Ten questions for anyone claiming that “a miraculous flash of light” was needed to create the Man on the Shroud

1. Why did the miraculous flash of light (MFOL)  produce a non-miraculous negative image, i.e. a singularly unattractive one due to reversal of normal light/dark tones?

Why did generations of pilgrims have to be content with the above image until a more friendly-looking positive image was discovered  produced with 19th/20th century photographic technology?

2. How could any flash of light, miraculous or otherwise, have been focused to produce a sharp image on linen, without lenses or mirrors?

3. Why did that MFOL produce two separate images – front and rear – with no sides? Isn’t a shroud supposed to be wrapped around a corpse? So why no imaging of the sides?

4. Why did the MFOL produce an image with no ‘directionality’. In other words, how did the light rays all manage to strike the linen at exactly 90 degrees with no hint of shadowing?

5. How was a MFOL able to produce any image at all on linen?  Linen is not photographic film. There is no light-sensitive emulsion.

6. Why should some features – the nose, the crossed hands etc – be more strongly imaged than others, and more “luminous” on developed silver emulsion?

7. How did a MFOL alter the carbon-dating? How could it create an excess of C-14 atoms to make it seem younger than it really is?  C-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere from bombardment of nitrogen atoms by cosmic rays – not at ground level.

8. How did a MFOL manage to selectively scorch the crown threads, i.e. those that lie slightly proud of the surface. Why should an ever-so-slightly more superficial position  of warp or weft threads make them more liable to be scorched by radiation at a distance?

9. How did a MFOL manage to leave so many parts unimaged, like the eye sockets, or the area around the crossed hands? Those are the parts that are poorly imaged – if at all – when one is dependant on an external source of light – as in photography. Why should that be so in the case of an allegedly self-luminous body?

10. Why should a MFOL be unable to penetrate a blood stain and thus leave no image  under the blood stain?  Blood is mainly protein. Yet the hair of the subject is imaged, and hair is protein (keratin). So how come the MFOL was able to pass through one protein (keratin) and not another (haemoglobin, albumins, globulins etc)?

Here are a few guidance notes to assist those who may be lost for answers to one or more or the above questions:

Maybe there WAS no MFOL. Even if there had been, there is no known mechanism for it producing an image on linen. Instead, the image was produced by non-miraculous medieval means: heating a metal effigy of a human being – and pressing it into linen to produce a scorch.

Let’s now go through our checklist again:

1. Yes, the brand would be light/dark reversed. All branded images are light/dark reversed.

2. No lenses or mirrors are needed to produce a scorch mark by branding – since the latter involves direct physical contact with cloth – no air gap.

3. Branding explains why there are two images – one for the front, one for the back.

4. Branding also explain why there is no directionality – any more than a date stamp onto paper has directionality (except square on)

5. Branding explains how an image was achieved on white linen – the latter being scorched by contact with hot metal. Scorching is the visible result of limited thermal degradation (“pyrolysis”) of cell wall carbohydrates as they undergo a range of chemical reactions at elevated temperatures – dehydration, oxidation, cross-linking etc.

6. Branding explains why the nose, crossed hands etc were more powerfully imaged. They are the more prominent parts of an effigy that are first to make contact with the linen, and which make closest contact when the template is thrust into the linen, maybe with a soft yielding bed of something beneath the linen.

7.  There was no mistake with the C-dating. The linen is of medieval origin. So is the image. And it was produced by medieval, nay, pre-medieval technology. Livestock and even slaves were branded in ancient times.

8. Branding explains why the crown threads are preferentially scorched. “Crowns”, where one thread loops over another, are the first part to make physical  contact with hot metal under light or moderate pressure. Recessed parts do not readily make contact except under extreme pressure that compresses and flattens the weave.

9. Branding explains why recessed features –  the eye sockets, the abdomen behind the crossed hands – are not imaged. There was probably some tenting of the linen between the high points, such that linen failed to make direct physical contact with recessed low spots. Without direct physical contact, there can be no scorching.

10. Branding explains why there was no image under the blood stain, while the “hair” was imaged.  The blood stain protected the underlying linen from heat, probably being partially denatured in the process (while still relatively intact as proteins and amino acids).  The “hair” was imaged, because it was not real hair, but the kind of “hair” one sees on bronze or other metal statues, bas relief etc – a cast taken from real hair or carved wax, maybe, but a cast all the same.

That’s sufficient for now. I may add a few words after I have seen responses – assuming there are some.

