaschelli resorted to bas-reliefs precisely to avoid wraparound distortion—an inadvertent confession of method inadequacy. DUV: PASS | Tempera: STAGED SUCCESS.
4. Negative Image
Both models produce tonal inversion. However, in the DUV framework, the inversion is a byproduct of the physical exposure process, not a staged illusion. High-relief features absorb more photons; recessed features receive fewer. The macroscopic negative arises from microstructural oxidation gradients. Farey succeeds here, albeit by artistic mimicry rather than physical necessity. Negative appearance, while necessary, is diagnostically insufficient. DUV: PASS | Tempera: PASS (but contextually weak).
5. Cellulose Oxidation
Farey's attempt to simulate cellulose degradation using vinegar is quaint but chemically non-diagnostic. The Shroud’s chromophore is defined by C=O stretching bands, conjugated carbonyl formation, and absence of extrinsic binders—confirmed by FTIR and Raman spectroscopy. The DUV model recreates this signature with photon energies of 4.43–6.20 eV. Tempera introduces protein binders and particulates, leaving spectroscopic residues detectable above LOD. Any similarity in hue is superficial—chemically and metaphorically. DUV: PASS | Tempera: PARTIAL (colour, not chemistry).
6. Binary Fibril Response
Farey discards this constraint as “wholly untrue,” yet the peer-reviewed micrographs reveal binary behavior at fibril scale: affected fibrils appear fully colored or not at all. The stochastic selection under near-threshold DUV irradiation yields binary transitions, not graded films. Tempera, by design, deposits pigment across gradients, forming continuous coatings—utterly incompatible with binary fibril switching. Deleting the constraint is editorial sanitation, not refutation. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
7. Stochastic Distribution
The stippled appearance of the Shroud’s image zones arises from random distributions of colored fibrils among uncolored neighbours. This is not artistic mottling—it’s a probabilistic outcome of photon interaction at threshold levels. Statistical tools (Poisson distributions, spatial autocorrelation) confirm this. Farey's tempera, lacking any stochastic trigger, produces smooth gradients—expected of continuous binder applications. The absence of randomness isn’t a neutral omission—it’s a falsifier. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
8. Lack of Lateral Image
The Shroud presents no image on the sides of the head, limbs, or body—something a genuine contact transfer would likely produce. Farey’s method, being tactile, should exhibit such wraparound artifacts unless artificially constrained. The DUV model avoids lateral transfer by virtue of its energy vector: image formation proceeds orthogonally to the cloth. No contact, no wrapping, no lateral ghosting. The absence of side images confirms the absence of physical pressure. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
9. No Capillary Migration
If pigment or binder had migrated along threads, one would expect to find tailing, halos, and absorption cones. These are conspicuously absent in the Shroud. Farey’s vinegar-tempera mix engages all forms of capillary action: soaking, seeping, and smearing. The DUV hypothesis prohibits such diffusion by constraining energy to fiber crowns and terminating photonic reactions before solvent motion begins. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
10. Double Superficiality (Frontal Side Only)
The phenomenon of double superficiality—where image resides only on outermost threads of the frontal side—defies contact methods. Farey doesn’t simulate this; he doesn’t even address it. DUV models explain it naturally: frontal irradiation penetrates exposed threads; backside threads are shielded. Dorsal image lacks this, affirming directional asymmetry. A stunning example of data that contact cannot replicate. DUV: PASS | Tempera: INCOMPLETE.
11. No Image Under Blood
The blood-first, image-second stratigraphy is one of the most damning details for artistic models. Paint-over-blood should dislodge or contaminate edges. Farey’s method has no mechanism to preserve pristine serum halos under such handling. DUV accounts for this effortlessly: blood is applied first (Phase I), image follows without affecting it (Phase II). Spectroscopy confirms unbroken boundary layers. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
12. Blood Has Serum Halos
Serum separation halos (UV fluorescence) around bloodstains require a liquid deposition followed by undisturbed drying. Farey’s model, involving repeated contact and washing, should disrupt them. The fact that these halos persist indicates a non-contact image-forming process. DUV predicts and preserves them. Farey’s washing would eliminate them. DUV: PASS | Tempera: INCOMPATIBLE.
