Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
The image was formed by scorching. For the image to vary in intensity, it is most likely that the scorch is the most intense, the closer it was to the body, and vice versa.

It's not a scorch. A scorch in linen would fluoresce. The image does not fluoresce. . . yet the scorches from the fire of 1532 do fluoresce. However, we know what it is made of. It's a sugar like caramel coating caused by a meloidin reaction in the starch of the soapwort that was left over from washing and starching the hanks of linen yarn before it was woven into cloth when it was "fullered." It exists only as a surface phenomenon in that coating that is thinner than a soap bubble and about as fragile.

The image is strangely vertically collimated. There is no evidence that image formed horizontally or even by a force at an angle even slightly away from the vertical both up and down. Whatever the force was, it attenuated by about ten centimeters distance from the body. . . or at least to the point of inefficacy in forming the meloidin change in the soapwort.

110 posted on 03/27/2013 7:10:23 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker
It's not a scorch. A scorch in linen would fluoresce. The image does not fluoresce. . . It exists only as a surface phenomenon in that coating that is thinner than a soap bubble and about as fragile.

But it was caused by some kind of radiation, right? That's what I meant by "scorch."

What does "vertically collimated" mean? That the rays of radiation were parallel?

124 posted on 03/28/2013 5:04:11 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson