Home > Image Theory, Science > Colin Berry on Rogers, Groupies, Me and Trolls

Colin Berry on Rogers, Groupies, Me and Trolls

July 25, 2015

That experiment of Rogers was frankly fudged to give the desired result.  This researcher despises fudged demonstrations. What we see above is pseudo-science. This is the kind of “science” that assorted trolls and fanatics are so keen to promote on Porter’s site, and the site’s owner let’s them do it, year after year after year.

The idea that starch ‘falls apart’ with time to make what Rogers called “crude starch”, conveniently a source of reducing sugar for his Maillard reaction, is a complete fiction. Rogers may be some people’s chemical guru. He is not mine. His Shroud reseacrh(sic) is rifddled(sic) with serious errors and/or blind spots and a serious deficiency of strict scientific objectivity.

— Colin Berry


imageThose are pretty serious accusations Colin has made during the past three days in his blog. Can he possibly be right?

Colin gets upset if you don’t read his full postings as he writes  them on his own site. But he makes it hard by posting his thoughts in chunks that are halfway between a blog posting, diary entry and a scrambled egg. Here is a Texas Two-Step process for finding what he wants you to read:

  1. Click on his posting, Here’s an updated version of my ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud” (probably a misnomer).
  2. Scroll down until you see a paragraph that starts with, “This blogger has already been accused of plagiarizing Rogers’ ideas.”  It’s about 80% of the way down an overly long page.

After reading for a minute or less you’ll get to this:

It’s an experiment that Dan Porter describes as a “success”. Did he bother consulting a chemist before making that judgement?

It was NOT a success at all, if intended to show that a Maillard reaction can occur between starch and ammonia at room temperature as a model for the Turin Shroud. Note first that it did not use starch, which we are told was an impurity coating on the linen. It used “dextrins” which are  highly degraded starch,  more sugar than starch. That substitution, easily overlooked because Rogers makes no attempt to justify it, gets around the small difficulty that Maillard reactions require reducing SUGARS. Starch is not a reducing sugar. Nor does it easily “fall apart” to make reducing sugar. Google “lintnerization”. It gets worse. Saponins have been added as well. Why? Because the linen is now said to be impregnated not only with starch (pity about the absence of analytical data) but with saponins too (they were used as a kind of soap see in the 1st century AD). Saponins (again, no analytical data) that just happen to have lots of pentose (5-carbon) sugars in their carbohydrate polymers. Pentose sugars are chemically more reactive than 6-carbon sugars like glucose or highly degraded starch. Pentose sugars react more readily than hexose sugars to give Maillard reaction products.  But it doesn’t end there. Note Rogers’ choice of “putrefaction amine”, the simplest amine of all – ammonia- a highly volatile gas, half as light as air. Note that his mixture of degraded starch and saponins was exposed to ammonia gas for 24 hours. We are supposed to be impressed that he demonstrated a Maillard reaction at room temperature. What’s easily overlooked is that excess ammonia raises pH, and that Maillard reactions that are normally sluggish at room temperature are greatly assisted by an alkaline pH. So on three counts – degraded strarch, saponins and alkaline pH – we see Rogers’ so-called Maillard reaction being assisted by dubious means, of no proven relevance to a 1st century tomb.  To cap it all, we are given no evidence that the yellow colour was in fact a Maillard product. It may have been, it may not – some supporting data was needed before ASSUMING it was a Maillard product and not (say) a product from exposing saponin or sugars to alkali and oxygen. Why were there no controls?

[…]

There is this on groupies

Note too by the way the absurdity of claiming that Rogers found starch on the STURP samples (he didn’t) while his model requires reducing sugars that would require highly degraded starch that would no longer give a positive test for starch (e.g. a blue-black colour with iodine).  Good, isn’t it?  Day after day we see one Rogers ‘groupie’ banging on endlessly that Rogers DID find starch (no he didn’t) and another Rogers’ groupie insistent that Rogers’ Maillard model is the correct one, despite unfavourable thermodynamics at low temperature/ordinary pH,  requiring reducing sugar, not starch.  Why does Dan Porter allow this self-contradictory, self-defeating nonsense to continue, month after month, year after year. Why does he allow his site to be ruled – and ruined – by this kind of fanaticism that is blind or indifferent to the facts?

