Quotation from Raymond Rogers’ 2004 (written one year before his demise):
(Sorry, bad link: I’ve mislaid the correct one and will try to find it ASAP -since I too need it).
“Where darker bands of yarn intersect image areas, the image is darker. Where lighter bands intersect an image area, the image appears lighter. This proves that the image color is not a result of reactions in the cellulose of the linen. Some impurities on the surface of the different batches of yarn produced the image color. This observation is extremely important when tests are being made on image-formation hypotheses. If image color is not simply a result of color formation in the cellulose of the linen fibers, image formation must be a much more complex process than we originally thought.”
My response: We see an image by the light that it reflects, but the latter depends not only on the light absorbing/reflecting properties of the image itself (obviously) but, less obviously, on what is underneath the image. That is especially the case where the image is exceedingly thin and superficial. If the underlay were, say, pure matt black, absorbing all light that passed through the image layer and fell on it, then less light can be reflected/scattered back to illuminate the image layer from underneath, and the image will tend to look darker than it would be in the absence of the underlay.
Conversely, if the underlay were pure white linen, with a propensity to reflect/scatter white light, then there would be additional illumination from underneath, and the image layer would look brighter.
It follows that an image on darker-coloured weave will tend to look darker than one on lighter-coloured weave., due to differences in illumination from BELOW.
These considerations render null and void the claim of Raymond Rogers (RIP) that the image is not imprinted on the fibre itself, but in a superficial impurity coating. The effect he describes, and failed properly to interpret, tells one NOTHING whatsoever about where the image is located, except that is somewhat superficial.
“This proves that the image color is not a result of reactions in the cellulose of the linen.”? Nope, it proves nothing…
There is other evidence too that the assumption by Rogers that the image is in an impurity layer (largely based it seems on the writings of Pliny), formed by a Maillard reaction between supposed reducing sugars in the impurities and volatile amines from post mortem decay (cadaverine, putrescine etc) is ruled out by Rogers’ own observation in the same paper that the Shroud’s image-bearing areas are not enriched in nitrogen. (All amines contain nitrogen, the amine group being -NH2)
The next topic to be mulled over on this blog will be high definition close-up views of the Shroud. This is a topic I have wanted to address for some time, but learned only yesterday of a magnificent resource called Shroud Scope, the work of Mario Latendresse and his colleagues in Montreal. Here, as a foretaste of what is to come, is a Shroud Scope view of the ‘reversed 3’ “bloodstain” on the forehead.
As my caption states: can that really be a bloodstain? Indeed, can any number of the so-called “bloodstains” really be bloodstains? Why should blood be imaged EXACTLY THE SAME in principle as other imaged areas of the body, with the image confined largely to the ribs of the weave? Blood is a liquid, albeit a viscous one , but should not some blood at least have penetrated into the furrows between the threads. There is no evidence of penetration. That suggests to me that what we see above, and in other bloodstains too (not necessarily all), if blood, is blood that for some reason has been “cooked” or “singed” onto the crowns of fibres. But that is contrary to received wisdom, which is that the blood has never been heated – an opinion expressed by Ray Rogers, subject of my two previous posts – which he cited (somewhat tetchily I thought) as evidence that the Shroud image could not possibly be a scorch.
As far as I am concerned, everything we have been told about the Shroud image by those STURP researchers is now open to question. Even the oft-quoted “discovery” that the blood preceded the image must be re-examined. It is on that latter finding that we are told that the Shroud could not be a forgery – how would a forger know exactly where to apply blood if the image was applied later.
There used to be TV series in Britain called “Take Nobody’s Word For it”. It was screened during Maggie Thatcher’s term of office. How do I know? Because they took the cameras into Maggie’s little kitchen at No.10 Downing Street, and we saw that chemistry graduate-turned lawyer-turned politician- finally PM demonstrate that starch could be washed out of flour dough to leave rubbery gluten protein.
I not only recall the programme and its unexpected star turn. I recall the series title. TAKE NOBODY’S WORD FOR IT.
Here’s a comment that I have left on the shroudofturin.wordpress site: