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 8th March 2017, 04:27 PM   #281
hugh farey
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
There have been whispers about higher resolution pictures being available, but which have yet to be released into the public domain. Why not, one wonders?
Haltadefinizione's Shroud 2.0 has a much higher resolution than the Shroud Scope Durante image, and is readily available as an app for iPads, etc. It is rumoured that there is an even higher resolution version, but I have not been able to verify that.
hugh farey 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 8th March 2017, 06:34 PM   #282
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,325
Originally Posted by hugh farey View Post
Haltadefinizione's Shroud 2.0 has a much higher resolution than the Shroud Scope Durante image, and is readily available as an app for iPads, etc. It is rumoured that there is an even higher resolution version, but I have not been able to verify that.
*Rolls eyes*

Someone wake me when we get back to the 'snarling hounds of skepticism' part.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 8th March 2017, 09:32 PM   #283
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Consider your bridges well and truly burned. While I may have offered an analysis, I am certainly not the first and I would simply be yet another in the trail of rejected analyses. Your interest is not in truth, but in the propagation of your belief at all cost, even if truth is the cost.

His responses all indicate his only interest is in proving himself right. He is far too enamored of his Shake 'n Bake JesusTM to entertain any criticism.
__________________
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 8th March 2017, 10:14 PM   #284
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
"Right" and "not right" are not terribly helpful descriptors in that moving feast we call scientific research (which would include image analysis in the present context). I would suggest "productive" v "unproductive".

It hardly matters whether my interpretation of the before and after Zeke images is "right" or not, the important thing being the ability to generate testable predictions.

The conclusion I have reached after applying Zeke, clearly not shared by everyone here, is that the body image has a great deal in common with that of the blood. Both appear to consist of two components - a flaking-off encrustation which has underneath it a faint stain.

Prediction: in the unlikely event that one were allowed to take samples from the Turin Shroud, one would be well advised to take along a hand lens, needle or sharp scalpel or similar in order to detach manually encrusted SOLID particles from both body and blood image, AND forceps too in order to sample the underlying stained fibres.

Walter McCrone is the only investigator* to the best of my knowledge to have proposed that the most visible part of the body image is particulate. But he claimed the particles were iron ochre etc which if true would mean NO BLEACHING with diimide, a reagent that is highly specific in its action - hydrogenating -CH=CH- to -CH2-CH2- .

So which of the two of us is "right"? It hardly matters. What we have is a testable prediction that if applied already in Turin, say the STURP 78 visit, might have spared readers here of the never-ending sound and fury we see at present.

Would both components of the body image - encrustation and underlying stained fibres, prove to be bleachable with diimide? I say they will be, believing both to be products of Maillard browning reactions, retaining their organic (carbon-based) chemical nature in which colour depends on conjugated single and double bonds (as distinct from inorganic iron compounds etc).

One understands Ray Rogers' decision to sample Shroud fibres with sticky tape alone, but it was the wrong decision in my view. Better to have adopted the strategy: nothing to be added, only taken away, i.e. by simple mechanical detachment (no Mylar hydrocarbon or other chemically-based adhesive!).

* Afterthought: Ray Rogers too if one regards his allegedly starch-derived fibre-coating as "particulate", though skin-like would arguably be a more accurate description, not helped by the skin having a thickness too small to be visible under a light microscope!
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 8th March 2017 at 10:29 PM. Reason: typo
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 9th March 2017, 12:09 AM   #285
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by hugh farey View Post
Haltadefinizione's Shroud 2.0 has a much higher resolution than the Shroud Scope Durante image, and is readily available as an app for iPads, etc. It is rumoured that there is an even higher resolution version, but I have not been able to verify that.
Here's a Halta image of the 'reversed 3' bloodstain on the forehead, before and after applying Zeke.



Here's the same image, obtained from Shroud Scope's face-only image (the site's highest resolution), again before and after Zeke:





Maybe it's not a fair comparison, since the Halta image was obtained from Google image files, not direct from a iPad.

For now, at any rate, I'm happy to use Scope, especially as the pre-Zeke image you see was from Scope as-is, i.e. without my routine pre-addition of contrast.
__________________
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 9th March 2017, 12:11 AM   #286
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,769
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
.........The conclusion I have reached after applying Zeke, clearly not shared by everyone here, is that.........
Could you please quote anyone who has queried your conclusion.

As far as I can tell from a cursory review of the last few pages, people have been universally dismissive of your technique, and haven't commented on your conclusions. Your technique is garbage. Whether or not a garbage technique applied to doctored photos somehow reveals the truth isn't something I have a view on. For all I know it might possibly*. But I do know that even if it does you'll persuade only yourself and your acolytes, and no other person on the planet, because of the appalling way you done your "work".

*In the same way that it isn't impossible that there's a girl on Mars wearing a yellow raincoat, as revealed by mis-handling a NASA photo in the exact same way as you have mis-handled this image.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 9th March 2017 at 12:13 AM.
MikeG 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 9th March 2017, 12:29 AM   #287
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
I must take another look at that Mt. Rushmore photograph, Zeke-enhanced/de-enhanced (depending on which part one looks at - Presidents or rock faces) and see if I missed the girl in the yellow raincoat...
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 9th March 2017 at 12:46 AM. Reason: new qualifying clause after "enhanced"
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 9th March 2017, 12:36 AM   #288
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,769
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
I must take another look at that Mt. Rushmore photograph, Zeke-enhanced, and see if I missed the girl in the yellow raincoat...
Well you certainly missed the analogy.

Zoom in enough and slide the Zeke slider far enough, you'll find her if you want to find her.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 9th March 2017, 01:00 AM   #289
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Well you certainly missed the analogy.

Zoom in enough and slide the Zeke slider far enough, you'll find her if you want to find her.
A word about that slider: I tested it briefly, and made a decision to stick with the default mid-scale setting. That's just one reason for ignoring charges of using the filter irresponsibly as a plaything. There are others, but previous attempts to describe the tests I've done immediately to evaluate/validate the tool in a sceptical fashion have been totally ignored - some folk here preferring to relentlessly press home their fanciful image of the sorcerer's apprentice.

Let me know when you're ready to hear about an important 'internal control' for the Shroud body image, one that assists in legitimizing the use of image filters that serve to alter contrast, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse - both actions being apparent in that Rushmore photograph. But kindly drop the references to girls in yellow raincoats - they are needed here like the proverbial hole in the head...
__________________
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 9th March 2017, 01:06 AM   #290
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,769
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
......But kindly drop the references to girls in yellow raincoats - they are needed here like the proverbial hole in the head...
No.

You just don't get it, do you.

Your cock up started BEFORE you put the image into Zeke. You created the artifacts prior to your use of the filter. You actually know ****-all about what you are doing with images, and if ever there were a case for the American expression "doubling down" you are making it here most beautifully. What you are doing would embarrass a 16 year old graphic arts student. But please, do carry on calling it science. You may as well try to trash the name of science at the same time as you trash your own.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 9th March 2017, 01:29 AM   #291
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Here's a Halta image of the 'reversed 3' bloodstain on the forehead, before and after applying Zeke.

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...-post-zeke.png

Here's the same image, obtained from Shroud Scope's face-only image (the site's highest resolution), again before and after Zeke:


https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...-post-zeke.png


Maybe it's not a fair comparison, since the Halta image was obtained from Google image files, not direct from a iPad.

For now, at any rate, I'm happy to use Scope, especially as the pre-Zeke image you see was from Scope as-is, i.e. without my routine pre-addition of contrast.
Could you indicate what it is you think is revealed by applying the filter?
The picture on the right looks a lot less detailed, in favor of artificial contrast and saturation creating an illusion of depth that clearly isn't there in the picture on the left.
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 9th March 2017, 01:32 AM   #292
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No.

You just don't get it, do you.

Your cock up started BEFORE you put the image into Zeke. You created the artifacts prior to your use of the filter. You actually know ****-all about what you are doing with images, and if ever there were a case for the American expression "doubling down" you are making it here most beautifully. What you are doing would embarrass a 16 year old graphic arts student. But please, do carry on calling it science. You may as well try to trash the name of science at the same time as you trash your own.
Just a gentle reminder: all photographic images are artefacts, i.e. products of human making. The Shroud image is also an artefact, surprisingly photograph-like, at least in a negative tone-reversed sense, if one accepts the radiocarbon dating (which some reject, freeing them from the need to view the Shroud as artefact). But it's not a photograph, in which case: what is it?

Then we have the additional layers of 'artefactuality' for those of us who have never seen the Shroud close-up with our own eyes, far less a hand lens, who are totally reliant on secondary photographic images.

There are constant references in the Shroud literature to the attempts by photographers to improve the contrast and general photogenic appeal of the Shroud image (hardly surprising when you consider the body image is near invisible viewed close up) so one has a third layer of artefactual input, due to choice of (early) photographic emulsion by Pia, Enrie etc, or modern-day digital processing/reprocessing.

So yes, of course the Shroud images in the public domain are 'doctored' in one way or another, and one takes that for granted if one's been working for years, as I have, on Shroud imagery, not feeling a constant need to state the obvious.

But there's an important thing to bear in mind. If the Shroud image we are given has been doctored by digital means, e.g. altering its pixel composition in RGB terms, then those changes are potentially reversible, using photoediting software, professional or even freebies. That's what I did some years ago - discover that the washed-out looking Shroud Scope image, essentially a pinkish monochrome with virtually no discrimination between blood and body image, had clearly been subject to contrast-reduction, judged by its RGB mix. Adding back contrast in MS Office photoediting software (NOT free!) immediately restored a differentiation between blood and body image, one that made intuitive sense (body image tan, blood image totally different, a little more blood-like).

I say it's time you dropped the attempts to portray this wary hands-on investigator as a fumbling amateur. Or at any rate, acknowledge that we're all amateurs where the Shroud is concerned, groping for solutions, unable to study the real artefact with our own eyes, reliant on photoediting software to bring up detail, especially that which may have been removed, unwittingly or otherwise, by others.

Time maybe to reboot this thread?
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 9th March 2017 at 01:37 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 9th March 2017, 01:46 AM   #293
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,769
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
......it's time you dropped the attempts to portray this wary hands-on investigator as a fumbling amateur. Or at any rate, acknowledge that we're all amateurs where the Shroud is concerned.....
I'm not interested in the shroud. Not in the least.

And you are a fumbling amateur when it comes to image handling. Please stop trying to conflate "you're utterly incompetent with images" with "I'm trying to undermine your efforts to reveal the origin of the image on the shroud". I wish you well with your efforts to more understand the shroud. I just wish you'd do the damn job properly.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 9th March 2017, 01:50 AM   #294
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Could you indicate what it is you think is revealed by applying the filter?
The picture on the right looks a lot less detailed, in favor of artificial contrast and saturation creating an illusion of depth that clearly isn't there in the picture on the left.
A brief reply, as I have other things to attend to.

The important thing when applying Zeke or indeed any other aid to greater image contrast is to make sure one has both body and blood image in the same field of view. Why? Because the blood, or "blood" whether real or fake, was clearly applied as a liquid which, unlike the body image, has penetrated the entire weave to stain the reverse side. So the blood serves as an internal control of known physical state and behaviour for investigating the mysterious body image (scarcely if at all visible on the reverse side).

There were indications in my early contrast-adjusted blood images that what we see is blood that has partially but not completely flaked away, and that impression is greatly reinforced by Zeke. But there were no indications of a similar 'flaky' quality to the body image in my initial contrast adjustment with MS Office. But apply Zeke, and what do you see? Essentially no difference between blood and body image in that BOTH show evidence of being a material that is flaking off the linen leaving faintly stained patches underneath.

Zeke says that body image as well as blood is primarily particulate, at least in the places where it has NOT flaked away. The next step is to elucidate the physical state of the body image, best explained I say if it was initially derived from applying an imprinting medium with properties of both solid and liquid (!). To be continued.

Must run.
__________________
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 9th March 2017, 04:39 AM   #295
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Here's a composite image that provides a comparison of the two different contrast tools, starting with the 'as-is' Shroud Scope image (top right, unhelpfully pre-doctored by person or persons unknown!).



Top left and lower left is the first pre/post Zeke images I placed on this thread. The initial image however was not the 'as-is' Shroud Scope, as I was careful to flag up. As stated, the latter 'washed-out' starter image has been added top right. Note how well nigh useless it is for research purposes, and why I used MS Office 5 years ago to RESTORE contrast that had clearly been taken away, generating the far more interesting and informative image top left. Note the body image (nose and moustache) and the squiggle of blood in the hair on the right.

When applying Zeke to that top left image, one observes the evidence of flaking-off not only for the blood on the hair, as expected, but ALSO for the body image too - which I believe to be a new finding, and an important one!

But did it really require contrast from BOTH MS Office and Zeke to produce that result? Answer: no. Look at the images top right and lower right, where one can see that the flaking off effect is still visible in both blood and body images using Zeke alone with no input from MS Office. It's just a little harder to see.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 9th March 2017 at 06:22 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 9th March 2017, 05:11 PM   #296
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,634
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Here's a Halta image of the 'reversed 3' bloodstain on the forehead, before and after applying Zeke.

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...-post-zeke.png
So Jesus was a driver for Lyft.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2017-03-09 at 6.17.50 PM.jpg (34.7 KB, 1 views)

Last edited by carlitos; 9th March 2017 at 05:18 PM.
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 10th March 2017, 01:38 AM   #297
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Joking aside, it's time to tell it the way it is where that oh-so-enigmatic Shroud image is concerned.



These two images are not new here - they are excised portions from my Comment 191 where I first announced to this site (and the world!) that the Zeke filter on Microsoft's Window's 10 is perfectly attuned to the needs of Shroudology, unmasking fine particulate matter from background.

That's flaking-off blood in the hair you see on the left. That's flaking-off something else you see on the right.

But it can't be anything else but body image on the right, since it's virtually the entire moustache and tip of the nose!

Sorry to repeat myself, but the Shroud body image has two distinct components - a crust- like one that has largely flaked-away, similar in behaviour to the aged blood, and an underlying faint yellow or yellowish-brown stain.

So when you read the old literature and see references to particles, e.g. McCrone's 'red ochre' etc, think about the non-detached components. And when you read others that talk about the amazingly superficial nature of the Shroud image, typically cited as 200nm thick or less, the need to use pulsed uv laser beams to reproduce, think about the underlying stain.

I knew I'd get there in the end. Who'd have thought that some "crappy" image-editing software supplied on every new Windows laptop would supply the answer...

I tried saying thank you to MS on their site that announces Zeke and the other filters, but after enrolling and attempting to add Comment 51 was told newbies have not acquired sufficient "reputation" to leave comments on old postings. What a cretinous thing to say, immediately below "Welcome new member".
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 10th March 2017 at 01:47 AM. Reason: typo
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 10th March 2017, 02:13 AM   #298
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,070
It's a relatively dark spot that was made even darker by the filter. There is no way in hell that you could prove that a certain stain is flaked off particles, soaked in pigments, burnt surfaces, whether darker spots are remnants of the original picture, or bits of dirt that stuck to the cloth later, or anything else by increasing the contrast of a photograph.

The only thing you can say is that the more elevated centers of the threads are lighter than the recesses where two threads meet, but you could also tell that by looking at the unaltered picture.
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 10th March 2017, 02:38 AM   #299
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
It's a relatively dark spot that was made even darker by the filter. There is no way in hell that you could prove that a certain stain is flaked off particles, soaked in pigments, burnt surfaces, whether darker spots are remnants of the original picture, or bits of dirt that stuck to the cloth later, or anything else by increasing the contrast of a photograph.

The only thing you can say is that the more elevated centers of the threads are lighter than the recesses where two threads meet, but you could also tell that by looking at the unaltered picture.
There's supplementary evidence that I'll be marshalling in due course that backs up my assertion, based on some 5 years research. There's the model system, based on flour-imprinting/oven-roasting which generates what I now call "biphasic' red-brown biphasic images, with a detachable encrustation with underlying stain. There's the preference and/or resistance to detachment of the encrusted body image to certain threads, or gaps between threads, alluded to in your answer, that makes an imprinting-mechanism (requiring direct physical contact) a virtual certainty. There's the chemical evidence that the body image material is organic, rather than inorganic, based on bleaching with diimide. There's the Rogers' model that while drastically different from contact-imprinting, was first to propose that the body image was an accumulation of Maillard browning products, plus his evidence for strippability of the image coating from individual linen fibres.

As you say, the particulate material is in fact visible before applying Zeke, merely from addition of a little contrast, and sometimes - with larger denser particles- with no additional contrast at all. There's the fact that Zeke etc have scarcely any effect on ordinary photos- except to bring up fine detail that again is visible beforehand anyway. Zeke is just another tool for altering and selectively improving contrast - with NO RISK WHATSOEVER OF GENERATING ENTIRELY NEW AND SPURIOUS ARTEFACTS.

Proof? I'd settle for testability on the Shroud. All I need is a hand lens and scalpel, for detaching surviving encrusted body image from a few sites mechanically - in place of Rogers' sticky tape that introduced all kinds of complications and uncertainties.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 10th March 2017 at 03:27 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 10th March 2017, 03:47 AM   #300
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,412
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Joking aside, it's time to tell it the way it is where that oh-so-enigmatic Shroud image is concerned.

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...s-and-zeke.png

These two images are not new here - they are excised portions from my Comment 191 where I first announced to this site (and the world!) that the Zeke filter on Microsoft's Window's 10 is perfectly attuned to the needs of Shroudology, unmasking fine particulate matter from background.
Nope. Zeke simply randomly generates a result you aesthetically like. Zeke is not "attuned" to anything.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
That's flaking-off blood in the hair you see on the left. That's flaking-off something else you see on the right.
Unevidenced claim. You have no idea what you are looking at. I could be frass for all you know, or artefacts introduced by your random twiddlings. How have you ruled any other possibility out? Bare assertion simply doesn't cut the mustard.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
But it can't be anything else but body image on the right, since it's virtually the entire moustache and tip of the nose!
It might have started out as body image, but after all the random undocumented transformations you have performed, nobody can say what the hell it is anymore,not even you.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Sorry to repeat myself, but the Shroud body image has two distinct components - a crust- like one that has largely flaked-away, similar in behaviour to the aged blood, and an underlying faint yellow or yellowish-brown stain.
Irrelevant to your useless image manipulation claims.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
So when you read the old literature and see references to particles, e.g. McCrone's 'red ochre' etc, think about the non-detached components. And when you read others that talk about the amazingly superficial nature of the Shroud image, typically cited as 200nm thick or less, the need to use pulsed uv laser beams to reproduce, think about the underlying stain.
Why?

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
I knew I'd get there in the end. Who'd have thought that some "crappy" image-editing software supplied on every new Windows laptop would supply the answer...
Nobody thought that and for good reason. You have gotten precisely nowhere, you have simply imagined that you have done so.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
I tried saying thank you to MS on their site that announces Zeke and the other filters, but after enrolling and attempting to add Comment 51 was told newbies have not acquired sufficient "reputation" to leave comments on old postings. What a cretinous thing to say, immediately below "Welcome new member".
Like the way you could not fathom the titles on this forum? Or the rules about posting links?

If those simple things befuddle you, what are the chances that you can correctly operate image manipulation software?
__________________
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 10th March 2017, 04:15 AM   #301
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Come the weekend, I'll be reunited with a nearly flogged-to-death workhorse laptop that has a handy bit of installed software. It tells you what photoediting programs are doing to the original image. It was what I used back in 2015 to show how altering contrast simultaneously alters blue/yellow composition, for better or for worse, in colour images (analogous to black/white in monochrome editing) and incidentally that starting Shroud Scope images betray evidence of having had contrast removed (underpinning the legitimacy, questioned at the time, of adding contrast back for starters, with optimal choice of contrast-control software to be discovered by trial and error).

Forgive me if I keep my head down here until I have that analysis performed!
__________________
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 10th March 2017, 04:23 AM   #302
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
All I need is a hand lens and scalpel, for detaching surviving encrusted body image from a few sites mechanically - in place of Rogers' sticky tape that introduced all kinds of complications and uncertainties.

Your ignorance of microscopy and microanalysis is showing. You might as well try to use a hand lens to resolve craters on the moon as resolve the particle encrustations on the flax fibers on the shroud. The zoom stereoscope used by Heller and Adler had probably 40-60X magnification, far more than a hand lens, and they certainly didn't see the particles with it.

There are all sorts of techniques for sampling, cleaning and moving fine particles in the 1-5 um size range. Moving them, for example from a microscope slide to a SEM stub, is routinely done by hand using tungsten wire ablated to an extremely fine point with a flame and sodium nitrite.

You're clinging to the diimide test like a drowning man, in the face of consilient results from the following tests on the chromophore particles:

-color and size
-index of refraction and birefringence
-elemental analysis
-x-ray diffraction

My offer stands to share a copy of McCrone's paper, though I doubt you'll take me up on it; I think you're far too invested in your flour experiments to seriously consider conflicting evidence.
__________________
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 10th March 2017, 04:59 AM   #303
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232


Could it be that a warzone is not the smartest place to find oneself holding a new(ish) baby?

See ya on Monday (provided that laptop still boots up...)
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 10th March 2017 at 05:01 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 10th March 2017, 07:22 AM   #304
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,412
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...in-warzone.jpg

Could it be that a warzone is not the smartest place to find oneself holding a new(ish) baby?

See ya on Monday (provided that laptop still boots up...)
You are not holding a new(ish) baby. You are holding a swaddled turnip and pretending it is a baby.
__________________
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 10th March 2017, 09:36 AM   #305
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,937
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
If the Shroud image we are given has been doctored by digital means, e.g. altering its pixel composition in RGB terms, then those changes are potentially reversible, using photoediting software, professional or even freebies.
But there is a whole massive body of science that discusses such reversibility, and yet another whole body of forensic methods that relate to the form of study you are attempting. What assurances do you give your reader that you are competent in them?

Quote:
I say it's time you dropped the attempts to portray this wary hands-on investigator as a fumbling amateur.
Trying to curry sympathy as a "hands-on investigator" does not endow you with the knowledge the sciences I allude to above require. Possessing the tools that apply algebraic transformations to quantized image data does not create the expertise to know whether they will produce reliable results relevant to some hypothesis any more than possessing a chisel makes one Michelangelo. You really do have the burden of proof to show you are competent not just with the operation of the tools but with the mathematical foundations upon which those tools are built. Sadly not all Shroud researchers on either side of the authenticity debate can meet that burden. Many of the papers I've read (and I don't have the citations off the top of my head) apply extremely naive methods, I assume because they simply don't know any better.

For example, when you manipulate contrast interactively, are you looking at the histogram? Or are you looking at the image?
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 10th March 2017, 09:39 AM   #306
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,412
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
<snip for brevity>
For example, when you manipulate contrast interactively, are you looking at the histogram? Or are you looking at the image?
He doesn't know what a histogram is and that he is simply pushing sliders until he gets a result he "likes".
__________________
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 10th March 2017, 09:58 AM   #307
Peregrinus
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 771
Push sliders (and any other problematic "techniques") all you wish, you still have a 14th Century artifact.
Peregrinus 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 10th March 2017, 11:32 AM   #308
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
As stated earlier, I opted NOT to use the sliders in the Zeke filter - the midrange default setting of 50/100 being fine for unmasking and/or accentuating detail that was already there, but overpowered by other aspects of the image. The effect of altering the slider is mainly cosmetic, and, as I say, not used, so no more slider references please.

How can one be absolutely certain that the unmasked detail was there, and not, say, an artefact of the unmasking process? Once can't, obviously, having to rely mainly but not exclusively on commonsense. (Outside of theoretical physics -quantum mechanics etc - science is mainly a matter of commonsense).

Commonsense is needless to say a questionable entity - so what's a non-commonsense more targeted way of dealing with the charge that one's dealing simply with an artefact-generating bit of software?

I've spent the last few hours taking each of the 20 contrast-enhanced /restored Shroud Scope images I posted back in June 2012, and adding a before/after Zeke appendix to the posting (enter "shroud scope 10" into your search engine to see the 20 new images). Whilst doing so, a validation test occurred to me.

Sometimes one can see the zig-zag herringbone weave of the linen, sometimes not. Given that Zeke is being hailed here for its ability to reveal Shroud detail that is initially obscured but otherwise genuine and non-artefactual might it be possible to locate an image where the herringbone weave is scarcely if at all visible initially but selectively enhanced by Zeke?

Yes, there's at least one. It's an image of a bloodstain on the arm, where the combination of adhering blood AND Zeke has unmasked what we know for certain is there to start with - that distinctive herringbone weave.



I shall try to think up more validating tests, but can make no promises...
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 10th March 2017 at 11:34 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 10th March 2017, 11:40 AM   #309
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,937
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Once can't, obviously, having to rely mainly but not exclusively on commonsense. (Outside of theoretical physics -quantum mechanics etc - science is mainly a matter of commonsense).
That is most assuredly not true for the sciences involved in image processing. Nor would I daresay it is valid for many other sciences. I think of "common sense" as a synonym for intuition. While I respect the value of intuition during the process of scientific inquiry, I do not regard it as a valid method in and of itself. Scientific methodology is about finding objective, repeatable ways of observing and measuring phenomena. By that definition one scientist's intuition may differ from another's, and so not be repeatable.

Quote:
Sometimes one can see the zig-zag herringbone weave of the linen, sometimes not. Given that Zeke is being hailed here for its ability to reveal Shroud detail that is initially obscured but otherwise genuine and non-artefactual might it be possible to locate an image where the herringbone weave is scarcely if at all visible initially but selectively enhanced by Zeke?
This proposed test would be both subjective and would use only data from the image domain. How would that be a proper validation?

Quote:
I shall try to think up more validating tests, but can make no promises...
When you are manipulating the contrast in the images, are you doing it interactively while looking at the image itself? Or are you doing things such as using the histogram as a statistical model?
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 10th March 2017, 12:03 PM   #310
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That is most assuredly not true for the sciences involved in image processing. Nor would I daresay it is valid for many other sciences. I think of "common sense" as a synonym for intuition. While I respect the value of intuition during the process of scientific inquiry, I do not regard it as a valid method in and of itself. Scientific methodology is about finding objective, repeatable ways of observing and measuring phenomena. By that definition one scientist's intuition may differ from another's, and so not be repeatable.



This proposed test would be both subjective and would use only data from the image domain. How would that be a proper validation?



When you are manipulating the contrast in the images, are you doing it interactively while looking at the image itself? Or are you doing things such as using the histogram as a statistical model?



As flagged up a couple of comments ago, I can't really respond in detail to questions re the arithmetic, far less statistics, until I have some numerical data under my belt, which I hope to obtain at the weekend using specific software for image analysis.

That too, btw, is responsive I found to suck-it-and-see testing, read empirical pragmatic analysis, where one starts with a blank sheet and simply explores the effect of making systematic changes on the rgb composition etc. It was through doing that I was able to suss out the simple mathematical formula that explains the changes in hue that occur when one alters contrast settings.

That was some 18 months ago. Search: shroud turin contrast rgb aug 2015 and look for the posting with flour power in its title!
__________________
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 10th March 2017, 12:44 PM   #311
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,937
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
...which I hope to obtain at the weekend using specific software for image analysis.
Again, obtaining tools does not create knowledge.

You seem to be posturing yourself as some sort of expert. However I don't see any foundation for that claim. You told us you shouldn't be considered an amateur because of your hands-on experience. Then, paradoxically, you told us that while you might be an amateur, everyone else is an amateur too. I can't square that approach with the relevant body of knowledge. Then your third statement seemed to suggest no real expertise was needed since science was merely "common sense." I really can't square that with what I'm reading as a claim to expertise. You're simultaneously trying to say you are an expert, but also that there are no experts.

Quote:
It was through doing that I was able to suss out the simple mathematical formula that explains the changes in hue that occur when one alters contrast settings.
And do you know if that would be considered any sort of valid method in the field? Did you apply any sort of error analysis or blind empiricism? You suggest there's a paper out there I can find and read. Was it submitted to a relevant peer-reviewed journal, or was it self-published?

Still waiting for you to answer whether you're performing your contrast manipulations while looking at the image, or by means of looking at the histogram.

Last edited by JayUtah; 10th March 2017 at 12:49 PM.
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 10th March 2017, 01:19 PM   #312
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Again, obtaining tools does not create knowledge.

You seem to be posturing yourself as some sort of expert. However I don't see any foundation for that claim. You told us you shouldn't be considered an amateur because of your hands-on experience. Then, paradoxically, you told us that while you might be an amateur, everyone else is an amateur too. I can't square that approach with the relevant body of knowledge. Then your third statement seemed to suggest no real expertise was needed since science was merely "common sense." I really can't square that with what I'm reading as a claim to expertise. You're simultaneously trying to say you are an expert, but also that there are no experts.



And do you know if that would be considered any sort of valid method in the field? Did you apply any sort of error analysis or blind empiricism? You suggest there's a paper out there I can find and read. Was it submitted to a relevant peer-reviewed journal, or was it self-published?

Still waiting for you to answer whether you're performing your contrast manipulations while looking at the image, or by means of looking at the histogram.

Sorry, but this is getting a little too personal for my liking.

I've advanced a hypothesis which is testable, and minimally destructive to the Shroud. All that's required are some SCRAPINGS from the Shroud.

