imageIf you read it before June 17, Colin Berry’s latest swansong posting, Kindly acknowledge my modest input, you narrative-driven Shroudies. That goes for Thomas de Wesselow especially  you may have missed this late addition:

Late addition (17 June): the video says "4 months ago", which this blogger took to mean as having been recorded 4 months ago. But it would now appear to be much older, being a recording of a lecture given by Dr.Wesselow to the British Shroud of Turin Society on October 21st 2012.  That kind of exonerates Dr.Wesselow of the second of two charges here (both somewhat tongue-in-cheek I hasten to add) that he borrowed an idea of mine re the Veil of Veronica to set up a  "just a body imprint" hypothesis that could then be shot down (but only by equating "imprint" with "negative-like photograph", a spurious comparison). But he did use one of my contrast/brightness enhanced pictures of the scourge marks from Shroud Scope, which he was more than welcome to, though a credit might have been nice.

People have been tweaking the contrast and brightness on photographs of the shroud for years. Much of this was to better see the scourge marks. What makes Colin Berry think that Thomas de Wesselow copied some of his tweaking?  And if he did, so what?  I mean it is not like this is a big deal – I mean ten or fifteen seconds of seat-of-the-pants, guess-and-by-golly tweaking.  It’s like what?  Copying someone’s recipe for making tea with a tea bag?

Yup! Yup! (Bolding in Colin’s words below is mine)

Anyway, I sat through the 60 minutes or so of de Wesselow’s lecture, apparently (from the brief preamble)  brought to us courtesy of David Rolfe and his Performance Films (DR I have to say  not being my favourite shroudologist, having referred to this blogger not so long ago as a "Johnny Come Lately who will always be a Johnny Come Lately").

Be that as it may, I took careful note of the points being made by de Wesselow in his low key but decidedly partisan pro-authenticity presentation, during  which I sat up at two points with what politely might be called deja vu moments. (Not knowing Dr. de Wesselow personally,or having engaged with him on this or other blogsites, I refer to him here by his surname, with no offence or disrespect intended: one does not wish to seem over-familiar).

The first was when he put up an image of the scourge marks. Yup, I’d definitely seen that image somewhere else, like one of, you know,  my own postings from way, way back, in which the somewhat monochrome Shroud Scope offerings, excellent though they are, had been given some extra contrast and brightness in  Microsoft Office Picture Manager.

Yup, it WAS my enhanced Shroud Scope image, the one you see on the left,  that acknowledges the source, with de Wesselow’s slide on the right, one  that is clearly a cropped version of the one on the left. Nope, there’s nothing wrong with using what’s freely available on the internet (I do it all the time).  But some might think that an acknowledgement to Mario Latendresse for his Shroud Scope, and even (arguably) to myself might not have come amiss.

and this too from Colin:

Now listen you guys, I know I said I was resting, but if you access my postings (as was clearly the case with the enhanced Shroud Scope scourge mark images) and arguably the one I did on the likely Veronica connection, then kindly give a credit. It’s how academe is supposed to operate (or did at any rate between 1963 and 1990 when I was ensconced in those ivory towers – or the immediate hinterland thereof.

It’s also called fair play. Thanking you for your (future) cooperation. Yup, I’ll be watching. Detectives, on the case, never cease WATCHING.