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

[Darat]

Impressive, mind-blowingly so. But if it's all the same to you, I'll stick with the evidence of my own eyes (visual scrutiny, backed up with that thing called life experience and, er, what's it called now, that additional highly-evolved accessory endowing human intelligence and rational judgment as distinct from the output from a passive mindless electronic scanner that requires the scientist to unscramble the unscrambleable). Ah, yes, I've suddenly remembered. It's the mind, the human mind. Delivers instant snap judgements, to be sure. But it keeps the show on the road, instead of careering off into a ditch, correction, semantic swamp.

Yet you aren't you are the one that is using "a passive mindless electronic scanner" to "see" your particles.

 

[abaddon]

ETA: FWIW the examples abaddon posted convinced me the filter introduced artifacts

Yeah, sorry about that.

 

[meccanoman]

A cartoon version of the Mona Lisa, even a paint-by-numbers representation, is instantly recognizable as derivative of the real thing, despite being a few ink lines.

How does it manage to preserve the essence of the original? Answer: essentially by means of contrast, where a whole range of intermediate mid-tone values, cleverly used by the artist to convey form and 3D-ness are converted to the extremes of black and white.

Does anyone here ever look at such a cartoon, and worry that the technique is prone to artefacts, like getting the hair wrong, or maybe representing an entirely different work of art?

No, of course not. People recognize the limitations of a transformation, but they recognize its strengths too in conveying the essence in a simple uncluttered way, focusing on and delineating the essentials, NOT generating artefacts.

Think of photoediting contrast adjustment in the same way, showing more clearly what's there, maybe masked by background.

There's a role for folksiness in science. It's the best counter I know to geekishness, the latter known for diverting and/or derailing any number of would-be PhD internships. A "training" in research is for the most part about knowing when to stick to the straight- and-narrow, and when to (briefly!) explore occasional side-turnings. The trick is in not substituting the side-turning for the mainstream, like replacing science research with an obsessional interest in the modus operandi of simple contrast-enhancement tools.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Sure... Now here's a zoomed in part of a low resolution image of the Mona Lisa.
Care to detail which random pixels are pigment, which ones are dirt, which ones are cracks, which ones are shadows cast by the bumps in the paint, and which ones were introduced by the low quality of the image or the software used?

The problem isn't that people here don't know how to look at things, or that they are some kind of anal retentive technology fetishists, or that they don't understand science.
The problem is that you're drawing conclusions from an inadequate source using inadequate methods.
Even if the image on the shroud was produced with flour and an oven, trying to determine that by pointing at a dark line on a grainy image and claim you can tell by sight that it's a clump of matter is not the way to do it.

 

[pgwenthold]

Over the years, I've developed one guiding principle: most of those who makes bold claims about some great new insight no one has ever seen before based on some sophisticated photograph analysis are completely full of it.

I think this started when I read Lifton's book, "Best Evidence" when he was seeing crap like "the badge man" etc in the blobs, but it also works with the Oswald backyard photos. Then there are all the Apollo hoax loons, who don't have the first clue about shadows in pictures.

Now here, someone who doesn't know the first thing about image processing software claiming they have it all solved because they see weird things when (effectively) applying a snapchat filter.

Color me unimpressed.

 

[JayUtah]

A cartoon version of the Mona Lisa, even a paint-by-numbers representation, is instantly recognizable as derivative of the real thing, despite being a few ink lines.

Because a subjective human created it to be so, not an impersonal algorithm.

How does it manage to preserve the essence of the original?

Because in this case the original is widely recognized and requires only a few strokes by the artist to evoke a memory. Humans are pattern-seeking mammals. As such it requires only the most abbreviated rendition to trigger that pattern-seeking behavior in humans, especially where such things as faces are concerned. Humans are adept at distinguishing faces of their own species.

The downside of this feature of human vision is the propensity to see things that aren't there, a phenomenon loosely labeled pareidolia.

...conveying the essence in a simple uncluttered way, focusing on and delineating the essentials, NOT generating artefacts.

