Well, would you credit it? There we were, assuming that HD Shroud 2.0 was only available on iPads, at a price, when all the time it was there at the click of a laptop key on good ol’ Auntie BBC, going way back to 2010.
Well, not exactly. The image from the BBC is not the HD image available on iPads. It is a low grade, non-HD, 786 by 2973 pixel, 96 dpi JPEG copy of what is available on the iPad. The real, HD image is bigger than life. You can see all the threads. So when Colin says . . .
Maybe resolution is critical to spotting the two-tone effect. Maybe that’s why it’s been missed previously, by myself and others.
. . . I’m confused. Does Colin mean low resolution? I’ve been looking and looking at the iPad image, even cranking up the contrast. I don’t see the two-tone effect Colin sees. I, do, however, see some pink in the epsilon-shaped bloodstain on the forehead. See:
Did you know that you can follow the 2015 Exhibition news on twitter. It’s @Sindone2015.
You can also follow this blog on twitter at @shroudstory
According to Alexa, this blog is the most popular Shroud of Turin website in the world. No, really, as of today our global rank is 993,584. Notice that I say”our.” It’s the comments that make it so. Look, you can’t really compare websites. This is a daily blog. It is valuable because it reaches so many people. Everyone helps.
I see you are up with a new posting, Who says the Shroud of Turin image is homogeneous? Think again, fellow shroudies…
Did I read that right? Fellow shroudie?
Anyway, you write:
Here are two images of the TS image, frontal v dorsal, that I can confidently state that no one apart from myself has ever seen before. In fact, I too had not seen them until a hour or so ago. (One needs to scrutinize them closely).
In a picture caption you ask, “Can you guess the provenance?”
No Colin, I can’t. I don’t know what you mean by provenance, in this case. “The shroud”? The photograph? The film? The digital file name after conversion from one to the other? The raw bitmap file? The JPEG or GIF on a particular website? The original with original size, dots per inch, contrast, brightness, color saturation, etc.? The website where you glommed onto the image?
Every step – object to film, film to digital, file type to file type conversion, resizing and so forth — introduces artifacts including different color approximations in different density areas of the image; or so I’m told. I’m not a graphics expert so correct me, Colin, if I’m wrong.
Anyway, that may or may not be the case here. It would be nice to know what image you are using. For what you are proposing, it would be nice to get a full color image that has had the least possible manipulation in the past.
It’s been said the TS image is "homogeneous" . . .
These two images show in my humble estimation that the TS image, whether imprint or painting (I still prefer imprint) is most definitely NOT homogeneous. Under the carefully adjusted contrast, brightness and mid-tone settings, but emphatically with NO fiddling with colour, they show some "grey" areas and some "orange-brown" areas, admittedly an approximate description.
Do you know, Colin, what your software does when you fiddle?
And if anyone says it’s "just" blood, I have another image, ready and waiting, to kick that suggestion into the long grass. (Sorry about the idiomatic English – I only use it when animated, and I have to say that fellow shroudies sometimes get me animated, not to say pissed-off, with the dismissive put-down tone of their comments).
[. . . ]
For now, let’s just content ourselves with the two new images, and hang loose for a while, if only to tease my readers (to say nothing of play for time).
Here’s a challenge to fellow shroudies: whose images were these originally, and where did they first appear, before I began to tinker with them in MS Office Picture Manager (legitimately I maintain). ? (bolding emphasis mine)
You may have a point, Colin; an important point, perhaps. But you also have an attitude. That may be why we are so dismissive. The stink bomb you threw on what was intended as a thank you posting for the organizers of the St. Louis conference will be remembered for a long time. It is why your comments are being moderated for the time being.
Homogeneous or Not? That’s the Question. It is worth exploring.
Note: Image shown here is a screen grab from Colin Berry’s site. Its original provenance is unknown.
These Shroud Encounter presentations are getting big, like this one at The Villages in Florida.
John Klotz pens out some thoughts about what two people are saying about his book in A critcal response to a critic. For instance, on what Hugh Farey, the editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud (BSTS), wrote, John writes:
As an author, I suppose that I should not be too sensitive to criticisms. It comes with the territory. However, Hugh Farey’s criticism posted on shroudstory.com that I did not devote enough space and energy to explaining why Picknett-Prince theory that DaVinci forged the Shroud 100 years after it was first exhibited in Lirey, France is nearly as supercilious as the theory itself (which Hugh apparently rejects also).
And on what Ms. Underwood had to say over at Amazon, John tells us:
[Her] review was enlightening and helpful to me:
"Excellent account of the history of Shroud research and presents a very good case for its authenticity! I was a bit disappointed that it did not delve into how the findings of quantum physics may provide a possible mechanism for the image formation."
