HF has made what seems to be a brilliant observation (see Aug 28, 3:42 am). Would love to see some pictures of just what he is looking at. Is that possible? This may be a whole new paradigm for banding
I made the screen shot shown here. You should be able to click on it to enlarge it.
This is what Hugh Farey wrote:
In Shroud 2.0, longitudinal banding is very clear, and is definitely related to the pitch of the zigzag, specifically the darkness of the shadows cast by the overlying warp threads onto the underlying weft threads. Thus the entire Shroud is covered in alternating lighter and darker bands. This pattern is not seen on the Durante photo. Here the various longitudinal stripes seem to me to be much thinner, where you can see them, and appear to be related to the ‘spines’ of the herringbone ribs, which may have formed into slight ridges or troughs as part of the rolling up process. I cannot find a good positive Enrie image, but the large scale negatives, which can be found at the link above among others, show a variety of bands, some very thin and some as thick as a width of a pitch. However they are much less consistent and the thick ones do not appear to be lighting artifacts as they sometimes extend over two or three bands of alternating pitch. It is not clear in any case that the pale vertical areas defning the sides of the cheeks, or the dark vertical areas defing the fall of the hair, are due to imperfections in the weave or the lighting of a photo rather than the shape of the image model itself. As such, attempts to ‘correct’ the image by removing them are probably misguided.
Colin Berry certainly agrees. Here, and in his blog, he writes, “Brilliant. Hugh. Possibly, nay probably the best contribution to ‘banding’ in all time.”
Two “brilliants.” I think I see what Hugh is talking about. I may need to agree with Colin. But, “the shape of the image model itself.”? Model? I would like to see pictures with pointed narrative. Hugh, can you send along a couple of screen shots from your perspective?
To make screen shots in Shroud 2.0, hold down the round “Home” button on the front of the iPad or iPhone and press the “Sleep/Wake” button. The screen shot is in your Pictures folder.
The Bari conference, officially the Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation, has posted the following information on the conference home page:
Only few papers accepted for presentation at the workshop exhibit a content within the IEEE field of interest. As a consequence, we regret to inform the Authors that the IEEE Italy Section do not award the sponsorship to the event.
David Roemer is taking credit. He sent me the following in an email:
Did you know the IEEE withdrew its sponsorship of the Shroud Conference in Bari? I’m taking credit for this because I explained to the leadership of the IEEE that conferences about the Holy Shroud are exercises in pseudoscience.
Now, David, you can get back to important things like having Cardinal Dolan investigated by the Inquisition because he thinks the shroud is real, disagrees with your views on the Big Bang or thinks you can be a quite unpleasant fellow when you paper is not accepted.
I repeat: I shall be attaching a copyright statement to all my future postings.
You mean, of course, in your own blogs. That’s fine. It is a fine idea. It is my understanding that what you post on your blog from the U.K. or in your travels abroad, and what I post in mine, is automatically copyrighted, anyway, under current law. Therefore, the only purposes for posting a notice is 1) to remind others, 2) to warn others that you intend to challenge violations or 3) to try and establish sufficient grounds to mount an argument against innocent infringement. None of that applies here, as we will see.
It is important to understand how I do things on this blog. First of all I carefully adhere to Fair Use provisions (sometimes called fair dealing in the U.K.) which allows a reasonable amount of quoting for criticism, review, or news reporting. Quoting some paragraphs or a few sentences in order to discuss what someone writes falls under these provisions. I do not quote full articles without permission except when they are press releases or notices that are intended to be copied completely, or unless I have permission to do so. From time to time, I post YouTube videos when embed sharing scripts are provided by the publisher and I always do so with appropriate credit. I never plagiarize by copying or quoting anything with the intent of claiming it is my work.
Occasionally, as has become the custom in the blogosphere, I post photographs and cartoons from various picture repositories and libraries. Only once has anyone specifically asked me to remove a picture and I did so immediately. It should be noted that the U. S. District Court for Southern New York has held that “exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality.”
In other words, photographs of the shroud are probably not protected by copyright. Is this fair? Probably not. But the courts have said, in one form or another, that the more accurate the photograph the less copyrightable it is. What about contrast enhancements, ImageJ manipulations, etc. The courts are clear here, as well; “sweat of the brow” is not a “creative spark” which deserves copyright.
When you write in your blog that I have pirated your work, what do you mean? I understand it to mean misappropriation or theft of your content. (see Copyright infringement in Wikipedia). What have I stolen. Copyright law, at least here in the U.S. (see U. S. Copyright Office description of Fair Use), and I suspect similarly in the U.K. makes it clear that, “Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.” So what do you mean when you accuse me of piracy?
That [=the notice mentioned in the preceding sentence] will continue for as long as material critical to my ideas appears on this site, notably by third parties in pdf form, where there is no facility for defending one’s work.
From that last sentence, your intent is clear. It is called chilling effects censorship. In other words, if I am critical of your ideas you will attempt to use or impose copyright restrictions to stop me from criticizing you or your work product. As a result, were it not for Fair Use provisions of the law, I would find myself with two choices: 1) summarize or sufficiently rephrase what you are saying risking inaccuracy or 2) ignore what you publish in your blog thus meaning you have successfully stopped me from offering legitimate criticism with chilling effects tactics. (See various Scholarly articles for chilling effect censorship, collected by Google).
You say, it seems as a way of justifying your tactic, that “there is no facility for defending one’s work.” When I posted the PDF file that seems to particularly upsets you, “The Scorch Hypothesis: New Experiments“ by Thibault Heimburger. I also announced it in a blog posting, The Turin Shroud Image is not a Scorch. That posting, dated April 17, 2014, received thirty comments, but not a single comment from you. You may still do so, however. Comments are not closed on this posting.
|Note: That gives me a good idea. I will be providing a link for comments on at least those PDF files and videos that I keep in sticky places on blog pages. Thanks, Colin.|
One cannot have one’s research findings, the product of days or maybe weeks of work, lifted verbatim from one’s own site, . . .
Nothing but a few short quotations were used. Your research findings were not lifted verbatim. That is simply inaccurate. Most people are proud to have their work quoted. Moreover I have never met a good scientist who did not welcome frank discussion of his or her observations, hypotheses, discoveries and proposals. Can you show me specific instances of verbatim copying that go beyond Fair Use in fact or spirit of the law? I will happily address such instances.
The Stanford University Library makes this point and is often quoted: “Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.”
You continue the sentence abovem writing:
. . . and then attacked here by third parties who are protected from criticism.
No one is protected from criticism on this site, particularly criticism by you. Of the last 1000 comments on this blog, 14.6% were by you. No one had a higher percentage during that period. Overall you have posted 1408 comments in this blog as of this writing. Do we need to read them to see that they are mostly criticisms by you of this or that or someone?
There are plenty of other opportunities for you to comment. For instance, you have your own two blogs, one at BlogSpot and one at Word Press, where you have offered plenty of criticism. I have frequently directed others to your blogs thus giving what you have to say plenty of exposure. And, as you certainly must know, you are welcome to submit guest postings for consideration. You have never sought to do so. You know very well how many others have done so and faced significant criticism from you when they do.
It’s a clear and flagrant abuse of the internet to have one’s copy used against one in this manipulative fashion.
I don’t do that. What I did, that seems to have upset you recently, is quote a single 47 word sentence that demonstrated how unfair you can be in your criticism of others. It was clearly Fair Use and there was no other way to make the point. I wrote the following, which includes a quote from you about various image formation hypotheses:
One need only look at the most recent post in your own blog to see this. You wrote: “Meanwhile, shroudology’s dwindling number of surviving non-contact models, some with total loss of brain stem activity, remain on life-support, being drip fed in a desperate attempt to keep them alive, or at any rate in a permanent zombie state, one that hovers somewhere between life and death.”
Yes, I too am critical of some of these non-contact models. Others are as well. But we try, not always successfully, to avoid ridicule in lieu of analysis.
Word Press, the publishing host service for this blog, provides the following guidelines for Fair Use. They may be helpful for all of us in understanding what is permissible and fair.
What is fair use?
There aren’t hard and fast rules when it comes to defining fair use. However, the Copyright Act sets out four factors for courts to consider:
1. The purpose and character of the use: Why and how is the material used? Using content for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research is usually fair. Additionally, using material in a transformative manner, that is to say, in a manner that adds new expression, meaning, or insight, is also more likely to be considered fair use over an exact reproduction of a work. What’s more, nonprofit use is favored over commercial use.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work: Is the original factual or fiction, published or unpublished? Factual and published works are less protected, so its use is more likely to be considered fair.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: How much of the material is used? If the “heart” (the most memorable or significant portion) or the majority of a work wasn’t used, it’s more likely to be considered fair.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work: Does the use target a different market/audience? If so, it’s more like to be fair use. It’s important to note that although criticism or parody may reduce a market, it still may be fair because of its transformative nature. In other words, if the criticism of a product influences people to stop buying the product, that doesn’t count as having an “effect on the market for the work” under copyright law.
