ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Reply
Old 17th April 2017, 11:44 PM   #401
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,720
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 12:04 AM   #402
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
ETA: FWIW the examples abaddon posted convinced me the filter introduced artifacts
Yeah, sorry about that.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 03:02 AM   #403
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
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.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 18th April 2017 at 03:06 AM.
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 03:27 AM   #404
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,920
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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg lisa.jpg (50.1 KB, 6 views)
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 06:43 AM   #405
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,346
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.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 06:58 AM   #406
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 09:02 AM   #407
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 09:23 AM   #408
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 09:41 AM   #409
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 10:22 AM   #410
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 10:29 AM   #411
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 10:33 AM   #412
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,435
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 10:46 AM   #413
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
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!
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 10:55 AM   #414
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 11:01 AM   #415
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 11:09 AM   #416
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,920
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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?
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 11:25 AM   #417
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
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.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 11:43 AM   #418
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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?

Quote:
...using altered settings for Brightness/Contrast/Midtone setting in MS Office Picture Manager.
I addressed this already in my discussion on gamma transformations.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Last edited by JayUtah; 18th April 2017 at 11:45 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 11:51 AM   #419
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
<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.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 18th April 2017 at 12:03 PM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 12:21 PM   #420
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 12:29 PM   #421
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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..

(snip)
An interesting step one. And the images do seem to show something where you point it out.

And I think it's quite possible that your process might well be something akin to the actual process used to create the shroud. I'm fairly impressed.

But as far as providing evidence for particulate matter on the shroud, we don't know what's in those images to begin with, that's what we're trying to find out. In order to test your image tool, you need known images. You need known images both with and without the features you're trying to prove (or at least provide evidence for) and see how the tools handles them.

On preview I see that both JayUtah and Abaddon have replied with more detail and knowledge than I have on the subject.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 12:52 PM   #422
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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?
Here's there result of a test of the flour-imprinting technology using a fully 3D "subject" - plastic figurine - approx half full adult size.



Everything below the head imprinted well, without the dreaded "lateral (wrap-around) distortion", for the simple reason that the linen was not allowed to contact the sides - as per Shroud!

Incidentally, that's the unwashed imprint closest to the figurine, the washed half with scarcely visible imprint further away.

But it's difficult to get an imprint of the head and face without creases or distortion - mainly on account of that pesky feature called the nose. But look at the Shroud image of the face, with that severe mask-like appearance, with sharp cut-offs at the cheekbones, together with that big gap between cheeks and hair. I agree with Prof Luigi Garlaschelli - a bas relief carving or moulding was used for the head, probably with snub nose. But one or more real people were used for the rest, who didn't object to being smeared with oil, sprinkled with flour, and covered with wet linen.

(The oil helps flour stick to the skin and assists colour development in the oven).
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 18th April 2017 at 12:54 PM.
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 01:17 PM   #423
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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..
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...zeke.png?w=640
Fine. I will fool with that when I have time, but...


Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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).
...where did A come from? What is it's provenance? You claim it is from shroud scope. What exactly happened between shroud scope and you?

You claim B is post Zeke, but have no idea what Zeke did or did not do.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.
The plot thickens. C, according to you, is simply more Zeke, and D is after Office picture manager. Nobody can replicate that because you simply cannot tell anyone what you did, with what and to what end and purpose.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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%.
Great. What did he say about MS Office Picture manager and Zeke? Nothing. Congrats on throwing a total red herring.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.
And....what? Could it be that you have discovered how the ToS was made? Possibly. I'm not yet convinced, but I do not reject your proposed mechanism. It does have some issues, however.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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 does not do that. It does not matter in the slightest what you claim, nor that I consider your proposed mechanism at least plausible. Zeke not only gives you nothing, it steals your credibility. Take the implausible posture, for example. You are attempting to explain that by means of a Stretch Armstrong doll. It is the very same thing. In the same effort, you are alienating those who might have said "Hmm. This seems possible" And forcing them to go "Hmm. this is nuts."

