The Myth of the VP8 and 3D Uniqueness?

clip_image001.pngAntero de Frias Moreira of the Centro Português de Sindonologia wrote in a comment:

I ask whomever to show me an example of any image (OBVIOUSLY LEAVING ASIDE THE DEATH MASK PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED WITH MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY TECHNIQUES which in my opinion do not show similarities with the image on linen of the Shroud…) from medieval age or even 19 th century that has such encoded information to produce the same 3D results as the Shroud image / Shroud photographs.

here iis the challenge

And Lee Jone replied (for everyone’s convenience I have inserted the images where Lee provided links):

Here you go Antero mate, these image’s should match your criteria. These show similarities to the image on the Turin shroud. They have the same 3D “response” that the shroud does due to varying tone intensities of the monochromatic sepia color. Here is the original image with no 3D rendering


Here is a 3D rendering of the positive image


And here is the negative (tone inversion) 3D response


So as you can see, there a many way’s to create image’s that give a 3D response with such thing’s as a VP8 analyser, or any software which emulate’s a VP8, such as ImageJ.

John Adams once said:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

But what do you do when the facts – 3D uniqueness – have for so long been wrong?

40 thoughts on “The Myth of the VP8 and 3D Uniqueness?”

  1. Hi Dan and thank you for posting those image’s. It save’s people having to open up link’s to different website’s to view them. Did you get the E-Mail that i sent you Dan ? Thanks

    1. These images you have posted are very deceptive. They have been obviously shaded in a manner knowing in advance how a VP 8 analyzer or other similar program will interpret the info. Any fool can see that. What this proves is that someone knows in advance how a VP analyzer functions and then shades the area of the face to get the desired results.. Which in this case is an attempt to turn the truth into fables as Paul of Tarsus stated would happen. It is sad reality of this day and age.
      We can only do our best to reverse it as much as possible so people who are in desperate need of help from a Higher Power Intelligence/God can have a chance to come to believe and later hopefully come to know The Lord Jesus. Sadly many people of this day and age no longer have a fear of the Lord. The 1st step toward the beginning of wisdom.

      But you came to the right place to post this stuff. This site constantly has negative things to say about the Shroud. It is a non stop attack.

      I met with Peter Schumacher a few months ago in New Mexico and I saw how the VP 8 analyzer works. I have an above average understanding of it. Peter is great man. He was so friendly and so helpful. I had a fantastic time with him and we did some filming. I hope to return.
      He made 30 of these units in 90 days. Hats off to him and his production crew!

      I could immediately see whoever did this illustration saw Peter’s demonstration of when he uses black squares and white squares to explain in a simple way how the machine works and decided to use the information in a very negative and deceptive way.

      This is not helping anyone. It is hurting people. It is creating doubt and uncertainty in a manner very unpleasing to the Lord God. I can assure you of that.

      The shades of light and dark in a photograph or sculpture or a painting do not represent forensically accurate dimensions. A certain part of the image may look correct. But not as a whole.
      Unless the images are doctored knowing in advance the image will be tested for that.

      \Like the images you have presented.

      I am so glad I went to see Peter Schumacher and did some filming at his museum with one of the few existing VP 8 analyzers that are still working and we will be uploading a video that will explain not only how the VP analyzer works but also how a hologram is made.
      Peter himself will actually be doing some of the presentation.

      In simple language a hologram converts math to color and a VP 8 analyzer converts the color back to math and interprets that as a certain distance, up or down depending on the color. A color becomes a number.

      We will all see this shortly.

      The Shroud is a 3D holographic image. Indisputably.

      The microscopic shades of light and dark in the image create the optical illusion of depth and are forensically to a man appx, 5′ 11″ 175lbs. Not just a simple face image. But an entire body, with no deviation or deformed areas as all other images have if they are not holographic.

      This cannot be a random accident.

      Only holograms have this kind of info. They are also made up of microscopic shades of light and dark that create the optical illusion of depth forensically accurate to the object replicated. In part that is because a laser beam is bouncing off the object on to the film plate and that distance is converted into a color. Math converted to color. A hologram records the intensity of the light hitting the film plate and the direction of light.

      In Mark Evans micro photographs we can see that a single fibril of linen flax which is about 15 micrometers in thickness has this rapid aging coloring effect whereas the adjacent fiber is not colored?! And then the next one is colored and the next fibril is not colored, and so on and so on.
      That means the “The Printer” of this image was capable of producing an image with resolution of up to 30 line pairs per millimeter. The Shroud is by far a more sophisticated image than the simple drawing uploaded. That is an understatement.

      Most of us know for a forensic fact that a human being cannot create an image with separation of colored vs uncolored areas at 15 micrometers. Nor can any man made object making contact with a printing medium produce these effects. There are 1000 micro meters in 1 millimeter to give one an idea of how small 15 micro meters is. A human hair is between 50 and 150. Depending on hair type.

      A laser printer applies toner by controlled electrostatic discharge. Yes, electrical signals moving through space and then making contact with the printing medium It is not a contact image process. . Shroud image created in a similar manner.

      But in this case the “electrostatic discharge” is coming from the body. That is not my opinion, that is what the forensic evidence says happened.

      The image does not maintain any resolution consistency,because all parts of the body were not at the same distance from the cloth. But neither does a hologram when moved away from the film plate too far. When making a hologram one must put the object right up close to the film plate or you will not get an image at all. In fact when making a reflection hologram if the object is moved even 4 to 5 centimeters from the film plate the image process stops. We see the same thing with the Shroud.

      We see it on the dorsal side, there is no image at all where the knees would be on the other side. We see it in front where the image vanishes from the knees down. There is nothing there. Only blood stains that create the optical illusion the image process continues when it actually does not. The rapid aging effect completely vanishes!

      We see it on the sides of the face and all side images for that matter.

      Can anyone imagine one doing a depiction of Jesus crucified without illustrating the feet?!

      In this case the feet were too far away from the cloth to image because knees were raised.

      You can also see image diminish in the left calf area because the left calf was at a greater distance from cloth than the right. (It was on top of right foot)

      All the forensic clues are there for the person diligently seeking the truth.

      We will be uploading in a visual sense everything just stated and a lot more.

      On a closing note, any person who actually set out to create a Jesus burial cloth would never in a million years put an image on it. That would immediately look fake/man made regardless of what image process was used.

      A “fake” would be an old looking linen with blood only. And more likely only “pieces of it”

      When a crime scene is staged/ fake. You give people what they expect to see, not what they do not expect.

      Shroud is NOT what one would expect to see. A complete deviation from what any person would expect.

      A sign of what? Authenticity.

      The Shroud of Turin is a case of where truth is stranger than fiction.

      No man could have “made this up” Clearly this is the work of a higher power intelligence/God His signature is all over it.

      In the Bible it says, “A lie has a short life but the truth will last forever”

      There is a reason why no one has ever exposed as a lie….because it is not.

      The only thing that goes get exposed when one attempts to expose the Shroud as a lie, in most cases is the contempt and ignorance of that person.

      Glory be to the Lord God Forever. Amen.

      1. Very useful comment I’ve laearned a lot more about Shroud image.
        In your opinion is it theoretically possible to obtain an Hologram from an «ordinary» photograph?-this had been a challenge to Dr Petrus Soons hologram of the Shroud creation but he did it.
        Is Dr. Peter Schumaker going to create a new holographic image of the Shroud?
        If affirmative what would it mean?

        Antero de Frias Moreira
        (Centro Português de Sindonologia)

        1. Hello there Antero de Frias Moreira

          I am using my facebook account to reply to this. Because of this day and age of identity theft and for my personal protection I used a name other than my own. But for the official record. My name is David.

          First thing to understand about the Shroud case file goes back to a famous quote

          There is a principal which is bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is called Contempt Prior To Investigation

          The Shroud of Turin case file is the greatest example of contempt prior to investigation in the history of forensic science.

          The Shroud fake posts are a great example of what happens when one has contempt prior to investigation, the result is everlasting ignorance, the equivalent of one rendering a guilty verdict before the defendant even walks into the courtroom.

          From history we know the greatest injustices occur when this happens.

          In the case of the Shroud often one hears the Shroud is associated with the Catholic Church/ Religion or Jesus whom they have contempt for and is immediately declared guilty before 1 witness even has a chance to offer testimony.

          Skeptics will claim otherwise but their body language and eyes tell a different story.

          The possibility he or she is innocent was not even a possibility. they are guilty.

          The Shroud cannot be possibly be authentic.

          “now lets go look for reasons why he or she is guilty”

          “The 3 info is an incredible random accident”

          “Paul of Tarsus said it was a shame for a man to have long hair”

          “graven image!”

          regardless of how absurd or ridiculous that “evidence” is that “proves guilt” or whose character is assassinated and who may get hurt in the process, none of those things matter. “it is all about me and what I want”

          It is not a pursuit of the truth. There is no empathy for the person whose image is on the cloth and no love or genuine care for another person.

          Skeptics of the Shroud are not capable of conducting anything that even remotely resembles an impartial and thorough investigation.

          But as for Peter creating a holographic image of the Shroud other than what is already there, I do not think so.
          It does not need to be altered in any way.
          If the info on the Shroud was transferred to a piece of flat glass we would be looking at a hologram the way it is without changing anything.

          Linen is not light reflective. If the info from an actual hologram was put on linen it would not appear 3D either unless viewed with a VP 8 analyzer.

          It would look just like the info on the Shroud.

          The Shroud is a holographic image.

          That is an indisputable forensic fact of this case. A demonstrated reality right in front our faces.

          But since that image is of Jesus, now there is something wrong with it.

          Or any forensic pathologist or blood chemistry expert that tells us a real 3D body was in that cloth.

          They are also wrong. It does not matter that 12 different forensic pathologists, medical doctors and blood chemistry experts are all in agreement after conducting a thorough investigation a 3D body was in the cloth. They have to be wrong.

          But the person who has never seen the Shroud, never ran blood tests, never examined the fibers under microscope themselves, never seen a dead body at a real crime scene and have never conducted an autopsy, those people are now the Shroud of Turin experts.

          The skeptics rendered a guilty verdict on the Shroud before “the investigation” even began.

          And we see the result of what happens when that occurs.
          Everlasting ignorance, a by product of contempt.

          I will close with a comment made by Jesus the Lord

          “they dug a pit for me, but in the midst of it, they themselves have fallen”

    2. I meant to say at the end of my post that there is a reason why no one has ever exposed the Shroud as lie…..because it is not.

      See, The simple answer is the answer.

      It falls right in line with the Word of God.

      “A lie has a short life, but the truth will last forever”

      We all know from History lies do not last very long.

      Lies always become exposed. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.

      The knock on the door comes from forensic detectives 30 years after a crime was committed that that person thought they got away with.

      the truth always wins.
      It is unstoppable.
      It is the most powerful thing in the world.

      The Shroud of Turin is an obvious image of Jesus, unless one is not being honest with themselves.

      The crown/cap of thorns, right side pierced, scourged and crucified, part of beard missing, laid in a long sheet of linen.

      We could take all of these things that have nothing to do with a Roman Crucifixion and that also have nothing to do with belonging to any particular time period. Bearing that in mind we could go through every autopsy report ever filed in the history of the earth and look for a 1 person that had all of these wounds and was found dead wrapped in a long sheet of fine linen.

      1. Puncture wounds from a thistle/thorn plant from Jerusalem around their head
      2. Right side pierced with a 4 cm wide blade. (Same width as 1st Century Roman Lancea)
      3. Part of beard missing
      4. Victim found wrapped in a long sheet of fine linen

      How many people would match this description?

      Allow me to answer to that question

      Not one person.

      These are unique signature wounds of Jesus and his mantle.

      The combination of these wounds is not unlike a very unique tattoo that the Bible says Jesus had on a particular part of his body.

      I once saw a case where positive ID was made on a body from a unique tattoo the victim had that was in a photograph, DNA sample was not available.

      Forensic pathologists determined a real genuine dead body was in that cloth and this dead person has this unique tattoo that is described in the Bible

      Man in the Shroud is Jesus. We just made positive ID.

      The Shroud of Turin is the most powerful witness in the world, who tells the most powerful of truth of all. A very threatening and inconvenient truth to people in “high places”

      Jesus said to us

      “Let your Yes be Yes and let your No be No, anything more than this shows something is wrong and comes from the Evil one”

      I will close by quoting Dr. Frederick Zugibe who spent nearly 50 years of his life researching the Shroud and responded like this when asked if he believed a real dead body was wrapped in the Shroud (He was convinced also it was Jesus)

      “I have no doubt in my mind what so ever”
      Dr. Frederick Zugibe

      His Yes was Yes and his No was NO. He was certain. Convinced.

      Knowing the Truth creates the sensation of Certainty and Certainty creates sensations of joy and freedom at very high levels. Doubt and uncertainty creates the sensation of fear and with fear comes sadness and anger.
      Which way would you prefer to feel?
      Certain or uncertain.

  2. Hi Dan ,
    Did you change your headline from ” Is the Shroud real? Probably” to “Is the Shroud real? Possibly ?”

    1. Good catch PHPL:

      I refer once again to my presentation:

      The problem is, that actually people do not understand the image properties of the Shroud. How does the Shroud image “works”. And then they may be surprised by how it really looks like.

      The 3D or negativity or many other traits are no magic -and never were. The people who worked on the Shroud, and were convinced of its authenticity understood this. Read carefully the old STURP papers of Jackson & Jumper:

      Click to access 3D%20Characteristic%20Jackson%20Jumper%201982%20OCR.pdf

      Click to access Correlation%20of%20Image%20Intensity%20Jackson%20Jumper%20Ercoline%201984%20OCRsm.pdf

      If you wish to fake one specific trait of the Shroud image (like negativity, 3D, lack of contours, or even superficiality at fiber levels) -no problem. You can find a technique well suited to that particular trait (but ill-suited to the others).

      But if you wants to reconstruct the whole complex burial cloth image -seems nobody can. The Shroud image is definitely beyond any known medieval technique that might have been used to create it. Maybe nowadays, with enough funds and sophisticated technology (lasers?) dedicated to the problem, we may, using dedicated database of human body shape, create some similar image consisting of superficially colored linen fibers that obeys 3D correlation and other aspects… but for what purpose? Just to recreate the specific trick, present on the cloth showing the martyrdom of the Man consistent in every detail with Jesus Pasion in the Gospels?

    2. Yes, I did. In my gut I pretty much feel the same way as before; I think it is real. But rationally, I’m struggling. When I stopped blogging I had three notions about how the image was formed. In order: 1) Natural but so far not well defined. 2) Purely miraculous. 3) A 1st or 2nd-century forgery.

      Now I’m thinking number 2 is in first place and number 1 is in 2nd place. Seemingly, that felt more like possibly than probably. And, in striving constantly to be open-minded, I felt better (more honest) using the word possibly.

      You are observant!

      1. Yes Dan, let’s consider it (the Shroud) a miracle, and leave struggling with scientific puzzles to the scientists, and the nature of miracles to philosophers and theologians :-)

        The fact is that dealing with all the Shroud issues teaches you humility with both regarding the capabilities of science and the philosophical/theological convictions about the world surrounding us, no matter individual believes.

  3. What is 3D effect? Simply a correlation of the intensity of the image with the body-cloth distance.

    If you wish to recreate this -take the body, take the cloth, take the ruler, carefully measure all the distances, write down the notes. And then take a pencil, or a brush and paint, and point by point, recreate this. With sufficient training and several attempts, finally you recreate it with sufficient accuracy. But what does it mean? Nothing, actually -obviously your work has nothing in common with the Shroud, besides this correlation. Just like the Shroud image has, despite common misconception, nothing in common with photography besides negative character.

    That’s why there is no point in discouraging oneself, due to the misunderstanding of the 3D issue.

    1. No, I don’t agree. The 3D effect is NOT a correlation of the intensity of the image with the body-cloth distance. The 3D effect is a heightmap produced by a set of relative gray-scale values all somewhere between white and black. Here is a Wikipedia entry.

      If one wishes to believe it has something to do with body-cloth distance, that’s fine. It may, but how do we know this? If you want me to believe it, you are going to have to convince me that the cloth covered the body and the image was formed by some agency acting at a distance.

      1. “No, I don’t agree. The 3D effect is NOT a correlation of the intensity of the image with the body-cloth distance. The 3D effect is a heightmap produced by a set of relative gray-scale values all somewhere between white and black. Here is a Wikipedia entry.”

        Yes, Dan -the 3D effect is a (significant -in statistical meaning correlation of gray-scale values with presumed body-cloth distance. Please read the fundamental Jackson & Jumper papers on the issue:

        Click to access 3D%20Characteristic%20Jackson%20Jumper%201982%20OCR.pdf

        Click to access Correlation%20of%20Image%20Intensity%20Jackson%20Jumper%20Ercoline%201984%20OCRsm.pdf

        But this approach -a correlation is a statistical term -has its limits. You can fake such a correlation, its numerical value and statistical significance, of course. That’s what Craig & Bresee did in their 1994 paper. But the 3D of the Shroud image is not merely a numerical value of correlation coefficient. It is the ability to realistically present a mold, or form, the shape of the body presumably covered by the Shroud. That ‘s much more challenging for the artist to imitate. Not impossible by any principle, but very difficult to achieve realistically.

