Shanun Palus in Smithsonian magazine has an interesting article, Astronomers Are Doing Real Science With Space Photos They Found on Flickr. I’m not saying it is applicable. I’m sure it is not. But it demonstrates the idea that there may be new ways to study images that we have not thought of:
To get detailed images of deep space, astronomers have a couple of options, says Technology Review. They can either use a long exposure to capture one really detailed image, or stack multiple less-detailed images together. Lang and colleagues opted for the second approach. But rather than using multiple photos taken with the same telescope, they looked to the web.
The team used a new alogorithm to stack nearly 300* images of the Galaxy NGC 5907 that they found on Flickr, Bing, and Google. They did this by "[l]iterally searching for ‘NGC 5907′ and ‘NGC5907′," explains Astrobites.
Picture from Smithsonian: An amateur photograph of galaxy NGC 5907 by Flickr user korborh. On its own it doesn’t look like much, but combined with hundreds more it can reveal new secrets about the universe. (korborh)
Colin Berry writes in a comment:
PS: here’s a link to that graphic. Look inside the yellow rectangle. Spot the non-imaged zone in the angle where the two hands overlap.
[ CLICK HERE for large image ] . . .
Reminder: it’s NOT a photograph. It’s better described as a contact print, or what I’ve previously called an ‘impactograph’.
RIP radiation twaddle.
Surely, not everyone enthusiastically agrees. So CLICK HERE to join the discussion rather than commenting on this pointer-only posting.
BTW: I doubt that radiation played a role in image formation but I don’t think this is as damning as Colin does. In fact, it might be supportive of radiation.
"He who the third day rose from the dead was no less true
God in the manger than on the cross." — Karl Barth
In sum, we can say that it’s not the body image on the Shroud but the cloth itself that is the real material sign of Jesus’ Resurrection!
The longer, embracing quotation is from a new paper, An image that speaks of the Incarnation well before it speaks about the Resurrection by Yannick Clément (It makes me wonder if Yannick gets his progressive thinking from Barth):
Because every characteristic related to the Shroud image can find some similarity in nature and, even more, because some of those characteristics (like the discontinuous distribution and the very superficial aspect of the image) really seem to strongly suggest that the image on the cloth has been formed by a natural interaction between the crucified dead body and the surface of his burial cloth, seeing this image as some kind of material proof of his Resurrection is presently only possible through faith and consequently, such a concept cannot be based on a real scientific and rational reflection. But having said that, it’s important to note that it is truly possible, through rationality, to see the Shroud (not only the body image on the cloth, but the burial cloth itself, along with the body imprint and the bloodstains present on it) as a material sign (not a proof!) of the Resurrection of Christ, in the sense that it has been proven that the cloth contained, only for a short period of time (i.e. less than 72 hours), the real crucified body of a man who presents all the bloody stigmata of Christ, as described in the Gospels, while the extraction of his body from the Shroud did not seem to have disturbed the bloodstains, broken the linen fibrils under them or disturbed the body image in any way, which can be seen as possible signs (not proofs) of a “dematerialization” (or a “spiritualization” if you prefer) of his body at the moment of the resurrection. Also, and this is probably even more important, the simple fact that such a gruesome burial cloth of a crucified criminal (which shows the complete body image of a nude “Christ”, along with lots of bloodstains) has been taken out of the tomb, quietly kept and carefully preserved for centuries after his dead body has only spent a short period of time in it, can truly be seen as the greatest material sign of the Resurrection of Christ that exists. In sum, we can say that it’s not the body image on the Shroud but the cloth itself that is the real material sign of Jesus’ Resurrection! Effectively, if this cloth would have been the burial shroud of an anonymous crucified man, why in the world would such a grave cloth have been taken out of the tomb and well preserved until now?
Nevertheless, it’s important to emphasize the fact that this sign remains an indirect sign of this event, instead of being a direct proof of it, like it is researched by many people today who really want to see a clear physical proof of Resurrection in the body image of a dead Jesus that is present on the cloth.
(emphasis mine, this is from a note in the paper, note references are removed in the blog and should be noticed and read in the paper)
This is one of two new papers from Yannick published at the iSEAM site. The other will be discussed shortly. Hat tip to
This tour is being led by Msgr. Gregory A. Gier of The Cathedral of the Holy Family of Nazareth in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Click here or on the image for an online brochure.
This tour seems to be specifically for parishioners of the cathedral:
. . . parishioners are invited to join Msgr. Gier on an unforgettable pilgrimage to Turin to see the Shroud, then on to Florence, Assisi, Siena, and finally Rome. Msgr. Gier will offer Holy Mass daily at many of the important churches we will visit, including St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The dates are April 19 – 28, 2015.
Russ Breault writes on his Shroud Encounter Facebook page:
Anyone near Colorado Springs? I will be speaking 4 times at the upcoming Pikes Peak Prophecy Conference:
- Friday 7/25 at 3:30–"Unholy Obsession–When Hitler Tried to Steal the Shroud"
- Saturday 7/26 at 8:30 AM–"Seven Secrets of the Sacred Shroud"
- Saturday at 3:30 PM–"A Q&A with Russ Breault, Barrie Schwortz, and John and Rebecca Jackson"
- Saturday at 5:00 PM–"God is in the Details" Main auditorium and will be streamed live.
Conference will be held at the Colorado Springs Marriott–Tech Center Dr.
Now, the question is: Other than the Q&A, are Barrie or John and Rebecca speaking?
BTW: You can also read how to watch the conference live for $50.00.
Thomas, in a comment, wonders:
. . . I’ve noticed the past few days that there appears to be a misalignment between the left and right shoulders / neck region. In particular, one side is lower than the other as if there was a dislocation. This corresponds with the arm positions on the frontal image ie. the right shoulder is set lower, as is the right arm.
This would seem to be an argument in favour of the image being generated from a real human (dead) body.
The blog is called La pagina di Littleflower (The page of Littleflower). Thanks to Google Translation, we can read What links the Shroud of Turin to Leonardo’s Mona Lisa. It was posted yesterday:
The Shroud and the Mona Lisa contain many common points such as to generate suspicion that they are actually two separate parts of a single work.
The Shroud and the Mona Lisa not only contain graphic parts that seem designed specifically to be overlapped with each other, but they also contain references to correctly display and overlay.
Personally I do not believe that the creation of the Shroud is the result of a specific commission proposed by the Savoy but I think the Shroud of Leonardo was ready because it was the result of previous experiments tending to prove the falsity and the easy reproducibility of such a relic.
In the realization of his Shroud Leonardo, however, takes a number of precautions so that the truth will emerge in the future, in order to prepare or modify the Mona Lisa so that superimposing the two images it is quite unobjectionable that the achievement is yours.
And it was photographic. Yes, apparently so if you believe Littleflower. Forget the shroud, the implications for the Mona Lisa are devastating.