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).
If arriving at this site for the first time, you may wish to see the two preliminary postings in this 3-part series. The first described the performance characteristics of a simple uv lamp purchased for these studies, tested on bank notes, fluorescent marker pens etc and the reasons for doing so. The second showed that simple one-stage modelling of the Turin Shroud body image with heated metal templates to give negative, 3D-enhancible images did NOT produce fluorescence under uv. That contradicted the STERA President’s claim made directly to this investigator/blogger in early 2012 that ALL “scorches” are fluorescent and thus irrelevant to the non-fluorescing Turin Shroud body image. In fact it was HIS reference system, namely the charred edges of the 1532 burn holes that allegedly fluoresce red under uv light that was irrelevant, not being the kind of low-temperature scorch (200-250 degrees Celsius approx) that are relevant to thermal imprinting (as distinct from partial or complete carbonization) of linen.
This is the third posting in the series, in which the new ‘flour imprint’ model for the Turin Shroud displayed in this site’s banner, developed mid 2015, is now tested for uv fluorescence. It comprises a sequence of 9 photographs obtained yesterday (1st Jan 2016) with brief captions, brief conclusions. There is no need to describe the new Mark 2 technology, since the three simple steps (flour imprinting, oven-roasting and soap/water washing) are all reprised in the photos that follow.
Conclusions: the claim that all scorch-generated images fluoresce under uv and are thus invalid for modelling purposes is wrong (see two previous postings). But even if that were the case, my preferred Mark2 model that uses white flour as imprinting medium and simple medieval materials and technology (wet linen, hot oven, soap etc etc) does NOT result in uv fluorescence anyway, before or after the final washing step.
The response of pro-authenticity sindonology to my flour-imprinting model, now some 6 months old, has been one of near-silence, except for some fairly nominal coverage on the now abandoned shroudstory site, and Hugh Farey’s account in his BSTS Newsletter 81 of the circuitous R&D that led to the model. I take sindonology’s near-silence as a good sign. Certainly no one’s come back with the supposedly killer line “Ah, but I bet your imprints fail the crucial uv test”. Nope, they don’t actually… In fact it’s that ‘crucial’ uv test that fails the test, or at any rate a simple straightforward test, not hedged around with qualifications.
Nerdy postscript: by arranging to have some of the imprinted linen hanging vertically in the oven, I’m now able to conclude that heat transfer via CONVECTION (moving air molecules) is sufficient for image-making purposes. Conducted atom-to-atom heat, as per the Mark 1 system with heated metal templates, or electromagnetic radiation, as described in my very first Shroudie posting 4 years ago, trapped with visible light and infrared-absorbing charcoal – the latter serving as primary image – removed later by washing to leave an underlying scorch is NOT obligatory.
Even later postscript: