Who else recalls that celebrated self-mocking (1973) roadside ad for Guinness stout ale:
(It took quite a while to track down an image of that memorable ad on internet files. Methinks Guinness may have had second thoughts about its ability to attract new custom!)
Yes, how many times have we seen those words in my title, quoted by shroud-authenticity promoters, the latest being from a gent with a leading role in the post-STURP, cat-that-got-the-cream $TERA. That's the "$hroud of Turin Education and Research Association" ho ho ho in case you didn't know. Sounds of cash registers ringing...
I've lost count of the number of big cheeses in the Shroudie Land who have solemnly incanted those words. Yet the vast majority have never bothered to produce a single contact scorch. I have - hundreds of them. While I sadly lack the technology to prove it, I invite others to disprove my contention that a contact scorch on linen can be as superficial as one likes, right down to the molecular scale at surface (primary cell wall) level. I see no theoretical or practical objections whatsoever
(ed: I've been taken to task elsewhere for that "prove me wrong" challenge. I've been accused of the very thing I condemn on this site (pseudoscience). Methinks the gent concerned should acquaint himself with the history and practice of science before attaching the p word to a published scientist, albeit long retired. He could do a lot worse than read up on the Higgs boson, whose existence was first predicted by Peter Higgs in 1964, but it was needed as a vital component of the Standard Model (explaining why subatomic particles have extraordinary mass over and above relativistic mass that is predicted by e = mc squared). Higgs did not have the technology to prove the existence of his particles, nor did anyone else, until CERN's LHC proved its existence in 2012. Nobody condemned Higgs or anyone else for assuming the particle was there, if only to maintain the most all-embracing Theory of Nearly Everything. (except Gravity Dammit). Indeed, Higgs was awarded a Nobel Prize last year, despite having no hand in the experimental confirmation. Homo interneticus, bereft of any formal scientific qualifications or research experience, likes to think he understands the scientific method, but in my experience rarely appreciates the respect accorded to hypotheses and theories that unite a lot of existing disparate observations, but which still await the kind of experimental data that banishes most lingering doubts held by (fair-minded) sceptics. I exclude the flat-earth tendency from that final description, like those who think the radiocarbon dating MUST be wrong because it conflicts with their dossiers of "historical" and other evidence. It never seems to occur to them that the radiocarbon data conflicts with their self-serving agenda-driven quest for "spy clues" to the existence of the TS pre-14th century. Some of those spy clues, like tiny ink-drawn circles on an otherwise obscure Hungarian codex being evidence the illustrator was signalling he had seen the Shroud with his own eyes are frankly risible, indeed, faintly ludicrous, but to many in Shroudie Land they constitute incontrovertible evidence against a 14th century provenance, and woebetide anyone who suggests otherwise. No, I'm not and never will be a Peter Higgs, with a 360 degree view of his chosen area of research. Mine's more like the standard 45 degrees. But I'm not a pseudoscientist either, like so many others I could mention who have dabbled in Shroudology, playing to the same old gallery).
The difference seems to be greatest in the second-from-left imprint where the template was still very hot and held longer against the fabric, before 'serially imprinting' while progressively cooling (images to the right). That's suggestive of there being more than one chemical species qualifying as 'more thermolabile than cellulose'. There's a largely unexplored world where knowledge of contact scorching is concerned, one this kitchen-experimenter can only hint at. Who would know or even suspect it - looking all those categorical and dismissive comments made in Shroudie Land, like the one in the title.
When in doubt - experiment. It's the sure way to experience the buzz of real science - as distinct from received wisdom/dogma, all-too-often pseudoscience. Not for nothing is this site called "sciencebuzz". As the song goes: "It ain't necessarily so..."
*A Summary of STURP's Conclusions
Editor's Note: After years of
exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final
Report in 1981. The following official summary of their conclusions was
distributed at the press conference held after their final meeting in
October 1981:
No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have
been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on
the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for
creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these
studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a
VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional
information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no
evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced
by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a
direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain
features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while
this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it
is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high
resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.
The basic problem from a scientific point of view is
that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of
view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical
explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the
chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one
must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a
physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present,
this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best
efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. 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. 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.
We can conclude for now that the Shroud
image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is
not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of
hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image
is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made,
perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in
the future, the problem remains unsolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief summary/update of my own position re the scorch hypothesis after some 2 years/200+ postings.
1. At the outset I could see scarcely if any scientific merit in non-contact scorch hypotheses, notably those involving radiation or of putrefaction products leaving a chemical imprint. But then advocates of those hypotheses seem content to assume them correct, while failing to seek and provide experimental confirmation. In short, those ideas are nor scientific, and it is thus pseudoscience to maintain that they are.
2. I initially envisaged the scorch technique as one of heating a metal template, probably bas relief, and pressing it down into linen spread out of a yielding material, e.g. bed of sand. But there were difficulties with that, notably that one could not easily monitor the progress of scorching, thereby risking over-scorching. There might also be excessive tenting of the linen between extremities, say between the kneesand the tips of the toes, with minimal imprinting of everything in-between,
3. When experimenting with a brass crucifix as template, I reversed the geometry, laying the heated template down on a hard surface, covering with linen, then, quickly, with a damp overlay, and manually moulding the two apposed fabric layers to the major surface contours. That procedure, which I call the LOTTO method (Linen On Top, Then Overlay) allows one to monitor heat flow (touchy-feely technology!), makes it harder to over-scorch (in fact, near impossible), gives a fuzzier, arguably more Shroud-like image, and seemed the right answer if one were aiming to develop the TS image in a single step.
4. However, the LOTTO method does not account for some alleged subtleties in the TS image at the microscopic level. While one has to take much on trust - much that is written being little more than anecdotal - one might with the eye of faith describe the TS image as showing a half tone effect, where apparent differences in image intensity are not due to continuously varying scorch intensities between neighbouring fibres, but to differences in a chosen area between numbers of fibres that are scorched to a particular maximum level OR unscorched, with no in-in betweens. The half-tone effect could be described as digital as distinct from analogue imprinting. Some might consider chemical precedents for "digital imprinting" are few and far between, encouraging one to seek explanations that involve two or more steps, rather than a single one.
Recently I have proposed just such a two step mechanism involving: 1. Intense analogue scorchimg as a primary step, i.e. at point of manufacture centuries ago. 2. Subsequent loss of all scorched fibres, except those that are minimally scorched, e.g. by selective pyrolysis of the outermost PCWs, that does not impair the mechanical strength of the whole fibre. The half-tone effect then gradually appears via a 'survival-of- the-fittest' process leaving finally just two (main) classes of fibre - minimally-scorched versus unscorched.
The transition from intense to fainter scorch could have been entirely natural and unaided, Alternatively, it may have been accelerated at some point early on, in order to 're-invent' a deliberately-contrived scorched image, representing say, a martyred Templar, as one of the crucified Jesus, with a fainter attenuated scorch being promoted as a Veronica-like sweat imprint. See the more recent postings on my now dormant
specialist Shroud blog for more details on the "reinvention" hypothesis.
5. As hinted at earlier (but still little more than conjecture so far) I'm toying with the idea that that the LOTTO method was used, and, at least for the torso, might have used a 3D bronze that was half-embedded in sand to make it effectively a bas relief at the imprinting stage. What's more, the sand bed itself could be hot (used in fact to heat the template) relying on the fact that contact between linen and sand, far from being undesirable, might help to provide an instant aged yellow look to the Shroud linen, with a smaller contrast difference between image and background for your more authentic-looking Shroud .
Initially I considered that a bronze of the crucified Jesus might have been chosen, even if intending the image to be promoted, at least initially, as that of a more modern martyr, notably a Templar (Jacques de Molay?), the chemically pyrolytic/artistically pyrographic art form signalling the manner of execution (slow roasting at the stake). Another possibility has since occurred to me. Were there life-sized bronzes available in medieval times of St.Lawrence of Rome, who also was put to death by slow-roasting (258AD), with much medieval art work (painting) depicting him horizontally on his grid iron, often held down by men with tridents or pitchforks, with or without cords?
 |
| Artist and date still unknown to this blogger, despite the above picture of St.Lawrence appearing in many different internet sites. |
|
The advantage of using an effigy of St.Lawrence, if available, is that hands may have been in the right location to start with, if the contemporaneous 2D representation in art were anything to go by.
Reactive postscript:
Message to the gent on Troll Central. aka shredstory.som, who is trying to stick the
charge of pseudoscience on this pro-scorch, anti-authenticity investigator.
You’re wrong, just plain wrong, indeed about so many things.
You’re one of these
people who imagines that science demands instant experimental confirmation of a
new idea, that nothing can proceed without that confirmation, and that there’s
an obligation on the originator of an idea to deliver the confirmation, or
otherwise keep his thoughts to himself. At least, that’s your position where
this investigator is concerned, though I note you do not demand the same of
those who are content to sketch out airy-fairy scenarios of mysterious bursts
of radiation, or of ammoniacal vapours
that travel in straight lines to conjectural sugary targets in linen.
Sorry, all you and other like-minded 'more-scientific-than-thou' armchair philosophers. That’s not how science
works, and never has been.
Science is primarily
about ideas. Ideas run in advance of experimental corroboration, sometimes by
years, decades even. It’s the ideas,
shared freely soon after inception that
provide the buzz for many in science.
There’s as much interest in supporting or refuting other people’s ideas
as there in one’s own. It’s a collegiate thing: ideas go into a common pool.
They may be known by their originator’s name, as a courtesy, and less
charitably, to prevent plagiarising by those with no ideas of their own. But once
an idea is out in the open, the genie’s out of the bottle, and there’s a sense
in which it then belongs to science, rather than its originator. There is no
shame in having one’s idea proved (or even disproved) by another scientist, the
essential test of its scientific merit being whether it shows predictive
utility, and whether or not it stimulates new lines of investigation, hopefully
productive, that might otherwise not have been tried.
It’s time the world of shroudology ceased pretending that
the scorch hypothesis was ruled out of contention by the tendentious lines of argument advanced
by Raymond N.Rogers and others, least of all by STURP (see previous
posting). It was not. While wishing no
disrespect to someone who has sadly passed on, Rogers
seemed to regard linen fibres as if they were composed entirely of cellulose.
He made scarcely any reference to the chemically more reactive non-crystalline
matrix of hemicelluloses, except as an “impurity”. Neither did he make
reference to the superficial PCW (primary cell wall) that I can recall. Indeed
he seemed to have no knowledge or even interest in the nature of the linen
fibre as a botanical entity. To him, it was simply cellulose fibres, scarcely
any different from his chemist’s filter paper.
Those who have
survived him have even less excuse to ignore the likely role of PCW
hemicelluloses in scorching, given it’s now over 2 years since I posted
a reference to Yang et al, emphasising that hemicelluloses pyrolyse
in a much lower temperature range than
cellulose.
“…the pyrolysis of hemicellulose
and cellulose occurred quickly, with the weight loss of hemicellulose mainly
happened at 220–315 °C and that of cellulose at 315–400 °C….
As I say, absolutely
no excuse. The facts speak for
themselves. One cannot turn a blind eye to the facts. One cannot claim to be
investigating the Shroud image scientifically, making vague references to some
kind of “radiation”, usually unspecified, and failing to recognize the
existence of the superficial PCW with one or more components prone to contact
scorching. Scorching by direct contact
(zero air gap) explains so much (the
negative image especially, its preferential location on crown threads, its chemical
and spectral properties which though poorly characterised thus far
are consistent with pyrolysed, i.e. thermally-degraded carbohydrates, with no
direct evidence that I’m aware of that it might represent a non-enzymatic
browning product due to Maillard reactions requiring an exogenous source of amino- nitrogen AND
reducing sugars.
It’s time the world of Shroudology woke up and smelt the
coffee. It’s the roasting of coffee beans that gives them their aroma. It was
almost certainly the roasting , or rather scorching of linen carbohydrates due
to direct contact with a heated object
that gave them their physical and chemical fingerprint, albeit presently
lacking in detail and a facsimile negative image.
(But why is that? I’ll tell you why. It’s due to wilful and
chronic neglect following a premature
rejection of a commonsensical
proposition – thanks in no small part to what can only be described as
agenda-driven pseudoscience, of refusing to give proper consideration to a particular IDEA).
Which is where we came in. Science is the world of ideas. Ideas have to be
addressed fairly and squarely - not swept under the carpet- citing anti-idea
arguments that lacked credibility, to say nothing of objectivity, right from the
word go.
Update: 22:30 Wed 9 April
April 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
#5
CB: ” Yet the vast majority have never bothered to produce a
single contact scorch. I have – hundreds of them. While I sadly lack the
technology to prove it, I invite others to disprove my contention that a
contact scorch on linen can be as superficial as one likes, right down
to the molecular scale at surface (primary cell wall) level. ”
Colin, you have “hundreds of them”..
Me too.
You have a microscope. You could easily demonstrate that a ” a
contact scorch on linen can be as superficial on linen as on likes..”
At least at thread level.
Response:
Back in November last year,
I tried deliberately, with no success, to ‘over-scorch’ using my LOTTO procedure.The best I could do was
to produce faint scorches on linen that might reasonably be described as Shroud
–like on that basis. But expecting me to show that those scorches are highly
superficial at the thread level, which may sound reasonable to the uninitiated, is not as simple as it may seem.
Why not? Because
scorches that are exceedingly faint at the macroscopic level become almost
impossible to detect when viewing individual threads or fibres under the microscopic. One
is in effect asking the impossible – at least where a kitchen lab is concerned -
to produce faint scorches that can then be studied at the microscopic level.
Don’t believe me? Then check the several photomicrographs in the posting linked to above. It
becomes virtually impossible to distinguish between individual coloured and uncoloured
fibres under the microscope, which is what one has to do in order to determine superficiality even at gross thread level. The colour one sees, such as it is, the merest hints of yellow or brown coloration, comes from
seeing bundles of fibres packed closely together. It is asking too much to expect one to categorise individual
fibres by colour, say by probing with a needle. A subtle scarcely visible scorch is just that – a subtle scarcely visible scorch.
Put another way: if one is asked to produce scorches that are highly superficial at the macroscopic level, judged on the basis of faintness to to the unaided eye, it is unreasonable to ask for visual proof of superficiality at the microscopic level. The human eye is a wonderful thing - but cannot be expected to perform miracles. The better the model in terms of faint image, the progressively harder the model becomes to probe microscopically.
All of this needless to say distracts from the real issue, namely that it is ultimately against the spirit of science to attempt to dismiss or even marginalize scorching by contact, when the facts speak for themselves: contact scorching accounts for the major characteristics of the Shroud image.
Where there are gaps or discrepancies, the first thought should be to account for them in terms of precise scorching technique - LOTTO etc- or maybe secondary ageing effects. It is hardly scientific to nitpick or snipe at a model that explains so much, when
there are no other credible models on offer, at least not ones that fulfil elementary scientific criteria of theoretical feasibility and experimental testability..
.................................................
Ray Rogers - along with several others - attempted to strangle the scorch hypothesis at birth. But the case for immediate euthanasia was full of holes, as I have repeatedly pointed out. It was hardly one of the more glorious chapters in the history of science.
But the baby somehow survived, and is now a rebellious and unruly teenager, riding around on a noisy motorbike.
The successors of Ray Rogers, kindred spirits in detesting any idea of a medieval provenance, never mind scorching, are now attempting to set up road blocks, or, as in the cartoons, to paint what could be mistaken for dark tunnel entrances onto roadside outcrops of solid rock.