[…]

On Rogers’ experiment:

That experiment of Rogers was frankly fudged to give the desired result.  This researcher despises fudged demonstrations. What we see above is pseudo-science. This is the kind of “science” that assorted trolls and fanatics are so keen to promote on Porter’s site, and the site’s owner let’s them do it, year after year after year.

And how was Rogers’ able to substitute dextrins, i.e. highly degraded starch, made commercially by heating starch with strong acid, or digesting with amylase enzymes, for intact starch? Simple. He refers to his dextrins as “crude starch”.That is taking one enormous liberty with words. When one extracts starch from a planr source, one may use the term “crude starch” to imply there are non-starch contaminants, e.g protein or cell wall material. To describe  the starch as crude to imply that it is partially degraded to low molecular weight dextrins, simple sugars  with reducing properties, as needed for Maillard reactions. etc  is quite simply appalling. If Rogers were here today, I would tell him to his face that he was at least deceiving himself if he imagined that linen initially impregnated with “crude starch” would supply the “reducing sugar” needed for his Maillard reaction, with or without prior ageing of the manufactured fabric. Starch does not, as I said earlier, easily fall apart. The glycosidic linkages in starch are strong and not easily broken.

[…]

On cowardly people with pseudonyms and trolls

Message to Dan Porter: this blogger is a retired professional biochemist. If anyone doubts my professionalism, then they must come to this site under their real name and be prepared to argue the science in detail. What I am not prepared to tolerate is having my science cut-and-paste to your site site for a cowardly individual, operating under a pseudonym, to attack my professionalism, usually with no attempt to address the detail. That is trolling. You have no business using my content, while allowing a troll to operate freely and unhindered on your site.  If you wish to use my material, then eject the troll from your site, or ban her from commenting on my material. If you wish to allow the troll to carry on as usual, attacking my professional credentials, then kindly stop using my material. In short, observe comm0nsense netiquette.

[…]

And on serious errors and/or blind spots:

The idea that starch ‘falls apart’ with time to make what Rogers called “crude starch”, conveniently a source of reducing sugar for his Maillard reaction, is a complete fiction. Rogers may be some people’s chemical guru. He is not mine. His Shroud reseacrh is rifddled with serious errors and/or blind spots and a serious deficiency of strict scientific objectivity.

[…]

 

Ouch!

Again, here is a Texas Two-Step process for finding what Colin wants you to read because you may want to read it:

  1. Click on his posting, Here’s an updated version of my ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud” (probably a misnomer).
  2. Scroll down until you see a paragraph that starts with, “This blogger has already been accused of plagiarizing Rogers’ ideas.”  It’s about 80% of the way down an overly long page.
Categories: Image Theory, Science Tags:
  1. July 25, 2015 at 10:56 am

    As far as i’m concerned, I’m not responsible for what Colin, or Yannick think. Get a specific reference to one of my comments, then we’ll start to argue on this basis, because these are serious accusations.

  2. July 25, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Colin is a good chemist. I don’t doubt that. I’m curious, therefore, why he is so angry at just about everyone?

    • Yannick Clément
      July 25, 2015 at 5:08 pm

      He’s angry at anyone who doesn’t think like him. Period. Human nature.

  3. July 25, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    If Colin expects people to spend their days reading his lengthy comments, he need to make them digestible. I have given up even trying to plough my way through them! He seems to think that we have a duty to read them even though it is impossible to keep up with where he is at.
    But I do think h e needs to do so e more work on how shrines worked or failed to work before he tells us exactly what was going on at Lirey! It seems very typical of me of the shrines in the years after the Black Death that spring up and attracted amass of pilgrims before the church moved in to close them down. This has nothing to do with whether the Shroud is authentic or not.

  4. daveb of wellington nz
    July 25, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    A particularly common problem with specialists is that they need to be narrowly focused on their own particular discipline, no matter what that particular discipline might be, whether it’s chemistry, history, palynology, textiles, forensics, art, biblical exegesis or whatever. The advantage of the specialist is that he can research in depth on a single particular aspect, even though it may blind him to other possibly more important aspects. For the rest of us, we need to keep the bigger picture in mind, and be prepared to make an attempt at the totality of evidence from the several fields. Natural human imitations can be such a bother.

    • Yannick Clément
      July 25, 2015 at 5:07 pm

      Good comment. That’s why I think Adler should only have studied the blood and nothing else. He was an expert in that field… In that regard, he shouldn’t have studied the image, nor take position concerning the conservation.