  4. The picture presented are forom this paper:

    From my presentation about 3D properties:

    “As we discussed in previous sections, Vignon in 1902 observed that those parts of the body which should be further from the cloth are dimmer on negative photographs. 80 years later Jackson & Jumper determined the correlation. But this does not mean that such correlation is unique to the Shroud. The problem of 3D on the Shroud is much more complex than single statistical parameter.In 1994 Craig & Bresee presented a paper (Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, Volume 38, No. 1, p.59-67.) on their dust drawing technique. This technique is unable to reproduce all the characteristics of the Shroud image for several reasons (e.g. lack of pigments), but here we are interested only in 3D properties.

    Craig & Bresee did the same what Jackson & Jumper, and calculated correlation coefficient. Their result: R^2=0.59 was almost the same as Jackson & Jumper (R^2=0.60) as to the value, or even stronger due to the use of greater sample (33 points instead of 13). This important lesson teaches us that in fact 3D effect does not limit itself to the presence of statistical correlation

    As correlation coefficient cannot discriminate between true or imitated body-cloth distance in this case, other approach is needed. Essentially an approach taken by Vignon -visual examination of all the body points and the estimation of their distance from the draping cloth vs distance. An examination that needs some experience and mainly the knowledge of the human body profile -which we all know from everyday life.

    There are several features on the Craig & Bresee 3D plot that do not fit, and expose it as a work of human artist, instead of real body/face image. I will call them fatal errors. Contrary, the Shroud image is extremely realistic (in fact it should not have been with regards to the face, but I will explain later). No attempt of Shroud reproduction I know, was ever able to produce a convincing face that would fool a kid as a real human face.”

    The people like Jackson, Schwortz, Fanti, Downing … they all understand what 3D in the context of the Shroud. It seems, Dan, you have still to work on understanding of this issue.

    There are many views, many opinions, many new insights on the Shroud.
    In some cases, they may cast a shadow of doubt on our previous understanding of the Shroud. But in my opinion, there have been no new arguments recently, that would undermine the case for the authenticity of the Shroud, as the Jesus’ burial sheet.

    1. Can you explain to me what it is that “people like Jackson, Schwortz, Fanti, Downing” understand about “3D in the context of the Shroud” that I need to work on to understand this issue?

      I can’t begin to tell you how many presentations I’ve listened to, papers and books that I’ve read that say in so many words that the VP-8 produces an image unlike anything that is possible with normal photographs and paintings. I had a long talk with Barrie the other night. We are friends. But we disagree. And I’ve met with Ray Downing in the past and studied his work. But, frankly, there is something in his “software” (or machinations) that doesn’t make sense to me. I’d like to see it in action, not on TV or a website.

      Context? What does context mean in this context? What does the term normal mean in this context? Accurate and Very accurate, what do those terms mean in this context?

      I’m not here to debunk. I’m challenging. What was it that Richard Feynman supposedly said? “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” I say the same thing about 3D on the shroud. That applies to everyone as far as I’m concerned.

      1. Hello Dan!

        A lot of confusion is there. It is perhaps because the common way of lecturing about the Shroud, is a historical approach, in 1898 Pia discovered negativity, in 1970s Jackson & Jumper discovered 3D with VP-8 etc.

        This is actually misleading, creates a hype, and in my opinion asks the wrong questions. How to make an image that is a photographic negative, 3 D rendering, without contours, isotropic, etc. ? There is always a way to do it regarding the individual properties -but resulting images have actually nothing in common with the Shroud (besides this single selected characteristic).

        In my opinion, the issue should be lectured in more modern, compact way? The problem is: what constitutes the image on the Shroud, what makes it so specific? What are its basic components? And ONLY THEN ask a question: what are derived properties (like negativity or 3D) of such an image.

        Once you understand what the Shroud image is REALLY made of -it all becomes much, much more clear. The falseness of various sceptical hypotheses (like paintings, photographs, scorches, dust rendering etc.) is then absolutely obvious.