I hold myself in that contingent. At first i thought that this idea might have legs, but for reasons unknown, you veered off into somewhere very odd indeed.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
I regard the surviving particles as "smoking gun" evidence for an imprinting mechanism that deployed an added ingredient or coating.
Regard them however you like. You ain't Zekeing your way to them.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Why are there no decent high-resolution pictures of the Shroud body image in the public domain?
Well that's simple. It suits the RCC to maintain the imaginary mystery. How do you think the Curia would react to a two stage baking process? (no offence to you, but that is the reaction you can expect)

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Why are investigators forced to rely on off-the-shelf contrast-enhancement tools to see what's really there or not?
Because they have a vested interest in prolonging that.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Think "need to know" principle, allied with unending agenda-driven pro-authenticity propaganda.
Do you think you need to know? Or are you allowing the RCC to tell you what you need to know? Limiting your data and whatnot?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 01:28 PM   #424
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Here's there result of a test of the flour-imprinting technology using a fully 3D "subject" - plastic figurine - approx half full adult size.

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...3582.jpg?w=544

Everything below the head imprinted well, without the dreaded "lateral (wrap-around) distortion", for the simple reason that the linen was not allowed to contact the sides - as per Shroud!

Incidentally, that's the unwashed imprint closest to the figurine, the washed half with scarcely visible imprint further away.

But it's difficult to get an imprint of the head and face without creases or distortion - mainly on account of that pesky feature called the nose. But look at the Shroud image of the face, with that severe mask-like appearance, with sharp cut-offs at the cheekbones, together with that big gap between cheeks and hair. I agree with Prof Luigi Garlaschelli - a bas relief carving or moulding was used for the head, probably with snub nose. But one or more real people were used for the rest, who didn't object to being smeared with oil, sprinkled with flour, and covered with wet linen.

(The oil helps flour stick to the skin and assists colour development in the oven).
Well, how is Jesus H. Christ in corpse form comparable to a toy?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 02:06 PM   #425
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,435
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Well, how is Jesus H. Christ in corpse form comparable to a toy?

They are both based on fantasy characters.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 02:09 PM   #426
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,516
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
OK, so the site's into wind-up-merchant mode. So be it. One last word from me:
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
.....

I'm clearly wasting my time here.
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post

I shall now take break from this site...... I have better things to do with my remaining time than squander it here.
Enjoy your remaining time!
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 02:57 PM   #427
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Here's there result of a test of the flour-imprinting technology using a fully 3D "subject" - plastic figurine - approx half full adult size.

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...3582.jpg?w=544

Everything below the head imprinted well, without the dreaded "lateral (wrap-around) distortion", for the simple reason that the linen was not allowed to contact the sides - as per Shroud!

Incidentally, that's the unwashed imprint closest to the figurine, the washed half with scarcely visible imprint further away.

But it's difficult to get an imprint of the head and face without creases or distortion - mainly on account of that pesky feature called the nose. But look at the Shroud image of the face, with that severe mask-like appearance, with sharp cut-offs at the cheekbones, together with that big gap between cheeks and hair. I agree with Prof Luigi Garlaschelli - a bas relief carving or moulding was used for the head, probably with snub nose. But one or more real people were used for the rest, who didn't object to being smeared with oil, sprinkled with flour, and covered with wet linen.

(The oil helps flour stick to the skin and assists colour development in the oven).
Too late. You had quite a few of us willing to at the very least entertain the idea.

Then you took a massive dump over everyone.

Now you get to deal with the fallout.

Your rep is tarnished beyond retrieval. As you so chose.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 03:11 PM   #428
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
doe
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post

On preview I see that both JayUtah and Abaddon have replied with more detail and knowledge than I have on the subject.
I will not be competing with Jay, but at least I know what I am doing, and mecannoman does not.

ETA: damn you, Autocorrect.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 18th April 2017 at 03:24 PM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 06:09 PM   #429
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
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.

Have you viewed your imprints under a microscope? What did you see? Did you take any photomicrographs? If so, can you post them with the parameters you used?
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 07:31 PM   #430
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Have you viewed your imprints under a microscope? What did you see? Did you take any photomicrographs? If so, can you post them with the parameters you used?
Of course not. Zeke is not compatible with that crap.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 08:06 PM   #431
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,872
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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?

