The Turin Shroud: The Image of Edessa created in c. 300-400 AD?

[JayUtah]

...the last at the time of writing from the site's Supreme Presence no less.

Mockery is unbecoming someone who aspires to be taken seriously. You've presented your findings here and you have asked forbearance for portions of your digital image analysis that may seem incomplete or incorrect. That's certainly appropriate for work that's characterized as in-progress. I've asked you questions designed to understand how incomplete and/or incorrect it may be. You've told us you believe science to include a process of correction -- also appropriate when the work is still in progress. It is that process I'm attempting to invoke by first determining the degree of error that may have arisen. Instead of a productive discussion of the nature of the employed methods, the forum is being subjected to what at this point amounts to a tantrum of inappropriate indignation. Instead of helpful information about how the analysis in question was undertaken, the forum is being subjected to pontificatory assurances of correctness that, in fine, seem to undermine the previous requests for leniency and, at large, undermine what you've told us is the trial-and-error nature of science. You've made a trial, but you seem immune to the possibility of error in that trial.

In sciences that involve uncertainty in quantified data, I struggle to determine what is inappropriate in asking what statistical methods were employed to determine the extent and effect of that uncertainty. I'm certainly made skeptical by the suggestion that only subjective means were utilized, and I feel any reviewer would be remiss in not following up. In sciences that are notorious for producing false positive results, I struggle to determine what would be inappropriate in asking for details of the controls that would normally be required to separate false from true positive results, especially where subjective adjudication plays a part. I'm certainly made skeptical when I'm made to feel ashamed for asking for such details, and more skeptical by the publication of positive results under the flag of forbearance for possibly errant methods. I feel a conscientious reviewer would be made appropriately skeptical. Where a science provides a rich grammar of methods and models and a strong vocabulary of tools, I struggle to see what is inappropriate in noting the simplistic expression in the presentation and attempting to determine whether it results from a deliberate and conscionable choice or from a pidgin approach that lacks necessary and appropriate sophistication. I am certainly made skeptical when such an attempt is immediately characterized as a personal attack. I know of no field of science in which the author is not required to be transparent about his methods as a condition of the conclusion being taken on its face as worth further consideration. And I strongly doubt there is any legitimate science in which questions regarding method are appropriately met with accusations of being given "the third degree."

justify the following title:
"Four digitally-enhanced Shroud Scope images say the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake - based probably on unique, one-off, flour-imprinting technology."

Will you be entertaining feedback? As I noted earlier in the thread, I have read a few papers postured as legitimate science in pursuit of an explanation for the Shroud of Turin. And those papers invariably include some attempt to seek confirmation in the photographic evidence, and to develop that confirmation using digital image processing techniques. And my recollection of those methods is that they were distinctly naive and did not, in general, support the conclusions being drawn upon them. Whether my sample of the relevant literature is representative or not may bear on how rational is my skepticism, but it is enough to want to look very carefully at image analysis techniques in this specific genre of scientific inquiry. I am hoping those who endeavor to elevate the study of the Shroud to a level of science that merits serious attention will invite such scrutiny.

 

[JayUtah]

As a scientist, surely you documented all of this in meticulous detail, right?

When such methods are employed for forensic purposes, the toolchain includes a means of automatically recording such important details for inspection by any who challenge the findings. The analyst is also on the hook to demonstrate that the analysis was performed according to methods generally accepted in the field and satisfactorily shown to achieve the results claimed. Now that standard of proof is clearly beyond what is being sought here, but it shows the direction in which one must travel in order to achieve credibility for this sort of analysis. It's not to say that no new analytical methods can ever be devised. But the device includes many steps and isn't well defended by indignation and pontification.

