I’ve decided that I no longer mind it when one scientist calls another scientist a “Mickey Mouse Scientist,” as Colin Berry does this morning in his blog. I may be wrong, but I realize now that it is a cheap shot in lieu of being able to criticize effectively. My personal vision of a good scientist doesn’t embrace derision of colleagues. To so insult a fellow scientist defines the source.
Colin, in his blog, reminded me this morning (afternoon for him) of a posting from February of 2012. He writes, “Here’s a link to a Mickey Mouse scientist.” He is referring to Paolo Di Lazzaro. At Colin’s urging, go have a look.
Paolo never came back to this blog after the insult. Maybe I should have kicked Colin out then but I stood on principle. I wanted all voices represented. Too many people have been driven away by Colin’s insults.
I do happen to think the shroud is real. That is different from knowing it is real. Colin accuses me of pushing a pro-authenticity agenda. In another blog Stephen Jones accuses me of being anti-authenticity. Take your pick. Would I rather know the truth about the shroud no matter what it is? Of course, I would. Does Colin believe that? I doubt it. Should I wonder if Colin is completely objective? Would I believe him if he said he was? I would like to think so. I wonder, though.
I am a skeptic at heart. I am skeptical of many things claimed about the shroud. I don’t think there are coins on eyes or images of flowers on the cloth. I’m not convinced by the evidence that there is no image content under the bloodstains. When it comes to possible material intrusion in the area from which the radiocarbon dating samples were taken, I’m not convinced that the blue quad mosaics tell us anything useful. I don’t buy some of the interpretations by John Jackson or Don Lynn concerning the 3D data inherent (not encoded) in the images. There are many things I doubt.
You must read Colin’s latest posting in which he covers so many, many things. A thousand words is worth a picture, right? His newest posting, today, is more than 5,000 words. Read what he says about Paolo.
I agree with much of what he says and I disagree with other things he says. For now, there is too much to discuss. But have a look at the ImageJ work he is doing. Is that cityscape-like image partly the result of banding? Click on the image to see it enlarged in Colin’s blog space.
I’m disappointed to see how he generalizes and characterizes people who think the shroud is real (Fair Use):
It’s got to be a photograph of the crucified Jesus, miraculously preserved , right, albeit as a non-photogenic negative, intended as a present to 20th century man, right? Right? Do I hear any voices of dissension? No? [ . . . ]
I am a voice of dissention. Colin should know it. I have repeatedly said that I have never found a single theory or hypothesis for the images that I can accept. Nothing yet appeals to me and it is not because of my world view or my religion or any assumptions. I have never seen enough evidence to convince me that the image is or is not God-made, naturally made or manmade. Who knows, maybe Colin will be proven right in the end. Maybe it is a contact scorch. Maybe it is a picture of Jacques de Molay. I doubt it but let’s see. Colin seems to think it is our job to prove that he is wrong.
Time will tell.
I think that for the sake of clarity, you should not have splitted the post on banding, into one, two, three, four posts… A confusing pdf… And i don’t know what’s going to pop up.
Thibault has paraphrased.
Banding is real.
What you see here is just what i’ve predicted at the end of “banding? Is it real?”
“this spoonfeeding will trigger another version in CB far fetched theories.”
There is no more science in this one than in the ludicrious first post of Colin about banding.
I won’t put a resume next to my name, maybe, Thibault will wake up, repeat what i say, and be listened to, that’s the Thibault’s effect.
If on such a basic issue one is misunderstood, there is no need to argue any longer.
As I wrote around a week ago, Dan, Time will tell.
Where do you think I stole the wording? From Colin Berry?
Good to see you agreed with my wording, Dan. The discussion on the image is becoming a game of ping pong. It could be OK if it was only that, but it isn’t. The same things are being repeated over and over again. One day or the other someone may find an undeniable link between the TS and the Image of Edessa, fresh carbon dating may tell us something, Shroud conferences may produce new and convincing theories, or some scientist may feel he has made an exact copy of the TS. Time will tell.
Time will tell… about what?
So far, i’ve restrained myself to tackle each issue one by one. The latest being the banding.
The banding effect is not an illusion, and time has nothing to do with it.
Even a game of ping pong has rules, and a score.
Time will tell: it will give us the last word about the TS.
And in the meantime we can say what it is not. Data have been collected, and if you want to build a theory you’ve to deal with it.
Here, we’ve been merely talking about high definition pictures of the Shroud.
I have noticed that those who have examined the relic ignore what is being said by others who are working on high definition pictures. They seem decided about what it is and what it is not. This is not to say that discussion about high definition pictures should be ruled out, it is necessary, as long as things are not repeated over and over again.
Since the relic is no longer available, at least for the time being, for fresh hand-on examination, Turin could at least release the almost 2000 microphotographs taken during the restoration it has in its possession. Time will tell,but the sooner the better.
We’re talking about banding here, not playing ping pong. Who has ignored what claimed by whom on which basis?
Sorry, have a look at what people who have seen the relic have published. I am not saying they are 100% correct, but then it is apparent that they find most of the discussion to be speculation.
Sorry, i don’t get your point.
What I am trying to say is that the discussion going on in the blog is ignored by many of the Shroud scientists, whether they have examined the relic or not. Dan pointed this out in a thread around two weeks ago. Now, why is this happening? Is it because the discussion is considered to be nothing more than mere speculation?
Ok. I don’t really care.
Best recent contributions to the study of the Shroud have been made by… Thibault Heimburger and Kelly Kearse.
I’ve already given my opinion on PDL, Fanti, Jackson… the Valencia consensus…
I have found an interesting idea to apply:
Local Nano-Thermal Analysis with an AFM = Nano heating probes allow for rapid heating and cooling and precise temperature control…. !
In this manner we can see what happens on linen fibrils (at nanolevel),
perhaps with a great precision (… and on different kind of preatement for fibrils…).
Shroud conferences have to take into account that analytical problem.
Do you agree ?
First of all … Errata corrige :
preatement for fibrils = wrong
pretreatments for fibrils = right
— — — — —
You indicated the argument : a contact scorch…
If we want to control in a careful manner our linen samples
(coming from the experiments with materials treated as in ancient times
and not from modern treatments !), then we have to observe what happens
at nanolevel !
See also :
Nano-TA is a local thermal analysis technique which combines the high spatial resolution imaging capabilities of atomic force microscopy with the ability to obtain understanding of the thermal behaviour of materials with a spatial resolution of sub-100nm.
The conventional AFM tip is replaced by a special nano-TA probe that has an embedded miniature heater and is controlled by the specially designed nano-TA hardware and software.
The user can select the spatial locations at which they would like
to investigate the thermal properties of the surface
Then the user obtains interesting informations by applying heat locally
via the probe tip and measuring the thermomechanical response.
Is that argument (= Nano Thernal Analysis) a speculation ?
Nano TA is an useful technique to identify the behavior of the material
subjected to heat.
Is my intervention only another confusing and discordant note ?
I do not think so …
Then … I hope in your comments.
Comments are closed.