It is significant to note that the U. S. Copyright Office description of Fair Use make this point:
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The Stanford University Library makes this point:
Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist’s work without asking permission. . . .
You may have the last word. And of course, you are free to comment. You closed out your comment thus:
Dan: it’s time you desisted from this control freakery. You should cease acting like some kind of Godfather of Shroudology.
I hope WordPress gets to read this soon, and will see the justice of my position,
Can anyone explain how the image* on Colin Berry’s blog can begin to convince us that banding is not really all that real. Maybe you can understand what Colin is saying. Something about “bilateral symmetry.” If anything, it helps to convince me that there really is banding there. You really need to see it in its full size in Colin’s blog space so CLICK HERE.
Barrie Schwortz did some of the earliest technical work to show one optical illusion effect of the banding. (Use Google translation after obtaining the linked-to page in order to see it in English). It is well worth reading.
The left image shows vertical banding on the outside portion of each cheek that extends upward and downward well above and below the face, particularly so on the right side. The middle image shows the area Barrie chose to add +20 points (Photoshop calibration) of RGB luminance. The effect is immediately obvious in the right picture.
The banding is particularly obvious when shown with transmitted light.
One day I received an email from Robert Doumax, an imaging expert in Bordeaux, France. He had created a Fourier transform filter to isolate both vertical and horizontal banding in the fabric of the shroud. His filter produced the bottom image of three below.
Subtracting one image from the other image produces a tentative, partial banding map:
* About the colorful ImageJ image. It has not been copied, stored or reproduced in anyway. The thumbnail preview is like a window into Colin’s site. It is an inline link to Colin’s blog space. By clicking on the image you can see it in its full size on Colin’s site. Even so, the use of a thumb nail image is considered fair use. Wikipedia is a good place to being reading about this.
[A] pointer causes a user’s browser to jump to the proprietor’s server and fetch the image file to the user’s computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law . . .
The thumb nail is too small to be a copyright concern. It is merely a graphical link.
We learn from the website and blog of Saint Joseph Catholic Church in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, that John and Rebecca Jackson will be speaking at a special Shroud of Turin conference in mid-October
Attend a fascinating study on the science, history, and controversy of the most important relic in the history of Christianity. The conference will be held on 17 October from 3:00 – 9:00 PM and on 18 October from 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM at the historic Sacred Heart Basilica, located at 30 Basilica Drive, Hanover, PA 17331. Guest speakers include: Dr. John Jackson, founder of the Turin Shroud Center (Colorado) and the Lead Scientist in the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP); and his wife, Mrs. Rebecca Jackson, co-founder of the Center and convert to Catholicism from Orthodox Judaism, who specializes in the 1st century Jewish background of the Shroud. Forregistration and tickets contact Luz Socrates at 873-3650 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
So if you will be anywhere in the area, about 20 miles south of the turnpike, I-76, about half way between Philadelphia and Pittsburg or to put it another way, about an hour north of Baltimore, you should try to catch this.
Barrie Schwortz has posted a very special tribute to Dorothy Crispino, “the founder and editor of the world renowned journal, Shroud Spectrum International, the first and only peer reviewed journal dedicated solely to the study of the Shroud of Turin.”
The tribute includes a 1997 perspective by Dorothy on her work and messages from Mons. Giuseppe Ghiberti, Richard Orareo, Joseph Marino, Diana Fulbright, William Meacham, Russ Breault, John and Rebecca Jackson, Rex Morgan, Dan Scavone, Ian Wilson, Mary Hines, Kevin Moran, Mark Guscin, Emanuela Marinelli, Paul C. Maloney, Ray Schneider, Marcel Alonso, David M. Onysko, Phil Dayvault, Alessandro Piana, Piero Iacazio and Traudl Wally.
Stephen Jones has also written a special posting on his blog. Stephen has been scanning all of the past issues of Shroud Spectrum International and his very familiar with her work.
I never knew Dorothy but knew of her by reputation, by many of the wonderful comments I heard about her from some of the people mentioned above. I encourage you to take the time to read the two tribute pages.
( Also see, Rest in Peace Dorothy Crispino )
Barrie indicates that he may add additional messages from others as he receives them.
The photograph, inline at shroud.com, was taken by Barrie Schwortz at Dorothy’s home in Cavour when he and Mary Hines visited her and her husband Luigi in May of 2010.