Why would a skilled artist purposely generate the sorts of artifacts a misused digital tool does on an abstract non-representational image?

Sorry, apples and oranges.

Think of photoediting contrast adjustment in the same way...

It isn't at all the same. One is a conscious, iterative process that activates a reasonably well understood phenomenon in human vision. The other is simply ignorance trying very hard to masquerade as erudition.

There's a role for folksiness in science.

I don't consider you much of an authority on what science is. And no, folksiness is entirely out of place when it tries to substitute for rigor and proper understanding. No. When it comes to digital image analysis, you are clearly an amateur. Trying to pretend that amateur behavior somehow constitutes defensible scientific practice is just silly. But by all means don't let me stop you. If you're determined to continue making a fool of yourself then it's not me you should fear.

It's the best counter I know to geekishness...

Yes, by all means keep dismissing the value of sciences you don't understand. That will certainly cement your reputation as a conscientious and serious researcher.

...like replacing science research with an obsessional interest in the modus operandi of simple contrast-enhancement tools.

You chose the tool. You advocated its use for this purpose. You claimed to have validated your method. But for these choices you made, we would not be having this conversation. May i remind you that you explicitly solicited an analysis of how your usage was incompetent. Now that such an analysis was provided, you dismiss it in a purely would-licking fashion.

If validating one's methods before using them to draw conclusions is "obsessive" then I'm proud to be obsessed in that way. It appears your aim is to browbeat and shame people away from daring to criticize you. I remind you that this is a skeptic's forum. You will not receive uncritical adulation here, so if that is what you seek you're in the wrong place.

 

[meccanoman]

Because a subjective human created it to be so, not an impersonal algorithm.



Because in this case the original is widely recognized and requires only a few strokes by the artist to evoke a memory. Humans are pattern-seeking mammals. As such it requires only the most abbreviated rendition to trigger that pattern-seeking behavior in humans, especially where such things as faces are concerned. Humans are adept at distinguishing faces of their own species.

The downside of this feature of human vision is the propensity to see things that aren't there, a phenomenon loosely labeled pareidolia.


Why would a skilled artist purposely generate the sorts of artifacts a misused digital tool does on an abstract non-representational image?

Sorry, apples and oranges.



It isn't at all the same. One is a conscious, iterative process that activates a reasonably well understood phenomenon in human vision. The other is simply ignorance trying very hard to masquerade as erudition.



I don't consider you much of an authority on what science is. And no, folksiness is entirely out of place when it tries to substitute for rigor and proper understanding. No. When it comes to digital image analysis, you are clearly an amateur. Trying to pretend that amateur behavior somehow constitutes defensible scientific practice is just silly. But by all means don't let me stop you. If you're determined to continue making a fool of yourself then it's not me you should fear.



Yes, by all means keep dismissing the value of sciences you don't understand. That will certainly cement your reputation as a conscientious and serious researcher.



You chose the tool. You advocated its use for this purpose. You claimed to have validated your method. But for these choices you made, we would not be having this conversation. May i remind you that you explicitly solicited an analysis of how your usage was incompetent. Now that such an analysis was provided, you dismiss it in a purely would-licking fashion.

If validating one's methods before using them to draw conclusions is "obsessive" then I'm proud to be obsessed in that way. It appears your aim is to browbeat and shame people away from daring to criticize you. I remind you that this is a skeptic's forum. You will not receive uncritical adulation here, so if that is what you seek you're in the wrong place.

Sure I'm in the wrong place - one where certain folk fail to realize that science does not operate like a debating forum. Science seeks out testable hypotheses. Debating forums seek out killer arguments that fell the opponent.

Science is constructive. Debating forums are destructive.

 

[JayUtah]

Sure I'm in the wrong place - one where certain folk fail to realize that science does not operate like a debating forum.

You're not in a very credible position here to lecture on how science properly operates. I don't necessarily speak for everyone else here, but I find your periodic dicta on scientific practice to be largely wrong and self-serving. So if you admit you're in the wrong place for the type of interaction you want, why do you keep coming back?

Science seeks out testable hypotheses.