      And when it comes to Maillard reactions, if you read well the paper published by Heimburger “ROGERS’ MAILLARD REACTION HYPOTHESIS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL BY ROGERS HIMSELF”, you’ll see that Rogers never claimed he was an expert in this kind of very complex reaction. That’s precisely why, being the good scientist that he was (i.e. someone who consider all the data while following the scientific method properly), he got in touch with someone who was an expert in that field (Arnoldi) and wrote his Maillard reaction hypothesis paper with her! She was a chemist of the Department of Pharmacological Sciences in Milano, Italy and an expert in this kind of chemical process.

      So, when Berry attack the integrity of Rogers versus the Maillard reactions hypothesis, he also attack the integrity of a chemist who was an expert in that particular field and who agreed that the image formation hypothesis proposed by Rogers could offer a viable explanation for the Shroud image. I prefer by far to follow the Professional opinion of an expert like her than anything coming from Colin Berry who, this is evident, DON’T WANT Rogers to be right about the image on the Shroud and still want us to believe that the Shroud is not a real burial shroud, even if the bloodstains alone contradict is point of view…

      Note: when it comes to the antique way to manufactured a linen shroud, Rogers did exactly the same thing, which is to get in touch with a real expert in that field, i.e. Anna Maria
      Donadoni, supervisor of the Egyptian Museum of Turin. These few example should make people understand once and for all how good and Professional Ray Rogers really was. And if some folks still need more proofs, just see this presentation of my friend Barrie Schwortz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG6H5MklK3s

      Last thing I want to say: It’s so easy to discredit the professionalism and the integrity of someone who’s not here no more to defend himself… That’s very disgusting.

      • Yannick Clément
        July 25, 2015 at 5:40 pm

        Addtional comment versus what I wrote about Adler: I should have add that, beside from staying out of the research about the image or the conservation, he could have, at the very least, associate himself with true experts in these particular fields, which he did not (or not enough). This is only my personal opinion.

  5. July 25, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    I’m still waiting for someone to say that my thinking re the Rogers’ modelling of a Maillard reaction in a 1st century tomb is entirely wrong, that it was perfectly OK to use sugary hydrolysed starch instead of plain starch, that it was perfectly OK to slip in some chemically reactive saponins, that it was perfectly OK to photograph the best result obtained at an unphysiological 66 degrees C, that it was perfectly OK to use excess ammonia, producing an unphysiologically high, Maillard-promoting alkaline pH.. You know, the boring old science, the subject of the posting…

    • Yannick Clément
      July 25, 2015 at 5:29 pm

      Anna Arnoldi, who was the co-author of Rogers’ paper “THE SHROUD OF TURIN: AN AMINO-CARBONYL REACTION (MAILLARD REACTION) MAY EXPLAIN THE IMAGE FORMATION” and who was a real chemist expert in these kinds of very complex chemical reactions was there, along with Rogers, to contradict Colin Berry’s assumptions versus the image formation process proposed by Rogers. I have nothing else to say, except this: If people wants to believe the biased opinion of someone like Berry (who is an anti-Rogers guy from the beginning) or the professional opinion of a real expert in Maillard reactions (i.e. Arnoldi), that’s their problem. Personally, I will never commit that kind of mistake.

      Important note (again): I never ever pretend that Rogers was 100% right about everything regarding the Shroud. What I pretend is that he was probably the most professional and the most honest researcher who ever studied the Shroud and, in the present state of our knowledge, I don’t see any good reason to totally reject even one of the many analytic results, conclusions and hypotheses he published and described. I think the roads he opened in Shroud research should be followed by any other scientists who seek the truth (and not his own “truth”), because, so far, no other credible and unbiased researcher has been able to definitively and properly (scientifically speaking) closed any of them for good.

      • Yannick Clément
        July 25, 2015 at 5:45 pm

        Correction from my comment above. People should read: If people wants to believe the biased opinion of someone like Berry (who is an anti-Rogers guy from the beginning) INSTEAD OF the professional opinion of a real expert in Maillard reactions (i.e. Arnoldi), that’s their problem. Personally, I will never commit that kind of mistake.

