Maria Downing writes in response to yesterday’s posting:
Hope all is well.
Cannot comment, but here is a short statement from Ray, plus a link to a good summary.
Best from both of us,
Here is the statement from Ray:
Ray Downing and Studio Macbeth entered the broadcast industry to contribute decent, thoughtful, and innovative television programming.
It seems that the common sense notion of right and wrong has been distorted in some circles of this industry, and we find ourselves victims of their intimidating tactics.
The control over one’s own property, public image, and professed beliefs is a fundamental individual right.
The question which we have been forced to face is how far the abuse of these rights can be tolerated.
After a year of privately and confidentially attempting to rectify these injustices with the parties involved, we have no recourse but to petition the federal courts for relief.
President of Studio Macbeth, Inc.
Computer Graphics Animation
Picture is of Ray and Maria and others of the Studio Macbeth team after having been awarded an Emmy for bringing Abraham Lincoln back to life on the History Channel special "Stealing Lincoln’s Body".
Max Patrick Hamon writes with illustrations (I modified the format to fit the blog space):
Skewed nosed cheiropoietic & acheiropoietic Christ faces?
By way of an illustrative reply to the bloggers who thought the skewed nosed Christ face on Justinian II’s solidus obverse (685-695 CE) was a mere “minting error” and/or “directly influenced by the Christ Pantocrator, here are the perfect photographic overlap of the two ‘non made by hand’ Holy Faces (Turin Sindon + Manoppello Veil) by German iconographer, Sister Blandina Schlömer and the Christ Pantocrator of Saint Catherine’s Monastery (6th century CE). Now the reader can just guess what are the prototype and its two possible copies.
The coin image shown at right is repeated below the other two images in the same size as the other images. (Click “Read more” if necessary.)
Continue reading “Max Patrick Hamon on the Skewed Nose”
Today, Colin Berry, after citing a comment on this blog, asks a question (well, editorializes, really). Fair enough. It seems to be a valid point:
Well, we’d all like to solve the mystery of the Shroud, and if bilirubin has a part to play, then ought we not to know precisely how much was there, if only to be certain that SOME was there?
So what’s the answer. I’m happy to have the answer in old money (mg%) or in SI units, e.g mmoles /decilitre. But please don’t quote back Alan D Adler’s comment that there were “extraordinary levels of bilirubin”. I am already familiar with that quotation. However, there’s little prospect of “solving the mystery of the Shroud” (sic) when the amount of an allegedly crucial signature of trauma and crucifixion is reported as “extraordinary”, leaving one to speculate as to whether that is just 1 mg% or 20 mg%. That’s the difference between normal and highly jaundiced. Oh, and let’s not bother for now about the proportion of the bilirubin that was conjugated or unconjugated with glucuronic acid (which clinicians use an an aid to differential diagnosis, e.g whether the bilirubin was due to excessive haemolysis of red blood cells or due to liver or kidney impairment). Total bilirubin will do. If you can say how it was measured, so much the better.
Btw: there has to be lots of bilirubin according to Alan Adler, to explain why the blood looks permanently red. But that did not prevent him advising the Shroud’s custodians to instal extra light protection for the Shroud on the grounds that bilirubin was unstable to light. Yup, I’m confused too…
Go for it, Colin. Express your “disgust and contempt” to the Royal Society. I mean with, “so-called scientists lining up . . . a systematic attempt . . . misinformation, nay, DISINFORMATION . . . [it is] quite simply scandalous.” Why send it only to the president of the society; you should copy the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I am now wholly convinced there was a systematic attempt by key members of STURP and many others to eliminate contact scorching aka thermal imprinting as an image mechanism with scarcely any attempt at serious scrutiny. We now have the unedifying sight of so-called scientists lining up to say that it fails to match a superficiality criterion (<200nm) – one that rests on little more than one man’s failure to see something well when immersed in adhesive tape ‘goo’ under a light microscope. More so-called ‘scientists’ have since piled in, claiming without a shred of theoretical or experimental evidence that a scorch can never be as superficial as the image on the Shroud.
