UPDATED: The link I provided does not functioning. The page seems to be gone at Colin’s site since it is not listed under Recent Posts. Thus for those who want to see the page, I have put a screen copy of it below the fold (Click read more). It includes the photographs of Rolfe and the pope. He wants you to see the similarity.
Colin Berry, very much a Johnny-come-lately to the world of the shroud who frequently stumbles because he is unfamiliar with shroud literature, complains about being blocked at David’s site:
Do me (and other sceptics) a favour David Rolfe. Acquaint yourself with the literature before posing as the Grand Old Man of Turin Shroudology – and stop blocking comments……
He also accuses me of denying him free speech. He has his own blog and he can rant and rave all he wants there. He has all the free speech he can want. I actually approve almost everything he submits as comments, I just want to see each comment first because he has a tendency to play the role of the junk yard dog as he has done here.
I clicked on “here” and it looks as if Colin’s taken his own posting down, Dan. I guess the exercise of his own free speech on his own web-site might have been too much for him! I’ve generally found it a good policy to monitor one’s own comments before posting them. It mightn’t keep one entirely out of trouble, but it can help to minimise self-generated problems!
Dan,
I really find Colin Berry not only fanatical but offensive. His attack on STURP and you prior to Valencia evoked memories of the worst of the McCarthy era abuses. That is why I posted so sarcastically, I think he should adopt a new handle: Rumpelstilskin. He is a classical blogosphere troll.
I will no longer attempt to engage with commenting on his posts (except when the idiocy devolves to more personal attacks that can not be ignored.
It’s funny, you always have a picture in the back of your mind what people look like, and I must say the one posted above was pretty darn close to how I imaged Colin ;-) …
…Sorry couldn’t help myself.
Anyways Colin shouldn’t feel so bad, or singled out as David hasn’t posted several of my posts either, and has actually pulled some off lol…no big deal.
R
Does anyone has ever think that if this guy is so agressive against the Shroud and the Shroud world, it is probably because inside of him, he intuits very strong that the shroud is authentic and it scares him ! On the contrary to his agressive reaction, the vast majority of the agnostics and atheist I know react that way when I talk to them about the Shroud : It’s an interesting subject but… so what ? Authentic or not, the vast majority of those people, unlike Colin, don’t seem to give a dawm about the Shroud ! That’s why I always had the impression that the Shroud is here for us, the believer, in order to strengthen our faith, well before being there for the unbelievers, in order to make them believe in Christ. In other word, I don’t think the Shroud is a great tool for proselytism… Maybe (just maybe) for a minority of atheists and agnostics, but surely not for the majority of this group !
Paolo Di Lazzaro
Collapse
Dear David,thank you very much for taking the lead for this challenge.
I am convinced it is be a milestone to be faced by everybody may claim he/she knows how a forger did the body image on the Shroud.
I completely agree with CES that the challenge should be addressed to everybody, and not to a specific person/organization. Obviously, next time Dr Dawkins or other scholars repeat the statement that Shroud is an hoax, they have to face with your challenge.
First step was done, the next should be spreading this challenge everywhere, blogosphere, websites, papers, conferences, and so on.
At the same time, I am happy you don’t consider the text proposed at Valencia as cast in stone. As you know, in Valencia I suggested to add some “numbers” to avoid a vague definition of, e.g. the superficiality of body image.
This is because in the case of superficiality we have a number of experimental evidences. On the one hand we have the very important results of Rogers who was unable to measure the thickness of the many colored ghosts pellicle because of the diffraction limitation of the optical microscope he used. This means the colored thickness was smaller than the shortest visible wavelength, 410 nm. On the other hand, we have the result of the superficiality paper published in Journal of Imaging Science and Technology (2010) that estimates experimentally the colored thickness as 200 nm +- 200 nm.
So, in this case we may agree on a range of coloration between 200 and 400 nm (i.e. 0,2-0,4 micrometers) approximately.
It isn’t an academic cavil. Making a numerical statement on superficiality allows to avoid the possibility that a scholar trying a “Nickell like” experiment comes to say: – I achieved a ten-micrometer color thickness, so it does not penetrate below the fiber (which is 20 micrometer thick) and I matched your characteristic no. 2 –
A characteristic more that maybe considered for insertion is connected with the forensic details unknown in the Middle Age, for example the presence of exudates and high levels of bilirubin mixed with blood, which would be consistent with a haemolytic process caused by torture. The bilirubin is only visible by using UV lamps, such as those used by policemen to detect organic traces. These were obviously unavailable in the MiddleAges.
Discussion is open!
.In any case, apart from minor adjustement, the most important fact is that a challenge started having a general agreement. Unanimity is not possible for humans, but a general agreement is. Thank you David for this effort and remarkable result.
All the best
Paolo Di Lazzaro
http://www.shroud-enigma.com/Valencia/image-characteristics-%20consensus-shroud-of-turin.html#
:)
I’m sorry, but I do not know English, I’m from Georgia, but I’m working on this issue in Georgia successfully, thank you very much! *
georgia Tbilisi :)
Hey what happen to the Bull dog picture? My joke is ruined now ;-(
R
If the so-called “Concensus” and the so-called “pollen evidence that Jesus was buried with the Royal honors” is the only “important” things that have come out of the Conference of Valencia, I think the participants of this event should have stayed relax at home !!! ;-)
I think those conferences are more and more redundant and less and less relevant since it’s been almost 35 years now since the last in-deep and direct scientific research was done on this cloth. Unless the Vatican agree on a new protocol of direct scientific researches done by a team of experts, I think those kind of conferences will be more and more useless in the future.