 

[abaddon]

When such methods are employed for forensic purposes, the toolchain includes a means of automatically recording such important details for inspection by any who challenge the findings. The analyst is also on the hook to demonstrate that the analysis was performed according to methods generally accepted in the field and satisfactorily shown to achieve the results claimed. Now that standard of proof is clearly beyond what is being sought here, but it shows the direction in which one must travel in order to achieve credibility for this sort of analysis. It's not to say that no new analytical methods can ever be devised. But the device includes many steps and isn't well defended by indignation and pontification.

Nor does it even vaguely intersect with MS office picture manager or Zeke.

 

[Belz...]

Individual images available on request!

The first is an adjustment of brightness/contrast to a Shroud Scope 'as is' image which shows the crust-like nature of the body image. The second, with switching between min/max values on just two subsidiary settings, shows the yellow stain-like background underneath the encrustation. The third, with optimal intermediate settings between those two extremes (easily overlooked on the software!) shows (I think) both the encrustation and the yellow background optimally, or nearly so, in the one image.

What they mostly show is your imagination, like a truther seeing 'pods' on the plane that hit 2WTC by blowing up a pixellated picture beyond recognition.

 

[JayUtah]

Nor does it even vaguely intersect with MS office picture manager or Zeke.

Indeed. And the notion that an artistic filter for a consumer toy photo editing application would yield scientifically valid spectroscopy is preposterous on its face. But I've done all I can to save meccanoman from likely error. If he wants to sign his name to that and call it real science then I guess he'll be the one to bear the consequences.

 

[abaddon]

Individual images available on request!

For the third time, I request your original RAW format image.

 

[meccanoman]

Having deliberated on that Windows 10 Zeke photoediting filter for a full month, I've decided that the 'bittiness' it reveals in the Shroud body image is probably real, not artefactual, and have started to wonder why this has not been spotted and/or reported on previously by the scientific photographers enlisted by mainstream pro-authenticity sindonology! (Barrie M. Schwortz of STURP and STERA can probably be exonerated, given he was STURP's "Documenting" photographer, snapping STURP's team as it went about its gruelling work in that celebrated 1 week session in Turin back in '78, having declined the invitation to act as a scientific photographer).

I've added a few words today to the end of my current "STURP" posting, expressing my bewilderment, to say nothing of suspicions.

Apols for the new description coined for STURP, previously the Shroud of Turin Research Project, now rechristened as "Space-age Technology Unleashing Religious Propaganda".

 

[abaddon]

Having deliberated on that Windows 10 Zeke photoediting filter for a full month, I've decided that the 'bittiness' it reveals in the Shroud body image is probably real, not artefactual, and have started to wonder why this has not been spotted and/or reported on previously by the scientific photographers enlisted by mainstream pro-authenticity sindonology! (Barrie M. Schwortz of STURP and STERA can probably be exonerated, given he was STURP's "Documenting" photographer, snapping STURP's team as it went about its gruelling work in that celebrated 1 week session in Turin back in '78, having declined the invitation to act as a scientific photographer).

I've added a few words today to the end of my current "STURP" posting, expressing my bewilderment, to say nothing of suspicions.

Apols for the new description coined for STURP, previously the Shroud of Turin Research Project, now rechristened as "Space-age Technology Unleashing Religious Propaganda".

Then you remain incorrect. Your bewilderment as to why nobody else has picked up on this is that everyone but you knows that your claims cannot be correct regardless of whether they might be pro- or anti- shroud authenticity.

 

[dropzone]

I always liked that one--I think it's in Spain--that is basically a hankie stained with bloody snot. Not only is it a believable relic of one who was dead but it is also similar to something I made the other night while fully alive.

Back to your discussion of a Northern Gothic (and extremely modest, making Jesus like Stretch Armstrong) portrait being created in Turkey a thousand years earlier.

 

[meccanoman]

A forum in which a copious contributor of comments pops us to say "everyone but you knows that your claims cannot be correct" without bothering to provide cogent reasons is no use whatsoever to man nor beast.

Indeed, it looks like an expression of a hostile, firmly closed mind - the antithesis of free-flowing internet debate.

