Yes, Stephen E Jones BSc (Biol), Grad Dip Ed persists in describing the Shroud image as a “photographic negative”, simply because it resembles a photographic positive after light/dark reversal. He is currently condemning the learned and erudite Charles Freeman for failing to acknowledge that the Shroud is, according to our graduate biologist turned evangelical blogger/part-time supply teacher, a “photographic negative”. In fact he goes further, suggesting darkly that Freeman is attempting to suppress that fact, in an attempt he suggests to airbrush out the mystery of an artefact that he maintains anticipated photography by nearly 2 millennia.
I penned a lengthy reply that finally turned into a shop window for my own ideas about the Shroud image – which incidentally is definitely NOT a photographic negative, nor indeed a photographic anything, given the absence of a shred of evidence for thinking that light (“photo” means light as in photon) played any part in formation of the image. Thermal energy – possibly, indeed probably – especially if by direct contact and conduction, as distinct from heat radiation (infrared). But light – a stream of photons – NO! Certainly not visible white light (and uv laser beams are strictly for those who have never outgrown Star Wars). Where’s the evidence, Stephen E. Jones, you know that perennial hang- up of us scientifically-qualified folk who insist on the scientific method, even on blogs. What acted as photographic emulsion to capture the light energy? What protected the emulsion initially from light (like that light-tight box we call a camera)? Shutter? Exposure time? Focusing lens? Development?
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s a picture specially for you, Stephen Jones, BSc, Grad Dip Ed.
Postscript – added at 11:00 am today. As a courtesy to Stephen E. Jones (courtesy being something he singularly lacks himself – see the reply that follows) I sent a link to this post, accompanied by a single word – “Enjoy”. That was to ensure that he was the first, not the last, to know of the existence of this post. Yes, the single word “enjoy” because I had told him previously that I would no longer be posting comments to his site. That was a response to his bizarre and crankish moderation and/or censorship policies, though I see he has finally (not before time) abandoned that ludicrous “one comment only” per posting. Yes, it was that control-freak T&C that he brusquely sprung on me on my very first visit simply for attempting to respond to HIS response to my comment. He says he has given up debating and become a “blogger” instead. Blogger? He doesn’t know the meaning of the term. He knows as much about blogging as he does about elementary logic (and set theory).
Here, verbatim, is his response. It says all one needs to know about this rather nasty, intolerant and vindictive little man.
“Sciencebod sent me a message, being basically a bare link to one of his blog’s posts.
I did not (and will not) read the post (or in fact any posts or comments on Sciencebod’s blog, because I regard him as an `empty vessel which makes the most noise’); and I marked it as spam, because Sciencebod knows that he has been banned from this blog, because of his repeated breaches of my policies against “off-topic, offensive or sub-standard” comments.
I do consider Sciencebod’s attempt to post comments here, after he has been banned for continual, deliberate, breached of my stated policies, as spam.
In the unlikely event that Google takes action against Sciencebod for trying to comment here after he has been banned, i.e. spamming my blog, then he would have no one else to blame but himself.
Stephen E. Jones BSc (Biol), Grad. Dip. Ed.