Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Ironic to hear you complain about point scoring while you try to find something trivial to dismiss someone who know more than you with, because it hurts your ego
The Turin Shroud: The Image of Edessa created in c. 300-400 AD?
- Thread starter rakovsky
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong. I am pointing out that both that you don't nor why it is important. Is the shroud a result of additive or subtractive mixing? Is transferring it to a computer screen changing that model? That is a change of colour space and it has consequences of which you seem blissfully unaware. To illustrate, please give me the representation of silver on the computer monitor RGB colour space. You cannot. Because there is no such thing. All you will get is an approximation using whites and greys. Try doing the same with the subtractive CMYK model. Can't do that either. Now you could prove me to be wrong quite easily by presenting either. But you wont because it simply is not possible to do so.
Pointless effort. It is meaningless. You have no clue what Zeke actually does.
Really? You are retreating while waving the white flag of victory?
Three times now I have critiqued your methods, if such they can be called and you are simply doing your level best to hide from that. If you cared in the slightest about your so-called science, you would be eager to step up to robust criticism. That is how peer review works in science. If it turns out that your ideas actually withstand critical scrutiny, then they become actual science. If not, then they are dismissed.
I'm married to a scientist*, and have a scientist daughter. You know, I don't think I've heard either of them say "I'm going to just stick this data into this freebie programme that I don't know anything about, slide a control or two around manually and randomly, and see what pops out of the other end". Is that the sort of conversation you often have? 'coz I'm loving the thought of you trying to get a paper published on the basis of MS Office and Zeke set to work by a rank amateur on a just-about-pixilated image. Sorry, did you mention you were a scientist?
You know what, some scientists, when given a new bit of kit by a technician, would ask some questions: how is it calibrated? What are the limits of its effectiveness? What errors is it likely to generate? That sort of thing. Clearly you take the view that scientists should only speak to scientists and no-one else could possibly have any sort of expertise. I mean, what on earth could someone who uses a far superior form of the software for a living ever know about the pitfalls of doing what you are trying to do?
Obviously it's really sciency to bring a crappy image into a crappy programme and slide a slider to the right until you see what you want to see. Obviously scientists wouldn't bother looking up the expert advice on image handling, or even getting a professional to do it for them. No, no.........just slide that slider to the right for the first time in your life and
But do go on. Feel free. It isn't my reputation you'll be shredding.
*Now teaching, no longer practising.
Last edited:
Why, do you know a scientist?
Did you notice that the image first went through Microsoft Office Picture Manager first?
Anyone who knew what they were doing would have mentioned the file format, too. I'm guessing Jpeg.Hilarious.
meccanoman
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 232
I've now done a 'Zeke makeover' on the first 10 of my previously contrast-enhanced Shroud Scope images (from head to toe of Man on the Shroud), added today as appendix to a 2012 posting (see tail end).
Nope, I won't insert a link for reasons previously stated. Simply enter (own gallery shroud turin) into your search engine and look for the WordPress site, probably first in the list of returns, with Shroud Scope in the title.
Can anyone seriously doubt that the Zeke pix are superior to the 'as is' Shroud Scope ones, viewing the two side-by-side? But then I knew years ago that the Scope pictures has been doctored so as to destroy contrast (and detail) - and said as much!
The final 10 Zeke-enhanced images will be added tomorrow.
Nope, I won't insert a link for reasons previously stated. Simply enter (own gallery shroud turin) into your search engine and look for the WordPress site, probably first in the list of returns, with Shroud Scope in the title.
Can anyone seriously doubt that the Zeke pix are superior to the 'as is' Shroud Scope ones, viewing the two side-by-side? But then I knew years ago that the Scope pictures has been doctored so as to destroy contrast (and detail) - and said as much!
The final 10 Zeke-enhanced images will be added tomorrow.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Did you notice that the image first went through Microsoft Office Picture Manager first?
Hilarious.
Noted in my detailed critique, twice. It does appear to be jpeg, but mecannoman ain't saying. Who can say? If he is able to identify what it is that he did precisely, which I doubt, I could directly critique that in such a way to make nonsense of it, but he wont because he is aware that I can. And that I have standing to do so.
Effectively, this is no different than the Obama birth cert crap that we comprehensively debunked. Layers my butt.
