Postscript (correction: ‘prescript‘) added July 2019:
You have arrived at a 2014 posting. That was the year in which this investigator finally abandoned the notion of the body image being made by direct scorch off a heated metal template (despite many attractions, like negative image, 3D response etc. But hear later: orchestral DA DA! Yup, still there with the revised technology! DA DA! ).
In its place came two stage image production.
Stage 1: sprinkle white wheaten flour or suchlike vertically onto human subject from head to foot, front and rear (ideally with initial smear of oil to act as weak adhesive). Shake off excess flour, then cover the lightly coated subject with wet linen. Press down VERTICALLY and firmly (thus avoiding sides of subject). Then (and here’s the key step):
Stage 2: suspend the linen horizontally over glowing charcoal embers and roast gently until the desired degree of coloration, thus ‘developing’ the flour imprint, so as to simulate a sweat-generated body image that has become yellowed with centuries of ageing.
The novel two-stage “flour-imprinting’ technology was unveiled initially on my generalist “sciencebuzz” site. (Warning: one has to search assiduously to find it, and it still uses a metal template, albeit unheated, as distinct from human anatomy):
So it’s still thermal development of sorts, but with a key difference. One can take imprints off human anatomy (dead or alive!).
A final wash of the roasted flour imprint with soap and water yields a straw-coloured nebulous image, i.e. with fuzzy, poorly defined edges. It’s still a negative (tone-reversed) image that responds to 3D-rendering software, notably the splendid freely-downloadable ImageJ. (Ring any bells? Better still, orchestral accompaniment – see , correction HEAR earlier – DA DA!))
This 2014 “prescript” replaces the one used for my earlier 2012/2013 postings, deploying abandoned ‘direct scorch’ technology.
Thank you for your patience and forbearance. Here’s where the original posting started:
Original posting starts here:
Appended below is latest example of trolling on shroudstory.com from one “Andy”, who like so many others on that site simply can’t let go. He came back today after lying low for a month, to renew his attack on me with his trumped- up charges as if there had been no cooling-off period.
I’ve been blogging long enough on this and other sites for folk to know my beef. I detest pseudoscience, especially when it’s agenda-driven, relentless and systematic. I detest the way that Shroud authenticity is being pushed by the ideologues who constantly seek to impugn one’s motives. (Today there are references to Hades, the Devil etc etc). I will openly criticize the work of any research investigator, living or dead, whom I consider to have resorted to pseudoscience in order to push Shroud authenticity or merely Shroud mystique. (I would be equally hard on anyone pushing Shroud ‘inauthenticity’ if I suspected the science were rigged to produce the desired answer).
This, as I say, is just the latest example, and by no means the worst, merely symptomatic of the tactics and strategy deployed – starting with the targeting and provocation that is the modus operandi of internet trolls. Later, I shall cite a much earlier instance, almost 2 years ago, in which the site’s host allowed a complete ‘newcomer’ (?hmmm) to launch a hit-and-run attack on me and my credentials, attempting to trash one of my most treasured hot-from-the-presses research findings .
Porter gave that troll a guest-posting (one of his favourite tactics that has been deployed against me time and time again), always setting up the hard cop/soft cop routine, he himself switching between hard and soft cop. Sorry, Daniel. I spotted YOUR modus operandi a long time ago.
Enough is enough. From now on, I shall cease referring to shroudstory.com as “The Other Site” or “Across the Way”. Henceforth it will be “Troll Central” and will remain so until such a time as Daniel R.Porter calls off his ideologue hounds and cleans up his site.
Here’ s the thread in question. Note the dates, and that one month gap before “Andy’s” renewal of hostilities :
February 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm | #20
Honestly Dan, I don’t expect any non sentimentality from Colin when it comes to STURP members, scientists or anyone else. He has lambasted Rogers (among others) when he was not able to defend himself. It seems to me Colin simply doesn’t like Rogers. He may pretend its scientific, but his character assaults of him in these blogs of which I am a witness gives him no credibility at all in the issue. I will not listen to Colin. There are many real scientists who can at least be honest and fair, even if they disagree with conclusions (anyone’s).