In his defense, mecannoman has previously presented a plausible explanation (alliteration accidental) for the image on the shroud . His 10th hypothesis regarding flour, oil, and heat is not far-fetched, but it is hard to falsify based on the limited access to the shroud.

OTOH, This zeke image processing stuff isn't getting him anywhere with me. It seems a waste of time until shroud samples of known provenance become available.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 18th April 2017 at 08:09 PM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 01:18 AM   #432
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Have you viewed your imprints under a microscope? What did you see? Did you take any photomicrographs? If so, can you post them with the parameters you used?
Yes, I posted some a while ago. Here's a typical example of the stained fibres that remain after washing an oven-roasted flour imprint (hand, plastic or metal figurine etc) versus a comparable image of Shroud image fibres at approx the same magnification (x32 as I recall).


Note the so-called 'half-tone' effect in both - fibres tend to be stained to a uniform intensity, or not stained at all, with no in-betweens. I consider that odd effect to be the result of a brief efflux of liquid cocktail from the roasting flour/oil crust that is wicked away by the capillary spaces between fibres, easily modelled with blue ink as stated earlier.

There's probably not a lot more one can do as regards stained fibres with the merest hint of colour, unless the Vatican allows me access to the Shroud with scalpel, forceps etc. (probability approx same as Hell freezing over in the next 5 minutes). So the attention has switched to the hypothesized crust. Might there be indications of it surviving here and there as denser 'crud' in the existing photographic archive, some of which is still closely guarded for copyright and other reasons. Thibault Heimburger was able to persuade Barrie M.Schwortz, STURP's "documenting" photographer to release an archive of Mark Evans' photomicrographs, one of which appears in that dual image above on the right. (Strange how a "documenting" (non-scientific) photographer has come to acquire copyright on so much scientific data: I guess the self-conferred title of President of STERA - Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association helps - to say nothing of slick footwork on other fronts too).

I've tried applying contrast to a number of those liberated Mark Evans' images, but where they are concerned am inclined to view 'apparent' particulates as at least partly artefactual. That's not based on instant zekephobia as we've seen here but more practical comparative grounds - like comparing image fibres with those of roughly the same hue but described as "scorches" from the 1532 fire, where there's unlikely any role for a coating, just heat. Those lines of dots appear in both!

Why or why are there no simple straightforward snapshots in the public domain of the Shroud body image, viewed through a standard camera lens at close quarters, panning in say to a cm or two, allowing one to detect surface particulates (crud, debris, call it what you want) if present, as I strongly suspect they are? Why is science denied that simple no-nonsense kind of image-presentation, despite the recruitment of both "scientific" and "documenting" photographers to the STURP team?
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 19th April 2017 at 01:22 AM.
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 06:27 AM   #433
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
I've tried applying contrast to a number of those liberated Mark Evans' images, but where they are concerned am inclined to view 'apparent' particulates as at least partly artefactual.
And that didn't raise any red flags for your methodology?

Quote:
That's not based on instant zekephobia...
No. The objection to your method is neither casually reasoned nor fearful. You declined to comment on the thorough analysis of your method that you asked for and were given, so it's fairly disingenuous of you now to keep insinuating your critics are irrational.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 07:01 AM   #434
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And that didn't raise any red flags for your methodology?



No. The objection to your method is neither casually reasoned nor fearful. You declined to comment on the thorough analysis of your method that you asked for and were given, so it's fairly disingenuous of you now to keep insinuating your critics are irrational.
It's a bit tedious to have to repeat oneself over and over again, but here's a summary. The ability of Zeke to provide additional definition to Shroud images was first spotted and reported here a month or so ago when tested with a macroscopic Shroud Scope image - already given some much needed contrast, to correct for what almost certainly had been taken away by those who supplied Mario Latendresse with his base images. I went through my existing file of some 20 Shroud Scope images, all contrast-enhanced, and found that in every instance that particulate matter which showed up better with Zeke was already visible pre-Zeke, albeit fainter or partially-masked by background.

