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 12th March 2017, 11:47 AM   #321
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Elaborate, please. Did you invent this test yourself? Are you aware of standard color controls in the photography industry? Do they use only RGB?



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.



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?



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?



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Oh dear. That's me put in my place by a onslaught of erudition.

But is that really the appropriate response to a progress report on ongoing scientific enquiry (and yes, I am a working scientist, though retired some years ago, who has been refereed and has refereed others in the rarified peer-reviewed realms of science).

I think not. A peer-reviewed paper in science usually relates the experiments performed to test a hypothesis without telling you how that hypothesis was arrived at, and 9 times out of 10, the thinking behind that hypothesis would not stand up to the kind of onslaught we see here.

Some of the points that JayUtah raises are interesting ones which I might take up at a later date. For now, here's a composite image, hot from the presses, correction, a semi-knackered, semi-retired laptop, that I believe will, or could become a game changer in sindonology. (It's purely an accident that it came to be announce don this site first, while I took an extended holiday from my own, largely thanks to the iniquitous operation of Google rankings on entry-level searches that are weighted in favour of commercial tat).


Because it's a composite, the individual images (from MS Office Picture Manager) are not shown to their best advantage.



Individual images available on request!

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

These findings generate a simple hypothesis, namely that it should be possible to detach the encrusted material from the linen with a sharp blade leaving the underlying stain. However, Rogers' sticky tape sampling is not the appropriate strategy for testing this hypothesis, and may indeed have led to some misleading claims. A hand lens and scalpel is needed, maybe with a vacuum tube fitted with sintered disk to act as mini-vacuum-cleaner, trapping and retaining solid particles for microscopy and microchemical testing.

Again, sorry for ducking the detailed point-by-point inquisition, but it's been a long day, ringing the changes on image-editing to optimize brightness and contrast - vital when dealing with that anaemic washed-out Shroud Scope starter image.

These highly erudite and detailed counsels of perfection are fine for internet public-forums, but rarely pay dividends elsewhere...Scientists have to deal with the world as they find it.
__________________
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, 12:58 PM   #322
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Oh dear. That's me put in my place by a onslaught of erudition.
No, it's just someone trying to gain insight into your methods by asking appropriate questions. You insist on personalizing the argument, which I find puzzling.

Quote:
...and yes, I am a working scientist, though retired some years ago...
So are you posturing yourself as an expert on image analysis or not? I can't seem to get a straight answer out of you. You tell me that we need to be charitable in evaluating your findings because you're still working through your process. But then you tell us you're an old hand at this. I think not. You're taking a critical review of your methods far too personally. If you are out of your element, now would be a good time to confess this so that your readers can place your presentation in the proper context.

Quote:
....the thinking behind that hypothesis would not stand up to the kind of onslaught we see here.
And if that had anything to do with your presentation you'd have a point. Your attempts at image analysis constitute an experiment to test a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that the image on the Shroud is an encrustation. You believe that evidence of that encrustation and staining (browning) would be revealed in photographs of the Shroud if you apply image processing algorithms to it -- and in fact you believe you've found that evidence, which you say justifies a different physical examination of the cloth. It doesn't matter how you arrived at the hypothesis of encrustation. What matters is whether the empirical test you've designed to test for the optical evidence of encrustation actually works. I'm asking questions designed to explore your experiment design. And the best we can get from you is a promise that you might consider answering them later.

Quote:
Some of the points that JayUtah raises are interesting ones which I might take up at a later date.
Why not now? I've asked you a number of questions that have simple answers -- some even yes/no answers. You don't have to do any additional study to answer them because they relate to work you've already done and reported. After a couple of days of asking, fatigue is no longer a valid excuse for not supplying simple answers asking what you did or didn't do. Just today I've asked you to elaborate on some of your methods, and I imagine an answer to my satisfaction would take several paragraphs to compose. Naturally you're not on the hook immediately to answer those. But you leave people wondering at your potential biases when you omit simple answers to simple questions and bluster ahead with presenting more of your findings. It makes your readers think you're trying to railroad your conclusions past a legitimate critical review.

Quote:
Again, sorry for ducking the detailed point-by-point inquisition...
It's not an inquisition, and trying to shame your critics away from asking questions by characterizing the questioning in emotional terms is neither professional nor helpful to your credibility. With every post you seem to deploy emotional objections to having your work reviewed. This is really puzzling.

Quote:
These highly erudite and detailed counsels of perfection are fine for internet public-forums, but rarely pay dividends elsewhere...Scientists have to deal with the world as they find it.
You're conflating two issues.

Nobody is asking you to be perfect. They're asking you to be competent. You have the burden to prove you are competent in the disciplines you have chosen to apply to your data. Your presentation raises legitimate concerns regarding your proficiency in the sciences you have chosen to test the available evidence. But rather than your critics simply assuming you did it wrong, you're being asked questions designed to probe likely flaws in your method. You are not being persecuted. You are not being asked for anything unreasonable. But you are assiduously defensive about the line of questioning, which itself continues to raise concerns.

Separately, yes we understand that we are dealing with imperfect evidence in the form of photographs obtained as convenience samples. That is precisely why a competent approach to analyzing that imperfect evidence is required. Photography by any means is a lossy method of recording the visual appearance of something. That is precisely why there is a very large body of knowledge in the analysis and processing of images, not the least department of which is the understanding of whether the information we seek in a recorded image can be determined to be present in any form. This is not a straightforward or intuitive determination. The nature of the evidence makes it all the more important to look at it with confident understanding and proper tools, not with homemade methods.
JayUtah 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 12th March 2017, 01:12 PM   #323
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, it's just someone trying to gain insight into your methods by asking appropriate questions. You insist on personalizing the argument, which I find puzzling.



So are you posturing yourself as an expert on image analysis or not? I can't seem to get a straight answer out of you. You tell me that we need to be charitable in evaluating your findings because you're still working through your process. But then you tell us you're an old hand at this. I think not. You're taking a critical review of your methods far too personally. If you are out of your element, now would be a good time to confess this so that your readers can place your presentation in the proper context.



And if that had anything to do with your presentation you'd have a point. Your attempts at image analysis constitute an experiment to test a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that the image on the Shroud is an encrustation. You believe that evidence of that encrustation and staining (browning) would be revealed in photographs of the Shroud if you apply image processing algorithms to it -- and in fact you believe you've found that evidence, which you say justifies a different physical examination of the cloth. It doesn't matter how you arrived at the hypothesis of encrustation. What matters is whether the empirical test you've designed to test for the optical evidence of encrustation actually works. I'm asking questions designed to explore your experiment design. And the best we can get from you is a promise that you might consider answering them later.



Why not now? I've asked you a number of questions that have simple answers -- some even yes/no answers. You don't have to do any additional study to answer them because they relate to work you've already done and reported. After a couple of days of asking, fatigue is no longer a valid excuse for not supplying simple answers asking what you did or didn't do. Just today I've asked you to elaborate on some of your methods, and I imagine an answer to my satisfaction would take several paragraphs to compose. Naturally you're not on the hook immediately to answer those. But you leave people wondering at your potential biases when you omit simple answers to simple questions and bluster ahead with presenting more of your findings. It makes your readers think you're trying to railroad your conclusions past a legitimate critical review.



It's not an inquisition, and trying to shame your critics away from asking questions by characterizing the questioning in emotional terms is neither professional nor helpful to your credibility. With every post you seem to deploy emotional objections to having your work reviewed. This is really puzzling.



You're conflating two issues.

Nobody is asking you to be perfect. They're asking you to be competent. You have the burden to prove you are competent in the disciplines you have chosen to apply to your data. Your presentation raises legitimate concerns regarding your proficiency in the sciences you have chosen to test the available evidence. But rather than your critics simply assuming you did it wrong, you're being asked questions designed to probe likely flaws in your method. You are not being persecuted. You are not being asked for anything unreasonable. But you are assiduously defensive about the line of questioning, which itself continues to raise concerns.

Separately, yes we understand that we are dealing with imperfect evidence in the form of photographs obtained as convenience samples. That is precisely why a competent approach to analyzing that imperfect evidence is required. Photography by any means is a lossy method of recording the visual appearance of something. That is precisely why there is a very large body of knowledge in the analysis and processing of images, not the least department of which is the understanding of whether the information we seek in a recorded image can be determined to be present in any form. This is not a straightforward or intuitive determination. The nature of the evidence makes it all the more important to look at it with confident understanding and proper tools, not with homemade methods.
Think of the working scientist as you would your local medical practitioner - who is not expected to be an expert in every disease under the sun, merely capable of narrowing the field down to this or that diagnosis, knowing when to refer to a specialist.

Do your subject your first-port-of-call medical practitioner to the kind of third degree you are subjecting me?

Science is not a guessing game. It involves constant application of experience, insight and judgement - attributes to which you seem to have a blind spot.


Colin Berry MSc, PhD
__________________
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, 01:45 PM   #324
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,082
Porpoise of Life 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 12th March 2017, 04:07 PM   #325
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Think of the working scientist as you would your local medical practitioner...
Yet here you are practicing a science you don't seem to know much about, expecting variously to be treated with charity for your errors or accepted as an expert regardless. Have you consulted qualified image analysis specialists? No, I daresay you have not. If we were to compare your work here to a medical practitioner, instead of referring your case to a specialist you've simply made up a new "treatment" on the fly and are trying it out on the patient without any foreknowledge of what that treatment is expected to manifest. Where I live, that would result in a rather expensive malpractice lawsuit.

If you had realized you were in over your head, followed your own advice, and had had your analysis performed by competent practitioners you might have had a chance at credibility. But instead you're just making it up as you go -- which is bad enough -- but then trying to deflect legitimate and well-founded criticism of your homegrown "medicine" by bluster and a comically thin skin.

Quote:
Do your subject your first-port-of-call medical practitioner to the kind of third degree you are subjecting me?
You are not being questioned inappropriately, but at this point you are almost falling over yourself to suggest that you are. Most unprofessional, in my opinion. In the time it has taken you to be so dramatically offended at the mere act of being questioned, you could have answered any number of actual questions regarding your methods, and possibly allayed ongoing criticism. It's not a foregone conclusion that your answers would reveal a flaw. But we have to ask them as diligent reviewers of your work. Why would a conscientious scientist as unsure as you've said you are in some of your techniques not answer the questions designed to determine whether he might be falling into avoidable error? Boggles the mind.

Quote:
Science is not a guessing game.
I agree. Yet you insist on guessing rather than consulting previously acquired knowledge or even submitting your guesses to scrutiny. Not only are you guessing and calling it science, you're guessing and begging to get away with it. Being wrong is not a sin, even in science. Possibly being wrong yet unwilling to participate in a dialogue about it, is.

Quote:
It involves constant application of experience, insight and judgement - attributes to which you seem to have a blind spot.
But you're just making it up as you go, at least as far as your image analysis goes. That's none of the things you mentioned. There is a body of science that you don't seem to be aware of but which bears greatly on the work you're trying to do. You seem to lack experience in it, and therefore the judgment and insight that would depend on experience.

As to your primary hypothesis that the image on the Shroud is an encrustation, by all means I think you should develop it and, hopefully, arrange to have the cloth examined in a way that would either prove or dispel your hypothesis. But in arguing for such a test, I would not include your image analysis findings in the proposal because what I've seen of it is unconvincing. It would not pass muster in the field. Argue using other evidence, or else consult actual image analysis specialists instead of fumbling about on your own.

Quote:
Colin Berry MSc, PhD
Nice to meet you; don't care who you are. Are any of those qualifications in digital image processing? A simple yes or no will do, without all the manufactured martyrdom.
JayUtah 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 12th March 2017, 05:43 PM   #326
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,356
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Think of the working scientist as you would your local medical practitioner - who is not expected to be an expert in every disease under the sun, merely capable of narrowing the field down to this or that diagnosis, knowing when to refer to a specialist.

[...]

Colin Berry MSc, PhD
IMO, that argument is not going to help your case. Neither will your appeals to digital graphic interpretation unless you can cite some peer-reviewed science and/or training.

Your interpretations of the products of Maillard reactions are interesting because said reactions are a well-studied (if not a well-understood) phenomenon.

Your claimed relevance of Microsoft Office's image handling to the interpretation of the Shroud of Turin image are not.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 12th March 2017 at 05:45 PM.
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 12th March 2017, 06:27 PM   #327
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Neither will your appeals to digital graphic interpretation unless you can cite some peer-reviewed science and/or training.
Or simply answer the questions. I've seen plenty of people demonstrate competence in fields they didn't study academically or practice professionally. I probably mentioned in another thread that the head of mechanical engineering in one company I belonged to did not have an ME degree. But in his spare time he designed and built race car engines from scratch and routinely won races with them. That's a measure of competence. If someone has not previously demonstrated competence in a field, we need to question the foundation of any expertise proffered upon that field. The reluctance to supply answers where relevant essentially disqualifies any findings based on the proponent's judgment.

Quote:
Your interpretations of the products of Maillard reactions are interesting because said reactions are a well-studied (if not a well-understood) phenomenon.
I'm an American male, and as such have an inappropriately acute interest in transforming parts of dead cows into tasty meals. Much of that involves mastering the Maillard reaction at the practical level if not the theoretical. As regards the Shroud, I certainly think the browning effect proposed here deserves as much attention as any other theory for how the image was produced. I certainly wouldn't want my criticism to suggest that the primary hypothesis was unworthy of further study.

Quote:
Your claimed relevance of Microsoft Office's image handling to the interpretation of the Shroud of Turin image are not.
I'm not aware of a single professional or academic image analyst who uses Microsoft Office as an analytical tool. I certainly don't use it for that purpose. Ultimately it doesn't matter who makes the tool as much as it matters that the user of the tool understands at a fairly intimate level how the tool affects the data and is able to apply appropriate controls.
JayUtah 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 12th March 2017, 11:29 PM   #328
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
This Shroud investigator DOES apply controls to his image editing, but leaving aside RGB monitoring with specialist software, they can for the most part be described as REAL WORLD CONTROLS. (Examples: checking out each new brightness/contrast setting on a range of real world photographs, comparing the effect each new setting has on Shroud blood as well as body image, making careful note of the interaction between images and herringbone weave pattern, and also on the scarcely-reported obverse side of the linen that has prominent blood but scarcely visible body image etc etc.

This approach, pursued over 5 years, has finally resulted in a new idea, one I shall now proceed to report on my own site, taking leave temporarily, maybe permanently, of this one with, I have to say, few if any regrets.

Reminder: science is primarily about ideas, correction, new and unconventional ideas. Evaluating new ideas should initially involve an evaluation of the message, vis-a-vis conventional thinking. Focusing on the messenger - working oneself up into a lather as to whether or not the messenger has the appropriate specialist skills to be proposing a new idea - is rarely a productive - or even destructive -line of enquiry in my experience. Life goes on as they say...

I'll say it again: focus on the message, not the messenger. I say the Shroud body image has much in common with that of the blood - both having the APPEARANCE of highly-degraded encrustations (while accepting that appearances can be deceptive, at least to non-wary investigators).

It's an easy-enough hypothesis to test, and minimally-destructive too.
__________________
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, 11:40 PM   #329
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,518
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
This Shroud investigator DOES apply controls to his image editing, but leaving aside RGB monitoring with specialist software, they can for the most part be described as REAL WORLD CONTROLS. (Examples: checking out each new brightness/contrast setting on a range of real world photographs, comparing the effect each new setting has on Shroud blood as well as body image, making careful note of the interaction between images and herringbone weave pattern, and also on the scarcely-reported obverse side of the linen that has prominent blood but scarcely visible body image etc etc.

This approach, pursued over 5 years, has finally resulted in a new idea, one I shall now proceed to report on my own site, taking leave temporarily, maybe permanently, of this one with, I have to say, few if any regrets.

Reminder: science is primarily about ideas, correction, new and unconventional ideas. Evaluating new ideas should initially involve an evaluation of the message, vis-a-vis conventional thinking. Focusing on the messenger - working oneself up into a lather as to whether or not the messenger has the appropriate specialist skills to be proposing a new idea - is rarely a productive - or even destructive -line of enquiry in my experience. Life goes on as they say...

I'll say it again: focus on the message, not the messenger. I say the Shroud body image has much in common with that of the blood - both having the APPEARANCE of highly-degraded encrustations (while accepting that appearances can be deceptive, at least to non-wary investigators).

It's an easy-enough hypothesis to test, and minimally-destructive too.


I am surprised you never tried to do any control studies before announcing you have found your holy grail.

Take a picture of an image you created with your technique (encrustations), and another picture of an image created by staining an identical piece of fabric (not encrustations).

Subject both pictures to the exact same settings in whatever suits your fancy, and see if they look similar.

I would predict that the artifacts generated by the extreme editing you are doing would be equally present in both pictures, and in fact, if you weren't told which method was used where, you would not be able to tell the difference.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention, I am not a scientist, but control studies before publishing seems like kind of an obvious thing, no?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

Last edited by Hokulele; 12th March 2017 at 11:42 PM.
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 13th March 2017, 02:35 AM   #330
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
I am surprised you never tried to do any control studies before announcing you have found your holy grail.

Take a picture of an image you created with your technique (encrustations), and another picture of an image created by staining an identical piece of fabric (not encrustations).

Subject both pictures to the exact same settings in whatever suits your fancy, and see if they look similar.

I would predict that the artifacts generated by the extreme editing you are doing would be equally present in both pictures, and in fact, if you weren't told which method was used where, you would not be able to tell the difference.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention, I am not a scientist, but control studies before publishing seems like kind of an obvious thing, no?


Well, the ratio of chaff to wheat in your comment might consume a lot of time, which frankly I don't have right now. So leaving aside the suggestion that I've failed to do controls, despite describing them already, what you are seeking it seems are some images in which contrast/brightness adjustments are made to model images with/without encrustations.

In fact, I did that type of control years ago when comparing the responses of model v Shroud image to 3D-rendering software. If the input model image was faint, I would apply additional contrast/brightness to make it bolder. But that was purely for display purposes: I do not routinely apply questionable photoediting to model imprints: if a bolder image is needed I use a longer bake period in the oven, or use more flour and/or oil.

As for use of photo-enhancement generally, that was a strategy forced on me by the nature of Shroud Scope images, which as stated earlier have without a doubt had contrast removed, requiring an initial "adding back" in order to be of any use for research purposes.

Having said that, I did some imprinting last autumn/fall off a 29cm 3D plastic toy, the Incredible Hulk or a close cousin:





If one looks carefully, one can see there's some flecks of unabraded imprint that survived the final wash (see one of subject's arms, biceps area).

I still have the imprint from that experiment, and will later in the day check to see how well or otherwise it responds to the Zeke tool for starters, and report results here. But why do you describe it as "extreme editing" when I've already shown the minimal effect on non-Shroud photographs, and alluded to its minor effect on RGB composition.? Let's see how well it accentuates particulate matter v background on that washed model imprint, with its few surviving flecks, with or without producing artefacts elsewhere...

Nope, the Hulk is not the ideal control, since the initial heavy encrustation was washed off with soap and water, leaving just those few flecks, rather than abrading away naturally in the dry state, or being lightly abraded manually, as I now suspect to be the case for the Shroud. But at least it will show that I'm not evading your question, which was a reasonable one to ask, grain among chaff, bar the uncertainties of comparing the ancient Shroud with a modern day model.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 13th March 2017 at 02:40 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 13th March 2017, 03:02 AM   #331
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,661
Any idea why the Hulk is always angry?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 13th March 2017, 03:45 AM   #332
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232


Before v after that oh-so-extreme Zeke filter.



Here's a post-Zeke close up of the weave showing (a) particulate crud from the roasted flour/oil imprinting medium and (b) faint background stain - the subtle Shroud-like image that one sees (just) with the naked eye, before (c) taking photographs, and before (d) adding modest, non-extreme amounts of brightness and contrast using ordinary everyday oh-so-frightfully downmarket, palpably unscientific photoediting software (MS Office Picture Manager and now, the final nausea-inducing abomination, MS Windows 10 Zeke filter).
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 13th March 2017 at 03:48 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 13th March 2017, 04:08 AM   #333
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...zeke.png?w=640

Before v after that oh-so-extreme Zeke filter.
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...zeke.png?w=640


Here's a post-Zeke close up of the weave showing (a) particulate crud from the roasted flour/oil imprinting medium and
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
(b) faint background stain - the subtle Shroud-like image that one sees (just) with the naked eye,
You know that this is how the shroud appeared in 1280 exactly how? You know what your image will appear like in 800 years exactly how?

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
before (c) taking photographs,
Equipment used and settings used please, algorithms and formats used please, also ambient lighting and environmental conditions please. You did document those in detail, right? Being a rigorous scientist and all?

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
and before (d) adding modest, non-extreme amounts of brightness and contrast using ordinary everyday oh-so-frightfully downmarket, palpably unscientific photoediting software (MS Office Picture Manager
Exactly how much of either an what algorithms were deployed. Please document any other transformations used and their effects.

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
and now, the final nausea-inducing abomination, MS Windows 10 Zeke filter).
Again, algorithm used and settings used plus any additional transformations employed.

Your output files are in PNG format which implies two or more transformations which you have neglected to mention at all. What are those steps that you have somehow omitted?

ETA: Your 'after' image is clearly not derived from your 'before' so clearly some other processing steps have occurred. What are they?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 13th March 2017 at 04:17 AM.
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 13th March 2017, 04:44 AM   #334
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You know that this is how the shroud appeared in 1280 exactly how? You know what your image will appear like in 800 years exactly how?

Equipment used and settings used please, algorithms and formats used please, also ambient lighting and environmental conditions please. You did document those in detail, right? Being a rigorous scientist and all?

Exactly how much of either an what algorithms were deployed. Please document any other transformations used and their effects.

Again, algorithm used and settings used plus any additional transformations employed.

Your output files are in PNG format which implies two or more transformations which you have neglected to mention at all. What are those steps that you have somehow omitted?

ETA: Your 'after' image is clearly not derived from your 'before' so clearly some other processing steps have occurred. What are they?
If algorithms are what turn you on - which I doubt somehow - then here's a tip. Get some linen, flour etc, a hot oven and a bit of photoediting software and experiment with settings and algorithms. I'm content - for now at any rate - showing my before v after results with brief account of experimental conditions to be found on my own site. Real time reporting of research-in-progress is my particular niche.

As for the slightly sinister suggestion that I have "omitted steps" between "before" and "after", you are the one who is fantasizing. If I had inserted extra steps, I would have said so.

Anyway, it's time now to break off and attend to that new iconoclastic posting. I'll maybe respond to any more questions batch-wise later, assuming the thread is still going. There's the e-mail-contact facility of course should anyone be needing an urgent reply.

Au revoir.
__________________
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 13th March 2017, 04:48 AM   #335
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
If algorithms are what turn you on - which I doubt somehow - then here's a tip. Get some linen, flour etc, a hot oven and a bit of photoediting software and experiment with settings and algorithms. I'm content - for now at any rate - showing my before v after results with brief account of experimental conditions to be found on my own site. Real time reporting of research-in-progress is my particular niche.

As for the slightly sinister suggestion that I have "omitted steps" between "before" and "after", you are the one who is fantasizing. If I had inserted extra steps, I would have said so.

Anyway, it's time now to break off and attend to that new iconoclastic posting. I'll maybe respond to any more questions batch-wise later, assuming the thread is still going. There's the e-mail-contact facility of course should anyone be needing an urgent reply.

Au revoir.
Really? What imaging device did you use? What were the settings used? What was the image format from that device?

Can you supply your original image in RAW format so that I can replicate your steps?
__________________
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 13th March 2017, 04:51 AM   #336
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
As for the slightly sinister suggestion that I have "omitted steps" between "before" and "after", you are the one who is fantasizing. If I had inserted extra steps, I would have said so.
Please elaborate on the initial steps you left out as requested above. Why did you omit them?
__________________
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 13th March 2017, 07:17 AM   #337
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
This Shroud investigator DOES apply controls to his image editing...
But we don't know that. You refuse to answer questions about your method, so your readers have no obligation to assume you're applying controls or that the controls you're applying have the desired effect. The refusal, in fact, engenders some appropriate skepticism.

Quote:
...they can for the most part be described as REAL WORLD CONTROLS.
From the paltry information I've been able to glean around the edges of your posts here, they seem more like made-up-as-you-go controls. But we have no way to determine which appellation is most accurate -- yours or mine -- since you refuse to discuss them. That reluctance is especially puzzling given that you admitted you might be making errors in method and asked for forbearance for that. If your image analysis is a work in progress, then progress can only be made by discussing and, if necessary, correcting the method.

Quote:
...checking out each new brightness/contrast setting on a range of real world photographs, comparing the effect each new setting has on Shroud blood as well as body image, making careful note of the interaction between images and herringbone weave pattern, and also on the scarcely-reported obverse side of the linen that has prominent blood but scarcely visible body image etc etc.
At least I seem to have an answer to my firrst question, which is whether you're manipulating the parameters of the algorithms while looking at the image, or whether you are using the histogram as a statistical model to guide your application. It appears you're looking at the image and making subjective decisions. Is it your "experienced" judgment that this is the correct method for obtaining the information you seek?

Quote:
This approach, pursued over 5 years...
It's unclear what parts of your theory have taken five years to develop. But if you've been working on your image processing techniques for five years, and they're truly as well developed and controlled as you insinuate, then I expect we'll find references to them in the appropriate journals. Can you provide any citations? It might be the first time in the history of the science that Microsoft Office appears as an analytical tool, but I'm not one to stop groundbreaking contributions.

Quote:
...has finally resulted in a new idea, one I shall now proceed to report on my own site, taking leave temporarily, maybe permanently, of this one with, I have to say, few if any regrets.
Why? Because someone dared ask you a question?

The novelty of an idea isn't the sine qua non. We want to find out if the idea is correct. You say analysis of the images of the Shroud supports the hypothesis that the image was created using browned flour. Sure, I'll grant that it's a new idea for how the image got there -- at least one I've never heard before. But whether your analysis of the image provides the support you claim turns your ability to demonstrate competence in the analysis. You're working in a field rife with false positives that must be controlled for using specialized techniques. You bear the burden to demonstrate proper use of those techniques as part of the demonstration of competence.

Quote:
Reminder: science is primarily about ideas, correction, new and unconventional ideas. Evaluating new ideas should initially involve an evaluation of the message, vis-a-vis conventional thinking. Focusing on the messenger - working oneself up into a lather as to whether or not the messenger has the appropriate specialist skills to be proposing a new idea - is rarely a productive - or even destructive -line of enquiry in my experience. Life goes on as they say..
Are you sure one of the degrees you listed was not in the dramatic arts? The theatrics you exhibit to avoid answering a few simple questions might not be West End material, but it certainly transcends what I'd expect from a discussion of scientific methodology.

As for science being about correction, I would have to agree there too. Correction requires a careful inspection of the methods used and an evaluation of their efficacy. Without this no correction is possible. Thus the tendency of science to correct itself among the vicissitudes of individual practitioners demands transparency of method and, frankly, a complete detachment of emotion. If you're not prepared to toss five years' worth of work in the bin because a big part of it turns out to be wrong, it's not science.

The part of the message that involves how the digital image data were made to support the hypothesis is the focus of my questioning. Or at least was, until the theatrics of the practitioner took center stage. Analytical processes must done competently in order to achieve reliable results. Questions designed to determine the competence of the analysis are not "attacking the messenger." They are squarely aimed at determining the degree to which we can trust proffered results. But here, for some strange reason, the most straightforward questions are waved off with such emotional language as "working oneself into a lather." The real message is clear: "If you question me, I will ridicule you." Beats me how that's supposed to result in sound science.
JayUtah 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 13th March 2017, 08:08 AM   #338
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Each time I try to extricate myself from this site (the second time in 3 years or so!) I get longer and longer, ever more technically-detailed and/or eloquent responses, the last at the time of writing from the site's Supreme Presence no less.

Final word: having spent the day, checking and rechecking my optimized brightness/contrast settings for Shroud Scope images, I've settled on just 5 images (1 control, 4 adjusted) that I now need to show on my own site in order to to justify the following title:

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


Adieu!
__________________
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 13th March 2017, 08:19 AM   #339
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,661
TTFN
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 13th March 2017, 08:44 AM   #340
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Each time I try to extricate myself from this site (the second time in 3 years or so!) I get longer and longer, ever more technically-detailed and/or eloquent responses, the last at the time of writing from the site's Supreme Presence no less.
Yet you refuse to respond. Why you feel the need to descend to covert insult is beyond me.

I asked you to provide your initial image in RAW format, identify the equipment used and the settings used. What prevents you doing so?

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Final word: having spent the day, checking and rechecking my optimized brightness/contrast settings for Shroud Scope images, I've settled on just 5 images (1 control, 4 adjusted) that I now need to show on my own site in order to to justify the following title:

"Four digitally-enhanced Shroud Scope images say the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake - based probably on unique, one-off, flour-imprinting technology."
Your flour proposal is irrelevant to the questions still hanging over the validity of your image processing. You refuse to identify the equipment used, nor the format captured, nor any conversions used to import said image into MS, nor any resolution changes employed, nor how much brightness contrast was used, nor the output format, nor the Zeke settings used and so on and so forth.

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

Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Adieu!
Sure.
__________________
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 13th March 2017, 09:11 AM   #341
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
...the last at the time of writing from the site's Supreme Presence no less.
Mockery is unbecoming someone who aspires to be taken seriously. You've presented your findings here and you have asked forbearance for portions of your digital image analysis that may seem incomplete or incorrect. That's certainly appropriate for work that's characterized as in-progress. I've asked you questions designed to understand how incomplete and/or incorrect it may be. You've told us you believe science to include a process of correction -- also appropriate when the work is still in progress. It is that process I'm attempting to invoke by first determining the degree of error that may have arisen. Instead of a productive discussion of the nature of the employed methods, the forum is being subjected to what at this point amounts to a tantrum of inappropriate indignation. Instead of helpful information about how the analysis in question was undertaken, the forum is being subjected to pontificatory assurances of correctness that, in fine, seem to undermine the previous requests for leniency and, at large, undermine what you've told us is the trial-and-error nature of science. You've made a trial, but you seem immune to the possibility of error in that trial.

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

Quote:
justify the following title:
"Four digitally-enhanced Shroud Scope images say the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake - based probably on unique, one-off, flour-imprinting technology."
Will you be entertaining feedback? As I noted earlier in the thread, I have read a few papers postured as legitimate science in pursuit of an explanation for the Shroud of Turin. And those papers invariably include some attempt to seek confirmation in the photographic evidence, and to develop that confirmation using digital image processing techniques. And my recollection of those methods is that they were distinctly naive and did not, in general, support the conclusions being drawn upon them. Whether my sample of the relevant literature is representative or not may bear on how rational is my skepticism, but it is enough to want to look very carefully at image analysis techniques in this specific genre of scientific inquiry. I am hoping those who endeavor to elevate the study of the Shroud to a level of science that merits serious attention will invite such scrutiny.
JayUtah 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 13th March 2017, 09:25 AM   #342
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
As a scientist, surely you documented all of this in meticulous detail, right?
When such methods are employed for forensic purposes, the toolchain includes a means of automatically recording such important details for inspection by any who challenge the findings. The analyst is also on the hook to demonstrate that the analysis was performed according to methods generally accepted in the field and satisfactorily shown to achieve the results claimed. Now that standard of proof is clearly beyond what is being sought here, but it shows the direction in which one must travel in order to achieve credibility for this sort of analysis. It's not to say that no new analytical methods can ever be devised. But the device includes many steps and isn't well defended by indignation and pontification.
JayUtah 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 13th March 2017, 10:47 AM   #343
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
When such methods are employed for forensic purposes, the toolchain includes a means of automatically recording such important details for inspection by any who challenge the findings. The analyst is also on the hook to demonstrate that the analysis was performed according to methods generally accepted in the field and satisfactorily shown to achieve the results claimed. Now that standard of proof is clearly beyond what is being sought here, but it shows the direction in which one must travel in order to achieve credibility for this sort of analysis. It's not to say that no new analytical methods can ever be devised. But the device includes many steps and isn't well defended by indignation and pontification.
Nor does it even vaguely intersect with MS office picture manager or Zeke.
__________________
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 13th March 2017, 11:11 AM   #344
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,302
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Individual images available on request!

The first is an adjustment of brightness/contrast to a Shroud Scope 'as is' image which shows the crust-like nature of the body image. The second, with switching between min/max values on just two subsidiary settings, shows the yellow stain-like background underneath the encrustation. The third, with optimal intermediate settings between those two extremes (easily overlooked on the software!) shows (I think) both the encrustation and the yellow background optimally, or nearly so, in the one image.
What they mostly show is your imagination, like a truther seeing 'pods' on the plane that hit 2WTC by blowing up a pixellated picture beyond recognition.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 13th March 2017, 11:14 AM   #345
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nor does it even vaguely intersect with MS office picture manager or Zeke.
Indeed. And the notion that an artistic filter for a consumer toy photo editing application would yield scientifically valid spectroscopy is preposterous on its face. But I've done all I can to save meccanoman from likely error. If he wants to sign his name to that and call it real science then I guess he'll be the one to bear the consequences.
JayUtah 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 13th March 2017, 11:17 AM   #346
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Individual images available on request!
For the third time, I request your original RAW format image.
__________________
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 14th April 2017, 11:13 AM   #347
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Having deliberated on that Windows 10 Zeke photoediting filter for a full month, I've decided that the 'bittiness' it reveals in the Shroud body image is probably real, not artefactual, and have started to wonder why this has not been spotted and/or reported on previously by the scientific photographers enlisted by mainstream pro-authenticity sindonology! (Barrie M. Schwortz of STURP and STERA can probably be exonerated, given he was STURP's "Documenting" photographer, snapping STURP's team as it went about its gruelling work in that celebrated 1 week session in Turin back in '78, having declined the invitation to act as a scientific photographer).

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

Apols for the new description coined for STURP, previously the Shroud of Turin Research Project, now rechristened as "Space-age Technology Unleashing Religious Propaganda".
__________________
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 14th April 2017, 01:57 PM   #348
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Having deliberated on that Windows 10 Zeke photoediting filter for a full month, I've decided that the 'bittiness' it reveals in the Shroud body image is probably real, not artefactual, and have started to wonder why this has not been spotted and/or reported on previously by the scientific photographers enlisted by mainstream pro-authenticity sindonology! (Barrie M. Schwortz of STURP and STERA can probably be exonerated, given he was STURP's "Documenting" photographer, snapping STURP's team as it went about its gruelling work in that celebrated 1 week session in Turin back in '78, having declined the invitation to act as a scientific photographer).

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

Apols for the new description coined for STURP, previously the Shroud of Turin Research Project, now rechristened as "Space-age Technology Unleashing Religious Propaganda".
Then you remain incorrect. Your bewilderment as to why nobody else has picked up on this is that everyone but you knows that your claims cannot be correct regardless of whether they might be pro- or anti- shroud authenticity.
__________________
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 14th April 2017, 09:25 PM   #349
dropzone
Graduate Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,998
I always liked that one--I think it's in Spain--that is basically a hankie stained with bloody snot. Not only is it a believable relic of one who was dead but it is also similar to something I made the other night while fully alive.

Back to your discussion of a Northern Gothic (and extremely modest, making Jesus like Stretch Armstrong) portrait being created in Turkey a thousand years earlier.
dropzone 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 15th April 2017, 11:57 AM   #350
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
A forum in which a copious contributor of comments pops us to say "everyone but you knows that your claims cannot be correct" without bothering to provide cogent reasons is no use whatsoever to man nor beast.

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by meccanoman; 15th April 2017 at 12:09 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 15th April 2017, 12:21 PM   #351
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
A forum in which a copious contributor of comments pops us to say "everyone but you knows that your claims cannot be correct" without bothering to provide cogent reasons is no use whatsoever to man nor beast.
The "tools" you are using are inappropriate, your "methodology" is non-existent and your knowledge of any form of image processing is demonstrably lacking.

