Why are knees not dark?
K.M. Towe
line with the lower tip of the watermark. They are clearly not as prominent (dense, dark) as one
would expect from the theory of image formation at a distance. Clearly, the knees (especially if as
strongly bent as Ms. Piczek asserts) would be a point of close contact with the overlying linen. The
VP-8 image theory states that "The body image contains realistic 3-dimensional information relating
image density at any particular pixel point to the distance between the cloth and the body at that
point" (Adler, 1999). If true, then the knees should be dark. Yet they are lighter (less image
density) than the legs above and below them. What gives here?
--
Dr. K.M. Towe
230 West Adams Street
Tennille, GA 31089-1403
Voice: [478] 552-7500
Fax: [503] 210-1558
E-mail: to...@accucomm.net
Bobbycindi
that don't add up. In fact, I just got through making that point with Mr.
Weaver. (Or trying to anyway.) You might want to take a look- it's the subject;
Re Issues raised...
My point is that just because we can't understand why some things don't make
sense, (like how the blood got where it did, and why the knees are not dark and
why the image doesn't display any wrap-around distortion etc etc) we don't turn
around and claim these things as evidence that the Shroud must be a man-made
work of art. (If that's what you're doing which I'm sure it is.) What it means
is that we simply don't understand many things about the Shroud. Period. The
bottom line remains that the cloth's image is not only inexplicable, but would
appear to actually be impossible to duplicate- for the reason that it exists
only on the millions of tiny fibrils of the linen threads and consists of a
chemical change in the cellulose. Of course you could argue the point, but then
find yourself in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why it is that
of all the works of art in the world one, and only one, would defy duplication-
even remotely. That, to me, would constitute a miracle.
Bob
K.M. Towe
just because we can't understand why some things don't make sense, (like how the blood got where it
did, and why the knees are not dark and why the image doesn't display any wrap-around distortion etc
a man-made work of art. (If that's what you're doing which I'm sure it is.)"
OK, Bob. But, when one sees all of these things you agree don't add up, and ALL of them are
consistent with an artist rendering on a flat piece of linen (with the appropriate C-14 date), we
don't turn around and claim that they MUST BE the result of a miracle or two (plus an erroneous date
because of diametrically opposed reasons...bioplastic, repaired cloth). "Blood" (dried?) appears
necessarily by contact on a linen necessarily closely "draped" in the tomb (not at the crucifixion
site); body image appears by unknown mechanism operating non-contact at a distance on a linen that
is both flat (where necessary) and draped (where necessary). Now THAT is what doesn't add up...none
of it. It is illogical. It certainly demands a "MUST BE" miracle (and some goofy explanations for
the C-14 "error"). From a scientific point of view I do find all that uncomfortable. Science and
faith in miracles can never be reconciled, of course. Your only plausible position is to continue to
argue (against all of the facts that have been presented to you..that don't add up) that the Shroud
is unique and simply because of that it couldn't have been man-made. Go get 'em, 'Lord Kelvin'!
Bobbycindi
something it clearly isn't on the grounds you don't understand the apparent
paradoxes of its characteristics. Rather, you own up to the fact that you don't
understand. And you keep on studying the thing in the hopes that one day you
will.
To me, it's a case of opening one's mind to the possibility that the Shroud is
in fact exactly what it looks like- the image of Christ as he lay in his tomb.
It's a case of looking at the evidence and realizing that just maybe there is
more to our existance than we know. Afterall, unique objects normally don't
exist in nature by definition. And yet the Shroud exists- unique in all the
world, unexplained and impossible to duplicate.
Bob
K.M. Towe
Say what, Bob? "Exactly"? Are you reading anything that has been written about the image? It's a mess of contradictions....a 'truckload' of things that "don't add up"...things you ignore. That's your definition of exact? Maybe an exact miracle with loads of contradictions?
Bobbycindi
it wasn't his purpose to leave behind a grotesquely distorted image that no one
would understand except Dr. Towe and those lacking in both faith and
imagination? Could it be that this "mess of contradictions" you call the Shroud
only seems contrary to those who believe they already know all there is to
know? Could it be, Dr. Towe, that Jesus wasn't trying to prove anything, but
rather leave behind something beautiful and mysterious- a paradox for all to
contemplate, a testament written in blood reminding us of what happened to him
in the last hours of his existance on earth? Could it be that the truth behind
the Shroud doesn't lie in what we arrogantly think we know to be its scientific
correctness, but rather in the heart of the beholder? Could it be that the
Shroud requires more than analysis? That it requires wisdom to understand? It
would seem that way to me.
Bob
K.M. Towe
Bobbycindi
a square nail hammered through your round wrist? I stick up for the Shroud
because it's the least I can do.
Bobbycindi
Bobbycindi
for the Shroud is the least I can do. Plus it's a lot of fun.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20011109021738...@mb-cp.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>What gives here Dr. Towe is that there are plenty of things about the Shroud
>that don't add up. In fact, I just got through making that point with Mr.
>Weaver. (Or trying to anyway.)
Wrong, Bob. They don't add up *if you start from the assumption that
that shroud is 'authentic'.* This is indeed a sign (many signs,
actually, one for every thing that "doesn't add up") that the
assumption is bogus.
By contrast, every single objective fact about the shroud -- its
image, age, chemistry and iconography -- makes complete sense under
the hypothesis that a 14th century artist, with a 14th century view of
Christ, created it using 14th century techniques in a 14th century
style.
[snip]
>My point is that just because we can't understand why some things don't make
>sense, (like how the blood got where it did, and why the knees are not dark and
>why the image doesn't display any wrap-around distortion etc etc) we don't turn
>around and claim these things as evidence that the Shroud must be a man-made
>work of art.
Not in so many words. But we do take these things to mean that any
hypothesis that can't make them add up (e.g., "the shroud is the
burial cloth, etc.") is worthless junk.
Junk hypotheses that "don't add up" get sent to the junkheap. That
is the way science works. But not pseudoscience, obviously, where
any kind of junk becomes gospel as long as it supports the right
beliefs.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPAEv5qyjdWYzk1A5AQFyQAf/VFu5sa7pMKQUuujBD1Mk8Ao1g996GR6s
JL57iN1tAdDFzdeHFqGFNYinWn18paUgvQtYGNEe5cqFGX+EeAWJ0kP3TrhJH8Yx
s2CBvzaeRUQu0fpwdhz5/0Bxh5iq0fuwloUUTDpwsMHNU9ONaKonwV+m681pd6iv
nAURU5YcBLYfXu+FAPAQgoUQBDC7LS8PHBtQelRbyVf9KU0RR0x7pj/4z4cU1Ci0
B04B92eGjc6kdqcuBgjBgYzxGZMCJnPzVwPcefrJblJ8iGO01vJbTGFDFzjMrVpk
FmVu8cazZp2GaXAZCaJzeOuJ1MZ2aAyBEGz9mCo/nbzGk4edGkoQuQ==
=td2Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John P. Boatwright
A few items:
1. Towe suggested that the knees aren't dark,
they are. He's probably looking below the
knees.
2. I measured from the knees to the tips of the
toes, and from the knees to the start of the
lap. That ratio on the shroud is the same
as for a living human being.
3. There is blood pooled on the back side where
the heals are, they match what's expected for
blood flowing down from the wounds to the
heals. The one foot even has less pooling
due to it being more away from the cloth.
4. There is blood pooled on both sides of the back
and it's a perfect match for blood running down
the arms and onto the cloth from the elbows,
then draining towards the center, thinning out
as it gets closest to the center of the cloth.
Just those above, I can't see an "artist" bothering
with knees if he isn't going to "paint" in the toes.
I can't see an artist bothering with blood pooling
as it does on the shroud, it's just too accurate
for a "painter" that is "painting" in wounds... why
would he bother with pooled blood?
It doesn't match what a forger would do, or consider
especially back 2000 years ago.
That, and they didn't do anything close to the shroud
back then anyway.
Regardless, it looks to me though like God had
already described it back in Ezekiel 1 as it would
be seen present day:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/eze1.pdf
Verse after verse of Ezekeil 1 matching up:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/eze1.htm
Jesus also saying to watch for the disgusting
devestation on the Holy One's quarter as described
by Daniel:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/dan9.htm
And when you see it, they should flee from Judea.
See Judea right now.
See Hamas and Islamic Jihad saying they do not
want peace, they want them out of there. Any
offers of peace, are returned with offers of
destruction... they don't want peace, they want
them out of there. The seven year peace plan
was DEAD before it even started, they didn't
want peace... peace is answered with killing.
Check the news articles of the time, every
time peace was offered... it's a cycle that
doesn't hide... it's right out in open.
4 months after Daniel 9 was pointed out, Sharon
showed up at the temple, about a thousand died
over the next year, them seeing Sharon as a
killer that took over in the election, then
showed up at the temple, saying he could come
onto the temple grounds... they were massively
offended.
They don't want peace, they want them to leave.
Every time Israel offered peace, they came back
with suicide bombers, wrecking the peace process,
and it all crumbled, that 7 year peace plan is
gone.
Then soon after, the WTC towers were bombed,
thousands died, the main claim being that bin Laden
wanted the West to not help Israel, bin Laden
siding with the same terrorists.
That too matching the timing God said, that when
you know the moon has the same light as the sun,
the sun shining over 7 days, that there'd be
slaughter in the hills with water, the day the
towers fall:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/7times.htm
Jesus was right in saying what he said, he said
when you see it, they should flee... but they
haven't... and quite a few people have died.
What did they all die over?
A few hundred homes.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
John P. Boatwright
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <20011109021738...@mb-cp.aol.com>,
> bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
> >What gives here Dr. Towe is that there are plenty of things about the Shroud
> >that don't add up. In fact, I just got through making that point with Mr.
> >Weaver. (Or trying to anyway.)
> Wrong, Bob. They don't add up *if you start from the assumption that
> that shroud is 'authentic'.* This is indeed a sign (many signs,
> actually, one for every thing that "doesn't add up") that the
> assumption is bogus.
No, it means you didn't bother to check more
accurately than you previously did.
> By contrast, every single objective fact about the shroud -- its
> image, age, chemistry and iconography -- makes complete sense under
> the hypothesis that a 14th century artist, with a 14th century view of
> Christ, created it using 14th century techniques in a 14th century
> style.
No it doesn't.
See Mummy #1770 having a 1000 year error.
Hey Frank, what will you say when the carbon date the
shroud copies and they come out about 300 years younger
than they're supposed to be?
Remember, if they're copies of a forgery, they'd
have to date approximately the same as that forgery,
since they'd all be forged, right?
> [snip]
> >My point is that just because we can't understand why some things don't make
> >sense, (like how the blood got where it did, and why the knees are not dark and
> >why the image doesn't display any wrap-around distortion etc etc) we don't turn
> >around and claim these things as evidence that the Shroud must be a man-made
> >work of art.
>
> Not in so many words. But we do take these things to mean that any
> hypothesis that can't make them add up (e.g., "the shroud is the
> burial cloth, etc.") is worthless junk.
>
> Junk hypotheses that "don't add up" get sent to the junkheap. That
> is the way science works. But not pseudoscience, obviously, where
> any kind of junk becomes gospel as long as it supports the right
> beliefs.
And when they test one of the shroud copies and it FAILS
the C-14 test... being 300 year younger, you will say what
exactly?
Bobbycindi
"makes complete sense under the hypothesis that a 14th century artist, with a
14th century view of Christ, created it using 14th century techniques in a 14th
century style."
Now, this "14th century style" you're referring to- would that be in the manner
Joe Nickell's bias relief rubbing? (I was tempted to say comic relief rubbing!)
Or would this be a painting in the style of the one Walter McCrone commissioned
from Walter Sanford? Or are we talking Emily Craig's powder transfer effort? Or
do you know?
And does this mean we can now safely rule out professor Allen's "early
photograph" theory. Because as anyone can see, his "shroud" is the only one
that looks anything like the real thing- and of course that's because, like the
Shroud, it is photographic in nature. (High resolution and registers in the
negative- although it doesn't encode meaningful dimensional information like
the Shroud does.)
To be honest Frank, I have to admit that I'm struggling with this idea that the
Shroud makes complete sense when viewed as a 14th century work of art. And I
guess it's because I wonder that if this is true, does it also make complete
sense to believe that it would become, by the 21st century, the most
controversial and studied artifact on the face of the earth? Your thoughts on
this?
Bob
K.M. Towe
Craig and Bresee "encoded" 3-D information, minus the "meaningful" water
stains and burn marks. How is it that the water stains and the burn marks
happen to also "encode" meaningful(?) dimensional information? Is this
other stuff "meaningful" because it is a puzzle how these things could
simulate what is supposed to have happened at the Resurrection...unless,
of course, the Shroud was burned and stained in the tomb?
Bob also says: "I'm struggling with this idea that the Shroud makes complete sense when viewed as a 14th century work of art."
I think you are doing more struggling in trying to explain away all of the contradictions and coincidences and worthless "science".
Bobbycindi
image, that like the Shroud, is dimensionally encoded with accurate relief
information. And the answer is obvious. She did it to see if she could
duplicate the Shroud. And guess what? She succeeded! (In this one regard, and
one regard only). And it was, of course, just a face that otherwise looks for
all the world like what it is- an artists powdery rendering that has been
transferred via rubbing to a second cloth. But that gives rise to a pretty good
question don't you think? And that is, why would the "artist" who made the
Shroud have encoded it in the first place? So somebody with a VP-8 image
analyzer centuries later would say "Hey look! This thing's dimensionally
encoded!"
And speaking of the VP-8, this is undoubtedly the answer to how Ms. Craig
pulled off this great feat. She had just the tool she needed to check her work
and make adjustments before showing off her finished product. It's called trial
and error. In addition, she had the Shroud to look at! Go ahead, tell me she
didn't know that her "shroud" would analyze correctly before she showed it to
the world, and that she didn't find herself making adustments to her effort in
order to arrive at something other artists have tried and failed to do. I could
use a good laugh!
And speaking of laughter, do you know why Barrie Schwortz doesn't respond to
you and Frank? Well, I asked him at the Shroud conference and this is basically
what he said. He simply doesn't have the time to waste arguing with a couple of
boobs who pay no attention whatsoever to the legitimate science that was done
on the Shroud except to trash it in a most inexcusable and ignorant manner.
And especially he doesn't have time for Frank who calls those who don't agree
with him fools and pseudo scientists and even lying little shits. The fact is,
Barrie really IS laughing at you guys!
For heavens sake Dr. Towe, where's your common sense? I swear, my mom has more
of that in her little toe than you two put together! (No 'toe' pun intended.)
She's been an artist most of her 75 years and she'l tell you that the Shroud is
no more a man made work of art than it isa snowflake. I could see that when I
saw the Shroud with my own eyes. The image simply doesn't betray the hand of an
artist. It is, instead, something that literally shows itself to be unlike
anything else on earth. Acheiropoietos- the image not made by human hands.
Finally, and since you brought it up, suppose you answer the question I posed
to Frank. How is it do you suppose, that of all the works of art in the world,
this particular one has become THE most studied and controversial object on
earth? And why is it that year after year the skeptics try and fail to
duplicate a rendering that won't be duplicated? I have my answer. Now what's
yours?
Bob
Dr. Smartass
news:3C0389...@For-God.net:
Re-posting Raptor14's post here:
From: "Raptor514" <Rapt...@hotmail.NO-STINKING-SPAM.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Shroud of Turin
This post is intended for people who believe in the authenticity of the
Shroud of Turin. Anyone who has their head screwed on straight need not
bother reading this except, perhaps, for entertainment.
Here's a link to an ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC study of the Shroud of Turin. As
opposed to the usual hogwash "research" carried out by Shroud enthusiasts.
http://www.humanist.net/appro-sindone/schafersman.html
First, the "pollen evidence" as to the Shroud's alleged 2000-year age is
exposed as human "skullduggery." That's right, people telling lies to
support the Shroud.
Then the lines of evidence which prove that the Shroud is a medieval
forgery
are explained. My favorite line from this section was: "Real blood does
not contain red ochre, vermilion, and alizarin red pigments." Hmmm, you
mean real blood isn't loaded with PAINT? I can't believe it. . .
Then the Shroud is exposed as having been drawn/painted with a "bas-relief
rubbing" method which perfectly explains the alleged 3-D and photo-negative
qualities of the Shroud. Oh my, those nasty facts keep running over
people's loopy-assed ideas.
The next section is short and says it better than I can, so here's the
whole
thing. . .
==============================================
The Shroud's Medieval Radiocarbon Date
Without question, the most spectacular refutation of the authenticity of
the
Shroud of Turin was the determination that the linen on which the image
lies
dates from approximately 1325. The Shroud was sampled and the dates
determined by the most scrupulous and scientifically-valid techniques and
procedures that are possible. Sampling was carefully conducted and
witnessed, the samples were properly cleaned and prepared, and three
different laboratories performed the 14C dating using blind control samples
in addition to the Shroud samples. All the dates were consistent among the
labs. Since Robert E. M. Hedges has reviewed the radiometric dating
analyses
and results in this journal, I need not repeat them here. I merely want to
state that the quality of the radiometric data are so rigorous that no
objective, rational person can reasonably deny them.
Naturally, believers in the Shroud's authenticity have thrown up numerous
criticisms that are variously ludicrous, vacuous, and without merit.
Contrary to pro-authenticity advocates, the linen samples were not
deceptively switched, not taken from the wrong part of the Shroud material,
not improperly cleaned and prepared, did not have a bioplastic coating,
were
not contaminated by modern bacteria and fungi that were not removed, the
carbon-14 content of the cloth was not altered by the fire of 1532, the
final results were not deliberately falsified by a conspiracy of
anti-religious scientists, and so forth. As has been pointed out by others,
modern material of approximately twice the mass as the Shroud samples would
have to be added to the samples to bring authentic first-century linen up
to
radiocarbon dates of the fourteenth-century, and this would have been just
too obvious to go unnoticed by so many independent investigators. Once
again, the ad hoc excuses, criticisms, and counter-arguments of the
radiocarbon dating by Shroud enthusiasts were put forward to preserve
appearances at any cost, a classic characteristic of pseudoscience. In real
science, legitimate and reliable data that falsify one's most treasured
hypotheses and beliefs are accepted, and lead one to abandon one's former
beliefs. But sindonology is a pseudoscience, not real science.
================================================
The paper ends with a short discussion of the impossible anatomy of "Jesus"
which is consistent with Medieval Gothic art. Gee, that corresponds to the
radiocarbon dating. . .
So get a grip.
Raptor514
</quote>
The shroud is a fraud. And so are you.
--
Dr. Smartass
aa# 11110010011
Denizen of Darkness #660
BAAWA Medicine Man and Coroner
White-Hat Hardware Hacker
"They say when you play that Microsoft CD backward you can hear satanic
messages....but that's nothing. If you play it forward it will install
Windows."
"Thou only renteth the mead of the mountain Coors, thy body eventually
rendering unchanged its amber hue." -- The Top 5 List www.topfive.com
(c)2001 by Chris White
Bobbycindi
effort into shooting down the Shroud and still have to pretend that the thing
can be duplicated.
Bob Haroldsen
Bobbycindi
effort into debunking the Shroud and finding themselves in a situation where
they have to pretend that the thing can be duplicated.
Bob Haroldsen
Richard Smol
John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message news:3C0389...@For-God.net...
> 3. There is blood pooled on the back side where
> the heals are, they match what's expected for
> blood flowing down from the wounds to the
> heals. The one foot even has less pooling
> due to it being more away from the cloth.
*Bzzzzt*
No blood has been found on the shroud. What has been seen as blood
turned out to be paint.
The shroud is a forgery. It has been proven to be one over and
over again.....
Greetz,
RS
K.M. Towe
On the one hand you criticize Allen because his work doesn't encode 3-D information then you turn
right around and criticize Craig because hers did encode it. Can't lose that way, Bob.
But, while you're laughing along with Barrie*, my question, in case you missed it, was:
HOW IS IT THAT THE WATER STAINS AND THE BURN MARKS ALSO ENCODE DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION?
*It's no wonder Barrie "doesn't have time to waste" answering potentially embarrassing
questions...he's too busy with his gift shop attracting the "sheep" who believe in miracles. He's no
dummy!
Bobbycindi
marks also encode dimensional information, but rather, is there meaningful
dimensional information encoded in the water stains and burn marks? And the
answer is no. Why? Because the VP-8 is set up to simply correlate shading
(various levels of light and dark) with third dimenson distance- which we call
relief information.
And this relief information becomes 'meaningful' if, and only if, we recognize
that the correlation of the information generated is in accurate relation to
what we already know to be the three-dimensional shape of the object studied.
The VP-8 doesn't care if what it's looking at is stains and burn marks or a
painting or a photograph. Another way to think of it is to realize that all two
dimensional images encode relief information as far as the VP-8 is concerned.
But we decide if it's real or not.
We decide if it's meaningful.
Now a question for you speaking of water stains and burn marks. It's this. How
is it that the Shroud IS covered with these particular features and, in
addition, has been through countless foldings and unfoldings with no hint of
discoloration, smearing, streaking, flaking or damage in general to the entire
Shroud image except where the cloth was actually burned away? The image is
consistant from top to bottom.
It would seem to me, that the image on the Shroud must be extraordinarily
durable to have survived all this and maintained such homogeneity don't you
think? Do you think Emily Craig's delicate iron oxide powder transfer would
hold up so well? How about Sanford's painting? What about Joe Nickell's 'fall
through' powdery mug? How about all other 'normal' works of art? Another
miracle? (As you like to say)
Before you answer, keep in mind that the blood areas that were burned DID show
dramatic discoloration. It became charred and blackened in these areas.
Bob
K.M. Towe
linen (as opposed to photo paper?) such as water stains and burn marks will result in encoding.
Therefore, "we" decide to ignore that (which wasn't encoded at the Resurrection) and focus on the
"meaningful" stuff. And, the meaningful stuff, of course, just happens to coincide with an artist's
picture of a naked guy. Nonsense! Get a grip! That VP-8 story is another phony!
Bobbycindi
naked guy- or at least a statue of one if you go with professor Allen's theory.
Remember, artists don't typically portray their subjects in shadings that
would, under VP-8 analysis, give rise to a realistic body shape. Ms. Craig did
so only because she specifically set out to do it, and then, it was with the
use of a VP- 8 and the Shroud itself to guide her. (By the way, I'll wager
she'd be the first to tell you Dr. Towe, that the Shroud's three dimensional
attribute is anything but nonsense.)
Other artists have tried, but always failed, when instructed to encode their
'shrouds' three dimensionally using only their eyes and brains for guidance- a
test that John Jackson undertook. Some have maintained that Jackson somehow
fudged the VP-8 stuff, (like born again skeptic Steven Schafersman) But this
makes just as much sense as the folks who accused Secundo Pia of fudging his
photograph of the Shroud when he presented them with the negative image. They
didn't want to believe their eyes.
Bob
Bobbycindi
look at it.
Bobbycindi
burn marks and water stains and the fact that the image remains unfazed?
K.M. Towe
Yes, it sure is..it's so consistent that the the chevron pattern of the linen is absolutely
straight...all the way from top to bottom. Straight as an arrow..not a single deviation left or
right of any significance. Right over the nose, straight down the chest over the stomach, down to
the wrist and on down between the knees etc. Incredible! Looks for all the world like an artist's
canvas rather than a cloth draped over a dead body at various angles to pick up blood and
then....SHAZAM! it becomes flattened and restraightened to avoid the distortion that otherwise would
be evident.
Bob inquires: "It would seem to me, that the image on the Shroud must be extraordinarily durable to
have survived all this and maintained such homogeneity don't you think?"
Yes, it does look durable, Bob. But, you are likely looking at what's left after most of the
material has disappeared leaving the underlying stain. The stain, like the water mark stains,
generates gee-whiz 3-D effects. These stains, like the realistic water stains, are typically
portrayed in shadings that would, under VP-8 analysis, give rise to a realistic drawing of a body.
Bobbycindi
do. But not one bit of it rings true as far as I can see. Where are the other
examples that should abound if the Shroud is nothing more than a worn-away
painting? And why, for God's sake, would a left over stain appear perfectly
homogeneous having gone through trial by fire and water and, in addition,
encode accurate relief information that artists can't seem to accomplish free
hand even when they try? And finally, it is to completely ignore the thousands
upon thousands of hours of testing and examination which tell us that this
high-resolution masterpiece in negative is utterly substanceless. (Apologies to
poor old Walter McCrone who is probably the finest microscopist in the world-
but a particle of paint does not a painting make.) It doesn't pass the common
sense test in any way, shape or form.
