COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED FOR THIS POST
Dear Joe Marino, I am always grateful for your periodic emails highlighting new Shroud information. I particularly appreciate you asking for my opinion on the new two-part video, “Is This The Real Face Of Jesus Christ?” It is true that I have “issues with the 3D claim,” as you say, but I am not sure that makes me an expert about the “science” presented in the video, but I’ll make some observations anyway.
A non-sequitur jump from “science” to proselytizing a personal conviction is clearly the presenter’s primary intent. Thus, from the his own words, I would change the title to “The Shroud Is a Warning From a God Who Can’t Tolerate What He Is Seeing Anymore.” You will want to look at the science but take a look at a warning segment if you want a sense of where this is going.
- Click HERE to watch one of the endtime warning segments (YouTube will automatically jump to the right spot which is only 60 seconds long).
To watch the entire video on YouTube:
- click HERE for part 1 (17+ minutes, which you may want to bail out about halfway through because of the repetition)
- click HERE for Part 2 (8+ minutes plus titles and credits)
My first thought when I saw the “science” of Part 2 was that this is way over my head and we need some experts who know real science and understand the 3D image characteristics of the Shroud. The first five names that came to mind were Colin Berry, O.K., Hugh Farey, Giulio Fanti, and John Jackson, who have all contributed so much to a greater understanding of the Shroud. As always, I encourage anyone else to chime in.
Part 1 of the video introduces Pete Schumacher and his VP-8 Image Analyzer. It then goes on to present a series of tests intended to prove that photographs and paintings cannot be used to create realistic 3D projections. It is too bad, the video’s presenter did not test the death mask photo from the top of this posting or some other images that disprove the proof.
Part 2 of the film attempts to demonstrate a method that John Jackson* developed to create a 3D-encoding in an image file. In the demonstration, a glow-in-the-dark bust is immersed in a tank of water with blue food coloring. For me, not trained in science, the presentation was hard to follow from that point forward. It seems riddled with questionable facts and observations. For example, does human DNA really emit laser-like light? Why is it necessary to slow down the speed of light in water? How is it that only collimated brightness/distance/speed-of- light is seen at the surface of the water? Or is this simply a case of diffused and refracted light in water just as it is air as with the death mask? Far from being convinced about anything, I am confused. If all this is so, why couldn’t a medieval artist simply submerge a body in water with the right lighting and with the right paint and acid binder, paint what he sees at the water’s surface to create an interesting picture that is unintentionally 3D encoded? Like I said, we need some smarter people to look at this video. *Note that I have had no success in fact checking this information about John Jackson’s method and I am taking the video maker at his word. Anyone know for sure? John?
My “issues with the 3D claim” have nothing to do with what is presented in Part 2. My issue is related more to Part 1, with the progressive misinterpretation of the real 3D data starting out with the experiment carried out in 1976 by physicist John Jackson and radiographic expert William Mottern. Utilizing the VP-8 Image Analyzer, they examined a photograph of the Shroud. Pete Schumacher and the narrator do a good job of showing this.
Later, in the summary of STURP’s 1981 conclusions, the outcome was described as follows:
The computer image enhancement and analysis conducted by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer reveal that the image contains unique, three-dimensional information encoded within it.
So far, so good.
Subsequently, Barrie Schwortz, in a visually rich presentation discussing STURP’s 1978 Scientific Examination of the Shroud, described the image as a:
rather amazing natural relief of a human form, demonstrating that, in stark contrast to regular photographs or artworks, certain spatial or topographic data was encoded into the Shroud’s image.
The words ‘human form’ had now appeared, as well as the assertion that it was unlike normal photographs or artwork. Was this distinction based on additional data or an expansive interpretation? It’s unclear.
By 2015, Schwortz was saying:
This spatial data encoded into the image actually eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism for its creation and allows us to conclude that the image was formed while the cloth was draped over an actual human body.
National Catholic Review: “The Shroud of Turin and Technoscience” by Father Dwight Longenecker, July 4, 2015
I’m not faulting Barrie. This progression was slowly viral and Barrie, the outstanding presenter he is, was reporting the expanded judgment of many researchers.
Now we —and I say we because for many years I had been caught up in the excitement of believing it was so—could conclude that the image was formed while the cloth was draped over an actual human body. The VP-8 tells us no such thing, however. Not that the cloth was draped. Not that what we were seeing was unlike normal photographs or artwork. Not even that three-dimensional information was encoded in the image. The VP-8, as it was being used by Mottern and Jackson, is a very simple tool. Its purpose is to create a 3D rendering from the brightness (= relative grayscale values) in all the different places of a two-dimensional flat image.
Because a photograph, including a so-called black and white photograph, is a collection of varying bits of brightness, the VP-8 will produce a 3D rendering of that brightness data. Today, software apps have replaced the VP-8. Photographs used as input are now digital image files called heightmaps or topography-brightness-maps.
The VP-8 and all of the newer modern software can also be used to visualize two-dimensional information for easier interpretation. A good example of this is graphing the population densities of a geographic region as imaginary terrains that soar upward where cities are found and drop down to valleys in rural areas. It is useful for visualizing geographic terrains and medical imaging.
I seriously doubt that the VP-8 was ever intended for classifying data as three-dimensional. It cannot be used to prove that suspected 3D data is, in fact, 3D. Ray Rogers pointed out that a drop of black ink dropped onto a piece of filter paper would diffuse outward and when plotted with the VP-8, would produce a picture of a mountain. Would anyone imagine that this was a real mountain or that the data was truly three-dimensional or spatial data?
The VP-8 machine is capable of generating a 3D rendering from a photograph if the photograph functions as a heightmap. I have a hard time believing that Jackson and Mottern believed they had demonstrated or proven anything more. Didn’t the use of the VP-8 to plot a checkerboard, as Pete Schumacher does in Part 1, demonstrate this?
Because the VP-8 is equally capable of allowing correct and incorrect interpretations, the word “apparent” is vital in this context because the varying brightness only suggests the apparent shape of something, possible spatiality, or ostensible topography. Therefore, the 3D rendering generated by the VP-8 is an interpretation of the heightmap rather than a true representation of 3D data. Certainly, Jackson and Mottern knew this.
If we put the word ‘apparent‘ in front of the word spatial, as we should, we find that we can no longer eliminate paintings or photographs. Nor, can we really conclude anything.
But we can inadvertently jump to conclusions. It is easy to believe that the image displayed on the VP-8’s screen is three-dimensional simply because it appears that way. I did! As the adage goes, if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. Consequently, if the image seems to portray the natural contours of a human figure, it’s logical to assume it contains 3D information about a human figure. However, it’s crucial to recognize that the perceived 3D quality of the image could be merely an illusion generated by the VP-8’s capacity to map the apparent distance of each point on the image’s surface. In truth, the image remains two-dimensional, and the illusion of 3D results from our interpretation of the brightness data seen on the surface of the blue water in the Part 2 experiment. It could be that our proverbial duck in the water is nothing more than an illusion.
Karl Popper, certainly one of history’s greatest philosophers of science, tells us that the duck test, formally the fallacy of essentialism, has been a problem since the days of Plato’s analogy about the shadows of men on the wall of a cave. What we see may not be reality. Modern humorists like Groucho Marx and the Monty Python troupe have lampooned the test with duck puppets and nonsense logic. What looks like a duck, they tell us, may in fact be a real duck, a rubber duck, or a miraculous apparition of a duck.
3D renderings of faces have been made from a dry powder painting, a photograph of a face mask, a conventional woodblock print, and thermal imprinting on cloth. The apparent 3D of the Shroud image may be many things and we owe it to ourselves not to jump to conclusions. The narrator of the video series does, however, and hastily. The body, he tells us is levitated. The top and bottom halves of the Shroud are flat and float above and below the body. Laser-like (coherent, he may mean) and vertically collimated light across the entire field produces an image on the cloth. The film narrator then uses a sleight-of-hand trick to reintroduce the image from the water in an ImageJ rendering to show us it is three-dimensional. This is, of course, not proof of anything. I felt I was watching a game of Three Card Monte.