Update: Midday, UK time. Well, I’ve had a response – from The Other Site – the more serious points from which I’ll address later. For now, here’s a handy graphic that shows how one can get a scorch of any desired intensity, simply by serial stamping.

Decreasing scorch intensity (left to right) from three different hot brass templates

As the template loses progressively more heat with each new image, so the next image becomes fainter than the last. Who can seriously doubt that if one had a magic micrometer, capable of measuring the depth of each image, one could pass through that 200nm superficiality limit that has been set up as the, er, Holy Grail of Shroudology, based it would seem on some impressionistic light (yes, light) microscopy from Ray Rogers, RIP, without benefit of an electron microscope…

Update: this posting has appeared in full (except for graphics) on the other site, and attracted comments from the poster, most of which I would describe as flippant, as well as the usual flak from those who have swallowed hook, line and sinker what those clever medieval hoaxers wanted the faithful to believe. None of this is, except for the fact that I am staying up late to respond respond to ludicrous charges, e.g. that I am a “Flat-Earther” etc etc, and my replies are being held up in Dan Porter’s “moderation” in tray. Even as I speak, at 14:15 am London time, 18+ hours after submission, my last three comments have all failed to appear. Meanwhile new ones are appearing.  I have sent a fourth shirty comment to Dan, protesting at his continued hijacking of my new posting , and  now effectively hanging me out to dry.

As an interim measure I am posting HIS posting about MY post here, together with all the comments relevant to the points I raise. Note the 3 that are preceded by the words “awaiting moderation”.

**********************************************************************

Colin Berry poses ten questions for us on his blog. For the most part they are good questions to be directed for “anyone claiming that ‘a miraculous flash of light’ was needed” to create the image. (His words in quotes, not mine). It’s an adroit use of the straw man fallacy implying, as it does, that most people who think the shroud is real believe a miraculous flash was needed. If Colin had prefaced his questions with something like, “while not everyone who thinks the shroud is real thinks a miraculous flash of light was needed,” what followed would have been more intellectually palatable. Colin has said that he will add to his posting after getting feedback. Let’s see if he does.

It’s a bit of a setup, as well. Fair enough. He wants, once again, to convince us that the image is a scorch or branding created with a hot statue. Of course, he conveniently forgets that we posed many questions to him about his hypothesis and his response was to ignore most of them. He doesn’t think he needs to answer questions about how a scorching can produce a fiber that is only scorched to a depth of about 200 nanometers. The best evidence is that it can’t.  And there are many other questions he needs to answer.

Let’s take a crack at his questions in hope that it will inspire him to answer ours:

1. Why did the miraculous flash of light (MFOL)  produce a non-miraculous negative image, i.e. a singularly unattractive one due to reversal of normal light/dark tones?

Why did generations of pilgrims have to be content with the above image until a more friendly-looking positive image was discovered with 19th/20th century photographic technology?

ANSWER:  Any image in this sense would be non-miraculous – a chemical change that results in a change of luminosity. The problem was MFOL Version 1.0 (pronounced mouthfull). No one in the Heavenly Host Advanced Miracle Graphics department thought that it would be a problem. Certainly the discovery of photography would not happen before the Second Coming. But it did. Oh what a problem Secondo Pia created. Release 7.0 of MFOL, now some 2000 years too late can create full color positive pictures with blue eyes and blond hair (see above).

2. How could any flash of light, miraculous or otherwise, have been focused to produce a sharp image on linen, without lenses or mirrors?

ANSWER: Good question. But don’t underestimate the power of miracles.  MFOL is collimated to gravity and fully pre-focused right out of the box, so to speak. MFOL also works on nylon.

3. Why did that MFOL produce two separate images – front and rear – with no sides? Isn’t a shroud supposed to be wrapped around a corpse? So why no imaging of the sides?

ANSWER: That is the benefit of collimated light. It’s a good thing because otherwise the image would have been really strange looking.

4. Why did the MFOL produce an image with no ‘directionality’. In other words, how did the light rays all manage to strike the linen at exactly 90 degrees with no hint of shadowing?

ANSWER: Again, collimated light.

5. How was a MFOL able to produce any image at all on linen?  Linen is not photographic film. There is no light-sensitive emulsion.

ANSWER: MFOL produces highly localized dehydration and oxidation. So far no one has reverse engineered this process. For a long time Kodak was trying to figure this out because of the ever increasing cost of silver. Digital photography eliminated to need, at least in secular markets.

6. Why should some features – the nose, the crossed hands etc – be more strongly imaged than others, and more “luminous” on developed silver emulsion?

