Colin Berry poses ten questions for us on his blog. For the most part they are good questions to be directed for “anyone claiming that ‘a miraculous flash of light’ was needed” to create the image. (His words in quotes, not mine). It’s an adroit use of the straw man fallacy implying, as it does, that most people who think the shroud is real believe a miraculous flash was needed. If Colin had prefaced his questions with something like, “while not everyone who thinks the shroud is real thinks a miraculous flash of light was needed,” what followed would have been more intellectually palatable. Colin has said that he will add to his posting after getting feedback. Let’s see if he does.
It’s a bit of a setup, as well. Fair enough. He wants, once again, to convince us that the image is a scorch or branding created with a hot statue. Of course, he conveniently forgets that we posed many questions to him about his hypothesis and his response was to ignore most of them. He doesn’t think he needs to answer questions about how a scorching can produce a fiber that is only scorched to a depth of about 200 nanometers. The best evidence is that it can’t. And there are many other questions he needs to answer.
Let’s take a crack at his questions in hope that it will inspire him to answer ours:
1. Why did the miraculous flash of light (MFOL) produce a non-miraculous negative image, i.e. a singularly unattractive one due to reversal of normal light/dark tones?
Why did generations of pilgrims have to be content with the above image until a more friendly-looking positive image was discovered with 19th/20th century photographic technology?
ANSWER: Any image in this sense would be non-miraculous – a chemical change that results in a change of luminosity. The problem was MFOL Version 1.0 (pronounced mouthfull). No one in the Heavenly Host Advanced Miracle Graphics department thought that it would be a problem. Certainly the discovery of photography would not happen before the Second Coming. But it did. Oh what a problem Secondo Pia created. Release 7.0 of MFOL, now some 2000 years too late can create full color positive pictures with blue eyes and blond hair (see above).
2. How could any flash of light, miraculous or otherwise, have been focused to produce a sharp image on linen, without lenses or mirrors?
ANSWER: Good question. But don’t underestimate the power of miracles. MFOL is collimated to gravity and fully pre-focused right out of the box, so to speak. MFOL also works on nylon.
3. Why did that MFOL produce two separate images – front and rear – with no sides? Isn’t a shroud supposed to be wrapped around a corpse? So why no imaging of the sides?
ANSWER: That is the benefit of collimated light. It’s a good thing because otherwise the image would have been really strange looking.
4. Why did the MFOL produce an image with no ‘directionality’. In other words, how did the light rays all manage to strike the linen at exactly 90 degrees with no hint of shadowing?
ANSWER: Again, collimated light.
5. How was a MFOL able to produce any image at all on linen? Linen is not photographic film. There is no light-sensitive emulsion.
ANSWER: MFOL produces highly localized dehydration and oxidation. So far no one has reverse engineered this process. For a long time Kodak was trying to figure this out because of the ever increasing cost of silver. Digital photography eliminated to need, at least in secular markets.
6. Why should some features – the nose, the crossed hands etc – be more strongly imaged than others, and more “luminous” on developed silver emulsion?
ANSWER: Good question. MFOL obeys different at-a-distance rules. Don’t even bother to turn on you scientific calculator. It not in there. Not, yet.
7. How did a MFOL alter the carbon-dating? How could it create an excess of C-14 atoms to make it seem younger than it really is? C-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere from bombardment of nitrogen atoms by cosmic rays – not at ground level.
ANSWER: That was a bug in MFOL 1.0. It may have been a programming Easter egg, which is defined by Wikipedia as an intentionally hidden function or message in software. If that is so then Warren Robinett of Atari was not the first prankster of this sort. Apparently MFOL 1.0 created carbon 14 atoms without nitrogen, and at ground level, no less.
8. How did a MFOL manage to selectively scorch the crown threads, i.e. those that lie slightly proud of the surface. Why should an ever-so-slightly more superficial position of warp or weft threads make them more liable to be scorched by radiation at a distance?
ANSWER: That’s a closely guarded secret.
9. How did a MFOL manage to leave so many parts unimaged, like the eye sockets, or the area around the crossed hands? Those are the parts that are poorly imaged – if at all – when one is dependant on an external source of light – as in photography. Why should that be so in the case of an allegedly self-luminous body?
ANSWER: Asked and answered.
10. Why should a MFOL be unable to penetrate a blood stain and leave an image on the linen? Blood is mainly protein. Yet the hair of the subject is imaged, and hair is protein (keratin). So how come the MFOL was able to pass through one protein (keratin) and not another (haemoglobin, albumins, globulins etc)?
ANSWER: If we could harness MFOL for secular purposes, think of the potential markets – like safe tanning salons that don’t also bleach one’s hair.
MFOL beats scorching any day. It actually requires a little bit less of a miracle than scorching or branding and doesn’t require a bed of sand or snow or clotted cream.
In reality, we don’t know. And Colin doesn’t know either.