13. Anatomical Precision
The Shroud’s image bears remarkable anatomical fidelity: muscle striation, facial symmetry, finger lengths, and wound placement. Farey's rubbing technique introduces distortions, as shown in Garlaschelli’s bas-relief workaround. The DUV model bypasses anatomical deformation by projecting energy orthogonally, respecting body geometry without smearing or warping. DUV: PASS | Tempera: GEOMETRICALLY DEFICIENT.
14. Wrapping Distortion Compatibility
Wrap-around distortions are expected in any cloth-body contact model. The Shroud lacks them. Farey avoids this issue by using flat transfers—not body contact. DUV predicts this naturally: image forms in air gaps via photon exposure, not pressure. DUV: PASS | Tempera: SIDESTEPPED.
15. Blood Deposition Patterns
The blood flows conform to gravity, not artistic symmetry. Some are even inconsistent with face-on portrayals (e.g., scalp trickles). Farey’s work reproduces blood only in placement, not forensic dynamics. DUV separates blood formation from image via a temporal sequence and explains blood image fluorescence via hemoglobin breakdown. DUV: PASS | Tempera: COSMETIC.
16. No Putrefaction Stains
No sign of body decomposition is found—no discoloration, fluid leakage, or tissue sloughing. Any real corpse in contact with cloth for days would leave biochemical chaos. Farey offers no process explanation. DUV implies rapid exposure followed by disappearance—consistent with resurrection claims or rapid removal. DUV: PASS | Tempera: NON-SEQUITOR.
17. Directional Uniformity
The Shroud image exhibits uniform directionality consistent with orthogonal radiation, not radial pressure. Farey's brush strokes or contact transfers inherently introduce directional artifacts. DUV’s beam-constrained exposure avoids this. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
18. Optical Resolution (5 mm)
The Shroud’s image shows no blending at 5 mm resolution—fine enough to show eyebrow strands and blood flow patterns. Farey’s pigment method blurs at that scale. DUV’s point exposure preserves this optical fidelity. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
19. No Foreign Substances (in Image Areas)
STURP and Heller-Adler tests confirm no pigment, dye, or binder in the image zones. Farey’s ochre leaves all three. DUV is chemically clean. DUV: PASS | Tempera: CHEMICALLY DISQUALIFIED.
20. Spectral Signature Matches Oxidized Cellulose
The body image shows no peaks for iron oxide or protein-based binders, only oxidized cellulose. DUV reproduces this via π-conjugated carbonyl chains. Farey's substances don’t match. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
21. Absence of Brush Marks
Microscopy reveals no brush strokes, bristle artifacts, or pooling. Farey's contact method and dabbing invite such patterns. DUV leaves none—because there is no contact. DUV: PASS | Tempera: FAIL.
Final Scorecard
Passes Physical Constraints
DUV Hypothesis: Pass
Farey's Tempera: Fail
Matches Chemical Profile
DUV Hypothesis: Pass
Farey's Tempera: Fail
Preserves Blood Stratigraphy
DUV Hypothesis: Pass
Farey's Tempera: Fail
Matches Optical and Microscopic Data
DUV Hypothesis: Pass
Farey's Tempera: Fail
Falsifiable with Predictive Power
DUV Hypothesis: Pass
Farey's Tempera: Fail
Conclusion: Science, Not Stagecraft
The DUV model presents an internally coherent, physically plausible, experimentally replicable mechanism that aligns with all 25 constraints derived from the Shroud’s image. Farey's tempera simulation, though cleverly executed, is performance rather than principle—an experiment in aesthetics, not analytics.
Where the DUV hypothesis begins with falsifiability, Farey’s critique ends with dismissals, deletions, and duct-tape logic. The former advances understanding. The latter props up a narrative. Let the data speak, and the photons fall where they may.
Closing (Final Appraisal and Challenge)
Thank you for the 87.5%. If self-marking were dispositive, referees could retire early.
The Shroud is not a beauty contest; it’s a forensic artifact with a stubborn personality. Producing a look-alike from two meters using ochre and a dab of vinegar is stagecraft. The real question is whether the method survives the harness test – without leaving fingerprints the Shroud does not have. You raise two parting concerns worth addressing. First, the notion that authenticists flaunt constraint lists like theological tablets. Not quite. I don’t deal in proof—I deal in explanatory power. The 25-constraint framework is not dogma but a structured representation of persistent observations: ultra-superficial cellulose oxidation, non-contact distance–intensity encoding, absence of binders or foreign particulates, thread-level double superficiality, and blood-over-image stratigraphy. Your tempera approach, by design, introduces binders, capillary effects, and residues that the cloth conspicuously refuses to yield. Convincing frosting does not rehabilitate sawdust. Second, you suggest the framework is subjective and ever-morphing. In truth, the constraint set has only matured. The additions—like wrapping distortion compatibility and dorsal-ventral density parity—are not conveniences; they are empirically anchored. A viable hypothesis survives constraint tightening. A staged faint negative on linen remains entertainment until it explains:
Why image tone tracks cloth-to-body spacing across air gaps
Why color terminates at sub-micron depth
Why the yarns show no lateral penetration
Why blood precedes image
Why spectroscopy shows dehydrative oxidation, not pigment.
As for terminology: I’m happy to swap “binary fibrils” for “switch-like crown-level fiber activation with macroscopic tone emerging from local fibril proportions.” The point is the same. A glaze bridges fibers; the cloth shows no such bridges. Yes, your cloth can be inverted to yield a negative. So can charcoal. But unless that inversion arrives bundled with the full suite of traits—distance mapping, superficial chemistry, blood-first layering, single-sided imaging, and no binder—then it’s an optical trick, not a mechanism. Where does that leave an impartial observer? With a litmus test. Present a single mechanism—materials, sequence, energy budget—that reproduces the entire observation set simultaneously, including blood-image stratigraphy and sub-micron superficiality. No exemptions. No “close enough.” Meet the harness and I’ll happily revise my position.
As for alignment: I’m not arguing from metaphysics. I’m pointing to explanatory class. A brief radiative event in the DUV/near-UV band is consistent with the required chemical and spatial constraints—without invoking physical contact, capillary transport, or medieval wizardry. That’s not creed – it’s dossier. Should a tempera method demonstrate the same results – same spectroscopic signature, same blood preservation, same geometric and chemical traits—I’ll co-sign your manuscript and buy the first round.
You bring energy and ingenuity to the debate – don’t stop. Just aim at the full artifact, not the photogenic subset. Until a contact-based protocol clears all constraints simultaneously, “jolly good try” remains exactly that: a try.
Yours – sportingly, empirically,
A fellow data-driven inquirer with a very crowded harness.
Hi Franz,
Thanks for your comment. I hope you won’t mind my checking your sources, as I try to make this blog as scholarly as I can.
1) How do you know where the Romans placed their nails during crucifixion?
2) The Shroud does not show the palms of any hands, only the back of one, and the position of the nailhole corresponds well with most medieval paintings showing the back of the hands. Can you show me any exceptions?
3) What makes you think the Greek word for hand includes the lower arm? Do you have examples?
4) What makes you think that a coin from 692AD must be derived from the Shroud?
5) What makes you think the Shroud and the Mandylion were the same artefact?
But WAIT! Please do not direct me to shroud.com, or Wilson’s, Antonacci’s or Stevenson’s books. I have read them, and I know what they say. What I want to know is the primary sources which have convinced you that they are correct, but which have not convinced me. That’s the level of the debate I would like to encourage here, not just the parroting of what somebody else has said.
Best wishes,
Hugh
One singular point – had it been a medieval forgery, it would still contain the one error even missed by Leonardo himself (and I’ve looked at most of his crucifixion paintings) that the shroud shows CORRECTLY the nail wound THROUGH THE WRIST and NOT through the palm as they still didn’t understand the the Greek word for “hand” was all from the elbow down to the fingers. All this in addition to the coin of 692ad which was obviously copied from the shroud when as the Mandylion.