To which you might reply- does the idea that a dead man left his image on his
burial cloth sound any better from a common sense stand point? And my answer
would have to be yes, but only because the image just happens to be that of
Jesus and none other. Round and round we go.
I know you can't stand mixing miracles with science and I can appreciate that.
In a very real sense, ruling out miracles is your job. But I see no
alternative. Were you to show me a man-made shroud that ever does actually
rival the real thing, and I'll fall down and apologize for ever doubting you.
But I know in my heart that that day will never come. Wishful thinking? Nope. I
am completely convinced that the Shroud is exactly what it looks like- the
burial cloth of Christ.
K.M. Towe
through trial by fire and water and, in addition, encode accurate relief information"
Can't imagine what God would say, for His own sake, but if a dehydrated and oxidized piece of
cellulose with a conjugated carbonyl group as a chromophore that is "utterly substanceless" can
generate a 3-D picture..and so can an ordinary water stain, then it seems to me that He might say
that both are irrelevant. Especially so, if all of the other contradictions and coincidences are
required to "explain" and "justify" it.
Bob says: "I am completely convinced that the Shroud is exactly what it looks like- the burial cloth
of Christ."
Convinced? No doubt about that. Exactly what it looks like? Wrong again...it is not "exactly like"
anything real..for all of the reasons that some of us have expressed...repeatedly. Round and round
we go? Certainly. Logical support for your being convinced? Not much. Fall back position? BUFS #1
Bobbycindi
saying that the image on the Shroud is not exactly like anything real. But I
think what you really mean, is that the image can't be a real RREPRESENTATION.
The fact is, the man of the Shroud looks exactly like a real dead crucifed man.
His size and shape are not abnormal although he could be showing signs of
optical distortion brought about due to image projection. And a real dead man
could in fact have blood on him in just the manner he is seen.
I'm sure your point is that the representation can't be real because one runs
into seeming contradictions when trying to figure how such an image could come
from a dead body. My point is that the contradictions do not necessarily
constitute logical impossibilities. Maybe that's a fine point, but I wanted to
clear it up.
Bob
K.M. Towe
size and shape are not abnormal although he could be showing signs of optical distortion brought
about due to image projection."
Not so, Bob. The guy's arms are certainly not those of a real dead man, crucified or otherwise.
That's why Ms. Piczek goes to all of her trouble to explain the contortions necessary. That's why
neither you (nor I, nor most anyone else) can duplicate the position of the person in the Shroud
without significant muscle action to maintain the crossed wrist position....hardly what a real dead
man would be able to do. Ercoline at al. admit that the body is contorted. Their measurements
confirm that the right forearm is longer than their average "contorted" man by about 2 and 1/4
inches. The elbow-to-elbow distance on the Shroud is also wider than the average for their normal
men placed into that contorted position. This is why a real human has to almost straighten out his
arms in order to reach the position seen on the Shroud...and then hold it there! No dead man can do
that! No funeral director could place the arms into that position and expect them to stay there. No
living man can hold that position for long.
Bob further asserts: "And a real dead man could in fact have blood on him in just the manner he is
seen."
No, Bob...A real dead man cannot. That was the whole point of Dr. Zugibe's experimental
"contortions". Even then, he got what he, himself, refers to as only a "reasonable impression". You
laugh at attempts at reproducing the Shroud image because they are not exact, but accept without a
problem, I assume, that "reasonable" impressions of blood are good enough and could be put precisely
on the linen only after several rather well-orchestrated steps...rinsing, soaking, washing, gently
applying the cloth. All clearly indicated in the Bible...sure!
Frank Weaver
In article <20011127140750...@mb-fi.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>That was so insightful of you Frank to come to the conclusion that the Shroud
>"makes complete sense under the hypothesis that a 14th century artist, with a
>14th century view of Christ, created it using 14th century techniques in a 14th
>century style."
The challenge for you, if you were capable of being rational about
this, would be to name one thing (I'm being easy on you) that does
NOT make sense under the hypothesis that the shroud is a 14th century
artifact. Please note that personal incredulity -- the only thing
you have ever offered -- does not count.
>Now, this "14th century style" you're referring to- would that be in the manner
>Joe Nickell's bias relief rubbing?
[etc., etc.]
Hey, every bit of the iconography, symbolism and theology of it is
medieval. Every bit of its history, provennace and dating puts it in
the 14th century. Every sober look at it as object dictates that the
image cannot possibly have been made any other way. The rest is for
trivia buffs. I don't have to get my tongue pierced just to conclude
that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" probably was not written by Mozart!
>To be honest Frank, I have to admit that I'm struggling with this idea that the
>Shroud makes complete sense when viewed as a 14th century work of art. And I
>guess it's because I wonder that if this is true, does it also make complete
>sense to believe that it would become, by the 21st century, the most
>controversial and studied artifact on the face of the earth? Your thoughts on
>this?
There's nothing controversial about the shroud, Bob. Not, at least,
among people who can be rational about it. It's obviously a medieval
fake. That's been accepted by everyone except the few handsful of
diehard fanatics who swallow all manner of baseless, silly, and
contradictory excuses that 'don't add up' to preserve their delusion
that it's a miracle.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPArm0qyjdWYzk1A5AQHSxAf+LBahY6YcqqTjbORl9bdbJNh7xhscSKvG
6mj8DY0WEanyX/2vQvCCcZbVV7O9FROoD/zXz4neEWBq9h+VvMqyB5gy9IqjzUAZ
FfkD+G814t7lzob6N4/arDP7YEA10g8KCgpj7yM3TbtMkNkOyti8cbN+2Wg2gOaz
MIrRW3aHCU5HwpZryb9oiCxztvfmK/12mkjjD6GozPIZZ7BKNBwszvsmBD+IwS68
jEkgeqKU82T9ItGVf3GvPUzQbHjonwONmKUJTYXoYfxtR4uKnu25Sjb9ypRONz0O
XaHAVHb6jstgCf4KbgsL3DEgY30qOlzlQ5LyRcy3j/mfPifO47d7JA==
=NOPn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <3C044A67...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Bob also says: "I'm struggling with this idea that the Shroud makes complete sense when viewed as a
>14th century work of art."
>
>I think you are doing more struggling in trying to explain away all of the contradictions and
>coincidences and worthless "science".
No, Ken, I don't think that's a struggle for Bob at all. It's a
necessity.
Psychologists have demonstrated a phenomenon called 'cognitive
dissonance' that plainly applies to Bob and Mario. In cognitive
dissonance, any information that conflicts with dearly held beliefs
gets misread, misinterpreted, misunderstood, or just missed so as not
to throw those dearly held beliefs into doubt -- the 'see no evil,
hear no evil' phenomenon.
I can readily accept that Bob just can't grasp any of the abundant
information that proves the shroud is a 14th century artwork. It
would kick the legs out from under a big piece of his worldview, so
cognitive dissonance protects him. Meanwhile, he swallows all sorts
of silly excuses, contradictions, and junk 'science' easily because
they're necessary to prop up those same beliefs.
BTW, the same researches that have shown the operation of cognitive
dissonance have shown that the only cure is to point it out to the
sufferer. Now it all depends on how badly Bob is in denial about his
case.
My bet is, regrettably, very badly indeed.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPArg36yjdWYzk1A5AQFulgf9GwCu2QB2VN1wEZxPX8NVuog3wd++79jR
DPDtKGN6a3HcuhIqOcG+F56AcPA8A27/YQp0glgQLbWw7PYHOL3gnbgxZBiKitm7
IlKsM0Jvc+1+CtHgUCSG4iDgPjFUn8gk8z2AdToHV1CYVZLLsQBTMbYzaUJ49f4o
Ifyju2UE0ifIERj2gxrF/917/G14gFgb0GuKUQbJXBmjEoAZCxsr5VFoLAKdl1KS
4kkP+axA3O+s5q9Z/SMaf7q5vG2QjbjPykYAb2b5Cff5a140j0h7gx91eiaTHyjq
Oeaa4VRWTbASrvCE/eOUagDmpRUnYZFWJGDttz9+VbT6k8Osq/ndtw==
=sZli
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <p52N7.1392540$2n1.45434280@Flipper>,
"Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote:
[snip]
>*Bzzzzt*
>No blood has been found on the shroud. What has been seen as blood
>turned out to be paint.
I'm applying for some pedant points here, Richard.
Your first point is right. Several people independently applied
every standard forensic test for blood that existed in the 1970's and
1980's to shroud 'blood.' It failed every one.
BTW, since that time, another test was devised by a curator at the
Royal BC Museum in the early 1980's. It is a very sensitive test
capable of detecting even blood that is thousands of years old (he
used it on ancient American artifacts). Some skeptics have suggested
that this test would settle the entire 'is it blood?' dispute. The
shroud fanatics who have control over the samples have refused to
make them available for testing.
The second point, about paint, is part right. Shroud supporters
point to a number of half-baked tests that allegedly found elements
of blood as their 'proof.' Every one of these test results have been
duplicated EITHER by red pigments, specifically alizarin (aka madder
rose) or red ocher (aka Venetian Red) OR by tempera, a paint binder.
IOW, painted-on 'blood' made from alizarin and red ocher (and possibly
other pigments) in a tempera medium is a perfect match for every
single one of the half-baked tests shroud enthusiasts cite, but fails
every one of the blood-specific forensic tests that shroud 'blood'
also failed.
>The shroud is a forgery. It has been proven to be one over and
>over again.....
Except to those who have eyes but will not see...
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPArthqyjdWYzk1A5AQFJeAf+IRG+qf0u2sqbLPznaCI978J3R1z4TeXI
GyaYdMwIO3TaH3HkSqALx/UdH0SsxqrjLQq8xFIC+Oi350PPMGktxlRJuQmqKRUy
XH+bLkJD9uVnWatLiF0Q0pqG1BfboMsdlfbcZh6PhCqtdyAgs+FQWrIcPG5Kuob8
njPNYz6NOoKT9dfmTThf+2IZZVUticNx0MMrBBF69oScTI4rxFm3BPgYa4ObTeC8
m5ZHYiQO4j8DAcyxFGQ6nwGN6/CfP4vvSyNqeSNMvocAvWt5EBmgzqBv0x2BIelu
spY4EHv8JUvtzaQuOA3O0dY5AEjyZHRe+y5YqLasGuzzESJfKQ2QNA==
=hnPR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20011128121841...@mb-ch.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
[snip]
>Other artists have tried, but always failed, when instructed to encode their
>'shrouds' three dimensionally using only their eyes and brains for guidance- a
What this ignores is that three-dimensionality is *automatic*,
unavoidable even, in either Nickell's rubbing or Allen's solargraphy.
They're as unavoidably three-dimensional as a statue.
>test that John Jackson undertook. Some have maintained that Jackson somehow
>fudged the VP-8 stuff, (like born again skeptic Steven Schafersman)
Well, the record of what Jackson, along with Eric Jumper and William
Ercoline, actually did, as described in their own papers, makes it
clear that their VP-8 image did NOT bear any resemblance to a
three-dimensional figure until the fudged and faked and faked and
fudged and screwed their data nine ways to Sunday to phony up a 3-D
look.
For instance, from Jackson, Jumper, and Ercoline, "Correlation of
Image Intensity on the Shroud of Turin with the 3-D Structure of a
Human Body Shape" (Applied Optics 1984: 23; 2244-2270):
"This lack of large scale relief correlation gives the full body VP-8
image of Fig8(A) a flat or stiff quality" (p. 2248). Note: they
admit that the VP-8 image is flat, not 3-D, before they started
faking data.
"Our procedure was to distort numerically the flat reference surface
... so as to bring the VP-8 relief into correspondence with
large scale relief characteristics of a body surface" (p.2248). This
is the most direct admission that they fudged their data to make it
match a human body.
Their published paper glosses over the details, but according to
their oral presentation, as described by Marvin Mueller (Skeptical
Inquirer, Spring 1982), who was there, they went through several
cycles of fudging both the body image and drape shape correlations
until they got something vaguely bodylike. Even then, as you can see
from their own plots or the ones Antonacci unwisely reproduces, the
best they could do was, in order to make the face look realistic, the
body had to be left too flat. If the body was made to look
normal, the face was in negative. And forget the dorsal image
entirely -- thet couldn't get squat from it no matter how much they
fudged.
