Colin Berry: Hardly copper-bottomed evidence for so crucial a question

imageColin Berry in commenting on Getting the Left and the Right Right in this blog writes in his blog One picture can be worth a thousand words …:

Conclusion: the blood from the (alleged)  ‘spear wound’ is on the subject’s right side, so appears on the LEFT side of the subject’s imprint (your right).

Shame there’s no sign of a wound on the body image that corresponds with all that blood, but that’s another story,  one that has been addressed previously on this site, back in August.  Suffice it to say that bloodstains on the Shroud (head, hair, wrist, feet, side, scourge marks should not be regarded  as synonymous with wounds when (a) the latter are NOT apparent on the body image, AND (b)  one is less than 100%  certain that the Man on the Shroud is NOT a forgery, e.g.  in which the blood was painted onto a wound-free body image to convey the impression of wounds.

But do I hear you say that the blood came first, did it not, so was unlikely to have been painted on?  So we are told, but as I’ve said on a number of previous occasions here, the evidence for ‘blood first- body image second’  rests upon qualitative spot tests  from just one laboratory with a protein-digesting enzyme on a microscope slide – hardly copper-bottomed evidence for so crucial a question.

It will be the anniversary of my first Shroud posting in just 3 days time. My next post will attempt to summarise my current, now better informed  position after another 135 postings. It will  include the crucial but neglected issue addressed above: which came first – blood or body image?

In 1781, The London Magazine mentions the use copper on Royal Navy ships. I like the phrase:

Admiral Keppel made a remark upon copper bottomed ships. He said they gave additional strength to the navy and he reproached Lord Sandwich with having refused to sheath only a few ships with copper at his request, when he had since ordered the whole navy to be sheathed.

7 thoughts on “Colin Berry: Hardly copper-bottomed evidence for so crucial a question”

  1. CB’s lack of expertise in archaeological/ancient bloodstain pattern analysis is bare-bottomed evidence for so crucial a question so much so he cannot even tell genuine ancient bloodstained wound patterns from a fake wound painted with a leech used as a felt-tipped-pen.

  2. CB is a Turin Shroud arch-ignoramus thinking himself smarter than forensic pathologists such as Pr. Bucklin, Pr. Baima-Bollone and Pr. Zubige when it comes to medically examine and identify a wound whether from a HD photograph at scale 1:1 or directly from the burial cloth.

    1. He definately should read Pierre Barbet’s book A Doctor At Calvary and Alan Adler’s book The Orphaned Manuscript. But even then, I’m sure he would denied 95% of what he would read in those books ! When someone has made up his mind against the Shroud…

  3. Well, so far the ridiculous man with an agenda has denigrated the expertise of Rogers, Jackson, Adler, Bucklin, Baima-Ballone, Zugabie, Soons & Barbet. I guess there’s only one scientist who’s expert in every subject (with a title): Colin Berry the self-absorbed. My hat’s off to you, Sir, for forging to places no one with half a brain would go.

  4. Colin is only able to fire his arrows because there has been little in the way of a formal scientific programme on the Shroud since 1978, some 34 years. Most of any work that has been done since then seems to have been carried out by individual enthusiasts, working in an unconnected way, all going in separate directions. Whether that is a good thing or not for arriving at scientific conclusions might be debated. However most of the general work in Science in modern times appears to be best when there is some kind of corporate structure underpinning it to give it coherence. However such work also requires heavy investment, and there are limits to what kitchen science can achieve unassisted. The results will generally appear to be amateurish, and an easy target for pseudo-skeptic criticism.

    1. “… such work also requires heavy investment, … “: There is no clear indication of any kind of tangible financial return that such an investment could generate – they would be intangible only; Investors look for rather more, unless they can be written off as a tax break. Book sales could be a possibility, but definitely limited. Donations, anyone?

      1. Crowdfunding would definitively work if a comprehensive and scientifically serious roadmap is previously defined.

Comments are closed.