I will be preparing a revision to answer Ms. Underwood’s comment and if anyone has already purchased the book, I will provide the revision gratis. Actually, the revision of the one chapter will include a discussion of a 2010 presentation by Andrew Sullivan and Nigel Kerner[iii] which argues that consciousness was an elemental power that along with gravity pre-existed the universe and engendered it. That’s my very brief summary and/or conclusion.
You will want to read A critcal response to a critic.
“Whoa,” writes a reader in reaction to my Belly of the Beast posting. “Before you go slamming Dr. Jackson you need to look at the YouTube of him explaining the folds and the way the shroud was lifted out of the box. And read Dr. Jackson’s Foldmarks as a Historical Record at shroud.com where you can see the photographs. You dumb s… “
I think I ran into a fan. The part you may want to see starts at about the 11:10 mark and runs to about 18:00. It is a good explanation. Watch it! I still believe that the fold marks must be confirmed. I still say it is not class 1 evidence. (Link to YouTube). And I added in the link to the above mentioned paper.
I was reminded during Bob Siefker’s presentation in St. Louis that John Jackson and the other authors of A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses – Version 2.1 assign significant importance to the raking light photographs of the shroud. So do I, but far less so. To my way of thinking:
- the cloth was at times folded
- the cloth was possibly folded in half along its length three times such that the face, and only the face, appeared on the outside. This, of course, lends credence to the term tetradiplon. It also comports with the idea that the shroud may have been stored folded in a reliquary with a grate, so as to show only the face.
- the cloth may have been been an inspiration for the Man of Sorrows icons that show Christ rising out of a coffin-like container.
I have been giving this some thought. What did the Critical Summary actually say?
- Quoting from item L6 of the Critical Summary:
One of the tasks undertaken by the STURP team was to take raking light photographs of the Shroud. Linen has poor elasticity, explaining why it wrinkles so easily. Thus, linen cloth has sort of a memory that can reveal how the cloth has been folded (see item H 13.0,2). . . .
Okay. That seems probably so.
Jackson has studied the fold lines, some of which are as sharp as a straight edge and show discoloration as would be expected if folded over the edge of a wooden block or batten, as illustrated as "F” in the diagram below.
Words like “discoloration as would be expected if” sound speculative, not evidentiary. At least, it is not strong evidence.
Jackson’s team developed a computer program that maps prominent folds found on the Shroud related to the Man of Sorrows Icon.
That instantly bothered me. What sort of computer program maps fold marks on the shroud to hand painted icons? In what way? Moreover, to which Man of Sorrow Icon? Without an explanation this unfortunately sounds like the “scientists say” jargon we encounter in television commercials. It’s like “ a computer programs says.”
Google suggests these icons:
The Critical Summary goes on to say:
These folds have been found to be consistent with the design of a lifting device that could have been used for raising the cloth.
Consistent with what design? This is an imagined lifting device. The point of this imagining may be to match the AD 1203 description of what Robert de Clari saw or to fit an account of “The Palace Revolution of John Comnenus by Nicholas Mesarites wherein we find
In [Constantinople's Pharos] chapel Christ rises again, and the sindon with the burial linens is the clear proof.
I’d like to think there is some connection. I’d like to think this is all true. But the imagined device (click on the image on the right), while illustrative of a possibility, seems far too tentative to be in an evidence table.
So what are the fold marks really evidence of? How good is the evidence?
The authors of the paper have classified this as Class 1 Evidence which they define thus:
This rating is given to items of evidence that are firmly supported by empirical and/ or forensic research. To receive this rating there must be multiple corroborating research sources.
Yet when I look at the references I find only one paper by Eric Jumper and two similar popular books by Ian Wilson. Unfortunately Wilson uses material “deduced by Dr. John Jackson.” While not exactly a circular reference, it’s close. There is not much to go on.
Wilson goes on to say, “Although exactly how the cloth was made to rise is necessarily conjectural.” (The Blood and the Shroud page 157). Perhaps anticipating the problem some of us might therefore have, Bob Siefker said in his St. Louis talk:
Some people might not like the fact that we’ve rated this class 1 evidence but we’re in the heart of the belly of the beast. I’ve seen those folds. I’ve seen the marks. I’ve seen the razor thin nature of those folds where the “F” block is. I’m not only rationally convinced that the scheme is right, I’ve seen close evidence and had it very deeply explained to me. I’ve been very lucky to be in the belly of the beast, over here [pointing to], John Jackson.
So? Can I see the folds? Can anyone see the folds? Are the photographs online? Can we examine the computer program’s logic? Without some illustrative photographs of the folds, without an explanation of what the computer program does, I’m thinking the entire item, L6, should be demoted. Without some supporting evidence of a cloth-raising device being used, the speculative diagram should be removed. It is evidence of nothing.
What am I missing?