        Sorry for this error. Don’t forget that I speak French…

  6. Yannick Clément
    July 25, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    Last thing: If Rogers have had any doubts about the presence of starch fractions on the topmost fibrils of the Shroud (left there through the well-known evaporation-concentration process), he would NEVER have built the kind of image formation hypothesis he proposed and kept defending until his death! I know that being convinced of something doesn’t necessarily means that this “something” is true, but when you take the professionalism of someone like Rogers, it’s pretty evident that the positive result he got for starch was very solid in his mind. And, to me, that’s good enough to be as much convinced as he was that, truly, there are starch fractions that have been concentrated on the top-surface of the Shroud and these have most probably took part in the image formation process. Also, the simple fact that this particular chromophore hypothesis is the very best that has ever been proposed to rationaly explain all the known characteristics of the image (not only at thread but also at fiber level) is another very good reason I have for being so confident about that.

  7. July 25, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    Here we go again. It would be better if he didn’t attribute motive and just discussed the actual issues.

    • July 25, 2015 at 11:41 pm

      Agreed- in principle. But there are exceptions, and Rogers’ ideas that live on as we speak is one of them. First, no one is allowed to criticize them without having the man and his work described as faultless, being lectured or harangued (as here) that he was an infallible expert in all matters to do with the Shroud (despite being an explosives chemist), that it’s disrespectful to his memory to challenge his claims.

      One does not lightly stray into the area of motives, but it’s impossible not to do so when one sees the gross abuse of language that is implicit in the routine deployment of terminology like “crudestarch” or “starch fractions“. That is is blatant attempt to equate starch with reducing sugar, needed to prop up a particular hypothesis. But the alpha-glucan chains of starch do not fall apart of their own accord to make sugars. The alpha- (1,6) glycosidic linkages are strong. It needs hydrolytic enzymes like alpha-amylase whose action I studied intensively for some 8 years to break down starch OR prolonged exposure to strong mineral acids. It is frankly appalling in my view that the Shroud literature to this day is cluttered up with the idea of self-decomposing starch. It is impossible to avoid that question of motive, either on Rogers’ part while alive, or those of his fanatical disciples, who continue to promote something that is a complete fiction. Rogers produced no convicing evidence for the presence of a starch “impurity coating”, not did anyone else, and even if he had, that starch would behave as starch, NOT reducing sugar. Resort to terms like “crude starch” and “starch fractions” to mean reducing sugars that are not there is for this retired biochemist the last straw. That’s an abuse of language, one that makes a mockery of the scientifc method even before a single test-tube has been taken out the drawer.

      • Yannick Clément
        July 29, 2015 at 2:45 pm

        Rogers’ hypothesis had been backed-up by a real expert in Maillard reactions (Arnoldi) and she even wrote a peer-review scientific paper with him about that. If this kind of natural hypothesis is “science-fiction” in the case of the Shroud image, than I don’t know what a hypothesis that has been set aside since a long time like the scorch hypothesis can be…

        Berry can wrote any crap he wants versus Rogers and his hypothesis, he cannot change the reality, which is that a real expert in Maillard reactions has helped a lot Rogers to build his hypothesis, so it’s not “science-fiction” at all, sorry.

  8. July 26, 2015 at 12:03 am

    Correction: alpha-(1,4) glycosidic linkages in amylose (the linear form of starch) and additionally, alpha-(1,6) glycosidic linkages at the branch points of amylopectin. The term “starch fractions” should arguably be used to refer to amylose and amylopectin only, neither of which has reducing properties until extensively degraded by enzymes or acids when additional “fractions” may then be present (but not before).

  9. July 26, 2015 at 3:24 am

    “coward”, “troll”, “fanatic”, what’s next on the list?

    And we should talk chemistry on this post?

    Put your question clearly, get a guest posting from Dan.

    • July 26, 2015 at 3:49 am

      Aren’t we forgetting something? What you read here is a cut-and-paste from the current posting on my site, one that Dan Porter chose to bring here. I do not need “guest postings” on this site when I have one of my own, where the DETAILED SCIENCE can be set out and put up for discussion without my having to endure the handful of trolls, fanatics etc tolerated on this site. I refer to those like yourself, anoxie, who refuse to address the SCIENCE, whose aim is solely to belittle one’s professional credentials. Do you consider it professional behaviour to snipe from cover under a pseudonym, leaving us all in ignorance of your credentials? What are yours anoxie? Do tell us. Until you do that, I shall continue to ignore your unending stream of abusive comment. Indeed I shall try to stay away from the site (not easy when its one’s own ideas and experimentation being only partially quoted, or even misquoted – I said “fudge”, not “fraud”).

      • July 26, 2015 at 4:25 am

        The science i’ve addressed was thermodynamics, in my world, Maillard reaction occurs under 100°C.

        It’s been three years, but i’m not the one who has been scorching in the meantime, dissmissing Maillard reaction as, i quote, “a complete non-starter”.

        • July 26, 2015 at 4:35 am

          Yes, and I am now scorching to produce a Maillard reaction, using a very hot iron as an alternative to chemical development with nitric acid or limewater. But the science cannot be adequately addressed in this one way process, of having to respond to sniping with patient explanation. You must work on your netiquette anoxie if you wish to know why I consider a Maillard reaction a REALISTIC proposition in a medieval narrative, but NOT for a 1st century tomb. I shall now log off for several hours, given that grandchildren are due to arrive shortly.

        • July 26, 2015 at 5:01 am

          Why? Because you’ve hit the dead end of scorching and are running out of original ideas. You’re recycling what you considered as a complete non starter into a forgery narrative, and shamelessly distorting Rogers’ Maillard reaction hypothesis to promote your own.

          This was a foreseeable end, that’s why we have “Rogers’ Maillard reaction explained in detail by Rogers himself”.

          And seriously, who is dealing with abusive comments? Unreal.

  10. July 26, 2015 at 9:32 am

    Despite the knocking copy from Paolo Di Lazzaro, Thibault Heimburger and others, this blogger was content to stick with the direct scorch from a heated metal template model for the best part of two years. Why? Because the claims of reverse side imaging, excessive image contrast simply did not tally with experimental results, provided but observed sensible temperature control, brief contact time, moist underlays etc. The chief downside was that it needed a statue or bas relief, when a real person would have been preferable.

    The sea change in thinking came with the discovery of the Veronica-like motif on the Machy mould above the word SUAIRE, suggesting that the “Shroud” had been modelled as a sweat imprint on Joseph of Arimathea’s linen. That was the signal to think in terms of a two-stage process. First, find a proxy for body sweat (white flour paste!) that could be smeared on a real person, then imprinted onto linen. Second, develop that negative imprint in a way that produced a yellow-brown colour. That proved possible, first with cold nitric acid, then with hot limewater, and then simply with a hot iron, presumably as a result of Maillard or caramelization chemistry.

    So while the initial scorch model was abandoned, there’s a sense in which I’ve returned to it, but with a major improvement. Direct scorching requires a higher temperature, with the risk of excessive scorching, whether that materialized or not with careful temperature control. In contrast, development of a flour imprint can be done with or without thermal treatment. If thermal, as with a hot iron, one can use a temperature, obtained by trial and error, that causes browning of a flour imprint with absolutely no risk whatsoever of scorching linen per se, certainly not on the non-imprinted parts of the linen.

    I make no apology for abandoning the Mark 1 scorch model, ie. for changing my mind, switching horses, call it what you want. It’s in the nature of science to refine models and occasionally abandon them. The crucial point, as indicated, was to view the “Shroud” as a simulated sweat imprint. Did anyone suggest that previously, and say that the negative image was immediately accounted for? If they had, then I missed it. If one has to have one’s own eureka moment in order to explore a new line of investigation, then i would say there’s no shame in having previously pursued a different one, especially when one ends with what might be described as a scorch imprint Mk2 hypothesis, two stage rather than single stage, using a real person not a statue. Others may disagree, to which my response is: “Then show me YOUR model and say why it’s better.”

    What’s yours, Thibault – or are you still too busy looking for things to criticize in mine, preparing with Dan’s help to pdf me into submission?

    • piero
      July 27, 2015 at 11:36 am

      You wrote:
      “…simply with a hot iron, presumably as a result of
      Maillard or caramelization chemistry. …”
      Do you realize what you’re talking about?
      Please… Show me the pictures of linen fibrils taken with a microscope!

      For example:
      I remember that (years ago) Dr. Ray Rogers did sent to me a picture
      of a linen fiber (it was an image obtained with a microscope) obtained
      by De Liso (and she worked with one of her strange experiments)
      showing the reason for what he did not believe in such kind
      of browning as a true Body Image Formation.
      In fact, he did pointed the finger towards a thermal source
      for the change that happened on that linen fibril and
      did concluded that the Imprint on the Shroud was not like that.

