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

[abaddon]

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

Sad, innit?

Apparently, I pale into insignificance before the mighty power of Zeke. Or something. Oh well, I guess I must perforce reserve another seat on the burning bus of hell.

 

[meccanoman]

From the general thrust of comments we're seeing on this site re my use of the Zeke tool, I can only suppose that folk here are not aware of a severe practical constraint that faces anyone embarking on Shroud image research. The form of the "Man" is only visible if one stands back a metre or two: the distinction between image/non-image disappears from view if one gets closer. So from the very beginning, image studies have required some means of increasing contrast and with it image definition. In the early days of silver salt photography, e.g. Enrie in the early 1930s the remedy was to select particular emulsions known to provide high contrast (and nobody was lectured for doing so through not knowing the whys and wherefores for one emulsion working better then another - it was sufficient to know in broad terms what a contrast adjustment was doing, i.e. polarizing midtone hues between one or other end of the B/W or colour spectrum, going to whichever of the two ends was closer, so to speak.

So why all the catcalls and derision when I stumble upon a particular contrast tool which empirically does something that is of huge current interest to this Shroud investigator. It greatly increases the discrimination between small particulate matter and background, maybe through being especially sensitive and discriminating towards hues in the colour range of interest (yellow to brown), and making useful changes - and fairly modest ones at that, to contrast. Think of it as a niche product - seemingly custom-made for sindonology, but in fact an accidental discovery.

Yesterday I discovered a x400 photomicrograph of a Shroud image fibre that had both obvious and less obvious particulate matter which I suspect could be a left over from a medieval era image-imprinting process. I applied the Zeke so-called filter (which I now prefer to call a contrast tool) and suspicions were confirmed.

There is indeed particulate material, some highly ordered (lines of dots along image fibres) some less so, that becomes clearly visible after Zeke, but is faintly visible before (in other words, Zeke is not generating new morphological artefacts, merely emphasizing what is already there through effects on image/background contrast.

I might at some point start to analyze precisely how and why Zeke scores over other contrast tools, but have to say I don't view it as a priority. Hundreds of organic chemists make routine everyday use of nmr (nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy) which assists in discriminating between the numerous hydrogen atoms in a molecule of interest without caring or needing to know how and why the technique works. It's sufficient for it to show that one hydrogen atom is in a different micro-environment from another, enabling one to arrrive at meaningful classifications that assist with predicting real world behaviour.

Chemists have to be empiricists, or nothing would ever get done or achieved. I humbly suggest the same applies to Shroud image analysts, especially those interested in knowing how it was produced (chemical? thermal? thermochemical? radiation? etc etc)

Yesterday I proposed on my site that all Shroud images, past, present and future, should be looked at with the Zeke tool with a view to unmasking micro-particulate matter, if present. Understanding the basis of Zeke's practical utility can come later.

 

[JayUtah]

From the general thrust of comments we're seeing on this site re my use of the Zeke tool, I can suppose that folk here are not aware of a severe practical constraint that faces anyone embarking on Shroud image research.

No. There's no Shroud-based limitation that suddenly elevates a toy to the status of scientific tool for usable spectrometry, validated only by the "deliberations" of someone who avoids all the probing questions about his method.

I dare you. Publish in a peer-reviewed journal on image analysis.

 

[JayUtah]

I might at some point start to analyze precisely how and why Zeke scores over other contrast tools, but have to say I don't view it as a priority.

What kind of scientist doesn't see validating his method as a priority over drawing conclusions based on it?

Chemists have to be empiricists, or nothing would ever get done or achieved. I humbly suggest the same applies to Shroud image analysts...

You're not humbly suggesting it, you're hubristically suggesting it. And you're wrong. Chemstry and image analysis are dissimilar sciences.

Yesterday I proposed on my site that all Shroud images, past, present and future, should be looked at with the Zeke tool...

It's not a tool. It's a toy. It's a cosmetic filter meant to compete against Instagram and Snapchat.

 

[ferd burfle]

From the general thrust of comments we're seeing on this site re my use of the Zeke tool, I can only suppose that folk here are not aware of a severe practical constraint that faces anyone embarking on Shroud image research. The form of the "Man" is only visible if one stands back a metre or two: the distinction between image/non-image disappears from view if one gets closer. So from the very beginning, image studies have required some means of increasing contrast and with it image definition. In the early days of silver salt photography, e.g. Enrie in the early 1930s the remedy was to select particular emulsions known to provide high contrast (and nobody was lectured for doing so through not knowing the whys and wherefores for one emulsion working better then another - it was sufficient to know in broad terms what a contrast adjustment was doing, i.e. polarizing midtone hues between one or other end of the B/W or colour spectrum, going to whichever of the two ends was closer, so to speak.