        In two weeks, on 21st, a friend of mine has an academic seminar, about Shroud image and its properties -and I am helping him preparing it. In two weeks I should prepare a presentation showing and describing, what the image on the Shroud actually is (in a physical/optical sense), and then I will post it to you.

        Anyway, please read CAREFULLY this paper by Fanti -it explains A LOT. The bundle of straws model is absolutely brilliant, and explains virtually everything what is important about optical Shroud image characteristics on the microscopic level.

        And then my presentation:
        -how to go from microscopic to macroscopic properties.

  5. To keep going with the black swan fallacy, this is more like:
    You’re looking at a white swan, and you call it a cat. Because a few cats like water, and you can stick feathers on their hairs.

  6. I think Mr. Lee Jones misunderstood what I meant.
    I asked whomever to show me examples of images from the Middle Ages to the 19 Th century that when scanned with VP 8 or modern 3D image processing would produce SIMILAR RESULTS AS THE SHROUD IMAGE.
    As a Shroud researcher I’m aware of Craig and Breeze’s work and other «nice try» to reproduce the Shroud face or even the whole Shroud image I mean for example Nathan Wilson’s «Shadow Shroud», Science et Vie frottage technique and at last Garlaschelli’s Shroud back in 2009.
    Engineer Christophe Mignot studied in a comparative way Shadow Shroud face and the genuine Shroud of Turin face image and concluded that only the latter had true 3D encoding-unfortunately the link is no longer available.
    Concerning the face of Garlashelli’s Shroud physicist Keith Propp «used a software emulating the famous VP8 to compare the 3D properties of the TS and LG images» and concluded that although LG image has SOME 3D properties the differences are obvious and the TS image has fine variations in altitude, in other words HAS REAL 3D ENCODING .

    Craig and Breeze’s image has already been thoroughly analyzed by O.K. nevertheless it’s worth saying that their work was done having a photograph of the Turin Shroud face for reference and even so the macroscopic aspect of the image is quite different from the Turin Shroud face, not to mention the differences at microscopic fiber level or the chemistry.

    I have no expertise in Image analysis as O.K and Mr. Lee Jones, but from the conclusions of image experts as Engineer Christophe Mignot and Physicist Keith Propp it seems that the examples of images provided ARE NOT EXACTLY similar to the image of the Turin Shroud face,

    The examples of images provided are neither «ordinary photographs» nor images from Medieval era till the 19th century as I asked they are rather 20 th century man-made intentional images produced with the aim of denying the Shroud’s authenticity but that’s another story….

    I’m still waiting for my request

    Antero de Frias Moreira
    (Centro Português de Sindonologia)

    1. Perhaps the images i provided you with are not from the middle age’s, but they could very well have been done in the middle age’s by some artist using a pencil and drawing somebody’s face with varying shades of a color of his/her choice. That would still qualify as a “3D Image” when rendered with a VP8 or a similar software that emulates a VP8 analyser. I did not present the images to prove anything to do with the shroud being a “fake” or the actual burial cloth of Christ, it was merely within the context of the discussion at hand regarding those 3D qualities that the actual shroud has. I was showing that the shroud is not the only image that can be rendered as a 3D image using isometric projection or any of the other similar methods. It is just a matter of an image having shading in a certain way. Nothing more.

    2. I will however set about looking for an image from the time frame you specified. A black and white portrait of somebodys face should suffice.

    3. Just to clarify, i am not an expert in image analysis lol. Here is a 3D rendering of a random image of William the Conqueror that i got from google. It is in black and white, which renders a 3D image in the same way that the turin shroud image does (Darker shade’s go up and lighter shade’s go down .. Or vice-versa) Like i said before, any image that is made from either black and white with tone variation, or a monochromatic image (of any color, the shrouds sepia colour included) that has varying tones of shade intensity, will be rendered by a VP8 or software emulation as a 3D brightness map via isometric projection or similar methods.

      1. Thank you for your answer.
        Is it your opinion that any image that is made from either black and white with tone variation will produce THE SAME RESULT as the Shroud image when scanned by VP8 or more modern image 3D processing techniques?

        1. No not ANY old image, one with varying shades of black or any other monochromatic color shading … So the VP8 will pick up on the shading and be able to render an isometric projection, or brightness map (Which is how a VP8 analyser works) As proven with the second lot of images i have provided you with.

        2. Also, Another example that i can show you that i think shows that the shroud’s 3D response is not the only image that give’s a “3D response” when scanned with a VP8 analyser or any similar emulating software (ImageJ for example) would be Volckringer images or patterns. The leaves leave images that when scanned with the aim of rendering a 3D brightness map, isometric projections etc, show an image that is rendered in the same way that the shroud is, and gives the same kind of 3D results, the Volckringer images also respond to color inversion in the same way that the shroud images does, as the images appear to be negative like the shroud image is. Here are two examples. Positive & Negative >>
          3D Response >>

        3. And here is another image that you have probably already seen in your time as a shroud researcher. It show’s a resultant 3D rendering of a Volckringer image that looks very similar to the kind of response that an image of the shroud does when it is rendered by a VP8 analyser. I must also point out, that the shroud it’s self was not actually physically scanned by the VP8, They used photograph’s of the shroud.

  7. Thing is, if the Shroud was made in the 1300’s as per C14 (even though there is a drawing of it, including the signature F holes from before 1199), why would a faker try to enbue it with 3D? Did he just get lucky? Spew some blood on a canvas and then somehow make a smudge of a executed man that properly fit. Then a few hundred years later NASA nerds find it’s similar to their planetary radar images. Right.
    Run some images of medieval art or better yet any other shrouds there’s supposed to be and see what the VP8 or a work-alike filter does with them.

  8. I agree with you JimG. Some are comparing Apple with Oranges to prove ST is a medieval fraud.

  9. 1) “there is a drawing of it, including the signature F holes from before 1199”
    Really? Where?

    2) “why would a faker try to enbue it with 3D?”
    He didn’t.

    3) “Did he just get lucky?”

    4) “Spew some blood on a canvas and then somehow make a smudge of a executed man that properly fit.”
    Probably not.

    5) “Then a few hundred years later NASA nerds find it’s similar to their planetary radar images.”
    They didn’t, and it isn’t.

    6) “Some are comparing Apple with Oranges to prove ST is a medieval fraud.”
    We are not trying to prove anything. Are you?

  10. Oh dear! Decades after Jackson first introduced the notion of “cloth-body distance” determining image intensity, we see it repeated in 2019 as if the gold-standard in sindonology.

    Sorry, but scientific models should never be based purely on statistical correlation, based in turn on modelling with arbitrary assumptions (like loosely-draped linen, no applied pressure).

    Nuff said!

    I’ve shamelessly pniched the next graphic from a Fanti paper to illustrate Jackson’s correlation (or as I would say, spurious correlation, falsely impyling causation)

    But there are flaws and objections where the above is concerned. One could mention just one – that it suggests the dorsal image would be more intense than the frontal, due to body weight. Most are agreed that frontal and dorsal intensities do not differ significantly.

    Here’s my model, which dispenses totally with the notion of cloth-body distance (which even Ray Rogers declared to be unscientific if based on self-emitted radiation). Note it uses TWO different human subjects, aligned head to head, one face up, the other face down.

    Image intensity is determined by differential manual (‘pat-down) pressure at higher v lower relief, due to use of a largish tamping device (probably human hands) which make better acceess to higher than lower relief.

    Factors like partial obstruction, soft fatty tissue, pressure resistance from underlying bone all play a role in determining graduated image intensity.

    1. Yes ,exactly ,and besides this the body is supposed to have been in contact with the cloth for a very brief period, I,e, less than three days.

      1. There are numerous difficulties where extended passage of time is concerned in pro-authenticity scenarios Patrick (PHPL) whether in naturalistic models (notably Rogers with his post-mortem putrefaction amines supplying the wherewithal for Maillard reactions) or ‘resurrectional flash of radiation’ on the third day.

        Blood is the obvious one. Imprinting of bloodstains requires freshly shed blood, or at any rate not dried-on clotted blood. So how’s that possible if body-image imprinting occurs days after crucifixion?

        Alan Adler produced the magic wand: “serum exudation from retracted blood clots”. (Oh, and there was the second Harry Potter intrusion – “trauma bilirubin” being responsible for blood that was “too red”).

        “Er, yes, you don’t say” is what I’d have said to his imposing face if he were still with us, followed by ” Er, did I hear correctly that your speciality was porphyrin chemistry (no mention of clinical haematology)?”