February 4, 2014 at 3:27 am | #21
If you don’t mind my saying, you seem fairly proficient in the character assault department yourself, Andy, especially as my comments regarding Rogers have been confined largely, if not entirely, to details of his science, with just occasional asides re the failure to maintain strict scientific objectivity on his part. He was, to put it colloquially, rooting for authenticity, albeit a chemist’s version thereof, with chemical, rather than radiation or thermal imprinting. In other words, we were allowed to have any scorch we liked, provided it’s a Rogers’ approved chemical “scorch”.
Ray Rogers, to put it mildly. showed a distinct pro-authenticity bias and was clearly piqued when the
radiochemical radiocarbon dating was announced. Maybe you consider my saying that to be “personal” or disrespectful to a dead scientist. I don’t, since the chief requirement one expects of any SCIENTIST given privileged access to the TS and with no obvious specialist skills to contribute (why recruit a thermochemist, unless to investigate pyrolysis and scorching with an open mind?) was transparent objectivity, whatever the underlying religious beliefs or otherwise.
I am not going to respond in kind to YOUR character attack, Andy (Andy Weiss?). What I shall do is assemble a list on my own site of the numerous instances in which Ray Rogers simply got it wrong, of failed to properly support his often over-dogmatic assertions which again and again were more expressions of hunch or opinion, NOT closely argued science. See my recent post on the sloppy way that he employed the term “vanillin” that has since been adopted as the assumed gold standard in Shroud literature. But Rogers was NOT measuring vanillin. He was supposed to be measuring components of undegraded lignin that were NOT vanillin – albeit with his simplistic unfit-for-purpose spot colorimetric reagent (why did he not use his pyrolysis mass spectrometer?).
ONE MONTH GAP
March 2, 2014 at 8:08 pm | #25
That was clearly not a character assault. You did that yourself, Colin.
March 2, 2014 at 8:06 pm | #28
Glad you can walk the dog again, Dan. No doubt Colin is thinking and gets others doing the same, which is good, but his character assaults he has made completely tuned me out from what he has to say. It’s a shame really, but I don’t have the time to waste. I am far too busy.
March 2, 2014 at 9:45 pm | #40
You’ve waited a month, just to have another go at me Andy? See my #21.
Daniel R Porter: if you continue to allow this kind of trolling to occur on your site, I may feel obliged to devote a posting to it. I’m even toying with the idea of referring to this site in all future postings as Troll Central.
March 2, 2014 at 10:34 pm | #41
Colin, do what you must, but do it elsewhere.
March 2, 2014 at 10:58 pm | #42
Your comment is awaiting moderation. (Here we go again – Daniel R.Porter back in censorship mode for about the 3rd or 4th time)
Systematic trolling, trumped-up charges, demonisation.
What an ugly site!
Have just submitted this long-overdue raspberry to Daniel R.Porter re that appalling posting he allowed, nay cajoled, Paolo di Lazzaro to place on his site.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Turning to more constructive matters, newcomers to this site (or others who have not looked in recently) may be interested to see the conclusions this retired (biomedical) scientist has reached after researching the Shroud these last two years or so.
Here’s a link to a recent posting, with a flow chart and summary:
Next task: may take a few days to complete. Give some more background details on that onion epidermis experiment, showing how those cells are likely to behave on desiccation to create a thin double-skin comparable to the reported dimensions of both the Shroud image layer and (importantly) the similar thickness of the PCW sheath on the linen fibre. (Being rich in chemically-reactive glucoxylans and other hemicelluloses makes the PCW the prime target for contact scorching, as well as the most superficial, first-encountered layer). It’ll be an opportunity to post to my long dormant sciencebuzz* site initially, showing how a typical plant cell can be modelled using a polythene bag, a string bag, Vaseline and water. I showed the model some years ago to a couple of schoolteachers who seemed impressed, saying it was not something they had encountered before. Whether it’s still “original” or not remains to be seen. One good visual aid is worth a thousand words, methinks.
* Here’s what I said over 4 years ago when setting up the sciencebuzz site (the aims – and the prime target of those aims – not having changed one iota):
Sat Aug 22, 2009
Some people keep a old boot handy when watching TV – or is that a cartoonist’s creation? Irrespective, I feel the need for a virtual old boot when perusing the media’s handling of science. Think of this new blog on the block as that “old boot”, but don’t be surprised if some constructive comments creep in from time to time, or even new, highly questionable, indeed suspect hypotheses. What is science if it’s not sticking one’s head above the parapet?