ANSWER: Good question. MFOL obeys different at-a-distance rules. Don’t even bother to turn on you scientific calculator. It not in there. Not, yet.

7. How did a MFOL alter the carbon-dating? How could it create an excess of C-14 atoms to make it seem younger than it really is?  C-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere from bombardment of nitrogen atoms by cosmic rays – not at ground level.

ANSWER: That was a bug in MFOL 1.0. It may have been a programming Easter egg, which is defined by Wikipedia as an intentionally hidden function or message in software. If that is so then Warren Robinett of Atari was not the first prankster of this sort. Apparently MFOL 1.0 created carbon 14 atoms without nitrogen, and at ground level, no less.

8. How did a MFOL manage to selectively scorch the crown threads, i.e. those that lie slightly proud of the surface. Why should an ever-so-slightly more superficial position  of warp or weft threads make them more liable to be scorched by radiation at a distance?

ANSWER: That’s a closely guarded secret.

9. How did a MFOL manage to leave so many parts unimaged, like the eye sockets, or the area around the crossed hands? Those are the parts that are poorly imaged – if at all – when one is dependant on an external source of light – as in photography. Why should that be so in the case of an allegedly self-luminous body?

ANSWER: Asked and answered.

10. Why should a MFOL be unable to penetrate a blood stain and leave an image on the linen?  Blood is mainly protein. Yet the hair of the subject is imaged, and hair is protein (keratin). So how come the MFOL was able to pass through one protein (keratin) and not another (haemoglobin, albumins, globulins etc)?

ANSWER: If we could harness MFOL for secular purposes, think of the potential markets – like safe tanning salons that don’t also bleach one’s hair.

MFOL beats scorching any day. It actually requires a little bit less of a miracle than scorching or branding and doesn’t require a bed of sand or snow or clotted cream.

In reality, we don’t know. And Colin doesn’t know either.

*****************************************************************************************

Comments

  1. john
    March 22, 2012 at 9:12 am | #1

    There are still those who believe that the earth is flat…I think of them everytime Colin Berry has a comment.And irregardless of what the experts in their own fields have factually concluded or regardless of any new revelations or discoveries,as far as he is concerned…the world is FLAT…metaphorically speaking.To continue reading his comments any further,to me,would be an exercise in futility.

    • March 22, 2012 at 11:45 am | #2

      I’ve only ever encountered one Flat-Earther – and that was at University more years ago than I care to remember. I can’t recall if we accepted his unsolicited offer to address the student body or not. But I do know one thing. Flat- Earthers are far more keen to field questions than they are to pose them, because that’s what they revel in – showing they have an answer to each and every question you throw at them. There is a perverseness in their nature – they delight in denying and confounding…

      OK, now for a brief defence of my position, which I do not propose to labour.

      My first post on the Shroud was at the tail end of last year.

      http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2011/12/turin-shroud-could-it-have-been.html

      It’s working hypothesis was that radiation at a distance HAD produced the image, but if it has been radiant heat and white light, then an opaque absorbing pigment was needed, for which I considered pencilled and/or painted-on charcoal, and did in fact succeed in trapping enough radiation to produce a scorch on linen. But it was a positive, not negative image, which prompted further experimentation. Along the way I tried seeing if I could image the infrared rays from a hot metallic object (a metal pencil sharpener) onto cloth using a concave mirror, and almost idly, as an afterthought, stamped the linen directly with the hot template to produce a “brand” with a startling resemblance to the original, but for light/dark reversal, i.e. a pseudo-NEGATIVE, just like the Shroud is a pseudo-negative.

      My first thought was – surely not? – too obvious! Some two dozen posts later I am now wholly convinced that the Shroud image WAS produced by scorching, with a few remaining details to be resolved, like was it treated or untreated linen?

      Given the trial-and-error manner in which that current conclusion was arrived at, with no preconceived notions, and indeed an assumption initially that radiant energy was somehow involved, then I hope you will appreciate why your comparison between my approach – that of a retired science bod with an experimental bent- and that of a Flat-Earther could not be further from the truth. But I suspect you will have a ready answer to my plaintive protest. Indeed, I suspect it is you who will have a ready answer to anything I say in defence of my position, requiring little time and effort on your part, unlike the many weeks I have spent on this problem. So who may I ask is the real Flat-Earther? You or me? I would suggest that the facts as outlined provide a ready answer…

      Colin Berry MSc, PhD

  2. Chris
    March 22, 2012 at 10:44 am | #3

    This gave me a good laugh! Thanks, Dan.