So why all the catcalls and derision when I stumble upon a particular contrast tool which empirically does something that is of huge current interest to this Shroud investigator. It greatly increases the discrimination between small particulate matter and background, maybe through being especially sensitive and discriminating towards hues in the colour range of interest (yellow to brown), and making useful changes - and fairly modest ones at that, to contrast. Think of it as a niche product - seemingly custom-made for sindonology, but in fact an accidental discovery.

Yesterday I discovered a x400 photomicrograph of a Shroud image fibre that had both obvious and less obvious particulate matter which I suspect could be a left over from a medieval era image-imprinting process. I applied the Zeke so-called filter (which I now prefer to call a contrast tool) and suspicions were confirmed.

[qimg]https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/fibre-400x-mag-from-porter-feb-10-2002-as-is-v-zeke.png[/qimg]

There is indeed particulate material, some highly ordered (lines of dots along image fibres) some less so, that becomes clearly visible after Zeke, but is faintly visible before (in other words, Zeke is not generating new morphological artefacts, merely emphasizing what is already there through effects on image/background contrast.

I might at some point start to analyze precisely how and why Zeke scores over other contrast tools, but have to say I don't view it as a priority. Hundreds of organic chemists make routine everyday use of nmr (nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy) which assists in discriminating between the numerous hydrogen atoms in a molecule of interest without caring or needing to know how and why the technique works. It's sufficient for it to show that one hydrogen atom is in a different micro-environment from another, enabling one to arrrive at meaningful classifications that assist with predicting real world behaviour.

Chemists have to be empiricists, or nothing would ever get done or achieved. I humbly suggest the same applies to Shroud image analysts, especially those interested in knowing how it was produced (chemical? thermal? thermochemical? radiation? etc etc)

Yesterday I proposed on my site that all Shroud images, past, present and future, should be looked at with the Zeke tool with a view to unmasking micro-particulate matter, if present. Understanding the basis of Zeke's practical utility can come later.

Please tell us how you, without examining the shroud to confirm its presence, concluded that what you see in your Zeked images is particulate matter, as opposed to other possible explanations.

 

[meccanoman]

What kind of scientist doesn't see validating his method as a priority over drawing conclusions based on it?



You're not humbly suggesting it, you're hubristically suggesting it. And you're wrong. Chemstry and image analysis are dissimilar sciences.



It's not a tool. It's a toy. It's a cosmetic filter meant to compete against Instagram and Snapchat.

It's suddenly become apparent why we are at cross purposes. This is not about "drawing conclusions". It's about revealing differences that can assist in framing a new hypothesis. The testing of that new hypothesis need not depend on the validity or otherwise of the procedure that flagged up the difference. Once a new hypothesis is born, it acquires a life of its own, possibly probably spawning new customised technology (or benefitting from existing technology).

The reason for my interest in these micro-particulate flecks was addressed in a posting I did some weeks ago. They can be readily explained and accommodated within my flour-imprinting model, being fragments of the Stage 1 encrustation of Maillard browning products prior to washing out - or natural disintegration - or maybe blobs of sticky proteinaceous wheat gluten. Cue a new round of chemical testing (STURP Mk2?) one not obsessed with inorganic paint pigments, as per STURP Mk1 in 1978, but with traces of ORGANIC imprinting medium. The ability of diimide (NH=NH) to bleach the Shroud body image should have been grounds for quickly dismissing McCrone's fixation with iron oxide etc. given its highly specific action on -C=C- double bonds ( converting to -CH2-CH2, - shortening the sequences of conjugated double bonds that are responsible for yellow or brown colour.

 

[JayUtah]

This is not about "drawing conclusions". It's about revealing differences that can assist in framing a new hypothesis.

But you're not framing hypotheses. You're concluding that image analysis confirms your hypothesis that baked flour created the Shroud image.

The reason for my interest in these micro-particulate flecks was addressed in a posting I did some weeks ago. They can be readily explained and accommodated within my flour-imprinting model...

You came up with a hypothesis for how the Shroud image was formed. You tried to pretend some toy image filter confirmed your hypothesis, probably because you really, really want it to be true. And you thought that image analysis wasn't a "real" science whose practitioners would object you misusing it.

Regardless of what science you may once have practiced, you're now way off in the weeds. You're pretending to be competent in a well-developed field you know nothing about. It's really no more complicated than that.

 

[meccanoman]

Please tell us how you, without examining the shroud to confirm its presence, concluded that what you see in your Zeked images is particulate matter, as opposed to other possible explanations.

For the same reason that I identify snow falling from the sky as particulate matter, as distinct from rain or water vapour? It's called the evidence of one's senses, initially sight - ideally backed up by hands-on experience (snowballs, snowmen etc). In the case of the Shroud, there's sadly no opportunity for acquiring the hands-on experience. So what does one do - sit back while, week after week, agenda-driven sindonology and the media substitute pseudoscience aka wild fantasizing dressed up as science for the real thing?

