Colin’s latest idea:
Actually, what this experiment shows is that a more intense image is obtained on the impregnated linen [(with lemon juice)] than the control, untreated linen, for heated metal templates at the same temperature. You will have to take my word for now that images can be obtained at lower temperatures on the impregnated linen with scarcely if any image on untreated linen.
It may well be that none of the imaging on treated linen is due to modification of linen carbohydrates, whether the cellulose or even the more heat-sensitive hemicelluloses etc of the primary cell wall. It may be that ALL the image represents pyrolysed products in the lemon juice. In other words, one can have thermal imprinting using a heat-sensitive invisible “ink” that need not damage or affect the linen itself. This makes it more probable that the image thickness meets that 2o0nm criterion!
Is Colin now agreeing to some of the criteria? I like the fact that he is still trying to find a solution that fits his worldview.
Isn’t this “invisible ‘ink’ that need not damage the linen itself” a sort of impurity layer ?
So who put the lemon juice on the Shroud?
Well, he is experimenting, this is a good thing. But he should really buy a microscope and a good optical device to add a macrophotography documentation to his work.
It just seems to me if Colin is as good a scientist as he claims, he would already be beyond this kind of thing. What I am thinking is his doing experiments and failing to provide measurements and other objective data that other scientists and anyone else can review and compare against their own experiments. This reminds me of what Walter McCrone did with his ‘science.’
Indeed, with a microscope Walter McCrone claimed it was a painting, with a microscope will Colin Berry claim it is a scorching ?
Perhaps. Walter McCrone, God rest his soul, was not a very good scientist.
Adhesion of water insolubles (e.g. iron oxyde and/or other “opaques” present in the desert of Judea dust) onto the body skin and/or receiving flax surface could have resulted from the Sharaf (as the TS man’s corpse could have been left in the open for at least one hour) AND a fumigation and drying ritual. All the more so as the long inner burial sheet had to be in-soaked with alkaline waters (waters mixed with ashes and/or Jerusalem malky stone dust) to kill flesh flies’ larvae and blow flies’s eggs.
The tightly wrapped up cloth got somehow taut again and gradually unstuck from body skin in blood and sweat residue covered when the stiff rigid body placed (first on one and then its other side?) in extra height on two stones was subjected to an aloetic/myrrhic aloetic fumigation and dried out within the wrappings..
Thus the concentration-evaporation could have catalyzed the dehydrative oxidation of the cellulose; dissolved the adhered powder and coloured the long inner burial sheet,front and back, according to the body front and back valleys and crests Therefore the TS body (in blood) image is the result of collimated mordancing.
Typo;Therefore the TS body (in blood) image COULD BE the result of collimated mordancing.
Note: the Sharaf (the biblical RuHa Qâdim or East Wind) is an Israel wind more commonly known as Khamsin or the Dark Breath of the desert of Judea .
Typo: RuaH Qadîm
– The “hardwares” for collimation are to be found in the “opaques’ present in the desert of Judea or/and Jerusalem malky stone dust.
– To the sole exception of lateral macro and micro air pockets (and next to no fontal and dorsal ones), the absence of body skin-to-cloth front-and-back air gap prevented the “opaques” being deflected by air molecules,thus somehow creating a molecular beam,
This is just an archaeocryptologist’s gedanken experriment…
Reminder, for ‘owl science bo’ aka Colin Berry:
The Turin Sindon is a REAL burial cloth REALLY bearing a REAL crucifixion victim’s REAL body in REAL blood imprint.
The only snag with that Burrico Linescius is we might well have reached the year 2222 i.e. far toooooo late by the time the information get to his brain.
Typo: we might HAVE TO wait till the year 2222 i.e. far toooooo late by the time the information get to his brain.
I wrote on Colin Berry’s blog a comment he will very soon delete (as he’s customary of the fact):
“In spite of your censorship (freedom of speech, ad hom attacks, insults and the like SHALL be your own exclusive wordlright. It is not for others to pratice at your expense), I’ll endlessly repeat here A FACT you keep ignoring: you’re are an academic ignorant as far as the TS is concerned (you STILL cannot even discriminate between the warp and weft sindon side; nor even between genuine ‘old rejuvenated blood’ stain patterns and painted animal blood etc).
From the very outset, you mostly work from biased TS photographs and STILL have a very poor descriptive knowledge of the relic (you’d better do some more homework). All this would amount for a warrior to train with fake ammo (ammunition) so when war comes he is TOTALLY as UNprepared for the real thing as possible!
You first asserted you scorch theory could be applied to mummies (any news from Egypt?) now you shift to a metallic basrelief with lemon juice… Next step: try a mummified metallic basrelief or a metallically basrelieved mummy with a pigna ColiNADA…?
I too had trouble discriminating between the warp and the weft side of the fabric. Until recently I supposed that the image side was the weft side, imagining that as one sat at a loom weaving, each of the four heddles in turn would lift every fourth thread, and the shuttle would therefore go over three warps and under one. The side facing the weaving would be predominantly weft, and the back side would be predominently warp. However, I wasn’t really thinking: of course when the sheet was cut off the loom, it wouldn’t have a front or a back, and even if it did, there’s no reason to suppose which side might be the one in contact with the ‘body.’
Now I see that the close-ups of the weave were taken when the shroud was horizontal, and that they show predominantly horizontal threads. Unless the photos have been rotated, this means that we are looking at the warp side (as colinsberry and Thibault Heimberger suppose), not the weft.
Is this a correct interpretation?
Yes it is. But the fact remains CB still cannot dicsriminate between the sindon warp side (75% surface warp threads) and its weft side (75% surface weft threads). This tells you how subtle his so-called “scientific” and archaeological” approach may be!
The first time I did notice CB’s ignorance of the fact was on the day he gave his opinion on the Pray codex ms miniature featuring the tomb and its displaced slab. The latter two are cryptically featured as if they were all dressed up in a degree-pyramid patterned long rectangular 3:1 twill fabric punctually stained with blood and dotted with two set of respectively 4 and 5 small holes.
Typo: two setS
Several months ago, I sent Dan by email a flash illustrative paper to account for such a pattern in connection with the Turin Sindon but he never published it in his blog…
Had Dan published it, then Colin Berry could have known about the sindon having two different sides: a warp side and a weft side. Yet this was another story…
Typo: They are not for others to be practiced at your expense
Comments are closed.