      • July 27, 2015 at 2:20 pm

        You wrote:
        “…simply with a hot iron, presumably as a result of
        Maillard or caramelization chemistry. …”
        Do you realize what you’re talking about?
        Please… Show me the pictures of linen fibrils taken with a microscope!

        Yup, I know what I’m talking about,Piero. I restrict my comments to topics where I know what I’m talking about. Can you say the same? Please show the “pictures of linen fibres taken with a microscope ” please.

  11. July 26, 2015 at 9:40 am

    Typo Line 5: provided ONE observed…

  12. piero
    July 27, 2015 at 11:06 am

    Unfortunately we have not yet, never properly
    (= using advanced microscopies!), observed
    linen fibrils involved in the Image Formation of
    the Body/Corpse on the Shroud of Turin…
    and then we can remember what Wittgenstein wrote:
    “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.”
    (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

    >Translated: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
    >Also: About what one can not speak, one must remain silent.

    Link:
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

    Sorry. In my opinion speaking without sense, avoiding a problem
    inherent to the controls about the material’s modifications of
    linen fibrils (= adequate analyses of thin layers on linen fibrils),
    is one way of being noisy…

    So…
    You can add any new observation or remark inherent this
    well known philosophical phrase…

    The fact of realizing that one is talking nonsense is realizing
    that there is something phony about one’s words.

    Am I wrong?

    The whole sense of that book (= Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)
    might be summed up the following words:
    what can be said at all can be said clearly, and
    what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

    Anyway I recommend you do not always take literally Wittgenstein,
    I think that he … had its own limits … about logical enlightenment of thoughts.
    Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) studied under Russell…
    Wittgenstein wrote the notes for the Tractatus while
    he was a soldier during World War I and completed it when
    a prisoner of war at Como and later Cassino in August 1918.
    It was first published in German in 1921 as
    Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung…
    — —
    Speaking from a personal point of view I can say
    that I have many doubts about all that has already been
    proposed to explain the Image on the Shroud of Turin.
    This is said also as regards the Maillard reaction as alleged
    “explanation” for the presence of that Image on
    the famous ancient linen cloth …

    Why do you want to make your lives more difficult
    without well considering the opportunity of
    new (and more exact) chemical-physical analyses?
    Are you able to show us what are the exact chemical differences
    (at nano-levels) about your different kinds of attempts
    to reproduce the famous Image?

  13. Louis
    July 27, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Actually R. Rogers proposed Maillard as a possible component in image formation and he was not dogmatic about it. Di Lazzaro’s experiments are more convincing.
    As for Wittgenstein, he of course had limits, knew about them and that made him a very religious person:
    https://www.academia.edu/6085481/Why_was_Wittgensteins_burial_attended_by_a_religious_ceremony

    • Yannick Clément
      July 31, 2015 at 9:10 am

      Rogers proposed Maillard reactions as a hypothesis that CAN POSSIBLY FULLY EXPLAIN the Shroud image. If you read well the paper he published with Arnoldi, there’s absolutely no reference in that paper about a so-called “something else that we don’t know, which must have been at work to produce the image”. This paper written by Rogers and Arnoldi propose a scientific hypothesis to potentially explain everything about the image formation. Rogers never said that this hypothesis is the sure answer to the Shroud image, but he never publicly wrote or said something like Maillard reactions must have been associated with something else (maybe supernatural) in order to produce the image we see on the Shroud. It’s important to set the record straight here…

      And if Di Lazzaro’s experiment would be more convincing, then explain to me how in the world the SAME SOURCE OF UV LIGHT could produce the SAME DEPTH OF COLOR PENETRATION (i.e. color restricted to the primary cell wall of the topmost fibers of the cloth) no matter if the source (which would be the resurrected body of Christ) would have been in direct-contact with the cloth or at more or less 4 cm of distance with that cloth, while it wouldn’t have been able to produce any visible color beyond that short distance? In all logic, this kind of supernatural process would have colored the primary cell wall of some fibers located deeper into the cloth in all the areas where the body would have been in direct-contact with the cloth. This is not what have been observed on the Shroud. On the contrary, Rogers’ hypothesis (especially with the chromophore located solely in a thin and uneven layer of impurities concentrated on the top-surface of the cloth) offers a relatively “simple” and a truly rational explanation for all the physical and chemical characteristics of the Shroud image.

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