Still more character assassination allowed, indeed fostered, on That Other Site …

Update Saturday 13th October: this has just appeared under the posting in question:

“I agreed with a complaint by Colin Berry and have blue-penciled out some wording and replaced it with what I felt was appropriate. Apologies to Colin Berry and David Rolfe”.

I thank Dan Porter* for seeing my point of view, and was briefly minded to delete this post. But as I have said all along , this blog was conceived as a warts an’ all account of my attempts to get a handle on the Shroud,  and to chart what happens when I  quietly drip-feed my conclusions into the public domain.  So it would be inconsistent and more besides to go sanitizing it, just as my no-nonsense interpretation of the Shroud  as a blood-painted scorch  begins to attract some  serious flak.  I may review that decision in a week or two, but for now this posting stays, without any editing, if only to allow folk on The Other Site to see what the fuss was about.

* The sincerity of which is now thrown into question by this new addition:

Revised  (Paulette concurs by email) to remove a couple of sentences that Colin Berry complained were attacks on his character. Ironic?”.

“Ironic”.  What’s that supposed to mean? Anyway, the offending words, claiming I  “make things up”  have been removed – which for now is all that matters…


From “Paulette”, a US-based science teacher as I recall:  “One need only look at Colin Berry to see how anyone can make up and use image characteristics to advance personal agendas.”

So what else is new?  Still more of the same steady drip drip of  defamatory comment from The Other Site. What’s more, the site’s host not only allows it in his comments section,  but in this instance encourages it (I refer to the fact that the above slur on my character was a personal communication elevated to a guest posting).

For the record, I have posted many, many times on image characteristics, both from model scorches or from Shroud Scope images, and cannot recall ever being seriously questioned on observations or conclusions, either here or the other site. Yet here I am accused of “making up” image characteristics (unspecified)  and advancing personal agendas (unspecified). Unless Ms. “Science Teacher” can be more specific as to my transgressions, there is no case to answer on my part, but a serious one to answer on hers – like why is she using someone else’s website to defame me,  and why does the site’s host allow this anonymous individual to slander/libel a named individual?

Call me mistaken, incompetent, a Mickey Mouse scientist if you wish, lady, which are all valid descriptions if attacking a person’s SCIENCE –  and ones I have used regularly  and will continue to do so. But don’t tell the world that I “make things up”.  My results are always displayed, using photographs wherever possible.  I always try to provide enough detail to allow folk to repeat my experiments and reproduce my findings.

I have not devoted my entire career (and now retirement) to scientific research and teaching (yes, teaching) to tolerate poison pen letters sent to Dan Porter from anonymous individuals, hiding behind first names or pseudonyms-  ones that attack my basic integrity and honesty

It is high time that Dan Porter began to employ a blue pencil before posting this kind of poison.


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 Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Still more character assassination allowed, indeed fostered, on That Other Site …

  1. It is ungentlemanly conduct (to say the least) for anonymous individuals to take cheap shots at people who write under their full name. But what do you expect them to do? Sign their insults with something like ‘Ron Smith, re-tired car meckanick’ or ‘Paulette Doe, science teacher and former UFO abductee’? When people hide their identities, there’s usually a very good reason.

  2. colinsberry says:

    Absolutely. I’d go further and say that Dan Porter ought not to be making posts out of emails he receives from those who fail to give their full names, especially if attacking and insulting folk who post, as we do, under our full names. His site is increasingly dominated by a handful of Shroudie trolls, sniping from cover, which is why I no longer comment there directly…

  3. How many readers do you reckon he has, though? Because he boasts about having counted over a million page-views, but his only active readers seem to be these few trolls who compulsively comment on whatever the topic is. Could it be that Max Patrick Hamon alone is responsible for 900.000 of those page views, and daveb of wellington NZ for some 90.000, leaving only about 10.000 for the rest of us?

  4. colinsberry says:

    Monsieur Max would be highly offended if you credited him with a mere 900,000 of those page views. He would post a comment telling you in no uncertain terms that your sums were wrong (plus 3 more to correct his typos). That would bring his total to 900,004 page views (at least), all in the blinking of an eye 😉

  5. Max Patrick Hamon says:

    “Could it be that Max Patrick Hamon alone is responsible for 900.000 of those page views.” DEFINITELY YES ASSlicknovsly (thank you for correcting my typo)

  6. Max Patrick Hamon says:

    …am just posting through you!