The bottom line is that *at best* Jackson and company could
demonstrate a relief correlations that extended over small,
localized areas only (e.g., just the face), a feature easily
duplicated by an artist. The large-scale, all-body 'accurate 3-D
encoding of a human body' they claim is a fraud.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPAxW1KyjdWYzk1A5AQE0Mwf+MpYiaol/6kRdiqgg8I3pifJo8BlsNiWN
qjeQW7RbdnOaTL+OIGiaiwsrFfdKCQFvDjafE7Rj9R0gkNBXXNKEk/3FkvuACoKn
ZaIIZmJ7bw+hrOz72BUwrNT3u4qLvXZT4SWz2dAEtZOSdWa+hGnhexXuNiGuuP4l
V2AFy0VXBGRhANnEU3F2JOipDnjOMEyMvzRyBR1qa09GEUVAoT/r1KCWK5ZB1s7h
fUJl1KPts/bKfacqJzo/WTO13E4m5nHUjOOSHYaSXspqISZ8vXCxCRlMBpko6/ce
k+4Q52su0vSZ6uD9ZEGnGLiUWFjquSiYbHvdgXdxJzRQhGwvp0A/qQ==
=8RWw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dethstryk
>> The shroud is a forgery. It has been proven to be one over and over
>> again.....
>
> Except to those who have eyes but will not see...
SCOFF!
--
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other
bastard die for his."
- George Patton
x---------------------------------x
Dethstryk aa #1884
jema...@tcainternet.com
ICQ: 9929528
BAAWA Knit
"filthy mouth reprobate sinner"
RSS
> BTW, since that time, another test was devised by a curator at the
> Royal BC Museum in the early 1980's. It is a very sensitive test
> capable of detecting even blood that is thousands of years old (he
> used it on ancient American artifacts). Some skeptics have suggested
> that this test would settle the entire 'is it blood?' dispute. The
> shroud fanatics who have control over the samples have refused to
> make them available for testing.
1) Is the test conclusive.
2) Is there available data that will support these conclusions.
3) What elements in human blood will it identify, that other tests
fail to.
4) Who is the identity of "a curator at the RBCM."
5) If the test is conclusive and reliable as you "suggest," what is
the quantity needed to produce these results.
6) Do we have this amount available from the samples.
You seem to think there is an endless supply of available material for
testing.
Not only do we have limited material for testing, but we no longer
have access to the Shroud itself for additional material.
I think the scientists and researchers are correct in limiting access
to it.
It would be nice if this were Star Trek, and we could pop it into an
analyzer and take it back out again intact. The reality is, every time
a test is done, we lose more material to the test itself
It's very easy to mock these scientists and researchers for what they
do, or what they may not do ...it's not so easy to actually stop and
think as to the reasons why.
K.M. Towe
There are the sticky-tape samples that McCrone used for his work. They were all "conned" from him by Mr. Rogers and colleagues, Jackson & Jumper. The whereabouts of these slides is unknown, but it is presumed that Rogers had them in Los Alamos. When he visited Los Alamos McCrone was told by Mrs. Rogers that there was no way he would ever get them.
I wrote this in an earlier post:
"Heller & Adler used ‘sticky-tapes’ taken from the Shroud. Thirty-six
‘sticky-tape’ samples had been taken by Dr. Ray Rogers. These tapes were
given to Walter McCrone, who divided them in half and affixed them to glass
microscope slides. Rogers gave 22 of his half of the 36 samples to Heller
& Adler for their work. The remaining half of the samples were retained
by McCrone. H & A tabulate a description of the 22 samples and their
identification codes. The samples (5 cm2) were divided into 11 different
classes and each sample within these classes was further divided into a
minimum of 15 specimens. Each specimen subsample was, therefore, about
0.6 cm. on a side. No subsample numbers were given. No rationale was offered
for the implicit underlying (and unlikely) assumption that each subsample
was representative of the bulk sample from which it was taken."
Inasmuch as Heller & Adler used their half of these same tapes and made a gazillion tests on them, at least a FEW of these [squirreled away by Rogers?] could be divided up as Heller & Adler did. It is certainly incorrect to limit access to these by a qualified team of independent scientists. You seem to have conceded that H & A followed the guidelines that you enumerated. However, Heller & Adler don't fulfill your requirements. I also wrote:
"These [Heller & Adler] tests, while very sensitive to proteins,
are not specific for blood. Heller & Adler chose (for reasons never
explained) not to use any of the blood-specific tests used by either the
Rizatti team or any of those used by McCrone [ALL OF WHICH WERE NEGATIVE].
This is a surprising and disturbing omission, and is especially so in the
light of their later strongly worded criticism of the Rizatti results.
The following excerpt makes clear that the tests used by Rizatti and by
McCrone are the ‘standard’ tests...not those used by Heller and Adler.
FROM: FORENSIC SEROLOGY....Dr. T. O’Connor, N. Carolina Wesleyan Univ.
BLOODSTAIN CHARACTERIZATION
“The science of bloodstain analysis somewhat traditionally follows certain steps which serve to adequately describe the various tests conducted. Those steps are:
1. Is the sample blood?
(Steps #2 ? #5 omitted here for space)
To answer Question 1, forensic scientists use color or crystalline tests.
It used to be that courts trusted police investigators who said they knew
blood when they saw it, but that was before Miller v. Pate (1967) where
someone got stumped on a cheap lawyer trick with red paint on clothes.
The benzidine test was popular for awhile until it was discovered
to be a known carcinogen, and was replaced by the Kastle-Meyer test, which
used the chemical phenolphthalein. When it comes in contact with
hemoglobin (and sometimes potato and horseradish), phenolphthalein releases
peroxidase enzymes that cause a bright pink color to form. To detect invisible
blood stains, the luminol test is used, which is a chemical sprayed on
carpets and furniture which reveals a slight phosphorescent light in the
dark where bloodstains (and certain other stains) are present. Long-dried
blood has a tendency to crystallize, or can be made to crystallize
with various saline-acid mixtures, and the names of various crystal tests
are the Teichman test, the Takayama test, and Wagenhaar test.”
Mario Latendresse
Dr. Towe wrote:
> It is certainly incorrect to limit access to these by a qualified
> team of independent scientists.
This is the crux of the discussion about access to materials coming
from the Shroud.
1) What are ``independent scientists''?
2) What is the process to choose them?
3) What is a ``qualified team''?
There are many diverging views on these 3 points, and this is where
the controversy starts even before any testing is done.
In the case of the C-14 dating, by reading Gove's account (from his
book), there was a lot of pressures involved from many different
groups. For example, Gove always wanted to have his laboratory do the
C-14 testing, but he failed to have a sample. Some others were more
aggresive in the process of this selection. This experience of the
C-14 dating proves that the selection process is a difficult one. Fame
and money are even involved.
Politics and egos are also obstacles. This is obvious from McCrone's
behavior as presented in his book. You never felt that he wanted to
cooperate with others. He stated many times that he wanted the
polarized light microscope to regain notoriety among his peers. So he
restricted his approach to that tool, dismissing any other tools and
techniques. This kind of attitude is a major impediment towards a
thorough testing. It is even not scientific to restrict your
technology and methods for no other reasons than politically prove
one's point of view. Today, there are much better approaches to
identify micro-size particles than through only light microscopy
(e.g. spectroscopy).
There is always this claim by skeptics that access to the Shroud is
controled by the Church, so that testing is biased towards
authenticity. But you cannot open up access to it without
control. That is obvious and past experiences amply proves it.
The Church is slow to react, but since the answers to these three
points are not obvious it is easy to critic access to the Shroud.
--
Dr. Mario Latendresse
K.M. Towe
restudy. Assuming they still exist, an independent and qualified team could surely be selected by
such bodies as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Medical Association or similar
national societies of morticians and forensics. The selected team could be monitored by persons
selected by the Church or others concerned with "bias".
BTW, you said that: "He [McCrone] stated many times that he wanted the polarized light microscope to
regain notoriety among his peers. So he restricted his approach to that tool, dismissing any other
tools and techniques. This kind of attitude is a major impediment towards a thorough testing. It is
even not scientific to restrict your technology and methods for no other reasons than politically
prove one's point of view."
It is true that because many schools no longer teach optical mineralogy the use of the petrographic
microscope has diminished in importance and dwindled in use. Now, students find themselves often
using inappropriate equipment to solve problems more easily and simply done with this tool. McCrone
did NOT restrict his approach to the microscope. I don't know where you got that misinformation, but
it is clearly wrong!
You also wrote: "Today, there are much better approaches to identify micro-size particles than
through only light microscopy (e.g. spectroscopy)."
I don't know how micro-size particle identification is made via e.g. spectrocopy...perhaps you can
spell this out for us? However, you failed to report that McCrone used selected area electron
diffraction, X-ray diffraction, and electron microprobe analysis on the only sample left for him to
study after Mr. Rogers et al. took his tapes away. Diffraction methods DO identifiy microparticles!
He even published his data! This contrasts sharply with Heller & Adler who also used the
"notorious" polarizing microscope but did not use either x-ray nor electron diffraction at all, and
provided us with NO data in the end anyhow.
Mario Latendresse
Dr. Towe wrote:
> McCrone did NOT restrict his approach to the microscope. I don't know
> where you got that misinformation, but it is clearly wrong!
Really?
Well, I'll site McCrone's book (p. 115). This is an excerpt from
a letter to the late Fr. Rinaldi, dated 28 January 1980:
Up to this point, I have used only the light microscope, an
instrument often ignored by most modern microanalysts. This can be
the only reason why someone hasn't already seen the iron oxide
pigment since it occurs in fair profusion on most of the image
fibers. We expect now to use additional instrumentation in an
effort to learn more about the nature of the yellow stain on the
image fibers.
On page 116 commenting this letter:
By January 1980, I had prepared two technical papers for publication [...].
Only the, did I allow the electron optics group at McCrone Associates to
examine the "Shroud" fibers and tapes. I prevented them from doing this earlier
because I (selfishly) wished to see polarized light microscopy solve the
"Shroud" problem without assistance. Now that it had done so , I felt that
confirmation by electron microscopes and microprobes would be helpful.
Clearly from these two excerpts McCrone had came to his conclusions
(he wrote two papers) solely based on the light microscope. As in an
Olympia he wanted to show that he could identify particles with his
favorite instrument. He postponed the use of other instruments for
that sole purpose. This is what I refer to as an inadequate scientific
approach: You do not purposely restrict your tools to come to a
conclusion.
And can you pinpoint, in his book, a reference that he personally
used other means? He mentioned other tests done by other people of his
lab, but that's not him.
But the real crux of the research of McCrone comes to this: How does
he relate the amount of iron-oxyde, red ochre, etc., he saw with his
microscope with the amount necessary to obtain a visible image? Could
you pinpoint one page, in his book, with the clear calculation showing
that relation? If not, where are these numbers? Are these relations
guesses?
Mario Latendresse
K.M. Towe
your "reasoning"! You are one of the most illogical persons here!
McCrone studied the only sample left by methods specifically designed to identify microparticles. He
published the data. Look in the book. Maybe STURP had someone else doing this work, but I am
unfamiliar with who it was or where the data reside. Do you think that STURP purposely restricted
these tools in order to come to a
conclusion? Heller & Adler restricted themselves...they never used XRD or SAED. Indeed, as I have
tried to point out..they never even showed us any of their data.
Mario, again, asks for numbers (a fall-back crutch)...but has NEVER ONCE given us all of the numbers
of HIS own.
Mario Latendresse
Dr Towe wrote:
> Mario...your reply is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve the time
> necessary to discuss all of your "reasoning"! You are one of the
> most illogical persons here!
It is again one of your common strategy. Once totally proven wrong you
denigrate the messenger. You drop the answer given and look in some
other direction.
Ok, according to you McCrone used all tools and help from his
colleagues to come to his conclusion.
Very well.
But this is not what he writes in his book as my excerpts have shown
in my previous post.
Mario Latendresse
John P. Boatwright
>
> Dr Towe wrote:
>
> > Mario...your reply is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve the time
> > necessary to discuss all of your "reasoning"! You are one of the
> > most illogical persons here!