The debate we're having here is over the validity of one of the tests you applied to your hypothesis. You've stated in no uncertain terms that you are uninterested in such a debate and want your method validated solely by ipse dixit. Science seeks out repeatably testable hypotheses. In place of that you're blatantly offering up only your personal intuition that the transformations you've applied to the digital images legitimately reveal particles on the Shroud. Doesn't it bother you that your test may not be reproducible -- or worse, that if rendered reproducible it might not support your predetermined findings?

Debating forums seek out killer arguments that fell the opponent.

Sour grapes. Your method doesn't pass muster. So rather than fix your method, you lash out at the critics.

Science is constructive. Debating forums are destructive.

Yet you keep coming back to cast your pearls before swine and complain about your shabby treatment. That's not science; it's a floor show.

I challenged you to publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal on image processing. Instead of wasting your time talking down to people here, why don't you prepare a manuscript for one of those journals on your use of the Zeke filter as a signal recovery tool, get it published, and then come back with that success under your belt.

You were given the analysis you requested that supports your critics' evaluation of your methods. Your disinterest in it rather speaks to a different motive than dispassionate scientific inquiry.

 

[meccanoman]

You're not in a very credible position here to lecture on how science properly operates. I don't necessarily speak for everyone else here, but I find your periodic dicta on scientific practice to be largely wrong and self-serving. So if you admit you're in the wrong place for the type of interaction you want, why do you keep coming back?



The debate we're having here is over the validity of one of the tests you applied to your hypothesis. You've stated in no uncertain terms that you are uninterested in such a debate and want your method validated solely by ipse dixit. Science seeks out repeatably testable hypotheses. In place of that you're blatantly offering up only your personal intuition that the transformations you've applied to the digital images legitimately reveal particles on the Shroud. Doesn't it bother you that your test may not be reproducible -- or worse, that if rendered reproducible it might not support your predetermined findings?



Sour grapes. Your method doesn't pass muster. So rather than fix your method, you lash out at the critics.



Yet you keep coming back to cast your pearls before swine and complain about your shabby treatment. That's not science; it's a floor show.

I challenged you to publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal on image processing. Instead of wasting your time talking down to people here, why don't you prepare a manuscript for one of those journals on your use of the Zeke filter as a signal recovery tool, get it published, and then come back with that success under your belt.

You were given the analysis you requested that supports your critics' evaluation of your methods. Your disinterest in it rather speaks to a different motive than dispassionate scientific inquiry.

And you have blinkered snapshot vision, based on what you read on this site, failing to appreciate that the chance Zeke finding is just one piece of a jigsaw that is gradually coming together.

I was posting evidence for particulate matter on the Shroud image way back at the start of the year, well before discovering Zeke.

Now kindly dismount from that high horse of yours, kindly stop talking down to perceived pigmies. You are clever, but by no means infallible.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Sure I'm in the wrong place - one where certain folk fail to realize that science does not operate like a debating forum. Science seeks out testable hypotheses. Debating forums seek out killer arguments that fell the opponent.

Science is constructive. Debating forums are destructive.

Ok, I agree with the highlighted part. So tell us about the science you've done.

 

[JayUtah]

And you have blinkered snapshot vision, based on what you read on this site...

Why do you assume mine or anyone's knowledge or wisdom is limited to what they read at this site? When you preface your arguments by insinuating what a low opinion you have of your audience, it doesn't help your presentation.

...failing to appreciate that the chance Zeke finding is just one piece of a jigsaw that is gradually coming together.

Well, that may be the problem. My impression of your argument is that you're fully convinced there's a picture in the pieces and that you're making to fit pieces that, without that preconception, don't strictly fit. As I made plain several weeks ago, I'm intrigued by the notion that some sort of baked flour may be responsible for the Shroud image. But I don't consider your naive attempts at image analysis to be sound evidence of that. You can throw that piece of the puzzle out without losing faith in the picture. But oddly enough you don't throw it out. You double-down on it and lash out at anyone who questions the fit, for whatever reason. Rather than build the puzzle to see what the picture looks like, your approach is more consistent with making the picture be a certain thing, even if you have to force-fit pieces to get there.

I looked carefully and critically at your Zeke evidence. I gave you the reasons why it's not convincing. I asked you questions designed to elicit more information about the evidence. You were entirely belligerent, uncooperative, and dismissive. It's clear from that behavior that the "appreciation" you're looking for is uncritical acceptance. And that's just not a convincing argument. It doesn't appear you're really on the lookout for smart readers, just adoring ones.

I was posting evidence for particulate matter on the Shroud image way back at the start of the year

And I suppose I or someone else could give you an evaluation of those efforts too, but you're expressly not interested in criticism of your technique. If it's all the same to us, you'd rather just keep relying upon your intuition.

...well before discovering Zeke.

Irrelevant. Now you've latched onto Zeke and continue to advocate it as a serious signal recovery tool. As long as that's your position the criticism is a going concern. If you want to abandon Zeke, the criticism against it as a suitable tool will also go away. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Now kindly dismount from that high horse of yours, kindly stop talking down to perceived pigmies. You are clever, but by no means infallible.

I see I've really touched a nerve. For all your ongoing indignance you still haven't cleared up the mystery of why you keep coming here to endure what you vociferously claim is such shabby, inappropriate treatment. You've made it clear you cannot expect to get what you want here, so why are you complaining all the time about what you get?

You seem to think I care who you are or what happens to you. I've made no claim to be infallible, or even especially clever. You're the only one who's banking on that credit. So let's dispense with that straw man. Do you really think the scientists in the image processing field will go any easier on you than I have? Oh, but I guess you're probably not going to publish in any sort of real world journal. Unless I miss my guess, none of this will see any light outside a small group of Shroud hobbyists, where the intended audience probably has neither the proficiency nor the inclination to assure the strength of the method. It's playtime science in a walled garden, not real science. So if that's where you're headed, I guess vaya con dios.

 

[Hokulele]

Sure I'm in the wrong place - one where certain folk fail to realize that science does not operate like a debating forum. Science seeks out testable hypotheses. Debating forums seek out killer arguments that fell the opponent.

Science is constructive. Debating forums are destructive.

Science seeks replication of findings for verification. Since you blatantly refuse to provide raw data and your process, your results cannot be replicated, and by definition, what you are doing isn't science.

 

[meccanoman]

Ok, I agree with the highlighted part. So tell us about the science you've done.

Smear the back of your hand with vegetable oil. Then get a flour sieve, sprinkle white flour from a height so as to coat the hand completely. Shake off the surplus flour. Then lay a sheet of wet linen over your flour/oil coated hand, and press down with your other hand Peel off the linen with its damp flour imprint. Suspend in an oven, switch on, and as the temperature rises above 170-180 degrees C, watch the flour imprints go yellow then brown due to Maillard reactions between flour proteins and reducing sugars.

Remove the linen with the yellow/brown imprint of your hand, then wash vigorously with soap and water to be left with a faint fuzzy image. It will be tone-reversed (i.e. a "negative"), it will respond to 3D-rendering software, e.g. ImageJ, it will be bleachable (ordinary domestic bleach will do). The fibres under the microscope will show preferential coloration of the most superficial parts of the weave ("crowns") , and show the 'half-tone' effect, discontinuities etc.

In short, the flour imprint after washing will display most if not not all of the 'enigmatic' properties of the Shroud image.

Yes, we have a model for the Turin Shroud image that requires equipment and ingredients available in medieval times. It does not need flashes of laser-generated uv radiation, neutrons, protons, corona discharges etc etc.

The Shroud image is fully explicable using medieval technology. The aim was probably to simulate what an ancient sweat imprint on linen (with added blood in all the right places) might have looked like some 13 centuries after the Gospel account of Joseph of Arimathea supplying a sheet of 'fine linen' to transport the crucified Jesus from cross to tomb.

In short, it's a fake, a very clever fake, deploying novel once-only technology, namely flour imprinting.