    • Max Patrick Hamon says:

      TO MR DADA, Omega Alpha (as in Oxford Academic), GOOD ROMAN COCATHOLIC (VIA OWL BOD)

      Mostly in haste and in snatches in my spare times as I’m working, I knowledgeably (not compulsively) can comment on several topics on Dan Porter’s blog, which you just cannot do not because you have no time to waste or you think you are toooooooooooooooo sane for it but just because you’re definitely an ignooooooooooooooooramus as far as the Turin Sindon is concerned..

  7. colinsberry says:

    I once gently ridiculed yours and others ideas re orthogonal imaging by regimented projection of reactive amines or other chemicals, saying it would require collimation of a molecular beam. So while you continue to insult me here and elsewhere, I see that has not stopped you from borrowing my terminology (collimator, molecular beam), presumably in an attempt to lend your own wacky ideas some scientific respectability.

    It takes hardware to get molecules to collimate, to say nothing of a vacuum chamber to prevent them being deflected by air molecules. Those ideas of yours are a complete non-starter if the “laboratory” is a 1st century tomb, requiring a ‘state-of-the-art’ circular stone to seal it off. That high tech’ door was oh so last millennium (but one)… Was the collimator a Fred Flintstone construction as well?

  8. colinsberry says:

    To block, or not to block, that is the question:
    Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
    The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
    Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
    And by opposing end them …

  9. Hugh Farey says:

    While I can only applaud your attitude to free speech, it has become quite difficult to follow the ‘Recent Comments’ column side-panel, as it only lists the previous 15 entries. I was surprised (and delighted, I may say) to see Adrie’s comment on shrinkage and the image via transmitted light, as I only found it by chance. I hope I haven’t missed anything important elsewhere.
    I wonder if former Pr Hamon might be persuaded to concatenate his comments so they don’t occupy too many slots in the list. If not, and for that reason only, then I would support the blocking of such of his comments as you feel appropriate.

    • colinsberry says:

      Good morning Hugh

      I’ve just spotted your question re lignin on Dan Porter’s (as it now calls itself). I think it improbable that lignin could be distributed evenly enough on flax fibres to allow the latter to receive an image. Lignin is resinous and water-repellent. It’s difficult to see how linen, with 6-7% moisture, is able to take up 20% moisture without feeling damp (as is stated in wiki) if each fibre were evenly sheathed in lignin, even as a very fine layer.

      • colinsberry says:

        Postcript to the comments re lignin: tomorrow (probably) I will suggest a simple experiment (well, simple to start with) that could be done to explore the physical and/or chemical relationship between a superficial scorch and the underlying linen. It would focus on interactions with cellulose in the first instance, but one might get some pointers as to whether or not lignin had any role to play (I suspect not). It would require use of an intensely BLUE chemical reagent that is easily prepared in a school laboratory (hint hint). Anyone care to guess which reagent I have in mind?

      • Hugh Farey says:

        Guessing… This from
        “Toluidine Blue O: Place a drop of 0.05% aqueous toluidine blue O on the specimen. Stain for 2-4 minutes, then replace the stain with water. Polyphenols, such as lignin and tannins, will stain green to blue-green. Pectin and pectic substances will stain pink to purple.”
        It does say a histochemical test for fresh tissue slices. Would it work on cloth? We haven’t got any toluidine blue, but I can easily get some.

  10. colinsberry says:

    I won’t instal a block just yet, Hugh, but I will go through and delete comments that fail to address the issues raised by the blog. If nothing else it will bring back those that have been prematurely pushed off the bottom of the list. Thank you for the moral support…

  11. Adrie says:

    I haven’t posted anything since Saturday 27/10 but the comment on the shrinkage, Hugh. You might subscribe to the Atom-feeds of the posts and comments of this blog. I did this, and it works. If necessary, clearing up the Recent Comments side bar would be handy for casual visitors of this blog, though.

  12. colinsberry says:

    Et alors? Get a life…

  13. colinsberry says:

    I’d forgotten about toluidine blue, Hugh. That could certainly have its uses. However, the reagent I had in mind is cuprammonium hydroxide- for use as a first step in isolating the chemical components of any scorch layer on linen. It’s easily made by dissolving copper hydroxide in ammonia solution. Are you familiar with its highly unusual property, shared by just a few other chemicals (e.g. N-methylmorpholine N-oxide and lithium chloride/dimethylformamide?) I’ll try and do a short post tomorrow.

  14. Max Patrick Hamon says:

    In spite of your censorship (freedom of speech, ad hom attacks, insults and the like SHALL be your own exclusive wordlright . It is not for others to pratice at your expense), I’ll endlessly repeat here A FACT you keep ignoring: you’re are an academic ignorant as far as the TS is concerned (you STILL cannot even discriminate between the warp and weft sindon side; nor even between genuine ‘old rejuvenated blood’ stain patterns and painted animal blood etc).

    From the very outset, you mostly work from biased TS photographs and STILL have a very poor descriptive knowledge of the relic (you’d better do some more homework). All this would amount for a warrior to train with fake ammo (ammunition) so when war comes he is TOTALLY as UNprepared for the real thing as possible!

    You first asserted you scorch theory could be applied to mummies (any news from Egypt?) now you shift to a metallic basrelief with lemon juice… Next step: try a mummified metallic basrelief or a metallically basrelieved mummy with a pigna ColiNADA….

  15. colinsberry says:

    I have allowed that particular comment of yours, Max, one of many that you have sent these last few days which I have had to trash on account of the childish abuse and name-calling. But the time has come to say, enough is enough. I cannot allow you to trash my site with your obsessions about things that are not strictly on topic. OK, so you have ideas that you want to be considered, but you cannot be allowed to take over other people’s sites.

    So please don’t waste your time (or mine) in composing further comments, since they will not be appearing on this site. My advice to you is to create your own website. It is a 5 minute job to set one up, and can then be improved little by little.

    Your first priority will then be to make a decision on how to deal with attention-seekers who contribute little or nothing to your chosen topic, as I have just done.


    Colin Berry

    PS Apologies by the way to readers if I am mistaken over warp v weft. It’s a subject i was discussing with Hugh just the other day, and there seem to be differing definitions, at least on the internet. Two points. Firstly, Thibault Heimburger used the same labelling as I did without incurring flak: (In fact I may have been influenced by reading his most recent paper, i.e. “All the threads (warp and weft) are more or less colored even if the color is generally denser on the warp threads (the horizontal threads in the above pictures) which are generally higher than the weft threads with respect to the fabric plane. Having folk try to trip me up over points of detail while remaining silent when the SAME points are made by pro-authenticists is all part of the territory for me. 😉

    Second point: I could have called them Thread A & Thread B, I could have called them Tweedledum & Tweedledee, and it would not have made a blind bit of difference to the case I was making, namely that the highest part of the weave on the Shroud is where one type of thread loops over three and then under one, over three, under one etc etc, effectively creating three different planes. The image is predominantly on the thread that loops over the three, that being the highest of the three planes in the weave. Warp, weft – call the two what you will – it does not alter the 3D geometry that is the real issue where image imprinting is concerned. I shall leave it to the weaving purists to battle over the correct semantics. For my part I’ve shown a labelled diagram pointing to the two distinctive threads of interest, whether “correctly” labelled or not, that was intended purely to illuminate the scientific principles.

    • Hugh Farey says:

      My query was more or less academic, until I can think of why it shouldn’t be, but Thibault Heimberger, on shroudstory, where I asked the same question, agrees with you (and differs from, apparently, both Stephen Jones and former Pr Hamon), that the image side is the warp side.

      • colinsberry says:

        Thanks Hugh for setting the record straight (and doing likewise on The Other Site).

        I’ll put up a short post later*, showing how I arrived at my distinction between Shroud weft and warp. My authority? The wiki entry on weaving – maybe not the last word on the subject – but proof if proof is needed that I don’t just write stuff off the top of my head as some would have you and others believe. The internet is there to be used.

        Did you see my earlier comment on your temperature/fluorescence studies and the triangulation testing?

        *Now posted

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s