The VP-8 was a good machine in its day. The 1981 “official Summary of STURP’s Conclusions” to the media simply stated: “The VP-8 image analyzer, a computer image enhancement and analysis device, reveals that the Shroud image contains unique three-dimensional information.” It would have been better if the document hadn’t used the word “unique” and instead had used “apparent.” And it would have been much better if, by 2015, the message hadn’t evolved in such a way as to conclude that the cloth was draped over a real human body. There was evidence that there was real blood on the cloth and that it was in near-registration with the image. But, while that may be so, that was not what was being explained. Image analysis was a nascent discipline in the 1970s. Regrettably, primary researchers and those who, like me, read about it, disregarded alternative ideas to which we now should give serious consideration.
In 1994, Dr. Emily A. Craig and Dr. Randall R. Bresee, a couple of University of Tennessee forensic researchers, wrote a paper, Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin. It appeared in the prestigious Journal of Imaging Science and Technology (Volume 34, Number 1, 1994). From the outset, their work did not receive the recognition it deserved because it was widely acknowledged they had not successfully reproduced the chemical nature of the image. Fair enough. But look more closely. They were successful in showing that by daubing with powdered pigment it was possible to “paint” a rather amazing natural relief of a human form. Adler knew this but dismissed it because he believed they were copying the Shroud’s image. It doesn’t look that way. And is that a meaningful objection? Recent analysis, using modern plotting tools reveals the absolute success of their efforts to mimic spatial data.
A few years later, Hugh Farey, the editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, explained how Colin Berry demonstrated that 3D information can be encoded in an image using thermal imprinting. By applying different levels of pressure between linen and a hot statue, a 3D effect can be mimicked. Farey didn’t pull his punches:
He demonstrated that almost any scorch will produce both an effective ‘negative’ image, and can be converted into a ‘3D image’ using similar software to that of the famous VP-8 Image Analyser, demolishing any miraculist claim that only the Shroud was capable of such effects.
British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, June 2015
I am not asserting that the image on the Shroud is not three-dimensional. The truth is we don’t know. Nor am I claiming that the Shroud did not cover a human body when the image was formed. We simply do not have sufficient evidence to confirm this. The VP-8 image analysis, which seems to show the three-dimensional features of the image, is apparent. And if it is apparent, it’s not evidence of anything.
This video is truly unusual. The narrator presents a series of science-sounding claims, some of which seem to be dubious. He then concludes with a disjointed, harsh end-time warning. (The God I believe in is ever-patient and unconditionally loving) I wonder what people who encounter the Shroud for the first time through this video will think about Shroud science, the Shroud itself and Shroudies.
Again, Joe, thanks for giving me these links and this opportunity to speak out. I cannot recommend this video to anyone.
John Jackson did indeed achieve quite a good 3D image by photographing a luminous head submerged in coloured water. However…
1). The speed of light has nothing to do with it – all that stuff about the earlier light producing a brighter image than the later light is nonsense – but because light closer to the surface is less absorbed by the pigment in the water than light further away.
2). The light from the luminous head is not collimated nor coherent and is nothing like laser light. The reason we can see the head in this video distinctly is that the light from it is focused through a lens into the camera. If a photosensitive sheet were placed over the surface of the water, the resulting image would be nothing but a blur.
3). At one point the light is described as “bouncing off” the object. It isn’t; if it is luminous light is emitted from it.
4). Neither the light from the head nor the image formed on the cloth or in the camera is in any sense at all “holographic.”
Is this Shroud Science? Of course not; it’s not science by any description of the word at all.
Dr. John Jackson would be in disagreement with you. He has PHD in Physics. I am going to side with expert witness testimony on this one. Hugh, seriously you are not a credible witness. You have a lot of contempt. I remember some of your comments from years ago. Extreme bias.
We know Dan thinks every word you utter is the Holy Gospel of Truth but it’s not.
But yes, I made a lot of holograms in past research and when making holographic images I always think of bouncing the diffracted laser light off the object, OK, so I made a little slip here, but it does not take a a rocket scientist to figure out the object itself was emitting light and not bouncing laser light off of it!
The depth info on this statue head is the most solid and the best I have ever seen. If all the artifact could be removed from the Shroud image we would have the same quality and zero distortions. The surface of the water was the receiving information source. The end result was an image that created the optical illusion of depth in proportion to the actual 3 D characteristics of the statue. The depth info on the statue is by far superior to any of the images posted here. None of them contain accurate depth info with the exception of the artists drawing based on the Shroud . All the other failed and some badly.
The images posted here do not contain accurate depth info. They are dressed up that way but they fail as soon as the perspective and the depth gain is increased. If the depth info was solid the image would remain stable and not warp out of shape. But of course they do. To someone who does not know anything about how to test for depth info this site would have them believe something that is not true. Basically this site is not giving testimony to the truth. That is a problem.
The images Dan has put up here do not contain accurate depth information. The toy statue, the death mask, the old man wood carving….they all failed the test for accurate 3D info. We are going to put them up on our channel. I need a good laugh anyways. They are displayed here using very weak settings on perspective and depth. Did these people think that no one would ever call them out on their B.S? The 3D Head emitting UV light underwater produced excellent depth information. Like gold is tested by fire our 3D object light emitting experiment was extremely successful. Super solid 3D info, the best I have ever seen and I have seen several hundred different images over the last 6 months including X rays and MRI’s. We showed the results on a 3D surface plot with same settings we used for every image we analyzed. I mean for Christs sake we analyzed the image on screen recorder in which the viewer can see everything we are doing. Dan accused of us some kind of trickery?! What an idiot. Old age is not doing Dan any favors, and of course he dragged out all the “proof” of other images that he thinks contain accurate 3D info when they do not. With the exception of the artist drawing that used the Shroud as a role model to do it. That one passed. But, What is that worth? Nothing. It is proof and evidence of nothing other than someone can copy a face image and mimic some of the shading and likely use the 3D software as “quality control” until they got it right. This was also done in a very primitive and “safe” manner and NOT replicating the totality of the Shroud image which is a much more complex arrangement of dark and light areas. . Dan’s claim that radiation was not involved in the image process is his own dumb opinion. Sadly Dan thinks every word that comes out of your mouth is the Holy Gospel of truth when it is not. We took a photo of the statue head underwater and then we analyzed it on a 3D surface plot. He refers to that as a 3 Card Monte act? OK Whatever, What is wrong with him?
We analyzed the image with the same settings of everything else we displayed! The depth info on this image is solid. Even with the perspective at max and the depth settings to the absolute max the image did not distort in any way. In fact the depth info simply got even better and deeper as we increased the perspective and depth. Interesting to note, the only scientific test ever done that demonstrated real accurate depth info was a 3d object emitting UV light underwater. Nothing else has achieved anything even close to the depth info we did and produced the same solid, accurate 3D info. Except for Dr. John Jackson of course.
The images posted here as containing 3D info are a joke. We will put them up and make a video. The photo of the statue head was taken in a dark basement with no other light interference. The only light captured by the lens was the light moving in a straight vertical line from the statue. So far this is the only credible way accurate depth info has been encoded into an image that can pass the hardest tests and not fail. It gives us insight into how the depth info on the Shroud was achieved. The common thread….objects emitting light produced the only credibly 3D info or should I say the forbidden word here. RADIATION!
Hi Dan, opinions vary on our videos.
We have close to 4 million views in 220 countries.
Doing good this year, over 750,000 views.
We do not need any help from anyone . 95% Favorable Comments. But we welcome skeptics. We give them a voice and leave all their comments up. We do not censor opposing views. We welcome those. Even the really nasty ones we leave up. Let that truth be seen as well. We have about 50% audience retention on our videos. Higher than average. We often make a short version and a longer version of the same video. We are constantly in the process of upgrading our videos. Just spent over 50 hours re editing the Part 1 of our new video. A superior edit. That one will go up tomorrow.
Some people like to see longer presentations, some like info fast, we present evidence both ways.
Getting straight to the point, do you realize the images you posted here do not contain accurate depth info? You should check things out yourself before posting false and deceptive information.
With the exception of the artists drawing based on the Shroud that likely also used the 3D software as “quality control” until they got the desired results. Did they get it on the first try? Possible but not likely
. But that one made it. It is simply evidence it is possible to use the Shroud as a role model and copy depth info and get similar results. All the others failed and some badly. I could post the visual results for you if you like.
Dan, do you not know anything about how to examine an image on a 3D surface plot? These photos you posted have the depth gain and the perspective turned to volume 2 at best. That is not an accurate test for depth info! Accurate depth info will for the most part remain stable under the hard test. Like the statue head, that one had great 3D info and passed the hardest test possible. The reason for this is because the 3D object itself was emitting UV Light that was captured moving in a straight line with the speed of light slowed down. That had the most solid 3D Depth info I have ever seen. In our video we presented a 1931 photo of the Shroud at volume 10 perspective and volume 10 depth. That is the hardest test possible. the Shroud image remained stable and did not distort. None of the images posted here could survive that test. The death mask image completely warped out as did all of them. We presented straightforward, fair and honest assessment of all images in checking for solid and genuine 3D Info . The toy statue figure warped out and became significantly deformed under the test for accurate depth info. The old man with the beard. That also failed. Bottom Line: The images you present do not contain accurate 3D information and we are supposed to take you seriously?! No way! You post false and deceptive info on this site all the time. Crazy! There are always negative statements made about others, thoughtless and rude comments, deceptive and false info. This site is a classic example of what happens when contempt prior to investigation is present. It has poisoned the whole body of this blog site. This site is like a poisonous cancer, but it serves a good purpose, it is great role model for failure, of how not conduct an investigation. There was a time when this blog site actually had some credibility but those days are long gone. Too Bad.
I’m sorry, David, but all the persiflage and computer manipulation can’t disguise the fact that your experiment is no better than Dan’s death mask above. The proof of the “accurate depth information” is not in the frantic zooming in and out from above, but what the derived image looks like from the side. For one fleeting moment, at 6:37, we see your image from the side, and sure enough, it looks nothing like a human head. The toy statue looks a great deal better.
As for the rest, it’s not clear whether your head was emitting light or reflecting it, the light is not UV, it’s not collimated, its speed is irrelevant, and the surface of the water is not the “receiving information source”. Your faith is admirable: your science, I’m afraid, is self-evidently non-existent.
Hi Hugh. go ahead and look for yourself if you dare. https://www.youtube.com/@GoodShepherdFilms3333/community See the results for the images Dan posted here for yourself on the 3D analyzing software. The test to see if an image has accurate depth info is turning the perspective to the max and the depth level turned to the max. Accurate depth info will not warp out and become deformed under this test. It has nothing to do with zooming in on things but turning up the perspective and the depth gain . All the images Dan posted here failed these tests for accurate 3D info. (with the exception of the artists drawing based on the Shroud) But the glowing statue head underwater passed. There is 0% doubt in that. CERTAINTY. My witness is a 3D Analyzing software program. I am in agreement with this witness. You are in disagreement with a computer software program that does not care if the statue head underwater has accurate depth info or not. It’s job is to simply tell the truth. It tells us with mathematical certainty “The statue underwater has accurate depth info” Are you really going to deny what is a genuine demonstrated reality in front of your face?! No way! Really?! OK. But don’t feel alone in that. A lot of people in this day and age do that. You are also in disagreement with Dr. John Jackson who has a PHD in Physics He stated, “The surface of the water is the receiving info source” Dr. John Jackson also stated, “Food coloring has light attenuating properties” And even if for some reason he was wrong we know the speed of light is slowed down by water. There is a undeniable connection between slowing down the speed of light and creating accurate depth info. By inverse square law the frequency of light decreases over space. Slowing down the speed of light creates a more accurate light intensity distribution image. High frequency coloration and low frequency coloration. As a result of our scientific test we see the optical illusion of depth in the correct proportion to the 3D object itself. That is the definition of a holographic image process. We basically created a holographic image without using lasers. The 3D analyzing software says so .The toy statue completely warped out and deformed under the hard test. See for yourself . They all failed. We have side images of the statue head as well. They are excellent. Do you want to see a side image of the toy statue you think looks so good? We can post that too. We have no problem showing the side images of the statue head underwater. I just looked at them tonight. Amazing detail. We will post the side images. They are outstanding. Did you really think we did not look at that?! This is about a pursuit of the truth. Sometimes the truth is not what we want it to be. When I was diagnosed with kidney cancer last year that was not the truth I wanted to hear, but I accepted it. They showed me the MRI images and the biopsy results. I accepted it. We have shown you the results on a scientific piece of equipment. I know this is not the truth you wanted to hear but it is the truth. No person of sound mind and body and good eye sight would be in disagreement with the obvious visual results of the 3D analyzing software. https://www.youtube.com/@GoodShepherdFilms3333/community
OK, we can all certainly agree Dan Porter does not have a very high opinion of our channel or our recent video presentations but he should at least do a fact based, impartial and thorough investigation of all the evidence before rendering a guilty verdict on us and accusing us of trickery and making a false presentation in regards to the depth info on a statue head experiment that was emitting light underwater.