It's taken this investigator 5 years and some 400+ real-time postings through 10 models to arrive at the two-step flour-imprinting model. But it's still a hypothesis!

 

[JayUtah]

But it's still a hypothesis!

And a reasonable one. I'm with you up to this point.

But then it seems you say your hypothesis predicts that particulates of a certain character should be visible on the cloth. It follows that discovery of compatible particles would tend to support your hypothesis. And, using digital copies of photographs of the cloth and a computer to manipulate the digital image, you claim to have found evidence of that particulate matter. After reviewing your method and findings for that particular test, I cannot agree that the identification of particles is supported by the test.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

It's taken this investigator 5 years and some 400+ real-time postings through 10 models to arrive at the two-step flour-imprinting model. But it's still a hypothesis!

Very interesting hypothesis, but I realize now I wasn't clear and I apologize.

I meant to ask what science you've done to verify your imaging tool to see if it does in fact reveal particulate matter where it is known to exist in an image, and doesn't add artifacts that could be mistaken for particulate matter in images where particulate matter is known not to exist.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Yes, we have a model for the Turin Shroud image that requires equipment and ingredients available in medieval times. It does not need flashes of laser-generated uv radiation, neutrons, protons, corona discharges etc etc.

The Shroud image is fully explicable using medieval technology. The aim was probably to simulate what an ancient sweat imprint on linen (with added blood in all the right places) might have looked like some 13 centuries after the Gospel account of Joseph of Arimathea supplying a sheet of 'fine linen' to transport the crucified Jesus from cross to tomb.

Okay, good, let's step away from image analysis for a while.

Why is the Jesus figure so anatomically incorrect if it's a direct transfer? It would have been easiest, quickest and most accurate to make a flour print of an actual human being, living or dead. But the image on the Shroud does not appear to conform to what a transfer of a real human being onto linen would look like.
Are you suggesting they used a badly carved statue to create the print from? Do you believe that the image is anatomically correct after all, do you have other ideas?

 

[meccanoman]

Very interesting hypothesis, but I realize now I wasn't clear and I apologize.

I meant to ask what science you've done to verify your imaging tool to see if it does in fact reveal particulate matter where it is known to exist in an image, and doesn't add artifacts that could be mistaken for particulate matter in images where particulate matter is known not to exist.

Well, here are 4 images I would offer to back up the 'unconventional' position that the body image of the Shroud is not 'homogeneous' as claimed but particulate, maybe degraded remnants of a coating that has either flaked off with age and handling, or maybe washed off..

Top left (A) is the image we are allowed to see via Shroud Scope which I maintain has been robbed of its contrast, but particulate material is arguably just visible. B (bottom left) is the same after applying Zeke in Windows 10, and the body image now starts to look like a degraded coating with a few remaining flecks, not dissimilar for the degraded blood see epsilon motif top left and the hair-blood top right).

Is it just the 'laughable' kid's toy Zeke that reveals the particulate nature? No. See C, top right, where the Shroud Scope image has been given added contrast using altered settings for Brightness/Contrast/Midtone setting in MS Office Picture Manager. Again, one starts to see the evidence for a particulate nature, which is further improved by applying Zeke (D) bottom right.

None of this is original. Raymond Rogers was saying the same back in the 80s and 90s, namely that the Shroud image was not on the linen fibres per se, but a coating (allegedly "starch" or "starch fractions" deployed he said in 1st century linen manufacture ). Moreover he said that the chromophore was Maillard-reaction derived melanoidins, with which I agree 100%.

My model is very very similar, except that the coating was white flour, not starch, and the flour itself provided all the ingredients needed for Maillard-generated melanoidins, providing there was a high-temperature step for colour development which Rogers did not think was necessary.

Note the Zeke is only needed to accentuate what is already visible, albeit faintly, obscured by background, and is simply backing up what had previously been seen with a different contrast-enhancing tool.

I regard the surviving particles as "smoking gun" evidence for an imprinting mechanism that deployed an added ingredient or coating.

Why are there no decent high-resolution pictures of the Shroud body image in the public domain? Why are investigators forced to rely on off-the-shelf contrast-enhancement tools to see what's really there or not?

