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.
There are still those who believe that the earth is flat…I think of them everytime Colin Berry has a comment.And irregardless of what the experts in their own fields have factually concluded or regardless of any new revelations or discoveries,as far as he is concerned…the world is FLAT…metaphorically speaking.To continue reading his comments any further,to me,would be an exercise in futility.
I’ve only ever encountered one Flat-Earther – and that was at University more years ago than I care to remember. I can’t recall if we accepted his unsolicited offer to address the student body or not. But I do know one thing. Flat- Earthers are far more keen to field questions than they are to pose them, because that’s what they revel in – showing they have an answer to each and every question you throw at them. There is a perverseness in their nature – they delight in denying and confounding…
OK, now for a brief defence of my position, which I do not propose to labour.
My first post on the Shroud was at the tail end of last year.
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2011/12/turin-shroud-could-it-have-been.html
It’s working hypothesis was that radiation at a distance HAD produced the image, but if it has been radiant heat and white light, then an opaque absorbing pigment was needed, for which I considered pencilled and/or painted-on charcoal, and did in fact succeed in trapping enough radiation to produce a scorch on linen. But it was a positive, not negative image, which prompted further experimentation. Along the way I tried seeing if I could image the infrared rays from a hot metallic object (a metal pencil sharpener) onto cloth using a concave mirror, and almost idly, as an afterthought, stamped the linen directly with the hot template to produce a “brand” with a startling resemblance to the original, but for light/dark reversal, i.e. a pseudo-NEGATIVE, just like the Shroud is a pseudo-negative.
My first thought was – surely not? – too obvious! Some two dozen posts later I am now wholly convinced that the Shroud image WAS produced by scorching, with a few remaining details to be resolved, like was it treated or untreated linen?
Given the trial-and-error manner in which that current conclusion was arrived at, with no preconceived notions, and indeed an assumption initially that radiant energy was somehow involved, then I hope you will appreciate why your comparison between my approach – that of a retired science bod with an experimental bent- and that of a Flat-Earther could not be further from the truth. But I suspect you will have a ready answer to my plaintive protest. Indeed, I suspect it is you who will have a ready answer to anything I say in defence of my position, requiring little time and effort on your part, unlike the many weeks I have spent on this problem. So who may I ask is the real Flat-Earther? You or me? I would suggest that the facts as outlined provide a ready answer…
Colin Berry MSc, PhD
This gave me a good laugh! Thanks, Dan.
I thought it was time everyone lightened up. Obsession can be so depressing!
Once again, a comment of mine, in reply to John above, has failed to clear Dan’s pre-moderation regime. Never mind, I’ve cut-and-pasted it to my own site, if anyone is interested.
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/ten-questions-for-anyone-claiming-that-a-miraculous-flash-of-light-was-needed-to-create-the-man-on-the-shroud/
Dan, I’m sure you are recognizing this and are concerned, but Colin has effectively taken over your blog.
I like to come here daily to understand what’s new in regard to the Shroud and to monitor the debates, but I think Colin made his point a couple months ago. I believe most of the readers understand his theory by now. But he continues to hammer his points in an attempt to convince everyone that he has come up with a breakthrough that has been missed by all the researchers over the past 40 years. Even if the Shroud was an artist’s work (which I don’t believe for an instant), to execute his theory of a scorch created by a hot statue seems like a ton of work, and that simpler methods that McCrone (painting) and Nickell (rubbings) have described seem more reasonable and could be as effective in “fooling” those medieval believers. I know Colin isn’t concerned about “arts and crafts”, but it seems unrealistic to not consider that as a major factor in proving the theory. I can imagine how many ruined linen cloths there would be for the artist before they got it right (if they ever would) under his theory. And while you might apply the blood first before you did the the hot statue, the flows that we see on the Shroud seem very realistic and must come from a real body. For example, why would the hot statue artist even consider creating the flow of blood from the wound in the side that trickles over to the back of the image, especially if the dorsal image was done at a different time.
Until Colin actually recreates the Shroud image (or a portion thereof) and determines that it is consistent with all the chemical and physical properties that have been published, I am not particularly interested in hearing more about his theory.
Thanks for your well-done and compelling blog.
“Dan, I’m sure you are recognizing this and are concerned, but Colin has effectively taken over your blog.”
Nope, Randy, that’s a tad misleading if you don’t mind me saying. Colin posts his ideas on his own blogs, and Dan reports on them here, and Colin occasionally responds here to those posts and the comments they attract. Colin is largely reactive where this site is concerned – not proactive.
Colin
PS: A spear wound in the side would have been problematical to a medieval forger, knowing in advance through pilot trials that the sides would be incompletely imaged. So a decision might have been made to represent the site of the wound on the ventral view, and then to represent the pooling of blood under gravity on the dorsal.
OK,so you think it improbable that anyone would resort to ambitious ‘pyrography’ to fake a holy relic. But aren’t you forgetting the value placed on convincing holy relics in that era – the Shroud itself is said to have once changed hands in exchange for TWO CASTLES! Having gone to the trouble of creating the two base images, which little risk of it being mistaken for a painting or a brass rubbing, then surely no effort would have been spared to get the extra crucial details right – especially those blood flows under gravity etc. What’s the medieval equivalent for our (British) English expression “in for a penny, in for a pound”?
Colin,
And maybe what I’m saying is that Dan should not report on your blog anymore until you have done much more intensive work on proving your theory. Then I’m sure all of us would be very interested in understanding how you were able to come up with your breakthrough. I would guess you could author a book explaining how you successfully debunked the Shroud. That might be a good investment of time for a retired Sciencebod.
The only reasonable way for the artist to determine what the blood flows would look like as a result of a wound to the side is to actually see it happen to a human body. Now we have a highly skilled metal sculptor, who knows how to scorch linen with his work to create a superficial image, and is also expert on blood flows and how to make those appear natural on a linen cloth by using his statue to apply before the scorching exercise. This is the “arts and crafts” aspect that doesn’t seem to support your theory. Remember too that the Shroud first appeared in a small French church, under ownership of a Knights Templar. If this was forged, I still can’t see why someone would go thru this much trouble to “fool” the pilgrims.
I agree wholeheartedly with Roger’s comments above, but alas I think I’ve actually mentioned this exact thing to Colin several times;…Produce a facsimile, and if not, stop implying it is possible and carry on to other things. Oh one also wonders where this “Medieval” magician managed to aquire so much 1st century linen to start….must have been a costly experiment for a poor artist to complete.
Ron
Oops, I meant Randy :-S, …sorry Randy. Thanks for the post.
Ron
I’m 100% with Randy. There’s too much other corroborative evidence to concede deliberate fraud. Jerusalem road dust around the feet, Dead Sea halophyte pollens, Accuracy of the blood flows, Wrist nailing contrary to popular belief of hand nailing, First nude Christ breaking current artistic conventions. Ancient Syrian manufacture of linen processing, not medieval linen; Slavishly copying of Vignon markings in hand-made icons; None of these are XYX mantra recitals; The arguments are all mutually independent, they’re in parallel not in series. So they’re corroborative. And that’s not even exploring the historical aspects.
If the image is ever shown to be confirmed as a scorch, then that’s how Jesus decided to do it. Maybe he temporarily transmogrified himself into a “tin man” for the job. But he’d have a problem with not scorching the blood stains. And also the image doesn’t fluoresce under UV. Enough said already. I think we must have exhausted the scorch topic, and we should now move on to some other aspects. There’s plenty we don’t know about to choose from for a fresh topic. Colin can get back to us when he’s completed his totally compliant replica.
Nicely said Dave! You somehow managed to put the whole thing in perspective, in just two paragraphs!
Ron
Every idea so far ever proposed for how the image on cloth was formed won’t work. This includes manmade pictures, naturally formed images and imprints resulting from energy derived from a miracle. This is not a fact. It is a well informed opinion. As I see it, not one idea, even a scorch, has ever come close to being able to duplicate the complexities of the image.
Rogers once wrote of a man who called him on the phone and “pointed out that when you cover a ‘daid boddie’ with a cloth, the flies come to the smell. ‘They poke their little noses through the cloth. And you know what flies leave – – – little black specks. Jest look at that image real close, and you will see that it is made up of a whole bunch of fly specks.’ By that time I was rolling on the floor, and I couldn’t answer him.”
Would you waste as much time on fly speck guy as you do on the scorch guy? You should, it makes more sense. What about paint guy? Or sun bleach guy? Acid etch guy? Photo guy?Corona discharge guy? Worm hole guy? Dematerialization guy? Even Rogers, who was neither a fake guy nor a miracle guy? (With apologies to the gals).
You’ve been played. As a thermochemist I can tell you the image is not the result of a scorch. De Lazzaro already explained why in this blog and to all of SSG. He is 100% right. Rogers also explained it in his FAQ and he is right.
Scorch guy should put up or shut up. He must duplicate all of the complexities of the image. Until then, I say ignore him. Stop. Enough already.
SL
Damn that’s a white-ass Jesus up there.
I think I’d feel very uneasy if I saw a guy with the medieval art style anatomical proportions seen on the shroud. The huge head(with more face than brain case), the tapering limbs with teeny hands and feets, and the fact that he must have been totally flat in order to create such a non-distorted image.
Funny too, the images on the front and the back don’t even line up – explain that away with miracles and magic light or something; I don’t care.