Never is my spectator ire more keenly felt when there’s no facility for readers to post responses, or when one’s gems of wisdom/vitriol/jaundice fester unpublished in the moderator’s in-tray during three-hour lunch breaks, or fail to appear at all.
Think of this, then, is a talking-shop for making sense – or nonsense- of the science we read on the main sites. The ones I track on a regular basis are the BBC, the Telegraph, The Times, The Independent and the Guardian. Yep, up-market anglocentric, I grant you, (do I hear groans) and I’ve no time for the dumbed-down underbelly. But I’ll broaden my sweep if folk can suggest some wider reading which, in estate agents’ argot “repays closer inspection”.
“Sciencebod” as I then was.
Here’s a C&P , currently displayed on Troll Central, of what Professor Giulio Fanti is quoted as having said re dating methods.
Fanti: “Today, we have thus five different dating methods: the radiocarbon method, my three and those of Rogers. Also, we could have been wrong. But four different independent methods, reach the same result, but then speak a clear language. As long as these results are not refuted, and I can not imagine how this should be possible, these results have scientific validity. So that has first Century after Christ the greatest probability as emergence period for the Turin grave cloth. This dating corresponds exactly to the time Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine. We now await the reactions from the rest of the science world. So far we received only affirmative and affirmative responses, but no refutation.”
So he claims a score of 4/5, conveniently ignoring the fact that radiocarbon dating is vastly less open to false positives and/or false negatives than any method that relies on chemical change. (Yes, we know about the “invisible mending”, but that is largely speculative, assisted by those scarcely credible results from Mr.Raymond Rogers RIP, explosives chemist, post-retitement kitchen microscopist/experimentalist (like me) using illicitly harvested and distributed threads.
But I know three different people who each maintain, on different approaches, that a medieval forgery involved heating of the linen that would have produced accelerated ageing.
1. The early owners of the Mark1 Shroud, who according to Antoine de Lalaing involved testing with fire, repeated laundering and “boiling in oil”.
2. Luigi Garlaschelli, whose powder frottage method involved heating in an oven at an elevated temperature (? 180 degrees C), this procedure causing ochre (iron oxide) with acidic impurities (made by heating green vitriol, i.e. hydrated iron (II) sulphate with release of acidic sulphur oxides) to cause etching of linen under the pigment AND generalized yellowing and degradation of fibres.
3. My recently revised scorch hypothesis that proposes the Mark 1 Shroud was an obvious and unsubtle contact scorch from a hot template that was subsequently toned down by the procedures listed by Lalaing. (They would have reduced the contrast between image and background, giving rise to those descriptions of image formation as one of “accelerated ageing”.
So while Professor Fanti claims a score of 4/5 for his 1st century dating, I would claim a score of 3/3 for the linen having been artificially aged, such that i is mechanically weakened and chemically altered in Fanti’ and Rogers’ chemical tests, but does NOT fool the radiocarbon dating. Come to think of, the score for non-authenticists is 4/4 if you include the radiocarbon dating. 4/4 beats 4/5 any day, especially with the realistically-appraised non-cuckoo-land radiocarbon data.
Professor Fanti cannot legitimately claim the evidence is in his favour, lacking as he does information on the complete environmental history of the Shroud. His (and Rogers’) dating methods are model-dependent. They start with the hypothesis that the linen is of 1st century provenance, and fail to envisage the various kinds of treatments, obvious and less so. that may have followed a 14th century provenance, apart from the obvious ones like the 1532 fire.
Frankly, I don’t have a lot of time for what clearly is agenda-driven so-called science. Rogers betrayed his agenda when he assumed that the linen had been spun and woven according to assumed 1st century methodology (citing Pliny). Fanti betrayed his agenda when claiming he could detect the ‘correct’ Biblical time sequence in the acquisition of different classes of bloodstain on the TS (scourge marks especially), despite there being no imaging of wounds directly.
Am now toying with the idea of widening my attack on agenda-driven so-called science, systematically and shamelessly promoted via the MSM. I need a campaign slogan. How about this for starters?
“IF IT SMACKS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE, THEN SMACK BACK HARD – AND SWIFTLY”