 

[ferd burfle]

For the same reason that I identify snow falling from the sky as particulate matter, as distinct from rain or water vapour? It's called the evidence of one's senses, initially sight - ideally backed up by hands-on experience (snowballs, snowmen etc). In the case of the Shroud, there's sadly no opportunity for acquiring the hands-on experience. So what does one do - sit back while, week after week, agenda-driven sindonology and the media substitute pseudoscience aka wild fantasizing dressed up as science for the real thing?

I highlighted the part of your reply that answered my question. Yes, without direct examination of the shroud you have no "evidence of your senses" to confirm your belief that what you're seeing in your tweaked images is particulate matter.

 

[meccanoman]

But you're not framing hypotheses. You're concluding that image analysis confirms your hypothesis that baked flour created the Shroud image.



You came up with a hypothesis for how the Shroud image was formed. You tried to pretend some toy image filter confirmed your hypothesis, probably because you really, really want it to be true. And you thought that image analysis wasn't a "real" science whose practitioners would object you misusing it.

Regardless of what science you may once have practiced, you're now way off in the weeds. You're pretending to be competent in a well-developed field you know nothing about. It's really no more complicated than that.

"Confirming" a hypothesis is not part of this scientist's vocabulary. Experimental data may or may not support a hypothesis. One never "confirms", given there's always the possibility of a better more comprehensive hypothesis coming along later. I tested 9 hypotheses over a 4 year period before settling on Model 10 (flour imprinting) but it remains a hypothesis to this day, albeit acquiring greater and greater credibility according to site visitors, including some who were critical of previous models, notably hot-metal scorching.

Kindly desist from your unwarranted misrepresentation and/or attempt to dismiss me as an incompetent or dogmatist. Have you ever taken the trouble to follow my progress through some 400 postings or more? Had you done so, you'd see I'm forever ready to change my mind, should new compelling data come along or merely a new idea. Model 10 provides an explanation for two of the most 'enigmatic' features of the Shroud body image - the 'half-tone' effect and the discontinuities in image coloration. I account for those as the result of capillary migration of an initially and transiently liquid Maillard cocktail generated at high oven temperature both along and between fibres which ends abruptly as soon as production from the surface encrustation ceases. Sindonology's explanation for the microscopic properties? It's the result of miraculous imprinting, blinding flash of radiation from the body itself, didn't you know?

 

[meccanoman]

I highlighted the part of your reply that answered my question. Yes, without direct examination of the shroud you have no "evidence of your senses" to confirm your belief that what you're seeing in your tweaked images is particulate matter.

So do you go around, constantly touching things, just to confirm your visual impression that something is solid, as distinct from liquid or vapour?

I'd suggest that if something looks like a solid, with or without a microscope, by virtue of its morphology, opaqueness etc etc, most folk will understandably take the view that it's a solid unless there is evidence to the contrary. Life's too short to be constantly seeking assurance that a particulate appearance is somehow deceptive, playing tricks on the senses.

If I were in the market for practical hands-on scientists (as I used to be in the 80s when Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at an industrial research association), I don't think I'd make the International Skeptics Forum my first port of call...

 

[ferd burfle]

The ability of diimide (NH=NH) to bleach the Shroud body image should have been grounds for quickly dismissing McCrone's fixation with iron oxide etc. given its highly specific action on -C=C- double bonds ( converting to -CH2-CH2, - shortening the sequences of conjugated double bonds that are responsible for yellow or brown colour.

I believe I asked earlier, but please provide a cite for this diimide test you keep referring to. McCrone performed a battery of tests on numerous shroud image particles. The results were consilient* and provided strong evidence for red ochre and vermilion (HgS), not so easily dismissed with the "diimide!" incantation.

*thanks to JayUtah for the word

 

[JayUtah]

Kindly desist from your unwarranted misrepresentation and/or attempt to dismiss me as an incompetent or dogmatist.

No. It's not unwarranted. When it comes to image analysis you are obviously incompetent. Want to prove me wrong? Publish in a peer-reviewed image analysis journal. Explain to everyone how the Zeke filter is a legitimate image analysis tool for spectroscopy.

I dare you.

 

[ferd burfle]

So do you go around, constantly touching things, just to confirm your visual impression that something is solid, as distinct from liquid or vapour?

I'd suggest that if something looks like a solid, with or without a microscope, by virtue of its morphology, opaqueness etc etc, most folk will understandably take the view that it's a solid unless there is evidence to the contrary. Life's too short to be constantly seeking assurance that a particulate appearance is somehow deceptive, playing tricks on the senses.

