imageAs he promised he would, Collin Berry is responding to a posting on my site from several months ago entitled, “Colin Berry’s idea is untenable, and heat cannot produce a superficial coloration”.  He writes:

But we are not discussing infrared radiation dear chap [referring to Di Lazzaro]. I have not mentioned it, except in my very first posting on the Shroud of Turin,  back in Dec 2011, if only to point out that infrared will not scorch white linen unless a dark absorbing pigment is present, to give what I called  a thermo-stencilling effect, with non-coated linen being unscorched. What’s more, your experiments did not discuss infrared. You went straight for uv radiation –  based presumably on the flawed reasoning provided above that attempts to airbrush conduction  out of the picture, substituting secondary radiation for no good reason, except as a sleight-of-hand.  So why are you bringing in infrared? It is a complete red herring, or should that be infrared herring?

And then there is this. Did Colin just say, wherein he writes below “So there,” that because nobody agrees with him everybody else is wrong (just friendly joshing you, Colin)?

Your [meaning Di Lazzaro] “well known physics models” are phoney models, ones that would have the gullible or impressionable reader believe that the energy in conducted heat is converted to radiant heat without affecting the carbohydrates in IMMEDIATE contact with the metal. Your claimed pyrolysis of whole threads is based on entirely bogus reasoning, yet in the six months that screed of yours above has been displayed on Dan Porter’s blog, no one (apart from myself) has pointed out the spurious nature of your reasoning, or the false premises upon which your recourse to high energy radiation – laser-generated uv no less – is based . Nor has anyone supported me against the attacks you have made on my conclusions, ones that are based on a REALISTIC source of thermal energy underpinned with sound scientific theory. So there is much that is seriously wrong with your science, and much too that is wrong with the Porter site that is used as a portal for the kind of disinformation that you and others promulgate in the name of science.

imageVirtually everything you have written is what I have previously described as Mickey Mouse science. Rest assured that I shall  continue to describe it as such for as long as you continue to ignore or trash fundamental physical and chemical principles in the way that you do, purely to justify your wacky (and no doubt agenda-driven) line of research with laser beams.

PDL: Useless to say, it is all the approach of Colin Berry to find a middle age technology able to create the Shroud image that is hopeless: just consider the half tone effect.  It could not have been made by medieval forgers because they would need a modern microscope to observe and then control their micrometric-scale coloration.

That too is Mickey Mouse – albeit in a comedic sense. As mentioned earlier I have already proposed  an explanation for the curious half-tone effect. To the best of my knowledge, nobody else has done so. Maybe that’s why my hemicellulose posting has had those 800 or so hits, with new ones arriving each day, 6 months after it was posted.

And there is this:

. . . In short, he [=Di Lazzaro] is displaying a monumental blind spot to the immediate and HIGHLY LOCALISED  effects of conducted heat on the superficial fibres of linen, and indeed the superficial component of those fibres, namely the PCWs, and instead, ignoring all of that and focusing on downstream and (probably) largely inconsequential effects.

Accidental or deliberate oversight? I leave that to readers to decide…  Either way, it is MICKEY MOUSE SCIENCE. (emphasis Berry’s)