Think "need to know" principle, allied with unending agenda-driven pro-authenticity propaganda.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, here are 4 images I would offer...

Did you validate your method on images that were not of the Shroud? Specifically, upon images of cloth upon some of which were deposited various kinds of particles and the others left clean as controls?

...using altered settings for Brightness/Contrast/Midtone setting in MS Office Picture Manager.

I addressed this already in my discussion on gamma transformations.

Again, one starts to see the evidence for a particulate nature...

Did you validate the ability of this method to enable a viewer to distinguish actual particles from other features that the process might make visible? The concern is that you're seeing things that the tool reveals, which you then preferentially decide are particles. Given the propensity of these methods to produce false positive results, I would be interested in seeing how those were appropriately controlled for.

None of this is original. Raymond Rogers was saying the same back in the 80s and 90s, namely that the Shroud image was not on the linen fibres per se, but a coating...

This part of your hypothesis doesn't seem to be in dispute. I for one am happy to stipulate that some researchers conclude based on suitable evidence that the image on the Shroud is composed at least in part of a coating.

Note the Zeke is only needed to accentuate what is already visible, albeit faintly, obscured by background, and is simply backing up what had previously been seen with a different contrast-enhancing tool.

Zeke is either a vital part of the process or it is not. Also you seem still to be unclear on the difference between gamma transformation and deconvolution. As I already discussed, this is an important distinction and the combination of the two methods has implications for signal extraction.

I regard the surviving particles as "smoking gun" evidence for an imprinting mechanism that deployed an added ingredient or coating.

If this finding is so important to your argument, then I reject your prior requests that your critics downplay or overlook it. If you are going to posture this as conclusive evidence, then it should be your most rigorously validated method. Further, you told me earlier that it was inappropriate of me to characterize your image analysis as a "confirmation" of your hypothesis. It seems you've reversed your position. Would you please clarify?

Why are there no decent high-resolution pictures of the Shroud body image in the public domain?

I sympathize with the difficulty in obtaining suitable data. That does not, however, mean you can ask people to rely upon findings made with data that is objectively unsuitable for the methods you applied. If the data are objectively unsuitable, the findings must remain inconclusive.

 

[abaddon]

<snip for brevity>

Let's get something clear right now. I think your proposed method for the creation of the shroud might very well have merit.

However, I know that your use of Zeke has none at all.

If we zoom in on your original blue circle, what do we find?

Well, what you call particulates are starting to look like the simple effects of warp and weft. Your "particulates" are paralleled. Odd don't you think?

Also you have yet to explain the square tile effect and why it bisects one of your "particulates".

ETA: That image is pretty small. Zoom it up to full screen to see the features described.

 

[Donn]

Smear the back of your hand with vegetable oil. Then get a flour sieve, sprinkle …

In short, the flour imprint after washing will display most if not not all of the 'enigmatic' properties of the Shroud image.

I'm impressed by this process. I know you are too. It's tangible, exciting. It's immediate. The image of your hand (several pages back) is electric!

In this sensation of snappiness, of being hot on the scent, like Holmes abandoning Watson to dither as he races into the unknown, I completely understand your feeling of being right.

Here is where you should pause. Fate enjoys a pratfall. It will lure you. At your most exultant, you should have eyes everywhere. Look for the flaws; they are easy to miss. The reward for missing them is easy dopamine. The hidden price is exhaustion.

The awkward pose of the Turin image does not bother me overmuch. I can see a person posed, with various props as required, to attain verisimilitude. To imprint this, your flour technique is quite attractive; ingenious, even if I am in no way a fundi^*.

The proof of this manifold pudding will lie in samples of the actual shroud. Short of that you will be vexed. I think to-scale reproductions done in authentic period means would go a long way to honing the hypothesis — and satisfying skeptics.

This practical route will profit more than pixel dowsing; however convincing the filter may be, you must agree that it relies on the input, and that is poor.

If you mine pixels, you are playing Minecraft.




* Fundi - An expert. This word appears to be local to SA. Weird.