This Shroud investigator devoted a considerable time last month to setting out reasons for thinking the Shroud is a medieval forgery, specifically one based on a direct contact-imprinting mechanism. The latter is backed up by a progression through 9 experimentally-tested models before arriving at a fine-tuned Model 10, the product of 5 years research, reported online through some 400 or more postings, based on use of flour/vegetable oil as imprinting medium, everyday medieval commodities, followed by thermal image development in a hot oven

It's well nigh impossible to summarize all the evidence accumulated since early 2012 without sounding didactic - one releases a little at a time and hopes for a receptive reasonably open-minded audience, one that initially at any rate asks questions, rather than delivers instant imperious put-down dismissals, latching onto small objections re detail, failing to address the big picture.

Understanding the Shroud image calls for a multi-disciplinary approach, coupled with the realization that a 14th century medieval knight, Geoffroy de Charny. personally backed by his monarch AND a hired team of some 5 or 6 under-employed (?) clerics in his well-funded private chapel, was uniquely capable of pulling off a remarkable forgery.

The 'solution' is to realize that the initial unsightly baked-on crust of imprinting medium was either immediately washed off, leaving little or no trace of its presence, except for that enduring faint 'enigmatic' baked-on Maillard-generated melanoidin image, OR the surface encrustation naturally degraded and flaked off during the 30 years or so that the 'Lirey' shroud was banned from public exhibition, leaving today's remaining 'ghost' image, oh so easily modelled by any one with an hour to spare. It ain't rocket science.

 

[abaddon]

A forum in which a copious contributor of comments pops us to say "everyone but you knows that your claims cannot be correct" without bothering to provide cogent reasons is no use whatsoever to man nor beast.

The "tools" you are using are inappropriate, your "methodology" is non-existent and your knowledge of any form of image processing is demonstrably lacking.

We have been over this ad nauseum in this thread.

 

[dropzone]

Despite medication that has removed much of the third dimension from my life, there is no bloody way that was a "photograph" of a 3D body wrapped--WRAPPED-- in cloth. Good enough to convince rubes in a circus sideshow, though. Who here will admit to being a rube, hillbilly, or chawbacon? I know my limitations, but they stop somewhere north of there.

I've been away a while, but I keep running headfirst into cases of "how bloody stupid do you have to be to believe that crap?" Which was always the fun of the JREF. I miss Randi. It had him watching over our shoulders, keeping us realistic, with the long shot of getting dopeslapped by him or his minions

 

[JayUtah]

Having deliberated on that Windows 10 Zeke photoediting filter for a full month, I've decided...

And if you could demonstrate any relevant qualification or expertise, that deliberation would mean something. Zeke is a cosmetic filter for a toy image editing application, whose inner workings you know zilch about. By all means try to convince practitioners in the image analysis field that you know what you're talking about and that your conclusions are sound, based on nothing more solid than your naked say-so. Should be entertaining.

 

[meccanoman]

Tools and methodology in science can be approached from one of two directions. One is to break into the box, attempt to discover its inner workings, then figure out what it's doing in any given situation and assessing its relevance and practicality to the real world. Allow yourself plenty of time - a decade or two, maybe longer, and attach confidence limits to your predictions - from 90% downwards, probably downwards.

There's another approach, namely empirical science guided by a little theory. One views the workings of those new-found tools as the dark interior of a black box, i.e. not bothering with the intricate detail of what's going on inside that box. One simply compares the inputs and outputs that come from that black box when given known, well-understood inputs, and one gradually builds up a knowledge base of what the black box does, without necessarily knowing how it does it.

The science of chemistry is well acquainted with the latter 'empirical' approach. A theoretical grounding in atoms, molecules and ions gives a broad understanding of chemical reactions, but rarely if ever provides totally reliable predictions as to what will happen when one mixes A and B in a test-tube. ( Try predicting what will happen when one adds strong nitric acid - any concentration - to 'reactive' aluminium and see what happens - nothing!).

