What you see on the left is a screen grab of Dan Porter’s long-retired site, taken this morning. On the right is the same Home Page as it now looks.
Notice any difference?
Here’s a tiny clue:
Here’s a link to the pdf
So who’s this “Dr.Colin Berry” one wonders? What’s he said or done to bring Dan out of a well-earned retirement?
Joking aside, here’s the first of 2 emails I sent Dan this morning, after getting a preview of his 25 page pdf:
Yes, just a quick PS to this morning’s email Dan.
Answer: Ray Rogers had ruled out changes to the major constituent of linen fibres (cellulose) and then had the truly ground-breaking idea of an imported extra addition, i.e the starch impurity coating. When I came to do my initial experimenting with direct scorching (Model 2) I realized
that there was an apparent blind spot in Rogers’ thinking. He seemed to be treating linen as if pure cellulose. There was no recognition of the PCW versus SCW botany, and the fact that the PCW has not just cellulose (short chain) but xyloglucans as well, aka pentosan sugars, which are known to be more reactive chemically than highly ordered long-chain cellulose. So for a while I was receptive, correction over-receptive to the ideas expressed in the 2010 Fanti et al review, namely that the body image was confined to the superficial PCW, (not Rogers’ starch impurity coating) given its supposed chemical susceptibility to modifying agents from outside.
Expect further instalment – like (finally) a high magnification picture (x400) of those non-superficial Model 10 image fibres taken via conventional microscopy, i.e. illuminated from below, such that it is properly illuminated (top illumination allowing low magnification only, due to light obstruction by high power objective lenses a mere mm or so from the specimen). The trick, as will be seen, is to keep the viewed cross-section of imprinted linen as small as possible, so as to allow maximum passage of that illumination from beneath!
There’s a knack: deploy the humble “Kirby hair grip” (thanks to daughter for leaving one in the house, Mrs.Berry not using them):
Now switch to illumination from below:
And here’s the sight that greets one’s eyes (though maybe not all eyes out there in mantra-intoning sindonology, if true for TS image fibres too!)
Update (still Saturday)
There’s been a new but tiny addition to that new posting on Dan’s site. Look at my latest screen grab. Can you see it? Don’t strain your eyesight!
Update, Feb 10
Here’s yet another screen grab from the resurrected shroudstory site. It’s one of a number of comments I placed yesterday:
Sorry about the size. The takeaway message was that I have recently assembled a long, long list of characteristics of my Model 10 image that closely match those of the TS image. Yes, some 17 thus far …
I shall be listing them here, one by one in the next day or two. Here’s the first 15
Here’s the 17, as promised. But one or two more have sprung to mind. Expect them to appear shortly…
- Negative (tone-reversed) image, consistent with imprinting via contact. (Wrong to assume that a negative image can only be created by photography)
- Image responds to 3D-rendering software. (But then so does any image that has steps or gradations of image density, the so-called “unique encoded 3D characteristics” of the TS image reflecting failure to run proper controls).
- Image colour. (Any shade one wishes between faint yellow and dark brown, depending on how long one roasts the Model 10 flour imprint).
- Image fuzziness. (No sharp boundary between image and non-image, the result of imprinting with a solid powder – white flour, as distinct from liquid ink etc
- Directional image characteristics (frontal v dorsal images only, lacking sides or top of head), reflecting a desire on part of medieval artisans to achieve an imprinted look, assured by sprinkling of imprinting flour from above, and pressing linen against flour coated body from above).
- Absence of lateral, aka ‘wrap-around’ distortion, claimed by some to be an inevitable outcome of imprinting of a body via direct contact. (Deployment of imprinting medium and imprinting pressure from above only means little or no contact/imprinting of the sides of the subject, thereby excluding possibility of lateral distortion.)
- Ease of bleaching colour, e.g. with alkaline hydrogen peroxide, which works on both the TS image fibres and those from Model 10. ( ‘Bleachability’ fits with Rogers’ proposal that the image chromophore is organic in nature – more specifically a product of sugar/amino Maillard reactions – which should by rights have immediately ruled McCrone’s inorganic iron oxide paint pigments out of contention).
- Image non-fluorescent under uv (and indeed tending to quench any fluorescence from the linen itself).
- Water-resistance of image. (The final Model 10 image is that which remains after vigorous washing of the imprinted/roasted linen with soap and water, the image chromophore appearing to be well and truly incorporated within the threads and fibres of the linen).
- Image durability. (The Model 10 imprints made back in mid-2015 look as good now as they did when freshly prepared).
- Aged look of background linen – non-image areas – could well be a consequence of colour-development of a flour imoprint by ageing. (Even a well-known proponent of authenticity has stated that the colour of the linen is more consistent with effects of heat than genuine ageing).
- The well known “poker holes” might well be a non-intended result of roasting the flour-imprinted linen over glowing red-hot embers
- No obvious signs of imprinting with a liquid medium, such as capillary migration, and readily explainable if the imprinting medium were a powdered solid, albeit onto wet linen.
- However, claims for a faint reverse side image, at least for head and hands, can be accounted for. (Think a briefly liquified chromphore, exuded from heated white flour, penetrating the cores of linen fibres, able to traverse the width of linen, appearing faintly on the opposite side.
- Apparent image superficiality (at least for those who have not bothered to look at cross-sections of image fibres under the microscope). A highly reflective primary cell wall may well prevent one seeing image chromophore that has penetrated the underlying secondary cell wall, subject of the current posting, at least when viewed under the microscope with intense illumination.
- Peculiar microscope properties of the TS body image, e.g. so-called half-tone effect, with all image fibres of same intensity of coloration, image discontinuities, striations etc. (These can be accounted for, at least in principle, if it is assumed that the image chromophore is initially in a liquid state, penetrating and colouring the interior of image fibres, able to migrate a short distance only before turning solid – Rogers’ proposed final melanoidins being of high molecular weight.
- McCrone’s “microparticulate” image chromophore, misidentified as an inorganic artist’s paint pigment, can be accounted for in Model 10 by assuming that the end product of Maillard reactions in the heated flour imprinting medium are the melanoidins proposed by Raymond Rogers.
- Starch contamination? (Rogers claimed there was evidence (his own? others’?) for traces of starch contamination on the TS, supporting his ‘starch impurity’ hypothesis. Washed Model 10 imprints show tiny sparkles of reflected light, which might well be starch granules derived from the flour imprint, while noting that there may well be enough free reducing sugar in white flour to generate Maillard reactions without needing to invoke breakdown of starch to reducing sugars).
- (in preparation). Image fibre fragility. (Rogers and others found that image fibres were easier to strip off the TS body image areas with his Mylar adhesive tape than non-image fibres. But why, if the body image, and accompanying changes in chemical composition were restricted to an incredibly thin PCW sheath, a mere 200nm in thickness, with the major part of the linen fibre, ie. SCW core unaffected? I have just done a ‘strippability’ test on Model 10-imprinted linen, with 5 applications of sticky tape to the same area. Result: all 5 tapes removed non-image fibres, but image fibres appeared mainly in the first and second strips, with scarcely any in the last 3, suggesting strongly that My Model 10 image fibres are also weaker, more brittle, more fragile than non-image fibres. Caveat: one could argue that my results are less about fragility, more about degree of image fibre superficiality. I doubt it, but more experimentation is needed to address that possibility.
Appendix 1 (images required for responding to Comments – not for this posting as such)
From Fanti et al (2010)
Mark Evans photomicrograph, image fibres, foot
(supplied by Mario Latendresse on his sindonology.org site)
(screen shot from wiki entry “comfort zone”)
Appendix 12 (ink, new linen, then water-wash)