Site banner: see how a simulated sweat imprint (my wet hand pressed down onto dark fabric) responds magnificently to 3D-rendering computer software (ImageJ) before and after tone-reversal (negative back to positive image). Remind you of anything? Like those supposedly “unique” and “encoded” 3D-properties of the Shroud of Turin body image? For a more realistic aged/yellowed sweat imprint, see the many postings on this site since 2014 obtained with the aid of my Model 10 (imprinting off parts, notably head and hands, of a real body (mine!) onto linen with white wheaten flour, followed by heat-development of the image to generate carbon-based and thus bleachable straw-coloured melanoidins via Maillard reactions between wheat proteins and reducing sugars).
OK, so the 1981 STURP summary did not describe the enigmatic image of the Man on the Turin Shroud as a “scorch”. The term “scorch” appeared nowhere, and this investigator no longer uses that term anyway, for reasons that will shortly be explained.
But the STURP summary came PDC to describing the image as having the characteristics of a scorch, as per the brown coloration one sees on linen when a hot iron on maximum setting (“linen”!) is held against it for too long. I quote (my bolding):
Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat.
Note the reference to “heat” (or acid) in the final sentence that is suggestive of a scorch mechanism, or at any rate “thermally-assisted” imprinting, such that the linen carbohydrates lose water molecules (“dehydration”), then undergoing further chemical change (“oxidation”, “conjugation” ) that results in the tan or sepia coloration.
Sure, that seemingly specific reaction mechanism, based on re-arranging chemical structure with heat (or acid) as the input energy then gets clouded by what follows:
However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.
Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
But it was a start, for this investigator at any rate, one who has explored both heat and acid as a means of imprinting tan-coloured images on linen (links can wait). The first approach involved heating up bas relief templates (horse brasses etc) then pressing onto linen, and later still full 3D templates (e.g. brass crucifix) and obtaining what he regarded as promising results i.e. negative 3D-enhancible images, albeit with unanswered questions re superficiality still to be explored, both by me AND by sindonology generally, pending a breakthrough in image-probe techniques).
Later, that model was superceded by the Mark 2 system, in which hot metal templates were abandoned. In their place was imprinting onto linen from real body anatomy (yipee, my own hand!) using dry white flour onto dampened linen, and then roasting the imprinted linen in a hot oven to produce a sepia image (Mark 2 model). But Mark 1 and Mark 2 could both be described as thermal imprinting mechanisms, even if the term “scorch” model was appropriate for the first only.
But as soon as the Mark 1 model was proposed with its hot metal template, this investigator immediately attracted hostile targeted flak, from Mr.Big of sindonology, a surviving STURP team member no less. Here’s what he (STURP’s Documenting Photographer) said in a comment to the shroudstory site in Feb 2012 that now, nearly 4 years later, I shall shortly be able cautiously to respond to experimentally in three short postings, of which this one is the first.
To business: here’s the uv lamp being put through its paces. The label on the box reads “Mains Powered UV Bank Note Checker”, so that was the first test – to see if it showed up something on a bank note normally not visible.
Yes. It is fit for stated purpose – showing up the fluorescent security feature on a banknote.
Would it work with fluorescent marker pens?
Answer – yes. Spectacularly so.
And here’s a wider range of fluorescent marker pen inks, under the uv lamp.
Tonic water is famous for its blue fluorescence, sometimes visible in bright sunlight for those who like a G/T on the patio. It’s due to the quinine that gives tonic its bitterness. Here it is under the uv lamp:
Now for a more demanding test. Riboflavin, aka Vitamin B2, is well known for its yellow-green fluorescence. Was there a source in the house, without going out to buy vitamin pills? Possibly, given there’s some Marmite in the house – “you either love it or loathe it” – (autolysed yeast extract), rich in B vitamins.
A little of the thick brown spread was dispersed in cold water to give a pale brown coloration, some of which was then spotted onto white tissue.
Problem: whilst one could see a faint green fluorescence under the uv lamp, especially when held close to the source of ‘black light’, the fluorescence was scarcely visible in the photograph, appearing bluish-white rather than green. We had reached the operating limit of the uv lamp, designed for less demanding tasks like detecting forged banknotes.
What about glass? Does it filter out uv, as frequently stated or assumed? I see no evidence for that, at least with the uv from the present source.
What about sunblock, aka sunscreen?
Here’s the same after switching on the uv lamp (the latter right, out of picture):
Let’s test the smeared slides as a rough-and-ready uv filter, given that glass alone does not work:
So what can I say, scientifically speaking, about the composition of the ultraviolet radiation from my recent high-street purchase (major electrical retailer, Strand branch, London, UK). Answer: nothing. The unit came without a word of description on the box, apart from “Mains Powered UV Bank Note Checker, DETECTEUR DE FAUX BILLETS, UV Lamp shows Hidden Ultraviolet Features, Suitable for Most Currencies, Compact Design is Ideal for all Locations, Rugged Black Plastic Case, Mains Powered. Colour…Black; Power(W)…4; Dimensions(mm)…75x120x180;Weight (kg) …0.36
Brand name? None shown on the unit itself (it says EAGLE on the box, though that may be the importer/distributor, for which an address is given on Merseyside.
Country of origin? Nope, we’re not even told that, though one might make an educated guess.
There’s not even a booklet or so much as a leaflet inside the box, summarising technical details. What’s providing the uv radiation? It’s a cylindrical glass tube that glows violet. I suspect it contains mercury vapour, and provides mainly longwave ultraviolet, probably in the range 315nm – 400nm, aka UVA. But that’s a pure guess, maybe an educated one (I spent 2 years in the States in the early 70s irradiating bilirubin with intense white light with a strong blue component, but quickly dispensed with ordinary fluorescent tubes. Instead, I took the thick shield off of a high pressure mercury lamp designed to provide filtered uv, and simply had to accept that any results I obtained might have been due to the minor uv rather than major visible light component).
Is my lamp suitable for a scientific re-investigation of uv fluorescence, as it relates to the Turin Shroud, especially the STURP reports re the body image being non-fluorescent, compared with the 1532 burn holes that were?
Answer: No, definitely not. I am not here to posture as if still a working scientist (I’ve been retired since 2002).
So why am I writing this post, the first of three?
Answer: because I now see my role more as a crime detective, looking for and sifting clues, seeking to ascertain who is telling the unadorned truth, and who ain’t, and indeed is attempting to bullsh*t with pseudoscience (and have already made significant progress seen in those brutally simple terms).
So don’t expect to see long technical screeds, table of numerical data etc etc. The most one can expect is to see my finger pointing in a certain direction, saying “that’s the way to go if you want my honest and candid opinion”. Maybe you don’t, in which case you either aren’t reading this post, or, if you are, may decide not to read the next two, based on findings with my high street bank note checker.
From the internet:
UVR (UV radiation) is divided into wavelength ranges identified as UVA (315 to 400 nm), UVB (280 to 315 nm), and UVC (100 to 280 nm). Of the solar UV energy reaching the equator, 95% is UVA and 5% is UVB
From this site: Sunscreens explained:
Sunscreens are products combining several ingredients that help prevent the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation from reaching the skin. Two types of ultraviolet radiation, UVA and UVB , damage the skin, age it prematurely, and increase your risk of skin cancer.
UVB is the chief culprit behind sunburn, while UVA rays, which penetrate the skin more deeply, are associated with wrinkling, leathering, sagging, and other light-induced effects of aging (photoaging ). They also exacerbate the carcinogenic effects of UVB rays, and increasingly are being seen as a cause of skin cancer on their own. Sunscreens vary in their ability to protect against UVA and UVB.
Posting 2 in this series will compare the effect of uv light from the new lamp on (a) Mark 1 contact scorches (hot metal template) with the margins of full-thickness burn holes in linen, the latter modelling the 1532 Chambery fire.
Posting 3 will look at the Mark 2 imprints obtained with white flour and a hot oven.
Time scale? Maybe a week, at most two.
December 8, 2015.