Home > Image Theory, Other Blogs > Colin Berry: It’s the negative image with 3D properties, stoopid

Colin Berry: It’s the negative image with 3D properties, stoopid

June 1, 2015

The Urban Dictionary defines stoopid as having the quality of being really, really, really, stupid.

My current two-stage imprinting/developing model, which the world of Shroudology
is still largely ignoring …

imageColin tells us on his blog:

Digression: Yup, it’s how real science operates – there is no obligation in model-building to incorporate other people’s assumptions or preconceptions that might not have been given as much prior thought beforehand: science ain’t democratic, and would not have made such speedy progress between the 17th and 20th century if that had been the case. Science is unashamedly elitist, which is why scientists rely on each other via ‘peer-review’ to judge the fitness for publication in respected journals. There is no trial by media where traditional science is concerned. Internet-reporting of science in real time via the internet is a different matter entirely, which is why this blogger is taking the trouble right now to spell out the difference between a painting and an imprint, and will be explaining shortly why the a priori  indications are that the TS image IS an imprint, not merely an artist’s attempt to simulate an imprint, or even a hybrid of painting and imprint, reiterating yet again his amazement that STURP bothered to squander so much time, energy and resources on checking out the depressingly third-rate “just a painting “ hypothesis when there were far more pressing questions to address re the MECHANISM of imprinting.  STURP was supposed to be an elite task force, and should have behaved as such, eliminating non-starters from its model-building assumptions, and indeed should have STARTED WITH A MODEL, instead of thinking one could go in with space-age equipment and simply hoover up the relevant facts, arriving on time at a destination called Truth. Sorry, all you STURP defenders, but that’s not how science (real science, that is) works in the real world. Indeed, it sometimes fails to reach its destination on  time, even using its preferred model building approach. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: experimentally-based model building is the worst form of enquiry, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.

So, to the question: why are/were we supposed to see the TS image as an imprint, a real imprint, not just an artist’s impression of an imprint, the answer, correction , answers, are painfully simple:

1. It’s the close correspondence to events leading up to and immediately following Joseph of Arimathea’s arrival at the cross bearing expensive linen for wrapping and transporting a sweat and blood-stained body, likely to leave an imprint, stoopid
2. It’s the up-and-over double image, on high quality linen, stoopid.
3. It’s the life-sized image, stoopid.
4. It’s the negative image with 3D properties, stoopid.
5. It’s the cardboard cut-out look, stoopid, with no imaging of sides, stoopid.
6. It’s the image superficiality, stoopid
7. It’s the real-looking bloodstains, stoopid.
8. It’s the absence of a loin cloth, stoopid.
9. It’s the absence of a crown of thorns, just strategically-sited blood stains in the hair etc, stoopid.
10. It’s those spindly fingers, exactly as expected from real imprinting, stoopid
11. Ten killer clues should be more than enough to be getting on with. If you want more than 10, then it’s the whole darn shebang, stoopid.

To conclude: to those of us who ain’t stoopid, the Turin Shroud IS a real imprint.

The real question is whether the TS could only have been formed by imprinting of the real Jesus onto his burial shroud, as we are repeatedly asked to consider and/or believe by certain self-styled "scientists", OR whether it could have been faked by a medieval artisan.

This retired scientist’s own position, after some 3.5 years of research, albeit in kitchen and garage: of course it could have been faked. My current two-stage imprinting/developing model, which the world of Shroudology is still largely ignoring (Thibault Heimburger MD being a notable  exception) – or maybe has yet to learn of – shows how it could have been accomplished, at least in principle. It ain’t rocket science. Indeed, it’s part kitchen science, starting with plain white flour. Medieval alchemists could have supplied the nitric acid.

Hopefully my model will not turn out to be a damp squib,  the way the STURP Summary was a damp squib, with much pseudo-science following in its wake, much of the latter coming from senior STURP members who, in view of their unique  STURP credentials should  have exercised greater self-restraint, no matter what their particular ‘world view’.

Categories: Image Theory, Other Blogs
  1. John Klotz
    June 1, 2015 at 5:09 am

    To paraphrase the Momma of the esteemed philosopher Forest Gump: stoopid is as stoopid does.

    I am in awe of Colin’s incredible arrogance. He expects to make a point by calling all those who disagree with him “stoopid”?

    Stop calling people and ideas you disagree with names, Colin. Anyone who has studied even Freshman rhetoric knows it one of the oldest logical fallacies: the ad hominem attack. Stupid is as stupid does.

    John Heller had Albert Einstein as an advisor when he was a college student. Were they both stoopid? Who advised you in college Colin: Walt Disney?

    Maybe I missed his point, but if so the subtlety escaped me.

  2. daveb of wellington nz
    June 1, 2015 at 6:03 am

    Some three years ago when Colin first embarked on his kitchen experiments, in those far-off days it was then a scorch of course, I recall that one correspondent commented that Colin would end up scientifically proving the resurrection. With his latest “imprint experiments” he might unwittingly even be getting closer to this end-point.

    “The real question is whether the TS could only have been formed by imprinting of the real Jesus onto his burial shroud, as we are repeatedly asked to consider and/or believe by certain self-styled “scientists”, OR whether it could have been faked by a medieval artisan. This retired scientist’s own position, after some 3.5 years of research, albeit in kitchen and garage: of course it could have been faked.”

    A logical caution: “Of course it could have been faked” even if so shown to be the case, cannot prove in any instance that it was indeed faked, and certainly cannot even prove that it was faked in a particular way! It would be no more than one of several plausible hypotheses! Other evidence would be needed to demonstrate some residual signs of any alleged specific forgery method. This would seem to be the more accurate, truly scientific, conclusion!

  3. Thibault HEIMBURGER
    June 4, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    See:
    http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2015/06/are-peculiar-fingers-of-turin-shroud.html

    Colin:
    If I understand well your “Nutella’s experiments” (!) show that : “coated hand pressed downward into linen” (rather than “linen molded onto coated back of hand”) could explain the “peculiar fingers” of the TS image.’

    For the time being, i don’t see anything resembling the TS image.

    You wrote (in red): “What you see above is the most scientifically-revealing image in the current posting, and dare I say, the most important in my 300 postings to date (I confidently expect more charges of arrogance). Loosely draped linen, hanging under the force of Earth’s gravity alone does NOT conform to finer details of body contours, certainly not anything so discrete and detailed as the bunched fingers of the hand. (Yes, the test needs to be repeated with a weightier length of linen fully matching that of the Shroud, but I’m confident that the outline of individual fingers will NOT be seen through the linen). ”

    Really?

    • daveb of wellington nz
      June 4, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      I can’t see that Colin’s Nutella experiment can explain the apparent X-Ray images of the fingers that many claim to observe, but very low-dose radiation might do it. Nevertheless the experiments are informative in showing what would be observed if an imprint.

    • anoxie
      June 5, 2015 at 3:11 am

      “Really?”

      No, that’s a stoopid model.

      • daveb of wellington nz
        June 5, 2015 at 3:17 am

        Anoxie, I see Colin’s experiments as of value in showing both what is possible and what is not possible, even though this may not be what he intends!

        • anoxie
          June 5, 2015 at 3:28 am

          daveb, as Thibault noticed, he doesn’t even draw the good conclusions out of his own experiments, and this is not the first time.

          “stoopid” is mostly for the conclusion, naive would be for the model.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: