As part of a comment, Yannick Clement writes:
. . . In his recent report about the Valencia Conference in Spain for the BSTS, Mark Guscin wrote this about a paper presented there by Pablo Di Lazzaro: “He showed (Di Lazzaro) how our brain works to FILL IN SPACES and make us “see” things that we WOULD LIKE TO SEE, but which quite simply ARE NOT THERE. In reference to the Shroud this could be applied to the supposed inscriptions, the supposed coins, the supposed flowers and the supposed many other things that people “see” from time to time.” I think M. Guscin should have add to his list the desire of Wilson and his followers to see the Mandylion, a small towel showing only the face of the living Christ, which we can see in a great number of ancient copies that has survived to this day, turn suddenly into a burial Shroud full of bloodstains that show 2 different images (front and back) of a complete body… This process can be called “Seeing things we desperately wants to see even if they are not really there” and it can start to operate not only from the eyes, but directly from the brain. Wilson’s hypothesis is a very good example of that.
That brings to mind an article in the current issue of Smithsonian Magazine: No, Really, There is No Secret Code in the Pyramids. A tidbit:
“A hidden code can be found almost anywhere because people are adept at recognizing and creating patterns,” says Klaus Schmeh, a computer scientist specializing in encryption technology. Schmeh has updated Kahn’s research, documenting dozens of bogus or dubious cryptograms. Some are more than a century old, but still making the rounds in books and on websites; others are more recent, such as a claim that all barcodes contain the satanic number, 666.
[ . . . ]
Schmeh says misguided cryptologists tend to believe that spectacular sources yield the most spectacular revelations. Since the 1850s, perfervid sleuths have been scrutinizing Shakespeare’s plays, claiming to have found ciphers denouncing the bard as a fraud and proclaiming the true author to be Sir Francis Bacon. Generations of investigators have been convinced that—through divine revelation or the assistance of extraterrestrials—the builders of the Great Pyramid embedded the sum total of scientific knowledge within the dimensions of the structure. Fringe pyramidologists persist in their claims despite a 1992 effort to debunk them by Dutch astrophysicist Cornelis de Jager, who demonstrated the dimensions of any object can be manipulated to yield a desired outcome; he derived the speed of light and the distance between the Earth and Sun from his measurements of a bicycle.
Still, amateur codebreakers take their work seriously. According to British psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, who has studied personality profiles of conspiracy theorists, “They are altruistic,” since they think that they’re uncovering truths hidden from the public. For them, believing is seeing.
Believing is seeing? How much of what we believe about the shroud is what we think we see?
I don’t understand Yannick’s comments on the Mandylion. In my reading of Wilson, he never states that he thinks he sees, but rather provides evidence which seems to make his case believable. Yannick, do you want to explain?
If in my Ipad I jump to the contiguous column, I see the answer
I think, Dan that you have given the answer. I would add thatin the aspects that have gone through a rigorous scientific process like the blood and forensic issues, nobody can say that « I believe I see». This should show us the way for the rest of things: if we want to say goodbye once and forever to the “I believe I see” lullaby, let’s go scientific by adopting the protocols and methodologies of scientific research. It has worked with the forensic aspects, why not for the rest?
In this comment I explain how could it be.
IAs soon as 2010, I did rapidly tackle the issue with French Canadian American Computer Scientist Mario Latendreese at Frascati. Actually what is first and foremost most needed are the detailed HAL 9000 HD Shroud images taken under normal light,+ additional ones taken under raking light, transmitted light and ultraviolet light.
Mistyping: As early as 2010
Some “crazy stuff” have been written about the Turin Sindon by:
1/ ALL those who “think they see what was not really there”,
2/ ALL “those who more sensed than correctly identified what was really there hidden to the non-initiated eye”
3/ ALL those who “think they don’t see what was really there”.
Now just guess which category better applies to Di Lazzaro, Murra, Guscin, Dan Porter, Yannick Clément etc when it comes to partial coin images, flower head, plant images, and ghost writings?
Max on this, I agree with you 100%!
I have recently found some very interesting information about the coin images or possible coin images on the Shroud. I will post here more on the subject, once I’ve checked the facts from some sources.
Now just guess which category BEST applies to NON-epigraphists, NON-palaeographers, NON-botanists, NON-professional numismatists, NON-archaeological image analysts or cryptanalysts such as Guscin (a linguist), SCHWORTZ (a technical photographer), Porter (a business executive), Di Lazzaro (a laser physicist), Murra (a laser engineer) and Clément (a geographer) when it comes to identifying partial GHOST coin images, flower head, plant and writings nearly invisible to the naked eye?
NOT BELIEVING IS NOT SEEING?
The fact is e.g. THERE ARE intriguing tiny blood stains’ constellations nearly invisible to the naked eye on the 2D Shroud image in the facial area at right eye, left lower eyelid and mid left eyebrow arch levels see 1931 Enrie’s, 1978 Miller’s and 2002 Durante’s Shroud face positive and negative photographs (BEWARE: the alleged 2002 Durante Shroud face photograph currently provided on Mario’s Shroud Scope is biased as actually it is just a detailed view of the 2002 Durante Shroud OVERALL photograph. Therefore many tiny relevant details are lost).
The colour of these stains varies from light brown to carmine brown and to carmine red with outlines that needed to be established and clarified (see my Torun paper to come or part of the “ultimate version” of my Frascati paper).
Had Di Lazzaro & Murra been able/allowed to recur to laser light to detect in-the-state-of-the-art (i.e. directly from the Turin Shroud face itself) any possible faint tiny blood decal partial more or less latent imprints (image resolution limit 0,5mm) left on the eye areas by a solid object such as an ancient coin and worked hand in hand with e.g. a professional numismatist and a professional archaeological image analyst or cryptanalyst, THEN they would have written a quite different paper.
They would have to take into account THIS TRUE FACT: some “crazy stuff” had been written about the Turin Sindon NOT ONLY by all those who “think they see” what is not really there” BUT ALSO by ALL those who “think they don’t see” what is really there as it is still hidden to the non-initiated eye (namely the NON-epigraphist’s, the NON-palaeographer’s, the NON-professional numismatist’s, the NON-archaeological image analyst’s or cryptanalyst’s).
Di Lazzaro & Murra would then have been aware that Filas had more sensed than correctly identified what is really there: partially bloodstained Pilate coin obverse faint tiny partial decal patterns left on both eye areas and at two different scales (nearly 1:1 on right eye area and 3:4 on left lower eyelid area).
BTW archaeocrytologically speaking, in order to be really detected both ghost and latent images shall be observed under raking light. That’s a must.
They are very few those who do have an eye for true paleographic, epigraphic or botanic forms. Even fewer those who are really able to make the non initiated eye really see.
…real ghost images.
Comments are closed.