(The previous comments re Adler and Heller from another commentator are incidentally ill-informed: neither went with the STURP team in 1978 to see the Shroud at close quarters with their own eyes, both were reliant on sticky tape samples provided by Rogers (having first spent a year with McCrone and mishandled we're told). They were of stripped FIBRES, not whole weave, so my proposed tests have not been performed previously, at least to my knowledge.

I'll now stick with my decision to take that break, maybe returning next week, maybe not.
__________________
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 10th March 2017, 01:47 PM   #313
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,937
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Sorry, but this is getting a little too personal for my liking.
What's personal about it? It's not clear whether you're presenting yourself as an expert, but if you are then you have the responsibility to lay the foundation of that expertise. I'm asking you some simple, straightforward questions about your techniques and methods. This is necessary to assess how grounded in the state of the art your approach has been and therefore how reliable the findings are likely to be by our best standards. Your defensiveness puzzles me.

Quote:
All that's required are some SCRAPINGS from the Shroud.
Be that as it may, you seem to have already advanced some findings based on analysis of the various digital images you've obtained from various sources. Upon questioning, you don't seem to be aware of many factors that would affect such an analysis, and this raises issues regarding how well we can expect it to support the findings thus far. You have the burden to prove your analysis is sound, and that burden is not satisfied by your simply having performed the analysis, or allusions to common sense.

Again, the tools used in these analysis are, generally, easily available. However the scientific knowledge to use them to test a particular hypothesis to a scientific level of certainty does not come automatically with the tool. Nor is it a matter of intuition or subjective impression. Hence it appears to me that the red flags being raised about those findings have merit. I apologize if this seems superficially like a personal attack, but examining the foundation of claim to expertise necessarily requires questions directed at the person making the claim.

If you're not making a claim to expertise in image analysis then you can certainly clarify that by making an unequivocal statement. But if your claim is that no expertise is required, then I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree with that.
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 10th March 2017, 07:08 PM   #314
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,325
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Push sliders (and any other problematic "techniques") all you wish, you still have a 14th Century artifact.
I could be mistaken. but the issue in this thread is not the authenticity (it's not authentic), but the manner with which the image was produced.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 10th March 2017, 07:51 PM   #315
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
The previous comments re Adler and Heller from another commentator are incidentally ill-informed: neither went with the STURP team in 1978 to see the Shroud at close quarters with their own eyes, both were reliant on sticky tape samples provided by Rogers (having first spent a year with McCrone and mishandled we're told). They were of stripped FIBRES, not whole weave, so my proposed tests have not been performed previously, at least to my knowledge.

Nowhere did I say H&A examned the shroud itself. Yes, they lifted fibers bearing the chromophore material using Scotch-type tape, so what? It's a technique often used for sampling with minimal effect on a source. You know well, or should, that he shroud authorities would not allow a more destructive sampling of the image area. I'm having a good laugh right now, picturing the reaction of the shroud PTB as you approach their treasured artifact, scalpel in hand.

You haven't addressed any of the substance of my post and now you've begun to impugn McCrone (how about a cite?), even though you can't be bothered to familiarize yourself with his methods or results. Quite the scientific approach you've got 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 11th March 2017, 01:07 AM   #316
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,412
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
I could be mistaken. but the issue in this thread is not the authenticity (it's not authentic), but the manner with which the image was produced.
Wolf in sheeps clothing.
__________________
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 11th March 2017, 04:55 AM   #317
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,566
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...in-warzone.jpg

Could it be that a warzone is not the smartest place to find oneself holding a new(ish) baby?

See ya on Monday (provided that laptop still boots up...)
Your experience in war is clearly very different from mine.
Craig4 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 12th March 2017, 06:43 AM   #318
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
An RGB analysis quickly confirmed what I suspected, namely that the Zeke filter is exceedingly subtle in its action, working mainly, probably exclusively, by a combination of image brightness and contrast, with the two acting in concert to demonstrate without a doubt the presence of ENCRUSTED material (body image as well as blood!).

So how come I missed the 'encrusted', correction, encrusted/partially eroded nature of the Shroud body image previously when using MS Office Picture Manager?

Answer - I was using only the first 3 of the available settings, having overlooked two that were lurking behind a somewhat inconspicuous "More" tab.

When one deploys all 5, and optimizes settings (again, checked against RGB composition to ensure the changes are minimal in colour terms) one can essentially reproduce, correction, replace Zeke with a more flexible program, dare one say research TOOL.

I'll add some images here in a day or two, showing that the MS Office alone (no Zeke!) is perfectly adequate to back up what I believe to be a major finding.

Title of my next posting (own site)?

Maybe: "Turin Shroud body image is a partially-eroded encrustation of unknown imprinting medium, probably flour-derived Maillard browning products".

Thank you for the feedback (well, some of it). What I should maybe have said at the start of posting here was that the project began 5 years ago as a scientific (i.e. trial and error) learning curve, reported warts an' all online in real time (first time ever?)