I have since been through that archive from 2012 and shown before and after Zeke for each image, leaving little doubt that the Shroud body image is not homogeneous as claimed, but semi-particulate. That's precisely what I had predicted from my Model 10 if a baked- on flour/oil encrustation had leaked a yellow or brown thermal cocktail into the linen fibres to give the 'enigmatic' stain, but left behind some solid 'crud' as a clue to where the liquid had originated.

See the updated second-half of the 2012 posting, showing before and after Zeke.

It would have been nice if the ability of Zeke to accentuate particulate material worked reliably on photomicrographs too, but there one had to be wary, because there were fewer instances of the particles being visible before Zeke. As now indicated, there is indeed a strong possibility that Zeke does indeed generate artefactual particles when applied to photomicrographs, based on the comparative test stated between image and scorch fibres, only the first hypothesised to have an applied coating (perhaps partially degraded but not completely as seems suggested by Zeke but not exclusively so compared with alternative contrast-enhancing software).

Any prospective new tool, whether intended originally for non-serious purposes (social media etc) has to be judged on its merits via comparative testing against other images of better-understood provenance, gradually building up a knowledge base of its pros and cons. With something like the Shroud, whose body images has resisted explanation for centuries by hundreds of scientists, one cannot afford to go instantly dismissing potential new research tools, merely because they are seen as 'down-market' by non-scientists or even IT image photoediting cognoscenti. In science, it's best to put ALL preconceptions to one side, and start with a blank sheet, putting each prospective new tool through its paces via testing against existing real-world references. Attempts to close down debate with specialist jargon may cut the mustard on internet forums, but frankly has no place in open-minded, consider-all options scientific research.

The modus operandi of science is not what a lot of folk on internet forums seem to imagine it to be. It's far more open-minded, less instantly judgmental than imagined. There would be far fewer folk choosing science as a career if that weren't the case.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 09:35 AM   #435
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
As now indicated, there is indeed a strong possibility that Zeke does indeed generate artefactual particles when applied to…
… (possibly) anything. One just can't know. Good, don't get married to Zeke. Do more of what you are good at: practical experiments.

I am a flour fan. Pixels not so much.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 09:48 AM   #436
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
It's a bit tedious to have to repeat oneself over and over again...
I don't want you to repeat yourself. I want you to engage your critics rather than just repeatedly brushing them off.

Quote:
...in every instance that particulate matter which showed up better with Zeke was already visible pre-Zeke, albeit fainter or partially-masked by background.
As I pointed out earlier, your use of Zeke is either consequential or it isn't. If it is, you have omitted a sufficient validation of its purported role in signal recovery. If it isn't, it's only a liability to your argument and you should stop touting your simplistic use of it. Again, do you really think scientists in image analysis will go any easier on you than I have?

Quote:
...as seems suggested by Zeke but not exclusively so compared with alternative contrast-enhancing software).
Zeke is not a contrast-enhancing tool. It is an edge-enhancing tool, relying on a simplistically implemented support-constrained deconvolution algorithm to achieve that effect. You have not addressed any of the issues these facts raise.

Quote:
Any prospective new tool, whether intended originally for non-serious purposes (social media etc) has to be judged on its merits via comparative testing...
We already discussed the limits of black-box testing. Just because that's all you are personally able to do in this case does not mean it suffices for a validation of a tool for some particular purpose. Nor did you do actually test the ability of Zeke -- in black-box fashion or otherwise -- to confirm surface particles on cloth via a controlled trial. It looks like you tested it only on inconclusive data, and then interpreted positive results as a confirmation of method. Your comparative testing, as you describe it, doesn't seem to evade confirmation bais.

As we saw, but you declined to address, a knowledge of how the tool actually works is indispensable. Specifically, a knowledge of what problem the tool is attempting to solve is absolutely crucial in interpreting the results. It lets us understand the types of anomalies we can expect. When your "positive results" resemble one of those anomalies, it strikes us as strange that you're uninterested in further investigation.

Quote:
...one cannot afford to go instantly dismissing potential new research tools, merely because they are seen as 'down-market' by non-scientists or even IT image photoediting cognoscenti.
The dismissal was not instantaneous nor ill-conceived. But you seem very much to want to believe that it was. As soon as questions were asked designed to determine your approach to tool untested for the purpose, you became belligerent and dismissive. Clearly you did not want to be questioned and continue to be uncooperative in the evaluation of your methods. I drew no conclusions until your evasion was inarguably evident.

Support-constrained deconvolution is not a new tool. That the crude implementation of it we see in Zeke may be new to you is irrelevant. In the hands of a properly educated and experienced practitioner, deconvolutions and other signal processing tools yield useful results. But they are by no means turnkey tools. You may dismiss all you want your critics' observation that the tool you're using is a toy version of a real method. But it matters. The introspection and control needed to apply the deconvolution properly for data recovery are missing in Zeke.

When it comes to image analysis, you are the non-scientist. Whatever qualifications you may have in other fields do not magically endow you with expertise in sciences you have not studied or practiced, nor does it grant a prerogative to assume they must be straightforward or intuitive. Let's hope your future posts come across as less elitist.

Quote:
In science, it's best to put ALL preconceptions to one side, and start with a blank sheet
You wrongly assume your critics' objections are based on preconceptions. Yes, set aside preconceptions. But it is folly to set aside hard-won knowledge. Yet this is what you want the world to do. You want your personal authority to overrule knowledge obtained over decades by scientists whose only transgression seems to be not residing in your good graces.

Quote:
putting each prospective new tool through its paces via testing against existing real-world references.
I don't see where you did this. Ostensibly you say these image manipulation tools reveal the presence of particulates on the surface of the Shroud. Whether used together or separately, I don't see where that was tested for these tools. Traditionally that ability would be tested by preparing samples, some known not to contain particulates and others known to contain them, and to have investigators not privy to the sample preparation blindly apply the tool and determine how well the results of their investigation correlate to what is known about the test samples. When an introspective analysis of the tool reveals a strong potential for false-positive results, the need for this particular kind of validation becomes more acute.

Quote:
Attempts to close down debate with specialist jargon may cut the mustard on internet forums, but frankly has no place in open-minded, consider-all options scientific research.
Once again you forget that that was a response you explicitly solicited. You bristled at your analysis being labeled inexpert and asked your critics to put some substance behind that label. If you ask someone to put up or shut up, and they put up, you don't get to say they should have shut up instead. It's going to be hard to characterize me and your other critics as the ones who are trying to shut down debate.

Having legitimate objections to provably inept applications of method is not being "closed-minded." Continuing to consider options that are shown to have serious flaws is not advisable.

Quote:
The modus operandi of science is not what a lot of folk on internet forums seem to imagine it to be. It's far more open-minded, less instantly judgmental than imagined. There would be far fewer folk choosing science as a career if that weren't the case.
And you may beg all you want for leniency, but I'd be willing to bet none of what you're doing today is intended to rise above self-published play science. So if this is just play science intended to amuse Shroud enthusiasts and go no further, have at it. No skin off my back.

I wasn't entirely honest when I said I didn't care what happened to you. If that were wholly true I simply would leave you in silence to wallow on the fringes. You seem interested in your baked-flour theory not being dismissed as pseudo-science. And by attachment, you seem to want your image processing to be seen as valid art. You may on the one hand dismiss it all as irrelevant bickering, which is what you seem to be after by posting here. Or on the other hand you can consider that there is a legitimate flaw in your method that will only bite you harder the farther down the field you run with it.

One of the yardsticks I use to identify pseudoscience is whether the author has simplified the problem to fit his knowledge instead of expanding his knowledge to accommodate the problem. If it is important to you to avoid the pseudoscience label, consider carefully your posture.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 09:54 AM   #437
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
In his defense, mecannoman has previously presented a plausible explanation (alliteration accidental) for the image on the shroud . His 10th hypothesis regarding flour, oil, and heat is not far-fetched, but it is hard to falsify based on the limited access to the shroud.
I agree entirely. It's a thoroughly plausible hypothesis.

