We need to do a lot more with the 3D questions that the shroud poses
to better understand what we are really looking at.
Antero de Frias Moreira of the Centro Português de Sindonologia writes:
After a careful reading of Professor John Jackson’s paper «The vertical alignment of the frontal image» and also remembering the 2005 Professor Latendresse’s paper «The Turin Shroud was not flattened before the images formed and no major image distortions necessarily occur from a real body» I was aware that if the Shroud wrapped a real human body that impressed his image on the cloth some distortions were inevitable and 3D scanning by VP-8 device produced a kind of bas-relief of a human shape with enough anatomical accuracy.
Appendix B of Professor Jackson’s paper ( I mean experiences with volunteers wrapped in a cloth) sparked a weird idea in my mind :
As far as I know VP-8 scanning of the Shroud Image was done using Shroud real size photos OF A FLATTENED SHROUD and considering just the front image Professor Jackson acknowledges that even admitting a vertical path of information transfer from body to cloth the image will have some distortions.
So I imagined this hypothetical scenario (not with a flattened image but in the same conditions when it was produced on the cloth)
Get a real size replica of the Shroud with the image photograph on a linen cloth, then place the front image over a volunteer with anatomical characteristics similar to the Man of the Shroud (image upside, non image part of the cloth covering the volunteer).
Placing the cloth like this not too tight would allow overlap the front image following main anatomical body curves namely head, and limbs.
Considering these conditions if an image 3D scanning with VP-8 or with a more modern device is done- I don’t really know if it is technically feasible to scan the image in this scenario) would there be the possibility for much lower distortion and obtaining not a human shape bas relief but A KIND OF HUMAN BODY VOLUMETRIC IMAGE(without side parts that did not produce image on the cloth) ????
Perhaps this is a silly hypothesis….
Not at all. We need to do a lot more with the 3D questions that the shroud poses to better understand what we are really looking at. And this idea of yours for minimizing distortion makes a lot of sense.
The VP-8, to the best of my knowledge, in this context only interprets brightness information that already represents spatial data. If I understand you correctly, you want to capture new and additional spatial information to combine with the spatial information in the shroud image. Here are two videos that are worth watching. This is blow- your-mind 3D technology.
A couple of watching tips: The first video begins advertising clothing at the four minute mark. I’m not actually suggesting that you hit the stop button there. But I do. The second video gets very interesting at around 5 minutes so hang in there.
Link = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tap6NbuGeeg
Wake up and think Colin Berry and John Jackson, you two who are the most imaginative of all Shroud hypothesists. Wave interference with light? Autocatalysis after chemical imprinting? Cloth to body distance is so the last century.
3d and real body configuration:
It is not a silly hypothesis, it is even obvious, and has been done.
“Autocatalysis after chemical imprinting?”
It is so Rogers’ hypothesis. Wake up and think different.
Interesting. IT cool factor 5…
Hi Dcn Andy: Here is a video of my latest research project. Holography experiments. I am very close to being able record a interference pattern on linen that would match many of the Shroud image characteristics.
Shroud Image and Hologram Image Match Points
1. Both images are extremely superficial, thin depth image (1/50th thickness of human hair)
2. Both have good resolution
3. Both have 3D Qualities to Image
4. Both images cannot be seen from the back side
5. Both have light coming from only 1 direction to form image
6. Both images fade and or vanish when tilted to the far right or far left
7. Both are a single color image
8. Both images involve subject close to film plate to capture image (past 5cm there is no image formation on a reflection hologram) (I know because I tried it)
I like the number 1128 and finally it add up to 3.
Yes some sort of electromagnetic waves were involved in creating the image on the shroud and it came out from the body.
The English Gematria Calculator witness says
Jesus of Nazareth =1128
Shroud of Turin=1128
3D Hologram on a Mantle= 1128
The English Gematria Calculator does not care if the Shroud is genuine or not, could care less if Jesus rose from the dead or not. His sole purpose is to give testimony to the truth in the form of numbers, serves no other purpose.
He makes for a good witness on the stand. We cannot assassinate his character or claim he is mistaken.
Behold the Image of Edessa=1128
A 3D Mantle of Son of Man=1128
It’s not a painting= 1128
Shroud is Genuine=1128
The word hologram is well defined, and the Shroud isn’t one. The video posted above does not demonstrate that it is; it merely asserts it. The subject was treated at length in the shroudstory post entitled, “Is The Shroud Evidence For Gods Existence” (you need to scroll down about halfway to where ‘Todd’ starts to comment), to which, after reviewing it again, there seems nothing more to add.
Comments are closed.