Superficial: existing or occurring at or on the surface: “superficial damage”.
Shroud ‘authenticists’ – and even some sceptics- bang on monotonously about the alleged 200nm thickness of the Shroud image . Oooh, isn’t that like, so, you know, superficial?
In fact 200 nm is the typical thickness of gold leaf, the kind that our medieval ancestors used for illuminating manuscripts.
So is not in point of fact a thickness, or rather thinness, that is beyond human comprehension, given it was guided into place on the end of a brush. In any case that 200nm figure has never been measured directly – it is merely assumed on the basis that a stripped image “ghost” in Raymond Rogers’ and others STURP tests with adhesive tape which was too thin in cross-section to see, far less measure, under a light microscope is unlikely to be more than 200nm thick, albeit with a sizeable margin of error. But that doesn’t stop some folk intoning “200nm , 200nm” almost Hare Krishna-like as if the figure had been brought down from some mountain on a tablet of stone.
So what ‘gives’ with all these Shroud investigators who routinely play the 200nm card: have they done any systematic studies of scorching and temperature? Nope, none as far as I aware. But that does not stop them or blogmeisters from setting up their 200nm roadblock saying “advance no further, you are encroaching on forbidden territory; desist from your line in scorching immediately, your images are not sufficiently superficial (read less than 200nm thick) “. Spot the science (but all I see is self-serving playing with words and numbers).
Nor does it stop them demanding that I measure the thickness of a scorch image if I want to be taken seriously. It doesn’t stop them ignoring or ridiculing the growing dossier of evidence accumulating on my postings these last 8 months that a thermal imprint (“scorch mark”) from an inanimate template explains crucial features of the Shroud image – its negative character, its encoded 3D properties, its confinement largely to the most superficial part of the weave – i.e. the ribs or the so-called crown threads. It doesn’t stop them seizing on my posts, and doing instant cover versions with one purpose only – to make an Aunt Sally of my focus on scorching despite the latter being entirely conventional and mainstream in its approach and in my view the only credible theory that stands up to close scientific scrutiny and which is TESTABLE and potentially FALSIFIABLE in model systems as all good hypotheses should be.
How many investigators are doing model studies on scorching right now? Just one as far as I am aware, et c’est moi, not counting Dr. Di Lazzaros’s one-off experiment with the (excessively) hot coin posted to Dan Porter’s site last February with the condescending science lesson attached – which beyond a simple acknowledgement and one or two carefully chosen words, I decided largely to postpone responding to in detail until yesterday’s posting, having little regard for: 1. Nominal, self-serving, point-scoring experimental protocols and 2. People who talk at me instead of to me.
Science by decree? Science by diktat? Science by agenda? Science by ridicule and snide putdowns even in blog titles that are pirated cover-versions of MY research displayed purely to maintain the footfall on someone else’s agenda-driven website?
No thanks. I reject this attempt to be carpeted on the 200nm criterion – itself a monument to lackadaisical indeed sloppy ill-focused science – one that attempts to shift the burden of proof onto those who pursue realistic lines of research, coming from those who resent feet-kept- firmly-on-the-ground science, ones who wish to continue with their own wacky lines of so-called research, forever promoting the idea of “enduring enigma”, grabbing newspaper headlines, promoting some might say the current Vatican agenda. Until someone can show me proof that a scorch mark can never be less than 200nm in thickness (why not????) then I shall continue to investigate scorching, on the commonsensical assumption that a scorch can be as thin as one wishes – simply by adjusting temperature and contact time, even if one does not (temporarily) have the means for measuring it, and nor for that matter does anyone else.
Remember: there is always a time factor in scorching – as well a protective elements like a film of moisture. That’s why one can brush lightly against a hot surface, like Mrs. Porter’s electric iron, trigger some nerve endings and pain receptors, but be left without a serious third degree burn – or even one that penetrates appreciably below the skin.
I will return to some of those checklists (e.g. that of Paulette’s) at another time. In fact I do have a reply already prepared, but shall keep it under wraps for now. I do not care for checklist so-called science at the best of times -knowing that much of what passes for “science” in those lists is anything but (e.g. “uv fluorescence”), being little more than name-dropping (hands up all those who know why heavily- charred linen, as distinct from superficial scorches- fluoresces under uv )and I care even less for the supercilious stance of the science teacher in question. Yes, I do know the meaning of the term “superficial” dear lady, having researched Shroud image-superficiality for some 9 months now, producing over 100 postings, and in fact have provided as far as I am aware the only rationale as yet for several of the peculiar and subtle properties of the Shroud image – e.g. that half-tone character you mention- in terms of (superficial) PCW hemicelluloses.
So people, science teachers included, who kick off by asking if “I even know the meaning of superficial” should not expect the courtesy of an immediate reply. The same goes for those who say I have “merely produced a scorch” with my 250 degree C oven. Wrong. I repeat WRONG, and spectacularly so. I have produced an IMAGE that is an approximate facsimile of a 3D bas-relief template, one moreover which is a pseudo-negative with encoded 3D information, one that I have shown responds to 3D enhancement programs? Ring any bells?
Colin Berry, retired science-researcher
PS: this comment from “Louis” has just appeared on The Other Site:
September 8, 2012 at 11:10 am | #1