If he would have watched the Part 1 video instead of making rude and thoughtless comments about it he could have learned something. He would have seen that we put up nearly a dozen different displays of different images using screen recorder that showed every single adjustment we made on A 3D imaging software program and that we used these same settings on every image we tested for depth info. We did this for transparency reasons and to give a fair, truthful and honest review of each image. Anyone with similar software could check our work and see that. Dan somehow thinks the process of evaluating other images for 3D depth info should be done in a few minutes and not take up over 15 minutes of time. To really do a thorough job the video should have been an 1 hour long, not 17 minutes. We dropped over 20 other displays we wanted to present to make the video shorter. We wanted to show a variety of images so people could see the whole picture and learn about how the software analyzes images, Dan tells his audience that is something everyone should just skip over and ignore. How can we learn anything with an attitude like that? There is not one video on youtube that goes into an explanation in any depth whatsoever of what it means to encode 3D info into an image. We explain it in the best way possible with our current resources. Personally I put in about 500 hours of time into these videos over the course of 9 months. Dan makes another claim that we have 8 minutes of credits at the end of the videos when that is another completely false statement. Credits to the videos take up about 1 minute of total time Not 8 minutes! There is a transformation scene at the end of the video that shows what the face of Jesus may have looked like using Artificial Intelligence. A software program that sold for 600 million dollars. We were not using cheap special effects. I make a statement at the end of each video that I am convinced that The Shroud of Turin is the Sign of Jonah that Jesus said he would grant this wicked generation. And that like the Sign of Jonah was a warning message to repent (to a city of 120,000 people in what would have been in Northern Iraq at that time) that The Shroud is also a warning message/ sign to repent, but to the whole world, Not just one city. And Yes, I am convinced that it is. That is very serious. We’ve been saying this for over 12 years. At the end of each video is a prayer for the viewer to be healed and to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. NOT CREDIT ROLLS. But for the viewer to be HEALED & BAPTIZED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. The final passage comes from Isaiah 11: 2 in which we say, May The Spirit of the Lord Rest Upon You, The Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, The Spirit of Counsel and Strength, The Spirit of Knowledge and of the Fear of the Lord. Amen!
I apologize,David, if I was rude. That was not my intent. It was the old marketeer in me coming out. KISS. 60 second commercials, two minute elevator pitches, and so forth. I was trying to keep people engaged. When first I watched your video, I got bored and clicked out. If I hadn’t been doing a review I might have never returned. To much repetition. As for the trickery comment. Yes, it was trickery. I don’t think it was intentional. That is why you need to have editors to help you see how it might come across. Again, I apologize for being rude.
Seriously, David, you’ve done a lot of work. Give serious thought to revising your video. The 3D nature of the images is not unique and we need to get past that mistaken idea. And maybe there is something other than blue water that can show ways of capturing 3D aspects of a head bust. Keep working on it. You may find the answer. Again, one more time, I apologize for being rude.
No problem Dan. This was actually a very helpful experience. Thanks. Need some time to let the smoke clear from the battle ground of this work area.
As soon as it does and time permits we will be making some upgrades and also cutting into the time on some of the content and whatever else is necessary. It can cost up to $3,000 to edit a video. right now I just don’t have that. Our resources are exhausted. Its a time to go back to work and save money. These projects are utterly exhausting. I put up a few snapshots of what some of the images you posted look like when put to the hard test. If an image has solid 3D info it will not distort. Basically that means to you take the perspective and put it to the max and do the same to the level of depth. This spreads the lights and the darks of the image as far as it is possible. Only the shroud and the 3D head and also the artist drawing based on the Shroud that is here has passed this hard test.