We have been over this ad nauseum in this thread.
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 12:35 PM   #352
dropzone
Graduate Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,998
Despite medication that has removed much of the third dimension from my life, there is no bloody way that was a "photograph" of a 3D body wrapped--WRAPPED-- in cloth. Good enough to convince rubes in a circus sideshow, though. Who here will admit to being a rube, hillbilly, or chawbacon? I know my limitations, but they stop somewhere north of there.

I've been away a while, but I keep running headfirst into cases of "how bloody stupid do you have to be to believe that crap?" Which was always the fun of the JREF. I miss Randi. It had him watching over our shoulders, keeping us realistic, with the long shot of getting dopeslapped by him or his minions
dropzone 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 15th April 2017, 01:01 PM   #353
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Having deliberated on that Windows 10 Zeke photoediting filter for a full month, I've decided...
And if you could demonstrate any relevant qualification or expertise, that deliberation would mean something. Zeke is a cosmetic filter for a toy image editing application, whose inner workings you know zilch about. By all means try to convince practitioners in the image analysis field that you know what you're talking about and that your conclusions are sound, based on nothing more solid than your naked say-so. Should be entertaining.
JayUtah 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 15th April 2017, 01:22 PM   #354
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Tools and methodology in science can be approached from one of two directions. One is to break into the box, attempt to discover its inner workings, then figure out what it's doing in any given situation and assessing its relevance and practicality to the real world. Allow yourself plenty of time - a decade or two, maybe longer, and attach confidence limits to your predictions - from 90% downwards, probably downwards.

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

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

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

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

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

Don't knock "black boxes". They play an essential role in scientific research, even digital software black boxes. Input known reference systems. See what comes out. Build up an empirical knowledge base.
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 04:41 PM   #355
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Tools and methodology in science can be approached from one of two directions. One is to break into the box, attempt to discover its inner workings, then figure out what it's doing in any given situation and assessing its relevance and practicality to the real world. Allow yourself plenty of time - a decade or two, maybe longer, and attach confidence limits to your predictions - from 90% downwards, probably downwards.

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

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

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

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

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

Don't knock "black boxes". They play an essential role in scientific research, even digital software black boxes. Input known reference systems. See what comes out. Build up an empirical knowledge base.
What do you know about your "known reference systems" that you propose as "inputs"?
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 05:04 PM   #356
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,212
I love the smell of fringe reset in the morning.

meccanoman, did you really think all those unanswered questions would be forgotten if you laid low for a month? Some of those questions were asked by folks whose professional reputations depend on processing images without introducing artifacts. You might learn a few things if you're willing to reconsider your assumptions.
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 05:34 PM   #357
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,441
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
I love the smell of fringe reset in the morning.

meccanoman, did you really think all those unanswered questions would be forgotten if you laid low for a month? Some of those questions were asked by folks whose professional reputations depend on processing images without introducing artifacts. You might learn a few things if you're willing to reconsider your assumptions.
Indeed. The magic word is "provenance". Our proponent has nothing to say at all about the imaging equipment used, the various compressions used, nor anything at all about the origin of the jpeg/s used.

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

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

Hey, my decades of experience in that arena count for nothing faced with slider tomfoolery. Oddly, slider tomfoolery whose precise settings don't matter ever.
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 06:13 PM   #358
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Indeed. The magic word is "provenance". Our proponent has nothing to say at all about the imaging equipment used, the various compressions used, nor anything at all about the origin of the jpeg/s used.

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

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

Hey, my decades of experience in that arena count for nothing faced with slider tomfoolery. Oddly, slider tomfoolery whose precise settings don't matter ever.
Just think, Dread Angel, of all that time you wasted, actually learning your stuff!

Sad, innit?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 15th April 2017, 06:44 PM   #359
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
Tools and methodology in science can be approached from one of two directions. One is to break into the box, attempt to discover its inner workings, then figure out what it's doing in any given situation and assessing its relevance and practicality to the real world. Allow yourself plenty of time - a decade or two, maybe longer, and attach confidence limits to your predictions - from 90% downwards, probably downwards.

Strawman

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

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

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

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


Quote:
https://www.quora.com/How-does-alumi...ric-acid-react

How does aluminium and nitric acid react?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Why don't you take us through an example of how you did this with Zeke; with a little more depth than just showing us some before and after test pattern images?
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba

Last edited by ferd burfle; 15th April 2017 at 06:47 PM. Reason: Clarify quote
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 15th April 2017, 10:04 PM   #360
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Tools and methodology in science can be approached from one of two directions. One is to break into the box...
Serious image analysis tools are not, and never were, black boxes. Nice try, but you're just grasping at excuses for not having done the proper homework or attempted to understand the tools and techniques.

Quote:
The science of chemistry is well acquainted with the latter 'empirical' approach.
And if you were doing chemistry, that would mean something. But image analysis is not like chemistry. It's a synthetic science, not an analytical one.

Quote:
In short, it is a gross error to suppose that anyone utilizing a black box, with little or no knowledge as to its inner workings, is an ignoremus or charlatan.
Wishful thinking. You're dabbling in a science you know nothing about, frantically trying to come up with reasons why you shouldn't be regarded as a novice. By all means, try to get your "research" published in a serious image analysis journal. See if your homemade science survives outside the little walled garden of Shroud enthusiasts. See if it stands up to scrutiny by qualified professionals. I dare you.

Quote:
Indeed, that is how most science is done.
That's not how image processing is done.
JayUtah 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
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 04:24 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.