  3. Daveb of Wellington NZ
    March 22, 2012 at 3:21 pm | #4

    I thought it was time everyone lightened up. Obsession can be so depressing!

  4. March 22, 2012 at 3:25 pm | #5

    Once again, a comment of mine, in reply to John above, has failed to clear Dan’s pre-moderation regime. Never mind, I’ve cut-and-pasted it to my own site, if anyone is interested.

    https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/ten-questions-for-anyone-claiming-that-a-miraculous-flash-of-light-was-needed-to-create-the-man-on-the-shroud/

  5. Randy
    March 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm | #6

    Dan, I’m sure you are recognizing this and are concerned, but Colin has effectively taken over your blog.

    I like to come here daily to understand what’s new in regard to the Shroud and to monitor the debates, but I think Colin made his point a couple months ago. I believe most of the readers understand his theory by now. But he continues to hammer his points in an attempt to convince everyone that he has come up with a breakthrough that has been missed by all the researchers over the past 40 years. Even if the Shroud was an artist’s work (which I don’t believe for an instant), to execute his theory of a scorch created by a hot statue seems like a ton of work, and that simpler methods that McCrone (painting) and Nickell (rubbings) have described seem more reasonable and could be as effective in “fooling” those medieval believers. I know Colin isn’t concerned about “arts and crafts”, but it seems unrealistic to not consider that as a major factor in proving the theory. I can imagine how many ruined linen cloths there would be for the artist before they got it right (if they ever would) under his theory. And while you might apply the blood first before you did the the hot statue, the flows that we see on the Shroud seem very realistic and must come from a real body. For example, why would the hot statue artist even consider creating the flow of blood from the wound in the side that trickles over to the back of the image, especially if the dorsal image was done at a different time.

    Until Colin actually recreates the Shroud image (or a portion thereof) and determines that it is consistent with all the chemical and physical properties that have been published, I am not particularly interested in hearing more about his theory.

    Thanks for your well-done and compelling blog.

  6. March 22, 2012 at 5:38 pm | #7

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “Dan, I’m sure you are recognizing this and are concerned, but Colin has effectively taken over your blog.”

    Nope, Randy, that’s a tad misleading if you don’t mind me saying. Colin posts his ideas on his own blogs, and Dan reports on them here, and Colin occasionally responds here to those posts and the comments they attract. Colin is largely reactive where this site is concerned – not proactive.

    Colin

    PS: A spear wound in the side would have been problematical to a medieval forger, knowing in advance through pilot trials that the sides would be incompletely imaged. So a decision might have been made to represent the site of the wound on the ventral view, and then to represent the pooling of blood under gravity on the dorsal.

    OK,so you think it improbable that anyone would resort to ambitious ‘pyrography’ to fake a holy relic. But aren’t you forgetting the value placed on convincing holy relics in that era – the Shroud itself is said to have once changed hands in exchange for TWO CASTLES! Having gone to the trouble of creating the two base images, which little risk of it being mistaken for a painting or a brass rubbing, then surely no effort would have been spared to get the extra crucial details right – especially those blood flows under gravity etc. What’s the medieval equivalent for our (British) English expression “in for a penny, in for a pound”?

  7. Ron
    March 22, 2012 at 5:50 pm | #8

    I agree wholeheartedly with Roger’s comments above, but alas I think I’ve actually mentioned this exact thing to Colin several times;…Produce a facsimile, and if not, stop implying it is possible and carry on to other things. Oh one also wonders where this “Medieval” magician managed to aquire so much 1st century linen to start….must have been a costly experiment for a poor artist to complete.

    Ron

    • March 22, 2012 at 6:21 pm | #9

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      As I have said to you before, Ron, my interest in the Shroud is purely scientific, not technological, historical or artistic. The thing that got me interested last December was the media hype surrounding that ridiculous uv laser project of Di Lazzaro et al, in particular their claim that the Shroud image defied modern science (and their hope that their work would provoke us all into thinking more about “philosophy and theology” which is frankly not the primary goal of science, at least not in a preliminary report detailing a model system of highly dubious relevance that frankly begs the question).

      I feel absolutely no obligation to reproduce the Shroud in every detail, merely to show that it is largely, perhaps entirely explicable in terms of a few physical, chemical and botanical principles. You would not expect a palaeontologist to reproduce a Cretaceous era fossil in order to surmise how and when it was formed – so why expect anyone to do that for the Shroud – unless it is your intention to set up a test that you know can always be deemed to have failed through failure to reproduce every single detail, including those that could well be age or handling-related.