In short, it is a gross error to suppose that anyone utilizing a black box, with little or no knowledge as to its inner workings, is an ignoremus or charlatan. Provided that black box is initially fed with a number of well-understood reference points to gauge its MO, then it can prove to be a valuable research tool. Indeed, that is how most science is done. Science is empirical, guided by theory. It is rarely theory, pure and simple. Theory is rarely simple.

Quote, probably apocryphal, attributed to French diplomat: "That's all very well in practice, but how does that work in theory?"

Answer: things, unfamiliar ones especially, rarely work according to theory, unfamiliar real world things especially.

Don't knock "black boxes". They play an essential role in scientific research, even digital software black boxes. Input known reference systems. See what comes out. Build up an empirical knowledge base.

 

[abaddon]

Tools and methodology in science can be approached from one of two directions. One is to break into the box, attempt to discover its inner workings, then figure out what it's doing in any given situation and assessing its relevance and practicality to the real world. Allow yourself plenty of time - a decade or two, maybe longer, and attach confidence limits to your predictions - from 90% downwards, probably downwards.

There's another approach, namely empirical science guided by a little theory. One views the workings of those new-found tools as the dark interior of a black box, i.e. not bothering with the intricate detail of what's going on inside that box. One simply compares the inputs and outputs that come from that black box when given known, well-understood inputs, and one gradually builds up a knowledge base of what the black box does, without necessarily knowing how it does it.

The science of chemistry is well acquainted with the latter 'empirical' approach. A theoretical grounding in atoms, molecules and ions gives a broad understanding of chemical reactions, but rarely if ever provides totally reliable predictions as to what will happen when one mixes A and B in a test-tube. ( Try predicting what will happen when one adds strong nitric acid - any concentration - to 'reactive' aluminium and see what happens - nothing!).

In short, it is a gross error to suppose that anyone utilizing a black box, with little or no knowledge as to its inner workings, is an ignoremus or charlatan. Provided that black box is initially fed with a number of well-understood reference points to gauge its MO, then it can prove to be a valuable research tool. Indeed, that is how most science is done. Science is empirical, guided by theory. It is rarely theory, pure and simple. Theory is rarely simple.

Quote, probably apocryphal, attributed to French diplomat: "That's all very well in practice, but how does that work in theory?"

Answer: things, unfamiliar ones especially, rarely work according to theory, unfamiliar real world things especially.

Don't knock "black boxes". They play an essential role in scientific research, even digital software black boxes. Input known reference systems. See what comes out. Build up an empirical knowledge base.

What do you know about your "known reference systems" that you propose as "inputs"?

 

[ferd burfle]

I love the smell of fringe reset in the morning.

meccanoman, did you really think all those unanswered questions would be forgotten if you laid low for a month? Some of those questions were asked by folks whose professional reputations depend on processing images without introducing artifacts. You might learn a few things if you're willing to reconsider your assumptions.

 

[abaddon]

I love the smell of fringe reset in the morning.

meccanoman, did you really think all those unanswered questions would be forgotten if you laid low for a month? Some of those questions were asked by folks whose professional reputations depend on processing images without introducing artifacts. You might learn a few things if you're willing to reconsider your assumptions.

Indeed. The magic word is "provenance". Our proponent has nothing to say at all about the imaging equipment used, the various compressions used, nor anything at all about the origin of the jpeg/s used.

That step is entirely skipped. Apparently, the jpeg is sufficient by dint of simply being a jpeg.

Once the jpeg is declared to be inviolate for no apparent reason, one is free to wibble with sliders in a vanity add-on and declare any pareidolia as evidence of something, anything.

Hey, my decades of experience in that arena count for nothing faced with slider tomfoolery. Oddly, slider tomfoolery whose precise settings don't matter ever.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Indeed. The magic word is "provenance". Our proponent has nothing to say at all about the imaging equipment used, the various compressions used, nor anything at all about the origin of the jpeg/s used.