  11. By the way fellas’s, regarding the work i did on the high res images of the reverse side of the shroud, I got an E-Mail from Robert Siefker & John Jackson saying its potentially groundbreaking stuff :) I will keep you all informed of the progress.

    1. Robert Siefker has exchanged emails with Lee Jones regarding his images. TSC and John Jackson are NOT, I repeat NOT, at this time in any way engaged in any discussions with Lee Jones.

      1. Fair enough and i apologize Robert, i made an assumption based on the one time you said “we” in our exchange of E-Mail’s. Why is there not an option to delete replies on WordPress lol, it would make thing’s alot easier. I would implement the feature in the coding if i were the software developer. Again i apologize for assuming. I have only really just started getting involved with you guy’s only recently and i am beginning to see how the world of Sindonology is ha.

  12. It’s too bad.  I would like to allow everyone with an opinion to present it.  But I will not allow baseless personal, mean-spirited insults. Therefore what you had to say about the VP-8 Image Analyzer and the 3D aspects of the shroud image will not be aired here.  If you want to rewrite your comments without insults, I will consider them.  

    The Christianity that I believe in is not fearful of what seems to be reasonable truth. Therefore, for instance, I accept things like the Darwinian evolution, the formation of the universe billions of years ago and the possibility of many worlds and many universes.  And that also means I am prepared to believe in the shroud’s authenticity or not as the evidence suggests.  And I’m prepared to believe the resurrection was physical or not as the evidence suggests.  

    1. Hmmm. Let’s take a guess as to the withheld name of the commentator hurling insults.

      Might this provide a clue? Think rhyme without reason… ;-)

      1. PS: Here’s a comment I intended to place on Dan’s Feb 8 posting re the supposed (poorly documented!) image ultra-superficiality, only to find that the comments facility there is now closed.

        I hope he won’t object to my posting it here instead. It’s by way of a progress report, which I made by way of comment just a short while ago on my own site:

        March 13, 2019 at 10:19 am

        15 months after doing this post, I got to wondering about that dark coloration obtained with alkali/detergent (oven cleaner!). I didn’t give it much thought at the time, given the focus was on bleaching. (See the circled area labelled “alkali” in the above posting)

        But given my claim that most of the image chromophore in my Model 10 imprints (flour/oven-roasting/washing) is NOT restricted to the primary cell wall, but hidden away inside the secondary cell wall (based on what one sees and doesn’t see in cross-sections of threads and fibres under the microscope) I got to wondering if the alkali result might be providing at least circumstantial evidence for SCW entrapment of image chromophore.

        In keeping with my new policy of publishing no more detailed research findings (at least until sindonology, Dan Porter and his resurrected shroudstory site excepted, ceases to treat this retired scientist as a non-person) I shall just give a brief verbal update on alkali-testing, attached to this previous posting that gives visual clues.

        I again dripped the alkali reagent onto washed Model 10 imprints, somewhat faint yellowish brown in colour, and immediately obtained an intensely deep brown coloration, not seen with neighbouring non-imprinted linen.

        After a few hours I removed the linen, washed thoroughly under running water and then air-dried. The linen had reverted to its original faint brown coloration.

        This morning I added a second addition of alkali reagent. Result. Same dark brown colour!

        Interpretation: I suspect the colour change is due to reaction between solid (microparticulate) melanoidins entrapped within the SCW. They can produce a colour change, reversible with washing, but cannot escape.

        Prediction: given I believe the Turin LInen chromophore also to be melanoidin in nature (as did Ray Rogers), formed I consider by my Model 10 flour-imprinting technology (or something very similar) then a prediction can be made.

        Take an image fibre from the Turin Linen. Place on a microscope slide. Add a drop of strong alkali. It will go dark brown. Then flush with plenty of water. Leave to dry. Most of the intense brown coloration will have gone. Then repeat the test a second time. The intense brown coloration will return.

        Maybe Adler and Heller did the above test. I must go back and scrutinize their published work. I do seem to recall them saying that the image colour was not bleached by either acid or alkali, but without any mention as to whether they saw intensification of colour with alkali or not.

  13. ” I would like to allow everyone with an opinion to present it.”

    Yes Dan , I agree wholeheartedly with your policies. Let everybody share their views and opinions in a friendly. environment. This leads to progress.

    Those who have intolerant attitudes end up looking at themselves in a mirror and thinking that’s the world.

Comments are closed.