That so-called scientists should engage in this kind of misinformation, nay, DISINFORMATION, is quite simply scandalous. I think it time that I redrafted that letter to the Royal Society that I mooted earlier. I was far too neutral and polite in that first draft. I want to convey my disgust and contempt at the way in which pseudo-science is STILL being used to promote the authenticity agenda.
Hugh Farey asks in a comment:
The coins of Justinian II’s first reign (685 – 695 AD) are indeed remarkably shroud-like, and it is difficult not to think it was indeed the model. However, when, after a period of exile, Justinian returned to the throne (705 – 711 AD), the same sort of coins (with the same designation – Christus Rex Regnantium) have a closely shaven Christ with tightly curly hair. Can anyone suggest why the changed their mind about Christ’s appearance?
This image from the emperor’s second reign, A. D. 705-711 shows Justinian II with Tiberius on the reverse side. The obverse side shows Christ with curly hair and short, trimmed beard.
Later coins, for instance during the reign of Romerus II with Constantine VII and if not before, show Christ again with long flowing hair and a full beard.
By way of a part of a comment by Hugh Farey on Colin Berry’s blog we have a quick fly-on-the-wall summary of the BSTS meeting. Here is some of that comment while we await a report on the meeting:
. . . [T]he BSTS meeting was interesting (particularly as there were life-size photos to pore over), and although in principle extremely controversial, very polite! David Rolfe did not pursue the Dawkins Challenge at all. He read out a goodwill message from Ian Wilson (now living in New Zealand) with interpolations of his own, from which two new movements came to light. Someone in America is reviewing the pollen sample slides, both those taken by Max Frie and those by other members of the STURP team, with a view to explaining the rather different interpretations different people have made of them; and also (quite exciting) a mould for making Lirey/Cluny pilgrimage badges has been found. I didn’t know about that, but immediately Googled “Lirey pelerinage moule” and find a photo of it as the front cover of a book – still only published in France as yet. It does not seem to be the mould for the famous badge, but certainly for one very similar.
Thomas de Wesselow then expounded in detail why he thought the two components of the shroud image, image and blood, were “technically, stylistically and conceptually” incompatible with 14th century art or forgery (I know you and many others disagree, and he did not reveal anything blindingly new, but he set out his arguments clearly and with many illustrations), . . .
Finally a medical lady whose name I didn’t catch ran through the image as pathology, with some real Roman nails and a flagrum mock-up based on the famous remains found in Pompei. It was interesting for me as I had only seen these things on telly before, but not revelatory; and Tony Luby, a teacher, explained how he used the shroud in his RCRE classes.
Link to book cover at Amazon.com that shows mold mentioned above.
The full comment also deals with scorching experiments.
Was this thing just too successful? Will this throttle-back the success of “The Real Face of Jesus?” going forward? Ray Downing reads this blog. Hopefully we will hear from him.
INews Hollywood is reporting that A&E Television Faces Lawsuit Over Copyright of 3D Jesus Christ:
Raymond Downing, a New York-based 3D digital illustrator, is suing A&E Television Networks, owner of the History Channel, and Left Right Inc., a production company, for infringing the copyright of his virtual reproduction of Jesus by overusing material subject to a licensing agreement.
According to his lawsuit, which has just been moved to a New York federal court, Downing, and his Studio Macbeth firm, first created a virtual depiction of Abraham Lincoln, which he licensed to the History Channel for the 2009 show, Stealing Lincoln’s Body. Downing won an Emmy for his work.
An executive producer at History Channel then visited Downing’s studio and witnessed an exhibition of the 3D digital recreation of Jesus from the Shroud of Turin. Apparently impressed, the History Channel then licensed "Virtual Jesus" for a 2010 program called The Real Face of Jesus?
But Downing says the rights granted were limited — History was allegedly only allowed 10 graphic animation sequences and the rights were "non-transferable, non-sublicensable and related solely to the Real Face of Jesus Program for the History Channel."
Read the full article