I’m still trying to come to terms with that comment of Daniel R Porter’s, see my previous posting yesterday, viz:
“I guess you can do that if you ignore or alter facts. However, the Drs. Jackson, Rogers, Di Lazzaro and Heimburger, all independently at different times, have adequately shown that such a theory, hypothesis, wild-ass-guess is wrong by pointing out that heat cannot form a physically superficial discoloration of linen fibers.”
It is truly staggering in its implications. Can the Godfathers of Shroudology really be so ignorant of elementary chemical principles as to subscribe to that statement? One unfortunately is no longer with us (Mr. Raymond N Rogers RIP), but do the other three concur with that statement?
I may not be the most politic or courteous person in the world, especially when I see the love of my life (science) sullied by agenda-driven pseudo-science. But I think it only fair to hold off venting my spleen at Porter’s trashing of physical and chemical principles until I have given an opportunity for the gentlemen on whose behalf he claims to speak to issue correctives if they see fit. (Whether the enigmatic Porter himself has scientific qualifications or not we have never been told – indeed he says next to nothing about himself except for being an Anglican, having until recently used ‘episcopalian’ as his monicker – but I for one am now left in no doubt whatsoever that he has no formal scientific training or background worth speaking of).
In the meantime, here are the results of a quickie experiment I did this morning. It’s not one I would have normally have thought of doing, given that the results were in my view entirely predictable. But given the yawning chasm of ignorance out there about the nature of pyrolysis (aka scorching) of linen, which like all chemical reactions needs a push start in the form of heat to get it over the Arrhenius energy hump, I thought it time to demonstrate the relationship between time, temperature and scorch intensity/superficiality.
Above that blue line are results I have shown previously, where two heated metal objects (a pencil sharpener and bas-relief trinket) were pressed down onto the linen for 2-3 second approx, then pressed on a new area of linen for approx. the same time etc etc. The result, not surprisingly, is a falling off in the intensity of the scorch intensity until the final scorch is barely visible, if at all. That final image will be exceedingly superficial needless to say. I have not measured it, indeed I doubt if the technology exists to do so, even to this day, but common sense says that the linen is scarcely affected, and any image would be superficial in the extreme.
Below the blue line is the new experiment. There, the heated metal was pressed into the linen for some 2 seconds approx, then pressed into fresh linen for 4 seconds approx, then 8 seconds, then 16 seconds etc.
Note that the first image was exceedingly faint, making a nonsense of the ludicrous claim (see above) that “heat cannot form a physically superficial discoloration of linen fibers.” The second image (4 secs) was this time more intense, and the third (8 secs) more intense still. Thereafter the image intensity decreased, despite the exponentially-greater contact times, due clearly to the progressive cooling of the metal template.
As I say, I am reviewing the situation, For some 8 months now it has seemed like I have been banging my head against a brick wall in getting scorching recognized as the most probable means of image formation. Indeed I can think of no other credible alternatives (and that includes the Rogers’ Maillard reaction which Porter showcases on that shroudofturin4journalists site as if it were proven fact (it is anything but – being a highly tendentious hypothesis that lacks theoretical clout, much less experimental support).
I think I now see what I am up against, and what I see has little to do with science, and everything to do with unimpeded progress of the pro-authenticity Shroudie road show, despite the radiocarbon dating, the latter unceremoniously trashed needless to say (now there’s a surprise).
Unless I can be convinced to the contrary, then Dan Porter and those other folk he mentions who are still alive can safely assume that from now on the gloves are off. As I say, I hold a deep and abiding contempt for agenda-driven pseudo-science, chicanery by any other name, and will not hesitate from now on to “tell it the way it is”.
Colin Berry (retired science bod)