>
> It is again one of your common strategy. Once totally proven wrong you
> denigrate the messenger. You drop the answer given and look in some
> other direction.
Ya... in just one reply he started in with the names
and then soon after, only single line replies.
You nailed him with McCrones own quotes.
Bob got him with the data that Towe said wasn't
in the H&A text.
Same old, same old...
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
John P. Boatwright
>
> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message news:3C0389...@For-God.net...
> > 3. There is blood pooled on the back side where
> > the heals are, they match what's expected for
> > blood flowing down from the wounds to the
> > heals. The one foot even has less pooling
> > due to it being more away from the cloth.
>
> *Bzzzzt*
> No blood has been found on the shroud. What has been seen as blood
> turned out to be paint.
Here we go again...
They removed some of the blood, under it, no discoloration
of the fibers.
The areas where the image is, there's no paint.
If you claim the image was painted, why are the
fibers discolored where the paint was supposed to
have been used (without paint found there), then
no discoloration of the fibers where the blood is?
eh?
That and the wounds glowing in UV, while the image
area isn't glowing in UV...
That's some really spiffy paint there guy, extra
special for guys making forged 14 foot front and
back on one side "painting"... upside down and
matching when aligned... 2000 years ago.
And check the bioplastic coating, Mummy #1770 has
a 1000 year error, dated too young when the cloth
is C-14 dated, vs. the mummy itself.
QED.
> The shroud is a forgery. It has been proven to be one over and
> over again.....
You wish.
Even the C-14 co-inventor said it's easily possible
that it came from the time of Jesus, given that bioplastic
coating since it doesn't just wash off, and in some
spots on the fiber, it's adding 50% to the diameter of
the fibers.
They didn't date linen from the 14th century, they
dated a cloth from 2000 years ago with a coating on
the fibers.
RSS
> denigrate the messenger. You drop the answer given and look in some
> other direction.
Mario, it's called an ad hominem attack, your opponent will attack the
character of the person rather than the contentions the person makes.
It's like what lawyers do i.e. when you don't have the law on your
side, argue the evidence; when you don't have the evidence on your
side, argue the law; and when you have neither............need I say
more.
>But the real crux of the research of McCrone comes to this: How does
>he relate the amount of iron-oxyde, red ochre, etc., he saw with his
>microscope with the amount necessary to obtain a visible image? Could
>you pinpoint one page, in his book, with the clear calculation
showing
>that relation? If not, where are these numbers? Are these relations
>guesses?
Mario, I asked this very question (stated different however) on
another thread. You won't GET an answer to this because there is no
evidence to support the hypothesis...only rhetoric.
Bob
Just want to say hi...I'm involved in a couple of threads on the JREF
forum that have been been occupying my time. "Free will and God"...
"Adam and Eve" of which i've been researching translations of ancient
Hebrew...anyway, when I have the time, I'll pop in
Rob
RSS
> specific for blood.
This may/1999 interview with Dr. Adler suggests otherwise Dr. Towe.
"What do you mean when you say you did an immunological test? It means
that you take something that is antigenic and you put it into an
animal that is not human -- a rabbit, an egg, something - and you make
an antibody to it. You then take the protein or the mixture that you
want to test and see if you get what is called an antibody antigen
reaction. There's all sorts of ways to find out if this is positive.
Sometimes it's tagged with material. Sometimes you look for a
precipitate. Sometimes you look for what is called an agglutination
test. I won't go into all those kinds of details, but what you are
looking for is you've got some kind of material and you want to see if
you can get a reaction to the so-called antibody which has been
developed in another system. All right, now you have two kinds of
problems here. One, there are kinds of things because they're
genetically similar will also give a response. So, if I say I have a
positive test for human antibody, you get the same thing from chimp,
from gorilla, from orangutan. And unless you run a very specific test,
you have no way to tell the difference. You certainly don't in the
kinds of materials we are testing on the Shroud. The other kind of
thing you have is -- what are the kinds of things that serve as
antigens? There are two types of material that serve as antigens: one
are proteins. These are what we call polypeptides. The other thing is
that there are a lot of proteins that we call glycol proteins. These
are proteins that at one end of the protein have a long stretch of
what we think of as poly sugar, saccharide The most common test we
think of to test somebody's blood type are for proteins where what's
being identified is not any of the protein structure, but the sugar
structure. The problem is those kinds of polysaccharides are
frequently found as contaminants in bacterial cell walls. And so, if
you have a material that you're not sure is free of bacterial
contaminants, you may get a positive test that has nothing to do with
the presence of the protein you're looking for. Unfortunately the
blood type proteins, the common ones, and the globin that Dr. Baima
Bollone tested fall in that class. So, a lot of people said he was
looking at bacterial cell wall debris. AND THIS WAS FOR THE AB
NEGATIVE TEST? This was for the AB Negative test. (Torino, Italy in
1981, reported AB Negative blood type on Shroud blood stain.) And
that's when I decided if I was going to repeat an immunological test,
I would test for one that did NOT have a glyco group attached. That's
serum albumin, that's very specific. And I would test for whole blood.
This is everything that's in there, in the serum. This is hemoglobin,
albumin, everything. And that would sort of confirm that my albumin
test, the control on it. So, I ran those two tests and both of those
were positive. Well, those two tests coupled with his (Dr. Bollone's)
two tests make it very clear we have a right to say that we have taken
blood samples from the Shroud of Turin, two different investigators,
and shown clear cut evidence that there is certainly some type of
primate blood in those samples. And that's being very cautious.
Anybody who did work on anything other than the Shroud of Turin would
simply say that you tested for human and you found it. I also ran
chimp controls. And in fact, the chimp control was just a little bit
weaker in this surface precipitant fluorescence test I ran than the
human sample. And so, I'm not in a rush to say -- it was human. But if
you press me, I tell people, "Well, look at the image it was taken
from. If you think this is a shaved orangutan, go ahead!" Most people
would not hesitate to say what we got is positive human test. "
Frank Weaver
In article <8831d551.01120...@posting.google.com>,
rs...@lycos.com (RSS) wrote:
These are really good questions. They lead me to dig deeper into the
details of this test. Interesting answers, too. They lead me to
think that the proposal is not as solid as I had thought.
>Frank Weaver wrote
>
>> BTW, since that time, another test was devised by a curator at the
>> Royal BC Museum in the early 1980's. It is a very sensitive test
>> capable of detecting even blood that is thousands of years old (he
>> used it on ancient American artifacts). Some skeptics have suggested
>> that this test would settle the entire 'is it blood?' dispute. The
>> shroud fanatics who have control over the samples have refused to
>> make them available for testing.
>
>
>1) Is the test conclusive.
There is no such thing as a 'conclusive' test. Some provide stronger
answers than others. This one, called polymerase chain reaction
(PCR), seems to be considered somewhat experimental, at least for the
purpose of identifying whether an unknown is blood.
>2) Is there available data that will support these conclusions.
PCR seems to have found a home in diagnostic hematology, where it is
used to diagnose disease in samples that are already known to be
human. It seems to be regarded as experimental and somewhat dubious
in situations, as with the shroud, where it is used to determine
whether an unknown substance is blood and from what species it comes.
>3) What elements in human blood will it identify, that other tests
>fail to.
DNA.
>4) Who is the identity of "a curator at the RBCM."
Thomas H. Loy and E. James Dixon. Neither is currently with the
RBCM. They did not depart on good terms. One commentator describes
it as "unceremoniously thrown out on the street," accompanied by
questions about the quality of their research. See
http://wings.buffalo.edu/anthropology/JWA/V1N2/riley-rev.html.
Nevertheless, both men landed on their feet. Dixon I haven't traced,
but Loy is currently a lecturer at the University of Queensland
[http://www.ansoc.uq.edu.au/academic/profiles/loy.htm].
Loy, at least, has continued to be a magnet for controversy over his
use of PCR. His claims concerning some 1.8 million-year-old hominid
fossils from the famed Sterkfontain Caves in South Africa and others
involving 400-million-year-old Australian fish fossils, both based on
PCR, are regarded as questionable, at best.
>5) If the test is conclusive and reliable as you "suggest," what is
>the quantity needed to produce these results.
50 ng.
>6) Do we have this amount available from the samples.
Apparently, yes.
As it turns out, PCR has already been done on a piece of the shroud,
although not on a piece that contains blood.
It was done by Victor Tryon in 1993, on a bootlegged piece of the
strip removed for carbon dating in 1988. Tryon believes his testing
shows the DNA of a 'higher primate' is on the sample, but is unwilling
to state whether it came from one or several individuals.
[snip]
>It's very easy to mock these scientists and researchers for what they
>do, or what they may not do ...it's not so easy to actually stop and
>think as to the reasons why.
The reactions of shroud mavens to Tryon's results is most instructive.
They have almost universally trumpeted his findings as 'proof' that
there the cloth was wrapped around a real body -- a male one, yet.
That conclusion ignores, of course, that Tryon's piece of cloth came
from a part of the shroud that had NO image or blood on it all. It's
hard to conceive of how DNA from the alleged man in the shroud got
somewhere that his body did not. In fact, Tryon insists that his
results mean little, because practically anyone who touched the
shroud could have left the DNA signature he detected.
Then again, shroud 'science' has never been about consistency. It's
purpose is to bend whatever evidence there is into Proving the Shroud
Authentic by any means necessary.
Even more interesting, one of the most popular excuses for why the
very strip that Tryon's sample was cut from dated to 1260-1390 is
that it was allegedly contaminated by handling from dozens, maybe
hundreds of people. This just goes to show how that shroud
apologists are focused on rationalizing one thing at a time, even if
they have to ignore or 'forget' other, conflicting rationalizations
for other issues to Prove the Shroud Authentic.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPBRF1ayjdWYzk1A5AQF5ggf9El+Lwp5VuI2fFdpKP3Mtu3UpuFg2fYQj
YriKtct6cgbqUIXu3QPjBQfNy57eJMH3sX3f9CqGFF62NqkxyuKocOVnpbz654xJ
cvBn8b4Y1fD806XWv+n+yKMoH4IpN6O13ZukIHeUwP081FK3Xq40MaTX6AifIy9U
Yq9lTTdHYQypJLy7ORJS64KY6Bs4qwDcLi9KKHsyZ2bOol7yQl1+g5aeRCfiw9bD
cr1c9gJuvscg832AKWA0LZqrbg6LpbnqsSj5PhPkwz6E52sSEoKbnFazzEnSgT/R
D4DBYrf3ysAA8nhBvGdx9aWrB0HVGLi6qBWqEmp6VCULwEz3cT1tKg==
=twa3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20011129125546...@mb-mq.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
[snip]
>His size and shape are not abnormal
IOW, there are no distortions from normal human proportions.
>although he could be showing signs of
>optical distortion brought about due to image projection.
So now it IS distorted from normal human proportions.
[snip]
>I'm sure your point is that the representation can't be real because one runs
>into seeming contradictions
Hell, you can't complete a sentence without contradicting yourself.
>when trying to figure how such an image could come
>from a dead body. My point is that the contradictions do not necessarily
>constitute logical impossibilities. Maybe that's a fine point, but I wanted to
>clear it up.
GIGO, or garbage in, garbage out, as the computer jocks say. If you
start with garbage assumptions [e.g., (1) The shroud is authentic;
(2) any rationalization necessary to preserve assumption #1 is
acceptable], all the logic in the world will not prevent you from
reaching garbage conclusions. You have long since proven that you
can rationalize anything, no matter how ridiculous or
self-contradictory, to preserve assumption #1.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPBRI3ayjdWYzk1A5AQEiewf+LhoqYUSkuhBHcjBffGY3IwSXOLSGHbwC
zTHqlO87ydXhvslpwZlxiTi9SdQTqpvSxdMUD0mEZC4GCW2uSSi0MJyQpJIJugG+
CbLUVxZUI4Q6FFVCzJ1J1E6cgg/czwNVtT1qNSXSdrThB9iwTC1tE92xOycdQTzy
5K+K1+28zb/5jwHOvQpxaZx1V7aivHLF6FFXNQ57qXY7IZUE4VCf/SFbL9E2CtBS
Lvo6ivIcxfwuxohCq7uN0KY8Tj9WIt5jXjpxIF/fGHeBWx/OzYBJF/VfUbYjnswl
GTsMo/1jM/nibNIQXR5iciP94npXozPXvtoaQ40g0Bb/00CHMOkG3w==
=mugC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <3C0E3224...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
[snip]
>"These [Heller & Adler] tests, while very sensitive to proteins, are not
>specific for blood. Heller & Adler chose (for reasons never explained)
>not to use any of the blood-specific tests used by
>either the Rizatti team or any of those used by McCrone [ALL OF WHICH WERE
>NEGATIVE].
