The more you have, the more you hoard … (Barrie’s Song)

I’ve just spotted this item (the first of the three shown) on the BBC’s website:

BBC website, 26 July 2012

Maybe that top one could be set to music and called “Barrie’s Song”.

Lyric: “The more you have, the more you hoard, the  more you have the more you hoard (repeated over and over again)…   Chorus: “Mine, all mine, mine, all mine…”

This thought was inspired by Barrie Schwortz (aka STERA) Inc’s burgeoning list of copyright holdings, which now includes not just the Shroud pictures which he was invited to take,  with his camera and expertise, but those of Secondo Pia’s (1898), Mark Evans’s (70s), and even pictures of Caravaggio’s art would you believe it… ? Oops, I nearly forgot – the Pray Codex too (11th century) – see a previous post for the evidence.

At the risk of sounding monotonous:  “The more you have, the more you hoard, the more you hoard (repeated over and over again)…   Chorus: “Mine, all mine, mine, all mine…”

I tried to work in “licensing rights and lucrative copyright fees”  but it didn’t scan…  😉

PS: You can read Barrie’s and STERA’s attempts to justify their monopoly on Shroud  images, data and memorabilia elsewhere. It appears to have convinced a few trusting souls, though not mine (who cannot understand why permission to use HD photomacro- and photomicrographs is explicitly refused for the  internet – while available to book publishers at a price – yet in the same breath stating that licensing income is used to support Barrie’s  and STERA’s own website (“”). So there’s good internet (Barrie’s) and bad internet (other people’s). Good Shroudie internet is presumably a shop window for marketable Shroudie (and non-Shroud) products.

Me – I’m just a disinterested researcher. Everything I post is free for anyone to use. How they use it is their business – since I’m not in the business of promoting and peddling “an enduring enigma” – just rational and hard-nosed science …

Tomorrow’s post will address scorching and fluorescence – a topic I have given considerable thought ever since BS came out of the woodwork onto Dan Porter’s site to inform this Johnny-Come-Lately  (Dan’s description) that scorching had been conclusively excluded on the basis of (lack of) fluorescence. Ah yes, science by consensus (or rather self-selected STURP consensus that I am determined to expose for what it is – useful facts but (all too often) –  “enigma”-promoting  via Mickey Mouse interpretations.

Tomorrow I shall talk about pyrolysis and temperature-dependent fluorescence-generating aromatization – the kind of  TESTABLE detailed molecular level stuff that you won’t find in STURP reports or STERA’s largely superficial copyright holdings.   But I would like all STERA’s HD images to be posted to the internet – if only to distinguish between blood and non-blood, but also between old blood and new blood (the latter the subject of my next posting).

So how can BS and his STERA justify holding copyright on Mark Evans, Secondo Pia, Caravaggio and the Pray Codex?

“The more you have, the more you hoard, the  more you have the more you hoard (repeated over and over again)…   Chorus: “Mine, all mine, mine, all mine…”

PS: this comment has just appeared on The Other Site:

“If you want to do research and would like Barrie’s pictures to do that research, visit and e-mail him and request whatever pictures you would like to use to do your research. That is precisely what I did and he has been most generous. Perhaps you ought to read Barrie’s response posted in Dan’s blog elsewhere.

The real problem is that not everyone will honor these legal and rightful copyrights. Barrie has extensive experience with this area since he was a professional photographer for about 40 years and also taught copyright law in a school in California. In this area he is an expert. This is like telling John Jackson how to do physics or Ray Rogers, God rest his soul, how to do chemistry.”

As I have just said, when Barrie Schwortz,  President of STERA (that’s the “Shroud of Turin Educational and Research Association”) comes out of the woodwork, saying he does not normally bother with what is written on blogs (BUT…) and then attempts to trash my science, citing STURP science (STURP science note, not STURP photographs)  then you can forget any idea that I am going cap in hand to the President of STERA for permission to access STURP data.). I have said it before, and I shall say it again. I do not approve of STERA’s, or rather its President’s modus operandi.  Fair and open contest, YES.  Guerilla hit-and-run tactics by a non-scientifically qualified individual, NO. I don’t even think that someone invited to photograph an icon should have copyright to those photographs. He should have been contracted on a fee-only basis, maybe with a small commission too, but has no business denying access to those photographs, especially the HD ones needed to resolve scientific controversies. I repeat – all that material should be in the public domain, not hoarded by a “copyright expert”.

As for the second paragraph, I had a good chuckle over that one. I have already told John Jackson that his 3D-imaging, while welcome, was over-engineered at the planning stage, and reminded him of the “suck-it-and-see” principle.  Scientists freely criticize each others approaches. It’s not personal.  It’s what professionals do – though usually at conferences rather than on internet sites.  As for Ray Rogers, he was for sure a gifted thermochemist working on explosives. But he was out of his depth when speculating on image-forming mechanism. Had he kept his feet on the ground, he would have performed nitrogen-analysis to see if there was any mileage in that wacky Maillard-mediated gaseous-diffusion hypothesis of his. Real scientists – those who do or still do experiments that is  instead of talking about other people’s experiments – rarely use the term “expert” in my experience. “Expert” is a term that tends to become risible when one is an experimental scientist.  There are no “experts” – just researchers who are good, bad or indifferent at winkling out the relevant evidence, and evaluating it sensibly to arrive at the truth (or as often as not  an approximation thereto).


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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.