Why do you ignore the new science, Mr.Rolfe? Does it not fit with your preconceptions, the ones you were so keen to have carved on tablets of zone (sic maybe) when you pestered the conference participants at Valencia to subscribe to your list of largely dud or redundant “consensus” points.
Science by consensus? No thanks. I prefer science by free unfettered enquiry, science by thinking out of the box. That’s why I am a published scientist and why you are a film producer, Mr. Rolfe, the difference being that I have no desire to wear a second hat as a film producer, while you … oh never mind.
This follows your sometimes flippant remarks on the seven image characteristics in the Dawkins Challenge. Look, I have taken issue with these and with the challenge. We should do so when merited. But why the flippancy like, “I thought real bodies, living or dead, had sides.”
I know, David has banned some of your comments on his site. Can you blame him?
Let’s look at your responses (in italics):
1. The body image is created by molecular change of linen fibres. There are also bloodstains. There is no body image beneath the bloodstains. (For the avoidance of doubt, this characteristic does not exclude the possibility that the molecular change may have taken place in an impurity layer at the linen surface).
Yes, there is probably molecular change of linen fibres. That’s if one excludes Rogers’ Occam’s Razor blunting hypothesis, the one that posits a chemical reaction between putrefaction vapours and surface impurities. It was the initial omission of that and the criticism that followed that occasioned Rolfe’s later addition in italics. Shame it makes the opening statement self-contradictory.
There’s a simpler name for the molecular change in the linen fibres. It is called a scorch. It is not necessarily in the cellulose. It is more likely to be in the hemicelluloses of the primary cell wall.
There are no proven bloodstains, or at any rate ORIGINAL bloodstains. There may be pigmented stains that look like blood (strange that they are eternally red, differ from the spectrum of known porphyrins, lack potassium etc but never mind, let’s not get hung up on the geekish detail).
The original real or look-alike “bloodstains” may have later been touched up with blood, blood serum or fake blood. That’s a bit more complicated than saying “bloodstains”. But then science, real science, does tend be more complicated than the made- for-TV variety.
2 The body image does not penetrate below the surface fibres. The body image is not visible when illuminated by transmitted light. The bloodstains are.
Yes, the body image is superficial, It is called a scorch. Scorches tend to be superficial What bloodstains? Proof positive please.
3 The body image varies in intensity that correlates to expected cloth-body distances had the cloth covered a body.
Where is the proof that the cloth was ever draped over a real body? Ever heard the expression “begging the question”? (Original meaning, that is, not to be confused with “inviting the question”)
4 The sides of the body are not represented even where blood has transferred to the cloth and between the head images.
Yes, we have no side image. That means there was no imaging of the sides. That’s because only the frontal and dorsal sides were imaged. Does that sound like a real body was imaged? I thought real bodies, living or dead, had sides.
5 The resolution of the image is sufficient to resolve body features of a few millimetres.
6 There are no outlines or directionality to the body image within the plane of the cloth.
Sounds like a thermal imprint if you ask me, produced by pressing cloth against a heated template. It’s what cattle ranchers call a brand (produced by pressing a heated template, aka branding iron, against cattle hide). Ever heard of transferable skills?
7 The body image has the visual characteristics of a photographic negative. That is, normal light and dark areas are reversed.
Again, it’s what cattle ranchers call a brand.
Fancy? Is rudeness a substitute for substance?