That step is entirely skipped. Apparently, the jpeg is sufficient by dint of simply being a jpeg.

Once the jpeg is declared to be inviolate for no apparent reason, one is free to wibble with sliders in a vanity add-on and declare any pareidolia as evidence of something, anything.

Hey, my decades of experience in that arena count for nothing faced with slider tomfoolery. Oddly, slider tomfoolery whose precise settings don't matter ever.

Just think, Dread Angel, of all that time you wasted, actually learning your stuff!

Sad, innit?

 

[ferd burfle]

Tools and methodology in science can be approached from one of two directions. One is to break into the box, attempt to discover its inner workings, then figure out what it's doing in any given situation and assessing its relevance and practicality to the real world. Allow yourself plenty of time - a decade or two, maybe longer, and attach confidence limits to your predictions - from 90% downwards, probably downwards.

Strawman

There's another approach, namely empirical science guided by a little theory. One views the workings of those new-found tools as the dark interior of a black box, i.e. not bothering with the intricate detail of what's going on inside that box. One simply compares the inputs and outputs that come from that black box when given known, well-understood inputs, and one gradually builds up a knowledge base of what the black box does, without necessarily knowing how it does it.

How about researching a new tool sufficiently such that you understand why it gives the results it does? You know, to reduce the chance you're fooling yourself?

The science of chemistry is well acquainted with the latter 'empirical' approach. A theoretical grounding in atoms, molecules and ions gives a broad understanding of chemical reactions, but rarely if ever provides totally reliable predictions as to what will happen when one mixes A and B in a test-tube. ( Try predicting what will happen when one adds strong nitric acid - any concentration - to 'reactive' aluminium and see what happens - nothing!).

Oops! Hope you didn't have an ignition source close by when you were empiricizing!

https://www.quora.com/How-does-aluminium-and-nitric-acid-react

How does aluminium and nitric acid react?

It will depend on the concentration of the nitric acid used….

Although aluminium reacts with dilute nitric acid to produce aluminium nitrate and hydrogen gas, concentrated (>60%) nitric acid is such a powerful oxidising agent that it instantly causes a thin layer of aluminium oxide to coat the surface of the aluminium.

The oxide coating is resistant to nitric acid attack and therefore prevents any further reaction. This process is called passivation and also occurs with chromium, cobalt, iron and nickel.

See how just a little research could help avoid a mistake?

In short, it is a gross error to suppose that anyone utilizing a black box, with little or no knowledge as to its inner workings, is an ignoremus or charlatan.

How fortunate, then, that no one here made that error.

Provided that black box is initially fed with a number of well-understood reference points to gauge its MO, then it can prove to be a valuable research tool. Indeed, that is how most science is done. Science is empirical, guided by theory. It is rarely theory, pure and simple. Theory is rarely simple.

Why don't you take us through an example of how you did this with Zeke; with a little more depth than just showing us some before and after test pattern images?

 

[JayUtah]

Tools and methodology in science can be approached from one of two directions. One is to break into the box...

Serious image analysis tools are not, and never were, black boxes. Nice try, but you're just grasping at excuses for not having done the proper homework or attempted to understand the tools and techniques.

The science of chemistry is well acquainted with the latter 'empirical' approach.

And if you were doing chemistry, that would mean something. But image analysis is not like chemistry. It's a synthetic science, not an analytical one.

In short, it is a gross error to suppose that anyone utilizing a black box, with little or no knowledge as to its inner workings, is an ignoremus or charlatan.

Wishful thinking. You're dabbling in a science you know nothing about, frantically trying to come up with reasons why you shouldn't be regarded as a novice. By all means, try to get your "research" published in a serious image analysis journal. See if your homemade science survives outside the little walled garden of Shroud enthusiasts. See if it stands up to scrutiny by qualified professionals. I dare you.

Indeed, that is how most science is done.

That's not how image processing is done.