If I were in the market for practical hands-on scientists (as I used to be in the 80s when Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at an industrial research association), I don't think I'd make the International Skeptics Forum my first port of call...

Now I get it, you apparently think particulate means "solid", as opposed to liquid or gaseous. It doesn't.

 

[meccanoman]

Now I get it, you apparently think particulate means "solid", as opposed to liquid or gaseous. It doesn't.

Don't let me stop you splitting semantic hairs. At least you'll end up with a heap of material that we can both agree consists of something that is still solid hair, and readily recognizable as such, albeit in the form of minute particles.

 

[ferd burfle]

If I were in the market for practical hands-on scientists (as I used to be in the 80s when Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at an industrial research association), I don't think I'd make the International Skeptics Forum my first port of call...

I'm sure you wouldn't.

ETA: Now, how about that cite?

 

[meccanoman]

No. It's not unwarranted. When it comes to image analysis you are obviously incompetent. Want to prove me wrong? Publish in a peer-reviewed image analysis journal. Explain to everyone how the Zeke filter is a legitimate image analysis tool for spectroscopy.

I dare you.

I displayed an image this morning, before v after Zeke. Look at the difference especially inside the blue circles, and tell me and others on this posting what is "incompetent" about deploying that contrast tool.

I say the tool has practical utility, giving particulate material superior definition against background. As such, your term "incompetent" is totally uncalled for. For all your undoubted cleverness, you clearly do not have the first clue about the scientific modus operandi, content as it is to adopt - naturally with due caution and testing against known reference points - any new and promising off-the-shelf research tool that discriminates better between one thing and another without necessarily understanding its inner workings. (And even if or when one does, that does not necessarily guarantee the research tool will be any more or less useful in real everyday practice).

PS: And I see you have slipped in a reference to "spectroscopy", loading the indictment so to speak - hardly a fair debating tactic. Who said anything about spectroscopy? Zeke is to assist with plain old microscopy (>x100 mag) or even 'macroscopy' (<x100 mag), merely an extension of normal eyesight.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

For the same reason that I identify snow falling from the sky as particulate matter, as distinct from rain or water vapour? It's called the evidence of one's senses, initially sight - ideally backed up by hands-on experience (snowballs, snowmen etc). In the case of the Shroud, there's sadly no opportunity for acquiring the hands-on experience. So what does one do - sit back while, week after week, agenda-driven sindonology and the media substitute pseudoscience aka wild fantasizing dressed up as science for the real thing?

Sure, now imagine someone gives you a low res, grainy jpeg of a photograph of the sky. Do you still feel just as certain that you could identify a certain speck of pixels as snow? Because that's what you're doing.

You accuse sindonologists of wild fantasizing dressed up as science... but what do you call manipulating a grainy image full of artefacts with a toy app until something you like pops up?

 

[meccanoman]

Sure, now imagine someone gives you a low res, grainy jpeg of a photograph of the sky. Do you still feel just as certain that you could identify a certain speck of pixels as snow? Because that's what you're doing.

You accuse sindonologists of wild fantasizing dressed up as science... but what do you call manipulating a grainy image full of artefacts with a toy app until something you like pops up?

You are just the latest to reveal an apparent blind spot for the need for contrast adjustment when analyzing the Shroud body image for clues to its means of production. Without it, there's scarcely anything to see against the yellowing background!

I did a mathematical analysis of a different contrast tool back in August 2015, showing not only what happened to total (r+g+b) and (r + g)/b when one increased contrast, but providing evidence that the Durante 2002 images available on Shroud Scope must have had their contrast deliberately reduced, diminishing their value to researchers unless or until contrast was restored. Anything that increases contrast helps, including those deemed on this site to be mere toys. I call them research tools.

So who's being naive when bandying around terms like "toy app", given that any contrast adjustment tool could be similarly tagged? The fact is that it is necessary tool when using photographs to research the Shroud image and always has been in one shape or form.

Writing off particulate material on those contrast-enhanced photographs as "artefacts" is even more laughable, if like me you view the Shroud in its entirety as an artefact, i.e. man-made, with a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390. It's those particles, aka crud, mere "artefacts" that might well prove to be the approx. 600 year old 'smoking gun' evidence as to how the image was imprinted.

Apologies if I ignore continued references to "toy apps". Scientists can't afford to be so sniffy about the things they employ to prise open a problem.

To the charge we are "messing with things we don't understand" the correct response is to say: "Yes, it's called science".

 

[ferd burfle]

Sure, now imagine someone gives you a low res, grainy jpeg of a photograph of the sky. Do you still feel just as certain that you could identify a certain speck of pixels as snow? Because that's what you're doing.

It reminds me of the 911 truthers who can identify metals from photographs.