Oooh look. Look what I found. It's amazing. It's all sciency and stuff. You know the old sideways badge thing? Yeah this one:
Well, it's really made of lava. Look, just one little filter and you can honestly see it. Really. Look, it's so clear:
And if you use another filter, the head disappears. That just proves that Meccanoman is right, and the head was added in afterwards as a bas relief, obviously. Well done Meccanoman:
But the piece de resistance..........look at all the hidden detail revealed here:
And here's a close up of the head. From this it is obvious that it was carved by a left handed bearded lady using a piece of onyx then cooked at Gas mark 5 for 2 hours:
Wow!! It's amazing what hidden details suddenly become obvious when you just apply a filter.
Well, it's really made of lava. Look, just one little filter and you can honestly see it. Really. Look, it's so clear:
And if you use another filter, the head disappears. That just proves that Meccanoman is right, and the head was added in afterwards as a bas relief, obviously. Well done Meccanoman:
But the piece de resistance..........look at all the hidden detail revealed here:
And here's a close up of the head. From this it is obvious that it was carved by a left handed bearded lady using a piece of onyx then cooked at Gas mark 5 for 2 hours:
Wow!! It's amazing what hidden details suddenly become obvious when you just apply a filter.
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Wow, ever thought of looking for cities on Mars? I bet you could find some with this technique.
And I've been told that if you use a certain Snapchat filter on the Shroud, you find out that Jesus was actually a dog that's sticking out its tongue.
And I've been told that if you use a certain Snapchat filter on the Shroud, you find out that Jesus was actually a dog that's sticking out its tongue.
meccanoman
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 232
Which of these two is the more informative image?
Is there anything in the more informative image that is totally absent (or barely discernible) in the less informative image?
One is a Zeke-enhanced version of the other, needless to say, posted in attempt to curb all those fevered speculations about rampant artefacts. Nope, none that I can see...
Zeke has a minimal effect on that RGB colour chart I showed earlier. So why suggest it would produce hideous artefacts when quite clearly, all it does is to accentuate existing detail?
Zeke is simply a contrast-enhancing tool that fortuitously happens to work well on the Durante 2002 images that we plebs have been 'privileged' to receive as Shroud Scope.
There have been whispers about higher resolution pictures being available, but which have yet to be released into the public domain. Why not, one wonders?
Is there anything in the more informative image that is totally absent (or barely discernible) in the less informative image?
One is a Zeke-enhanced version of the other, needless to say, posted in attempt to curb all those fevered speculations about rampant artefacts. Nope, none that I can see...
Zeke has a minimal effect on that RGB colour chart I showed earlier. So why suggest it would produce hideous artefacts when quite clearly, all it does is to accentuate existing detail?
Zeke is simply a contrast-enhancing tool that fortuitously happens to work well on the Durante 2002 images that we plebs have been 'privileged' to receive as Shroud Scope.
There have been whispers about higher resolution pictures being available, but which have yet to be released into the public domain. Why not, one wonders?
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Just popped in to say that unequivocally that there are no "acts of faith" in science. Period.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Absent provenance, neither is "informative". That's one of the ways science works...
The very fact that you ask this question reveals your extreme ignorance of the subject. "Accentuating existing detail" absolutely includes enhancing existing artifacts. If you think that taking an image in Microsoft Office and zooming it doesn't produce artifacts, then how about you actually contact the manufacturers of the programme and ask them? That would be the scientific thing to do, wouldn't you say?
Quite clearly........says the novice user of a crappy bit of freebie software. You're not really in a good position to tell, are you. Mark one eyeball and all that.
Last edited:
Zoom and filter........you can find anything you like in any image you like with this foolproof technique.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I tried. I gave freely of my expertise to no avail. It appears that our protagonist cares for nothing except his own bizarre interpretation.
Yeah, we both did, and the pity of it is that it isn't impossible he is on to something with his baked flour thing. Unfortunately for him, if you are a woo-monger in one field, no-one is going to take you in the slightest bit seriously in another.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
No. No way on any known planet. Which part of this escapes you?
No. Please identify the image with which you started. If you cannot, everything thereafter is useless. If you cannot tell why that is then you have no idea what you are talking about.
Wrong. The Zeke example You provided demonstrates the exact opposite.
Because it produces hideous artefacts as a matter of direct observation.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Because they do not exist and it does not matter.
Which source image did you take as your starting point? You refuse to say and I know exactly why that is. You realise that I will take it to pieces, that's why.
Consider your bridges well and truly burned. While I may have offered an analysis, I am certainly not the first and I would simply be yet another in the trail of rejected analyses. Your interest is not in truth, but in the propagation of your belief at all cost, even if truth is the cost.