“Note that the Shroud’s image is a type of photographic negative”?
Reminder, Mr.Jones: “photo-” is a root that means “light”. On what grounds do you base your assumption that light was involved in capturing that image? If it was light, then what served as imaging system (converging lens etc) or photographic emulsion? Who or what did the chemical development – or was it a digital photograph?
Someone who parades his scientific and educational qualifications should know better than inflict his assumptions or beliefs on others without supplying evidence to back them up.
For the record, I have consistently maintained on this blog that the Shroud image is not a photograph, but a THERMOGRAPH. The difference between Jones and myself is that I have successfully modelled crucial aspects the Shroud image (negative character, superficiality, encoded 3D information) using heat conduction from direct contact with a hot template, aka scorching (see banner). Repeat: the Shroud image has the expected characteristics of a thermograph – a contact scorch – NOT a photograph, not even a negative photograph. Yes, I know these are just words, but words matter.
It is because the Shroud image is most probably a scorch imprint from a template with some 3D relief that it is light/dark reversed, i.e. a “negative”, but not, repeat NOT a photographic negative, even if it behaves like one. Entities can behave like something else without being that something else. A whale may look at first sight like a fish, but is NOT a fish – example carefully chosen for the benefit of Stephen Jones, BSc (Biol).
Stephen Jones (to my mind, irresponsibly, for a science teacher) perpetuates his “photographic negative” error without bothering to explain how some mysterious proto-photography in his putative radiocarbon-defying 1st century AD tomb could produce any kind of image. Why a negative image, or indeed, why any kind of image without the paraphernalia of the photographic studio? He continues to use that blog of his to promote an evangelising agenda with what can only be described as junk science, yet flaunting his so-called scientific and educational credentials. From where I am standing, his understanding of the scientific method and of basic scientific concepts would appear to be essentially zilch …