I would argue there's a lingering issue in his scale tests, as the mechanics of cloth do not scale. Other researchers have noted that a natural draping of linen over a full-sized body produces a cartographic projection of the facial features, which is not present on the Shroud and may create a false correlation in small-scale tests. But I am confident meccanoman is not ignoring any of that. It's been discussed.

Quote:
OTOH, This zeke image processing stuff isn't getting him anywhere with me. It seems a waste of time until shroud samples of known provenance become available.
It seems difficult to impress upon him that his proffered method, despite all its homegrown purported rigor, will not rise to a level of credence in the relevant science higher than CIS-style "zoom and enhance." If he intends to present these findings to anyone but Shroud enthusiasts, the image analysis would be a serious liability.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 07:20 PM   #438
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Yes, I posted some a while ago. Here's a typical example of the stained fibres that remain after washing an oven-roasted flour imprint (hand, plastic or metal figurine etc) versus a comparable image of Shroud image fibres at approx the same magnification (x32 as I recall).
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...ng?w=640&h=191

I asked for the conditions for the pictures taken by you; please help me understand what I'm looking at. Presumably it was taken under incident light, was it a tungsten source? Did you use any color correction, a physical or software filter or both? Why is there a rddish or pinkish cast to the image? I assume this was taken with a zoom scope, is that right? At what magnification?


Quote:
Note the so-called 'half-tone' effect in both - fibres tend to be stained to a uniform intensity, or not stained at all, with no in-betweens. I consider that odd effect to be the result of a brief efflux of liquid cocktail from the roasting flour/oil crust that is wicked away by the capillary spaces between fibres, easily modelled with blue ink as stated earlier.

I'm not sure what you mean by half-tone. I believe there are particles present in both images, but they'll never be seen using a zoom scope with a maximum magnification of 50 or 60X. I'm sure you know starch particles are roughly the same size as the width of the individual flax fibers.

Quote:
Why or why are there no simple straightforward snapshots in the public domain of the Shroud body image, viewed through a standard camera lens at close quarters, panning in say to a cm or two, allowing one to detect surface particulates (crud, debris, call it what you want) if present, as I strongly suspect they are? Why is science denied that simple no-nonsense kind of image-presentation, despite the recruitment of both "scientific" and "documenting" photographers to the STURP team?

No sign of this crust in the STURP tape lift samples, Mark Evans' photos or yours. Could it be because it's simply not there?
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 07:33 PM   #439
dropzone
Graduate Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Sure... Now here's a zoomed in part of a low resolution image of the Mona Lisa.
I'd recognize hair painted by Leonardo anywhere. He may have been as gay as a tree full of parrots, and not really that good as a painter--but a great draftsman--but he was totally OCD about hair.
dropzone is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 07:49 PM   #440
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Any prospective new tool, whether intended originally for non-serious purposes (social media etc) has to be judged on its merits via comparative testing against other images of better-understood provenance, gradually building up a knowledge base of its pros and cons. With something like the Shroud, whose body images has resisted explanation for centuries by hundreds of scientists, one cannot afford to go instantly dismissing potential new research tools, merely because they are seen as 'down-market' by non-scientists or even IT image photoediting cognoscenti. In science, it's best to put ALL preconceptions to one side, and start with a blank sheet, putting each prospective new tool through its paces via testing against existing real-world references. Attempts to close down debate with specialist jargon may cut the mustard on internet forums, but frankly has no place in open-minded, consider-all options scientific research.

The modus operandi of science is not what a lot of folk on internet forums seem to imagine it to be. It's far more open-minded, less instantly judgmental than imagined. There would be far fewer folk choosing science as a career if that weren't the case.

Your continued lectures on the subject of what comprises proper science are both sad and amusing. You have deflected or ignored, with a few exceptions, the most pertinent questions and criticisms of your beloved Mark 10, demonstrating little of the open-mindedness you claim to esteem. IMO a scientist worth the title is one who attempts to kill their own ideas in their infancy so as not to waste their time or others'. I worked with a guy who, if you stuck a pin in his idea, was likely to say "What a glorious defeat!" because he knew it put us that much closer to the right answer.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.