So if the methodology looks a bit tentative at times, that is indeed the case: the essence of science, in my view, is always to view each new promising but non-validated tool with a degree of scepticism initially, indeed to break off from the main project and make the tool itself a project within a project, starting as I said earlier with a blank sheet of paper, and putting the tool through its paces with known reference systems.

Thank you for your patience and forbearance, while I - and your good selves- got my head round the uncertainties of that otherwise welcome Zeke clue to the real nature of the Shroud body image.
__________________
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 12th March 2017, 08:34 AM   #319
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
PS. Using the two new (previously overlooked) MS Office Picture Manager settings, I find that setting them at 0/100 emphasizes the encrusted surface image, while setting at 100/0 emphasizes the yellow underlay. (Fortunately, between cheeks and hair there are bilateral vertical white, non-imprinted strips that allow one to interpret the yellow as part of the body image, as distinct from aged linen background.)

As stated earlier, I believe the solid encrustation to be baked-on solid crust from a flour-imprinting agent, while the yellow underlay represents a pigmented liquid cocktail that leaked into the underlying fibres, probably at the high oven temperature - 180 to 200 degrees Celsius - required for Maillard browning of the flour imprint.
__________________
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 12th March 2017, 09:51 AM   #320
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,937
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
An RGB analysis...
Elaborate, please. Did you invent this test yourself? Are you aware of standard color controls in the photography industry? Do they use only RGB?

Quote:
...with the two acting in concert to demonstrate without a doubt the presence of ENCRUSTED material (body image as well as blood!).
Are you looking at the image when applying these algorithms? Or are you using the histogram(s) as a statistical model to guide your application? It's really a very simple question, and your growing reluctance to address it is probably inciting your readers here to infer an answer that is not favorable to your claim.

Quote:
Answer - I was using only the first 3 of the available settings, having overlooked two that were lurking behind a somewhat inconspicuous "More" tab.
Can you describe the algorithms used by any of these "settings?" Can you describe in exactly what way they will tend to reveal information that would support a finding that the Shroud is "encrusted" and not produce a false positive?

Quote:
...again, checked against RGB composition to ensure the changes are minimal in colour terms
What other color models did you use in your attempt to validate your findings? Are there color models besides RGB that would be more appropriate to your study?

Quote:
Thank you for the feedback (well, some of it).
The criticism of your method is valid for the reasons given. You seem reluctant to address the reasons. You just seem to be chafing at the fact that you're being criticized, even going so far as to insinuate that questioning your methods amounts to a personal attack or invasion of privacy. While it is sometimes disappointing to face criticism for work in which you've invested a lot of time, it is necessary to the process. The strength of your findings lies not in how much time you spent arriving at them, but how they weather the worst of valid criticism.

Quote:
as a scientific (i.e. trial and error) learning curve...
You spend a lot of time trying to tell people what science is. Specifically you seem to spend a lot of time describing your approach and then just slapping the label "scientific" on it. That puts the cart before the horse. If you are going to style your results as scientifically sound, then you bear the burden to prove you have conformed to the appropriate methods and understanding. If you don't know what those are, well then you have more homework to do.

Your ongoing desire to lecture to the readership about how to practice science once again makes it ambiguous whether you're claiming expertise. It's incongruous to approach your topic from the "trial and error" point of view and (as you do below) beg forgiveness for incidental errors or omissions in method, and at the same time rebut criticism by trying to instruct the critics on what is appropriate practice in science and insist that you are following it. While expertise exists along a continuum, it would be wise for you to state unequivocally where along that continuum you want your presentation to fall.

Quote:
...reported warts an' all online in real time (first time ever?)
Responsible scientists don't drawn conclusions or publish findings until they are confident the results are sound enough to be trusted by a lay public. That's not to say partial results aren't shared among peers for comment and review. However, if that's what you're doing here and if you're thus going to admit your findings have "warts," then you can't have an emotional response every time someone notices a wart. That makes it seem like you're less interested in determining how the image on the Shroud was produce than in being praised as a clever and skilled scientist.

And you don't get to assume all warts are small. You don't get to assume your approach is fundamentally sound and could err only in a detail here or there. You have to consider the possibility that your image analysis techniques have no power to discover what you want to find out.

Quote:
So if the methodology looks a bit tentative at times, that is indeed the case...
Then why do you seem defensive about questions directed at your methodology? Validation of method is essentially what the process of peer review in science hopes to accomplish, and it's a strong pillar of scientific practice. You don't get to be coy about your methods and simultaneously bristle when your approach is then characterized as amateur.

Quote:
the essence of science, in my view, is always to view each new promising but non-validated tool with a degree of scepticism initially, indeed to break off from the main project and make the tool itself a project within a project, starting as I said earlier with a blank sheet of paper, and putting the tool through its paces with known reference systems.
Yes, you have the responsibility to validate your methods before you use them and before you draw conclusions. The easiest and best way to do that is to understand the tools that already exist and the sciences that created them. Making up tools and techniques as you go, without due regard to the state of the art, is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If it's important to you to avoid being lumped in with the pseudoscientists, then you need to be more forthright and less defensive about the review you're receiving here.
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
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 02:52 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.