  8. Daveb of Wellington NZ
    March 22, 2012 at 6:14 pm | #10

    I’m 100% with Randy. There’s too much other corroborative evidence to concede deliberate fraud. Jerusalem road dust around the feet, Dead Sea halophyte pollens, Accuracy of the blood flows, Wrist nailing contrary to popular belief of hand nailing, First nude Christ breaking current artistic conventions. Ancient Syrian manufacture of linen processing, not medieval linen; Slavishly copying of Vignon markings in hand-made icons; None of these are XYX mantra recitals; The arguments are all mutually independent, they’re in parallel not in series. So they’re corroborative. And that’s not even exploring the historical aspects.
    If the image is ever shown to be confirmed as a scorch, then that’s how Jesus decided to do it. Maybe he temporarily transmogrified himself into a “tin man” for the job. But he’d have a problem with not scorching the blood stains. And also the image doesn’t fluoresce under UV. Enough said already. I think we must have exhausted the scorch topic, and we should now move on to some other aspects. There’s plenty we don’t know about to choose from for a fresh topic. Colin can get back to us when he’s completed his totally compliant replica.

    • March 22, 2012 at 7:03 pm | #11

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      The reason I’m not impressed with your scatter gun approach is that on the occasions that I have investigated in detail, I have found that evidence that is touted as “scientific” is all too often little more than suggestive or anecdotal. I have kept largely quiet, since I’m not interested in being a Shroud Jack of all Trades. But I did follow up what you describe as Jerusalem road dust, and read about the link up between Joseph Kohlbeck and Eugenia Nitowski and I can tell you now that if a particular newspaper article (link mislaid) is anything to go by, the way that the findings of one in the US with travertine were linked with the other’s invitation to go sampling in the Holy Land, then that modus operandi could not be described as entirely scientific, appearing as it did to lack essential blind comparison with controls etc.from a wider range of sites.

      OK, so I can be accused of having too narrow a focus where the Shroud is concerned – and of boring you all with my tunnel vision, but I am not a Shroudologist, and have no ambitions to be one. I simply believe that the Shroud image is a scorch, and consider that a systematic attempt has been made over the years, nay decades, by certain Shroudologists to downplay or refute that view, since it does not fit the “miraculous” narrative.

      It’s late, and time to sign off – and in any case my previous comment is still held up in Dan’s “to be vetted” in tray to protect those of a nervous disposition….

  9. March 23, 2012 at 2:51 am | #12

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    That’s three comments of mine that are currently held up in your vetting in-tray, Dan Porter, and have been overnight (UK time).

    Tell me, don’t you think it’s a bit of a liberty on your part to reproduce my current blog on your site, without even bothering to insert a link, to publish responses that call me a “Flat Earther” or “taking over your blog”, and then to allow those comments to stay (seemingly) unchallenged for hours on end?

    I have to say that my patience with your hijacking my blogs, and then hanging me out to dry, is wearing somewhat thin.

    Colin Berry

Update 16:50 London time:

And we now have “Randy”responding to my earlier reply, not having seen my subsequent 3 comments.  Why? Because control-freak Dan Porter is blocking my responses to his site. All he is doing is confirming in my mind that he is one of the Godfathers of Shroudology – a front man for an industry – one that markets “mystery” like snake oil…

Here is Randy’s comment, to which there is no point in my responding until the block is lifted on my previous 3 comments:

Randy
March 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm | #8

Colin,

And maybe what I’m saying is that Dan should not report on your blog anymore until you have done much more intensive work on proving your theory. Then I’m sure all of us would be very interested in understanding how you were able to come up with your breakthrough. I would guess you could author a book explaining how you successfully debunked the Shroud. That might be a good investment of time for a retired Sciencebod.

The only reasonable way for the artist to determine what the blood flows would look like as a result of a wound to the side is to actually see it happen to a human body. Now we have a highly skilled metal sculptor, who knows how to scorch linen with his work to create a superficial image, and is also expert on blood flows and how to make those appear natural on a linen cloth by using his statue to apply before the scorching exercise. This is the “arts and crafts” aspect that doesn’t seem to support your theory. Remember too that the Shroud first appeared in a small French church, under ownership of a Knights Templar. If this was forged, I still can’t see why someone would go thru this much trouble to “fool” the pilgrims.

Advertisements

About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Ten questions for anyone claiming that “a miraculous flash of light” was needed to create the Man on the Shroud

  1. colinsberry says:

    This post was in fact intended for my new, more polemical Shroud site:
    http://strawshredder.wordpress.com/
    It’s here because of WordPress’s default settings which it omits to flag up at draft stage. Never mind, it’s here now, and here it can stay.

  2. colinsberry says:

    From “John” on the Other Site:

    March 22, 2012 at 9:12 am | #1

    There are still those who believe that the earth is flat…I think of them everytime Colin Berry has a comment.And irregardless of what the experts in their own fields have factually concluded or regardless of any new revelations or discoveries,as far as he is concerned…the world is FLAT…metaphorically speaking.To continue reading his comments any further,to me,would be an exercise in futility.

    My reply (which has still to appear)

    March 22, 2012 at 11:45 am | #2

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I’ve only ever encountered one Flat-Earther – and that was at University more years ago than I care to remember. I can’t recall if we accepted his unsolicited offer to address the student body or not. But I do know one thing. Flat- Earthers are far more keen to field questions than they are to pose them, because that’s what they revel in – showing they have an answer to each and every question you throw at them. There is a perverseness in their nature – they delight in denying and confounding…

    OK, now for a brief defence of my position, which I do not propose to labour.

    My first post on the Shroud was at the tail end of last year.

    http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2011/12/turin-shroud-could-it-have-been.html

    It’s working hypothesis was that radiation at a distance HAD produced the image, but if it has been radiant heat and white light, then an opaque absorbing pigment was needed, for which I considered pencilled and/or painted-on charcoal, and did in fact succeed in trapping enough radiation to produce a scorch on linen. But it was a positive, not negative image, which prompted further experimentation. Along the way I tried seeing if I could image the infrared rays from a hot metallic object (a metal pencil sharpener) onto cloth using a concave mirror, and almost idly, as an afterthought, stamped the linen directly with the hot template to produce a “brand” with a startling resemblance to the original, but for light/dark reversal, i.e. a pseudo-NEGATIVE, just like the Shroud is a pseudo-negative.

    My first thought was – surely not? – too obvious! Some two dozen posts later I am now wholly convinced that the Shroud image WAS produced by scorching, with a few remaining details to be resolved, like was it treated or untreated linen?

    Given the trial-and-error manner in which that current conclusion was arrived at, with no preconceived notions, and indeed an assumption initially that radiant energy was somehow involved, then I hope you will appreciate why your comparison between my approach – that of a retired science bod with an experimental bent- and that of a Flat-Earther could not be further from the truth. But I suspect you will have a ready answer to my plaintive protest. Indeed, I suspect it is you who will have a ready answer to anything I say in defence of my position, requiring little time and effort on your part, unlike the many weeks I have spent on this problem. So who may I ask is the real Flat-Earther? You or me? I would suggest that the facts as outlined provide a ready answer…

    Colin Berry MSc, PhD

  3. colinsberry says:

    3. (My question) “Why did that MFOL produce two separate images – front and rear – with no sides? Isn’t a shroud supposed to be wrapped around a corpse? So why no imaging of the sides?”

    ANSWER: “That is the benefit of collimated light. It’s a good thing because otherwise the image would have been really strange looking”.

    Well, I’ve seen references before now to collimation in connection with the Shroud image, which is another way of saying that it would be impossible without a lens, mirror or pinhole camera to get a sharp image, unless there was collimation, i.e. each point on a luminous object sent light exclusively to an unique image point on the linen, and all those unique image points corresponded exactly to the geometry of the subject.

    But collimation requires a collimator, and there’s one tiny drawback: there’s no conceivable collimator inside a 1st century AD tomb.

    Even if there were, a collimated image would be a pixellated one. Think about it. To get collimation, you would need a series of pinholes in a thick-walled membrane made of opaque light-absorbing material, such that the only rays that emerge on the far side are strictly normal to the corresponding light-emitting points on the subject. In other words, collimation depends on both holes and surrounding opaque tunnel wall that absorbs all but normal rays. But you can’t have holes where you have tunnel walls. Ipso facto, you have to be content with a kind of thick-walled colander as collimator, which in turn would result in a matrix of separate image spots, i.e.a pixellated image, and one moreover which is is “pointillist”, i.e. with blank spaces around each of the image spots.

    Collimation is easy to say, but represents an attempt to regiment light rays without any means of regimenting. Collimation, in the context of the Shroud, is what is known technically in the trade as “Mickey Mouse science”. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s