I believe this is incorrect, Ken. Alan Adler specifically said that
he and Heller did not use any of the standard blood-specific tests
BECAUSE they were negative, which to a die-hard fanatic has to mean
that the blood has to be in some form that blood-specific tests could
not detect.
Are you getting the sense that Adler's justification was circular?
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPBRNaqyjdWYzk1A5AQGmKQf/UAzxIox4dumhka+ItjgeK8Pi2S9FWzQv
OT5OFXSA8vMttEiWphuhxirIDFZbE61xNNgeYQRqxr0G7nMQqvO7Dn9cSC3S4Kjs
6YK4SP314Ju8iQUHWZuZjEvWl5ytMUNg04SSqqzsEh/vSSiQeiGu7AHKlrEtEznm
lfF0YupoYBmWsojqJDu98Kkh9ddM2pl4ax9ThbWUbLmG3eykEftPYtYjW+Y0QRBc
B7IOlUKN5QRIkrPHGWnSTGq3ma6JyT8SpYnO8meWl1g59Rm9peake2tIJXdu7npN
OHMKW/chpfrwO0hhKhbHYkh2cp1OcduFoDDuzo6DZoVN41aoCpKTLA==
=a/tl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <s6sd71t...@nunavut.cs.rice.edu>,
Mario Latendresse <late...@nunavut.cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>Dr. Towe wrote:
>
>> It is certainly incorrect to limit access to these by a qualified
>> team of independent scientists.
>
>This is the crux of the discussion about access to materials coming
>from the Shroud.
>
>1) What are ``independent scientists''?
How about, 'someone without an external agenda.' That certainly
disqualifies nearly everyone in STURP and such other 'we can
rationalize anything' types as Alan Whanger, Isabel Piczek, or Ian
Wilson.
>2) What is the process to choose them?
Via an independent (i.e., no agenda) selecting organization. That
disqualifies STURP, ASSIST, the Holy Shroud Guild, the Richmond
Center, the International Center for Sindonology, and such, all of
which exist for the sole purpose of Proving the Shroud Authentic.
Now, the National (US) Academy of Sciences, AAAS, Royal Academy,
MOMA etc., are all duly independent. There might be some suspicions
of bias in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, however.
>3) What is a ``qualified team''?
Specialists in forensics (e.g., McCrone); textiles (e.g., Raes);
medieval art and history (e.g., Gabrielli or Caldarero); Biblical
archaeology (e.g., Zias) and artifact analysis (e.g., McCrone)
appear to be a minimum. Others may be called in on a consulting
basis in their areas of specific expertise.
This differs mightily from the 'anyone who wants to prove the shroud
is authentic' approach taken by STURP. The dominant experience there
was of a bunch of unqualified self-selected pilgrims who were largely
clueless about what they were supposed to do or why. In reading their
'research', one could easily come out with the idea that their major
accomplishment was devising their Amazing! Spectacular! Identification
Grid.
[snip]
>In the case of the C-14 dating, by reading Gove's account (from his
>book), there was a lot of pressures involved from many different
>groups.
[snip]
Politics is always involved. There isn't a hint in this case that it
lead to the selection of ill-qualified labs.
>Politics and egos are also obstacles. This is obvious from McCrone's
>behavior as presented in his book. You never felt that he wanted to
>cooperate with others. He stated many times that he wanted the
>polarized light microscope to regain notoriety among his peers. So he
>restricted his approach to that tool, dismissing any other tools and
>techniques. This kind of attitude is a major impediment towards a
>thorough testing.
Only if it prevents other testing from taking place. In this case,
it did not.
We have to contrast McCrone's desire to have the microscope be the
prime tool of investigation with the sindonological attitude of
restricting access to whomever and whatever will Prove the Shroud
Authentic, even if it involves demonstrable incompetence or the
trashiest of pseudoscientific methods (need I bring up Whanger,
again?).
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPBRY86yjdWYzk1A5AQEHHQf5AZIoTAEUczcUNIQZFMhNqaVHmlD6vS+H
Po59ZNwMA1p1vaEgy9Rdcqo0VM8ul1SERYMSnaBtI6MN52wjybCskMDIrUqWOop1
hl7PA/ROnAfoTuk10dWvl7EsfL9McbavsOSw5tN/qdjtacKmZL0A2WEDcOmrsNTj
Bcm0cvjY9Xb1CVHE5j40iajjWueLUYhs8rVIUCU4cK/CnMujhFrm1EqkHmTl4KT5
EdrL+6QI7tcshVeuOCtQaW1EYBhtnu5Y0mu6/zThaF17ViVcBqFX0MLSG9tLNvt8
MxbSXfL0roGHZP34LC/3zqqAPVgpFQ2iBSwGV3x7pyrOiWgaMv2sWQ==
=T7lO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
K.M. Towe
contrasts sharply with the color photos in Heller & Adler.
BTW...Each of us has been the "victim" of ad hominem attacks, and by the very people who now
complain about it. Mario has NEVER provided any of the documentation he claims to have about the
Shroud. Yet, he continues to demand all sorts of "precision" and "spelling-out" from others.
Accordingly, his assertions and often convoluted logic tend to get one "worked up". What he knows
about scientific research is limited, at best. Don't know where he got his degree...maybe in the
jungle while wearing a mask and carrying rattles? (more ad hominem stuff to add to his pile).
Also, RSS...you've never told us what your own expertise might be. Haven't even given us your name.
How about it? Before you get your own dose of ad hominem we need to know how best to word it. Don't
want you to be left out.
K.M. Towe
milk, and elsewhere, was the test he made specific for serum albumin? The Bromcresol Green test
(Heller & Adler, Table 4) is listed as specific for albumin. I don't know that it is specific for
blood...do you?
BTW...did you read this gem? "And so, if you have a material that you're not sure is free of
bacterial contaminants, you may get a positive test that has nothing to do with the presence of the
protein you're looking for."
Obviously, he doesn't believe Garza-Valdes, and if any of his protein tests were meaningful, we can
dismiss the bioplastic theory as the nonsense it was anyhow. Can't have it both ways....Oh, I
forgot...in Shroud "science" one CAN have it both ways (if one needs to).
Bobbycindi
way. But the thing is, to me, there is simply more to a 'shroud' than
somebody's drawing of the face of a man who has long hair parted down the
middle, a long nose and a beard and mustache. No offense.
Bob
Bobbycindi
the cover of Time magazine a few years ago, and why did National Geographic
called it one of the greatest mysteries in the world?
Bobbycindi
the Shroud. They didn't have to. Once properly set, anyone can place a
photograph of the Shroud under the VP-8 and see the effect for themselves. Try
it with an ordinary photograph and the difference is immediately apparent.
That the relief correlations on the Shroud are somewhat localized does not take
away from the fact that the dimensional data is in accordance with actual body
shape (cloth to body distance) in those areas- something remarkable no matter
how you slice it. Why the correlation isn't consistent over larger areas is
anybody's guess.
As for your statement that Allen's 'shroud' encodes dimensional information,
this is incorrect- at least if you mean by this that the shadings on his cloth
correlate to the shape of the statue. They do not. Reflected light images
simply do not encode distance information- hence the reason normal photographs
(and paintings too) invariably come out looking distorted.
Likewise, Nickell's image failed the VP-8 test for the same reason attempts by
actual artists have failed. They simply couldn't produce, with their eye and
hand, shadings that correlated accurately to body shape even when they
specifically set out to do so- a study Jackson undertook to assertain. The only
reason Emily Craig accomplished the task is that she very carefully copied what
she saw on the Shroud and even then, almost certainly, it was with the aid of a
VP-8 to check her work.
Bob
Bobbycindi
G. Swica
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011230015458...@mb-cs.aol.com...
>
> Likewise, Nickell's image failed the VP-8 test for the same reason
attempts by
> actual artists have failed. They simply couldn't produce, with their eye
and
> hand, shadings that correlated accurately to body shape even when they
> specifically set out to do so- a study Jackson undertook to assertain.>
Were any of the Sanford VP-8 images ever published ? I'd be curious to see
if they were in fact as bad as Bob indicates. If they were published, did
any part of them actually display anything resembling what Emily Craig
achieved?
Jerry
Bobbycindi
properly. I do know that Jackson had a number of artists try to encode facial
drawings with shadings that correlated with facial shape and without exception
they couldn't do it.
But I'm curious to know where you saw my post because I thought I'd deleted it!
And the reason I did, was because I wanted to double check what I said about
Nickell's 'shroud' not encoding correctly. Allen's shroud certainly couldn't do
it, but as I seemed to recall, Nickell actually did a little better in that
department- not much, but a little. Basically, I didn't want to put something
out there until I was absolutely sure of my facts! One things for sure, Jumper
and Jackson didn't fake their results as Mr. Weaver has implied. They didn't
have to. Anybody can put a photograph of the Shroud in the VP-8 and see the
results for themselves.
Bob
G. Swica
Sanford's rendering was suppose to follow McCrone's direction. Areas thought
closer to the cloth were shaded darker(slightly) then areas recessed. It
should work,but without any VP8 images, I'm guessing it had to be at least
more successful then then other attempts. Then again Emily Craig pulled off
the feat using her technique.
Also, I did come upon Mr. Jackson's article in Applied Optics, and there was
a comment to the effect that McCrone's is correct that 3-D could be encoded
in an image. But the authors thought it unlikely. I ran out of dimes at the
copying machine, so I can't tell you how that was exactly worded.
Jerry
G. Swica
> Anybody can put a photograph of the Shroud in the VP-8 and see the
> results for themselves.
>
> Bob
So is the 'raw' data shroud bust the one included in John Heller's book on
page 82 ?
The image is nice, but somewhat distorted.
Jerry
Bobbycindi
Ercoline just below it doesnt' it! As for Sanford and Emily Craig too, it seems
to me that with enough trial and error one can get pretty good at 'hand'
encoding a given rendering. Craig certainly did. But you need to have a way of
checking your work. Clearly, whoever "made" the Shroud didn't likely have a
VP-8 OR a reason to try to correlate tonality with body shape so the mystery
remains. I don't know if you've seen the image of Allen's photographic shroud
under the VP- 8 but it truly sucks the big one!
Bob
G. Swica
Obviously a medievel artisan would not require a VP-8 to check his work. The
effect would be considered accidental, in an attempt to capture some sort
of shading of the image. Also, Craig's solution must translate just as
well into the dilute tempera paintings , since each utilize iron oxide
pigments.
Yes, the Ercoline image is distorted in many areas. I'm not a big fan of the
photographic/bas-relief theories by the way.
Jerry
Bobbycindi
figure out what the odds are that someone would accidentally encode dimensional
information into an image as accurately as that found in the Shroud.
Undoubtedly, it would depend on a number of difficult assumptions- such as
whether or not the artist was, as McCrone seems to think, deliberately trying
to correlate shading with cloth to body distance at each given point. Right
off, the very idea sounds a bit far fetched to me. What would be the purpose?
Plus, those who have actually tried it have failed. (At least artists who had
no way of correcting their work.) My guess is that the overall odds are less
than one in a million.
I do think it's interesting to note that the 'gain' of the VP-8 (so to speak)
apparently has to be adjusted to give rise to equivalent amounts of relief when
looking at different areas of the body as a whole. What that could mean I have
no idea- but I wouldn't take it as evidence, either for or against, the idea
that the image on the Shroud is the work of an artist. There are simply too
many unknowns.
Bob
G. Swica
> > Undoubtedly, it would depend on a number of difficult assumptions- such
as
> whether or not the artist was, as McCrone seems to think, deliberately
trying
> to correlate shading with cloth to body distance at each given point.
Right
> off, the very idea sounds a bit far fetched to me. >
This doesn't sound far fetched at all. It's basically the same assumption
that STURP has for an actual body under the cloth. By the way, did any of
the artists in Jackson's paper actually use a dilute gelatin paint as
described by McCrone?
Jerry
Frank Weaver
In article <20011229233052...@mb-fg.aol.com>,
Duh! To sell magazines. Especially to sell magazines to shroudies.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPC/A36yjdWYzk1A5AQFs7Qf6A/jM9pAHSx9c2VlkBrLG4QRh4XTc34ca
P7h4V/EuQX11VrJ8c/MWvAJgo4+Zyaw2p4hxxEGp9FBtVN/Kty07qHLvWv2PR7ky
YULzS1u8wA8Gd9WYA1GOJtB9JzYsPRodmuxjStPqH4Zi+6uC+9lcWbpNobIai4Uv
3BCPxKfgBJyTffDKsrs1WRIAYAgkvaGpOwJhVfMTfmR0CAm6kTTqKYmoojVYskUK
nep4LBr1sYDC5NpFULQc89aPKa/t7FciE22tOLTqO1r1hXfGVi1eO2dexwqMMMg4
KlBc7rZsq3RhNkwT9sP8xf+8R+RPs85WZAKD4wff8Ld5ygq5NJ9HUQ==
=iwnB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20011230015458...@mb-cs.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Frank, Jumper and Jackson did not fake the results of their VP-8 analysis of
>the Shroud. They didn't have to. Once properly set, anyone can place a
>photograph of the Shroud under the VP-8 and see the effect for themselves. Try
>it with an ordinary photograph and the difference is immediately apparent.
Now this alone indicates that their analysis is fraudulent and their
results garbage. They put a *photograph* of the shroud through their
analyzer. Now, if photographs, by their nature, produce wildly
distorted results, than this photograph must also have produced wildly
distorted results. Therefore, the only way they could have twisted
those wildly distorted results into a coherent full-body image was
through massive data massage, i.e., 'faking it'.
>That the relief correlations on the Shroud are somewhat localized does not take
>away from the fact that the dimensional data is in accordance with actual body
>shape (cloth to body distance) in those areas- something remarkable no matter
>how you slice it. Why the correlation isn't consistent over larger areas is
>anybody's guess.
That's obvious -- becuase the shroud did not and could not have
contained a real body.
Elsewhere, you've indicated that J & J had to tweak the gain of their
analyzer differently for different parts of the body. That's an open
admission of finagling the data to fit their preconceptions. they
did it because, even after all their previous finagling, they
couldn't get the whole body to look a bit realistic. If they
adjusted their scale to make the face appear in normal relief, the
body was much too flat, more like bas relief. If they put the body
in normal relief, the face went negative. They never could get squat
that made sense out of the dorsal image.
So, either Jesus had a normal face and a really wierd body, OR Jesus
had a normal body but a really wierd face, OR the whole thing is
horseshit.
>As for your statement that Allen's 'shroud' encodes dimensional information,
>this is incorrect- at least if you mean by this that the shadings on his cloth
>correlate to the shape of the statue. They do not. Reflected light images
>simply do not encode distance information- hence the reason normal photographs
>(and paintings too) invariably come out looking distorted.
Thus explaining why Jackson and Jumper had to have faked the entire
thing.
>Likewise, Nickell's image failed the VP-8 test for the same reason attempts by
>actual artists have failed.
Actually, it 'failed' for a much simpler reason -- because the test
was meaningless. Jackson and Jumper manipulated their calculations
to massage one particular set of scattered data into looking the way
they thought it 'ought' to look like. There's no reason why
precisely the same set of manipulations should work on any other data
set. That's why I suggested that if they merely redid their *ahem*
experiment with a different volunteer for the cloth-to-body part,
they'd either get a wildly distorted Man in the Shroud or have to
devise a whole new set of calculational gimmicks to finagle the data
into what they want it to look like.
The one thing Jackson and Jumper have NEVER done, or even attempted,
is an even-steven comparison of the shroud with any of the duplicates,
not even the ones, like direct contact, that obviously can't work.
What they did is fake science; it is fraud science; it is pseudoscience.
It is flummery by technological means, no more credible than any
other sort of hoodoo.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPC/LQ6yjdWYzk1A5AQEELQf+L5X2cvI5v+EOBmDwyDOGYbg0X5JfoWub
/OJNC/+Vml/pIJw2KjTt3wyck37EIwHQEjSPy3unbL7floPzow0gNe6qr/ar0v0b
a1dlUyVo7kq0a0LWEVxZd5QhZMSthhKjmPCSKbO3e/5tXzfzLpxYcXqoKhQfdify
b5YK91HR6NqFhNl9lGg7139yLhQSIE3tCz6G0XjBZOpDnVkvI2RPlW7G/RM3T5eI
a2TnjsNXrCXx5trAoQqkVHVXpvepEzDy2XwkR852gNWiH5HH8mEKEQSMoOpKmJAt
DX+IwqNYVXJh4Cr/oZZTqpV9L8TrX5X8Pv0IPJcSAjAogbAEBK/C6A==
=79SK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
Bobbycindi
wouldn't insist that a photograph of the Shroud should be distorted as well.
Why? Because the shadings on the Shroud don't contain some inherent actual
'depth' as Ken seems to think. (He's still convinced that since the water marks
and scorches on the Shroud look three-dimensional to the VP- 8, these markings
must actually be three-dimensional objects!)
Rather, what happens is that the interpreter of what the VP-8 spits out makes a
decision as to whether or not the shape generated has any correlation to a real
three-dimensional object. The reason that even a photograph of the Shroud will
generate what's considered to be accurate dimensional information, is that the
photo shows the same two-dimensonal shadings seen on the Shroud. These are
looked at by the VP-8, and sure enough, the shape generated correlates to an
actual three-dimensional object- in this case a human body.
As for why the body and face don't generate eqivalent levels of relief is
unknown. But it can't be said that it's evidence of an artist at work for the
reason that the shapes generated are still proportionately correct- even if
localized to that area ae- the body vs the face.
I find it interesting that August Accetta ran into somewhat of a similar
phenomenon when he imaged an actual radiating body. The body imaged differently
than the head! As it stands, more experimenting needs to be done to understand
why.
Bob
Bobbycindi
K.M. Towe
applied to them. Another attempt to avoid any logical thinking, any real analysis of the "science".
More falling back on faith in miracles and keep repeating the same old, tired nonsense about
duplication and unique in all the world stuff (as if that really means anything). More keeping up
the repetitive (but wrong) comparisons with mummies and other similar garbage (Accetta). Bob..you
haven't a clue about science and how it should be done. You criticize McCrone for not having enough
peer-review. Yet you cling desperately to those Shroud papers that have never been peer-reviewed to
buttress you absurd, comical revisions of biblical history. You ignore your own references when they
don't fit...e.g., Zugibe. You tell us that all one need do is look at a negative image of a positive
negative to know the "truth". You absolutely ignore anything that even remotely challenges logic and
you leap onto miracles, redefining them as you go to make them sound scientific. In the beginning
there was hope that you might be persuaded by simple logic, even if the science couldn't do it. But
now, after reading some of your recent diatribes, you are a lost cause. If you cannot deal with
simple logical inconsistencies you must, of course, keep the faith...there's nothing left for you
except non-peer reviewed babble from "experts" of dubious credibility. Keep up the babble,
Bob...and, for sure, don't answer any of the embarassing questions posed. Keep up the ad hominem and
diversionary stuff. You're great at that, if nothing else. And, you need not reply to this because
we've read it all before! Same old, same old...
Bobbycindi
thought it was such a dumb comment as to not be worth a rebuttal. For one
thing, I'm not sure how Frank expects us to believe that Time would put a photo
of the Shroud on their magazine soley to sell issues when the Shroud's supposed
to be such a non-issue with all but a tiny minority of diehard believers. And
if he thinks that National Geographic is somehow the equivalent of The National
Enquirer, I'd say the poor man's missed out on a truly worthwhile publication.
Wouldn't you?
As for your accusations of me repeating the same old thing over and over, I'll
make you a deal. Duplicate the Shroud and I'll put a cork in it. But in the
mean time I'm not going to let a couple of soreheads like you and Frank BS
others into thinking that the Shroud doesn't amount to anything when it most
certainly does. It seems to me that it's YOU guys who talk real big but have
virtually nothing to point to to back up your claims. We believers have the
Shroud and you guys have pathetic powder rubbings of a man's face that barely
last long enough for a photo to be taken. That you two could actually point to
such efforts with a straight face is beyond me.
Bob
K.M. Towe
Jeez, Bob...that's ad hominem, don't you think?
Bobbycindi
Frank Weaver
In article <g5JX7.49246$Bd.15...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
"G. Swica" <GSW...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Also, I did come upon Mr. Jackson's article in Applied Optics, and there was
>a comment to the effect that McCrone's is correct that 3-D could be encoded
>in an image. But the authors thought it unlikely. I ran out of dimes at the
>copying machine, so I can't tell you how that was exactly worded.
Was this the passage, Jerry?
Generally, all images exhibit some correlation with facial
relief, showing that an artist is capable of producing shaded
images that contain some degree of distance correlation.
However, all VP-8 images are different from each other ... This
is in contrast to other mechanisms discussed below which are
capable of repeatability in producing shaded structures."
[Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline, "Image Intensity on the Turin Shroud
with the 3-D Structure of a Human Body Shape," Applied Optics
1984; 23: 2263].
I find a few notable things about this section of their paper:
(1) The charge that the various artists' drawings are 'masklike.'
Considering the highly artifical requirements imposed on them (e.g.,
'here is a table of relief data. Construct an shading encoder then
use it to draw a face'), how is that surprising?
(2) 'All VP-8 images are different from each other.' So, the
requirement that each artist *exactly* duplicate the shroud image is
dishonest in principle. The *shroud* artist could not have drawn the
same shroud twice.
(3) 'mechanisms ... capable of repeatability.' Why? As far as I
know, there is only one Turin Shroud.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPDU6dayjdWYzk1A5AQHJqwf9HWJwvf//bsRWoXgSlWiBkx/cJZcc6mFF
Zfq+2u1MMkziAMIcX2GCjlKiLfCrUYLqrYlv7/IEkkos35dfsRDFPD99d8Lulgv8
xyP1uWz37lxayry6+SQ4c/CQvDd1jwh4LntGCMMdGDK9Bp248J6H35vH22Qj2WT1
Kycw2dI/jkRmL4KesUhAObyC8CqNMqX9le+NlzABGNGRgL9SXv9QkBaVIW+wgCWp
uCfuUDIokhcqarkDHuKh4YCiWARdGEYcQSSr8om8peEJnDMYboxFG8Sc7ZB3XH4y
HwkEzLt2yWCb/07u29z7PaUzxm29y38BRQ910tIZ2R8NxzGShE4f8w==
=CCKc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20011231082219...@mb-df.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>I don't think you understand what the VP-8 was designed to do Frank, or you
>wouldn't insist that a photograph of the Shroud should be distorted as well.
Actually, I DO understand what the VP-8 was designed to do. It was
designed to create topographic maps of planets or asteroids from
photographs (digital, rather than silver nitrate on plastic, but still
esentially brightness maps) taken by planetary probes. I.e., it
translates relative brightness into relative height. Adapting it for
measuring the three-dimensionality of a two-dimensional image may be
a stretch, but it's not ipso facto ridiculous.
When Jackson claims that the analyzer doesn't work on photographs,
though, we can dismiss him as at best misinformed or misunderstanding
how his toy really works or what it does.
But it's when he goes on to say that certain photos magically acquire
special properties based on where the lens was pointed that Jackson
proves what a joke he is.
[snip]
>As for why the body and face don't generate eqivalent levels of relief is
>unknown.
Oh, yes -- another one of those 'if the result is absolute crap, it
must be a mystery' answers of yours. What it proves, once again, is
how bogus Jackson's data manipulation was.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPDU1xqyjdWYzk1A5AQFZYgf6A+s2+xxMsTZ+aNT4624LmtJzqo+cg2wa
122mP6hrGFeJdB69a0Jr1XMfNXcAVl5PljSY7WNlf9JIlvM4JZli98JbLT5m4LQg
zEGntf8j2QBlnOmfmVlLRKA77cdTh5jqdWqQ7LpbQ1hLfW2kutu7wraJaNWKUb6e
PgG/W6ihtCYeYPlH/QmyWoAqJPL3hdZI3DVuStSa89xgCZllqTAMaS+GzsJKfcCr
/yQLmd4NgXoeazvw2dU1tuUgFe90qHiyLkZbQT5AXUGtyc2mRyDUnWniOzKsGNZM
c+HNMiUJUPmGmUa7x02Z88Y33gtuyevJKmqLFzKHBTWdt7mepZVw3g==
=ga11
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
K.M. Towe
others into thinking that the Shroud doesn't amount to anything when it most certainly does. It
seems to me that it's YOU guys who talk real big but have virtually nothing to point to to back up
your claims."
Virtually nothing from soreheads? Clearly, you haven't been reading your own stuff. As a result of
our "nothing" you have had to renounce you previous assertions. You have had to dream up wild
scenarios, revising them and the Gospels as you go. You have had to resort to miracles. You have had
to avoid answering potentially embarrassing questions about our "nothing". You have had to fall back
repeatedly to your tired, hackneyed "can't be duplicated" drivel, your quasi-religious evocations,
or your OPINION that it MUST be real (science at its best). All because of "virtually nothing"?
Yeh, sure. I think that most others can see where the BS is really coming from...unless they are
creationists who also think the Grand Canyon was formed in the Great Flood.
K.M. Towe
Bob probably hasn't seen some of the latest NGs. Last year one issue was devoted to methods of estimating the ages of various things. The Shroud of Turin was used as an example of the carbon-14 method and estimates of the linen were placed at 610 to 740 years old. In the latest issue (Jan, 02) there are two letters disputing these dates. One points to the bacteria of Garza-Valdes, the other says that the date is in dispute because of fire and smoke. The NG editors replied:
"While some scientists have indeed questioned the purity of the sample, this is the only test whose results have been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."
National Geographic a truly worthwhile publication? Yes, Bob!....or
were you referring to the National Enquirer?
G. Swica
The next time up at the college I'll copy the Applied Optics article
mentioned. You provided alot more than the statement I'd read.
Thanks...........
Jerry
Bobbycindi
Enquirer. And yes, I still think Geographic is worthwhile. But I would, if I
were you, take what you have pointed out to mean that the Shroud is a medieval
painting. (I'm referring to the fact that in one article, Geographic magazine
referred to the Shroud as a truly mysterious artifact, and a later issue made
mention of the fact that the 1988 carbon dating write up was the only
peer-reviewed paper on the subject.)
I would pay no attention to the fact that the sample taken shows every sign of
having been anomolous. And I would disavow anything Ray Rogers might have
recently said about the Benford Marino paper. Afterall, as a chemist and one of
the original STURP guys, why would anybody listen to him? But most of all, I'd
refuse to acknowledge what Dr. Woefli had to say about the issue since it
doesn't reflect favorably on carbon dating at all, and he works for the lab in
Zurich that actually had a hand in the dating of the Shroud.
As for me, I think I'll take what Geographic had to say about the 1988 carbon
dating as a true statement and leave it at that.
Bob
Bobbycindi
Learning Channel video didn't seem all that ipso facto ridiculous. In fact I
thought it looked ipso facto quite convincining! Of course videos can be faked,
and for all you know the tricksters at the Learning Channel are no better than
the those underhanded STURP crazies, but still, I could have sworn that when
image specialist Kevin Moran placed a photo of a boy under the VP-8 it came out
all distorted on the VP-8 monitor. But when he tried it with a photo of the
Shroud, it looked like an honest to God three-dimensional face!
Of course you have an explanation for that right? Please Frank, enlighten us so
we can better understand where those wayward STURP scientists ipso facto went
wrong.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20020102221239...@mb-mg.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Jeez Dr. Towe, all I said was "if you say so Frank." So simmer down! I just
>thought it was such a dumb comment as to not be worth a rebuttal. For one
>thing, I'm not sure how Frank expects us to believe that Time would put a photo
>of the Shroud on their magazine soley to sell issues when the Shroud's supposed
>to be such a non-issue with all but a tiny minority of diehard believers.
You're not really that thick, are you Bob? Sensation sells. As long
as they put the right picture on the cover, they can spike newsstand
sales by c. 10% or more just from the curiousity-seekers, even
if they're shoveling old manure.
>And
>if he thinks that National Geographic is somehow the equivalent of The National
>Enquirer, I'd say the poor man's missed out on a truly worthwhile publication.
>Wouldn't you?
It's in the same business as Time -- sell at newsstands or fold up
shop.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPDvRBqyjdWYzk1A5AQHLpgf+M/u0Hum3CUIePzfIZ4sNXYzNfzD4hPoN
9AFxa4ilg/5njdkbGE7Z3xNQjXE7UuzBDWewBuIU6t4P5VqtzpM40iBrO80H0eE9
yBnwVnoaL2hPiWW+dWicL4niW5L9Bnks/+PxT12ltlqgWKObW+4HhSSSndKwJ+OA
oCnD4IRIjzIDXqkarr0Fd4ctDmQkwC+/FpJcjZkfjazyFCS756HDwKSHmq8t36fA
I4RbWI8+uveJ3DdAxR365POoHdAlK0kNTNQxU4+f0xj37kFtRdgWbgrfbMsxcqlg
dFKqGCUpuyuK9gY+xq+GdEyFhezejLyAwWC6fRXD0sviBYUzapS1Fw==
=VSKy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <3C360F72...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Yeh, sure. I think that most others can see where the BS is really coming from...unless they are
>creationists who also think the Grand Canyon was formed in the Great Flood.
Aww, shucks! And i always thought that was made by Paul Bunyan
dragging his axe behind him :-(
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPEB5x6yjdWYzk1A5AQGiMgf/TP1pIBZVJpuPSxK6D47PpEiD1SngL0Ua
gbGe3eUmtzLHYEsaFXiLQUdGNxBzr1FYXsKKlDOhJwKLM4s5uE9e+H56h4aDHyJk
yRNGDdQ9noFAKIPC+UDjZteeXd4H1rbB3hUFmrGNSawX/VunLn3L7PZD8qVy9QGd
r5FnGs7aOPqyYpo/WYmreqY2shPTP8mI8VqpFR4CEahB/Ak2QAf62yqEeTroKVci
blFadY0SuCiIXkIW7KdJ7i/lwkGqiiXg/AzQ0OQpajsDeBPGRGKw/5LGMQGb2rMk
6GNrVWocG0aGHyL4LqkRUwhe9rFdERU1TxjY7q5x9a6U0ZPG+lsk/Q==
=FERI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20020105211607...@mb-bh.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Well I don't know Frank, but the demonstration of the 3D effect I saw on a
>Learning Channel video didn't seem all that ipso facto ridiculous. In fact I
>thought it looked ipso facto quite convincining!
And what does this have to do with Jackson contradicting himself
or displaying total ignorance of how his toys work?
Remember, it's easy to get 3-D effects from the burn marks and water
stains. That much should have been obvious to Jackson if he
understood how the VP-8 works, or even if he looked at his own
results with a touch of objectivity..
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPEB3/ayjdWYzk1A5AQFb+Qf/TlKnRn9kREydpH2eOH1CinBGx7R2oj1I
dwcDuFeN40zpm1H8T+QY2yLGqcklfC4z1n74wnFM+KjnBpahmL4L316oGcCIpM/U
Qp7WsUJWo9cjxcRa5k4693YFuTfra7zxpgN1gO/utVoCAUWDpm2ntakvDkz4Ql6A
C2UGf9RBRB/y+rBI9stnifxtGFKjeI+taiopBzhcSN8jzqJsscGmv/Z0pXawtjL/
tXcWxqhLKQRa5EWoYwcMu2G6iyvmNHipJSxWp5/23E9vikEI/lgfDX0NJhMULLNn
YqqMknGvGpLjhbsYLwAaulh4XOefYQws0OzMps4LmVaxQh5oxXjHGw==
=4Ntj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
scorches DID show up as three-dimensional objects! And guess what? The burn
marks were kind of pointy on top (just like little flames!) and the waterstains
were smooth- like waves in a bathtub! And the face? You guessed it! Just like
the three-dimensional face of an actual man!
But what I can't figure out is why, in the case of the stains and scorches,
every one I've ever seen in reality seems so damn thin! I've looked, but so
help me I could swear they don't poke up at all- just lay there as flat as
pancakes! Real faces, on the otherhand, do have three-dimensionality.
I can't help but wonder if what Jackson was all excited about wasn't the pointy
scorches and hilly waterstains at all, but rather the ANATOMICALLY CORRECT
SHAPE of the face generated by the VP-8 when it looked at a photograph of the
Shroud. (Perhaps like me, he had trouble with this idea that scorches are
little pointy things- like miniture plastic mountains you could sit on your
desk top.)
Maybe he just figured that since the VP-8 was designed to simply assign an
arbitrary amount of topographical relief to a given level of shading on
WHATEVER it was looking at, it wasn't surprising that the scorches came out
looking like three-dimensional objects. In fact they would, of necessity, come
out looking that way since they too are darker than the surrounding cloth.
Maybe what he recognized as important was that the VP-8 was telling him that
the shadings of the face on the Shroud do in fact correctly correlate to the
ACTUAL SHAPE of a real face, and since stains and scorches aren't
three-dimensional objects in reality, there shape (as generated by the VP-8)
could be considered meaningless.
But as with pathology, you're the expert on the VP-8! Maybe you should let
NASA's imaging department know so they can quit kidding themselves. Damn you're
smart Frank!
Bob
Bobbycindi
more about the use of the VP-8 than the image specalists who invented it, more
about art than Isabel Piczek and more about carbon dating than the
archeologists who use it, you are also a publishing and marketing authority! I
guess my question is why don't you refer to yourself as Dr. Weaver? You must
hold at least a dozen or so PhD's do you not?
Bob
Bobbycindi
the VP-8 gives rise to that makes the "dimensional information" it "sees"
meaningful is the THREE dimensional shape that appears on the VP-8 monitor.
But here's the key. If the THREE dimensional shape that pops up on the monitor
MATCHES the THREE dimensional shape of that object in the real world, then the
encoded dimensional data in the TWO dimensional rendering looked at is said to
be meaningful. (Or realistic.)
For example- say Joe Nickell puts one of his powder 'shrouds" (and remember
this is only a two-dimensional rendering) under the VP-8 and the monitor pops
up with a face where the nose pokes up as high as it should in relation to the
cheeks of a real man, and everything else looks in place (like a real THREE
dimensional face) then his 'shroud' is said to encode correctly. But what made
it do that? Because the shadings he used to create the TWO dimensional shape of
the face varied in just such a way as to produce an anatomically correct THREE
dimensional face on the monitor.
In fact Emily Craig's 'shroud' did just that!
Joe Nickell's did not. It came out with huge sunken hollows for eyes and other
features looking all wrong. Why, because the shadings didn't produce the relief
that looked like a realistic face in all three dimensions.
Also, remember that it doesn't matter what the medium is that the VP-8 looks
at. It could be iron oxide, paint, scorch- anything that produces a shade
different than the surrounding cloth. But the shadings have to vary in very
tricky way to give rise to realistic three-dimensional objects (as seen on the
VP-8). Most artists can't do it with just their eyes and hands. They need some
way to check their work. Does that help or am I making matters worse?
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20020112183025...@mb-mg.aol.com>,
"Universal Expert," just like it says on my business card.
Look on the bright side, Bob. be glad I'm not omnipotent, or I'd
pop right out of existence in a puff of my own logic :-)
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPEZlLKyjdWYzk1A5AQEWLAf+J6mMhy6xedTX5U4aCgh8E29QHjdrbboJ
Jo3rmfvp8S+vxpAVbfddkKOZARjvm1inJiRAug5Z+X+nTTwQ3ROJDtiu5ryaG8c5
3BYcabeMmRIEU6nuQYJwCc7WDMUU17sBnXtXRT1Ar8mx5wSdZlfd37YcjFdN9PD+
a0PYoiv4vE3NsPsu/i8JA7cOVZ8JwWgotnCPKfuspJmhqs3KqlyEDBbfAZjuMXFr
pmajD57iEtiELdMv93bXY/twXCA/lmkx6q1j4kZKiKyVtwaTDvkEiG4UeUC57Xnk
8ILjdvqDAnJMdP0sX/ke/65X1ue1Agibf6uM4uvqeJpQPRgbeDpGJQ==
=T6Fp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
stinks or anything.)
Bob