Hi David.
In the old days, not so long ago, actually, before the advent of the Internet, independent filmmakers such as you focusing on niche topics like the Shroud of Turin had to be more creative and resourceful in terms of distribution and gaining public attention. You might start with local screening at community centers, schools, or churches. This provided initial feedback and could attract local press attention. Submitting the film to festivals was another key strategy. Religious or science-themed festivals were particularly relevant. A good reception at a prestigious festival could dramatically improve a film’s chances of wider distribution. In this way you might find opportunities for small theater releases, direct sales to marketing agencies that place films in churches, schools, libraries, and educational institutions including religious television networks.
All of this worked as a content filter. The cost of producing physical copies and shipping them was expensive, so filmmakers needed a reasonable assurance of interest and sales, either from the general public or specialized organizations. Many people looked at the film and asked questions. For instance, are you sure you are right about the speed of light being a factor? Can you show us how you captured the image from the surface of the water? Did you use a camera and wouldn’t that be questioned by viewers? Professional reviewers and test audiences, who ask these types of questions, could make or break a film, especially when trying to break into more mainstream distribution channels. Before the internet, independent filmmakers such as yourself had to navigate a complex landscape of financial, logistical, and societal challenges to get their work seen. The barriers were high, but those who managed to break through often had a significant impact. I think your video might have benefited from this process.
Everything is now turned upside down. The video was suddenly there. I was asked to review it and I did so as honestly as I could in a short amount of time. I gave it my best shot and I stand by what I wrote although I am always open to retracting or correcting anything I publish if you can show me I am wrong. Hugh gave an honest answer and I suspect that John Jackson would agree with him, if not 100%, mostly so. Why don’t you contact John Jackson? Here is a link to his contact page: https://www.shroudofturin.com/contact.html. Mark your email for his attention and tell him I suggested that you reach out to him. John and people on his staff know who I am.
Why not suspend your YouTube for a while? Take our criticisms to heart. I’m not anti-Shroud and Hugh is very much an honest and honarably scientist. Have John Jackson review it. Write to Barrie Schwortz and ask him to review it. If corrections are called for, then make them and re-release it.
Here is one example of a question you need to ask yourself: Does adding blue dye to water slow down the speed of light. I asked it of ChatGPT and got this answer. “When you add blue dye to water, the dye molecules absorb certain wavelengths of light and may re-emit them. This process would make it appear as though light is “slowed down,” but that would be due to absorption and re-emission events or scattering, not because the actual speed of light in the medium has been reduced.”
Now, it is true that ChatGPT is often wrong. So you should check out that answer with John Jackson, who you obviously trust. Your video’s credibility hangs on that statement alone. And there are several other statements that need to be checked out.
Really, David, take it down until you can fix it.
BTW: I don’t share your eschatological views, but I’m not going to try to change your mind about that. I believe that the Kingdom of God is already present in the world through the church, a topic I love to debate with an Atheist friend and a Muslim friend every week. It’s complicated. I do admire your commitment. Keep it up.
I do share your passion for the Shroud. But I want the story told accurately. I would love it if you could prove that it is real. Take some time to study the facts, please.
Here is a thought: Get John Jackson to agree with your video (you may want to make some changes) and then see if he will give you a taped interview. I, too, trust John, by the way, even if I don’t always agree with him. And I trust all of the other people I mention like Joe and Colin and Hugh.
You cap off your video with “Give Jesus a chance.” I agree. Now give your video a chance, all the better to get that message out. Take it down and fix it. Good graphics and editing, by the way.
HI Dan. No problems. This has been a very helpful experience. Thanks for responding. The Part 2 video should not be watched until viewing the 1st. But there are always ways to improve video content. When time permits I will be cutting into these videos and upgrading them. I am just to exhausted to do it now. I just finished this Part 1 video and that took over 50 hours. The original is gone now so the links will not work on that. This is a link to our community page. Here are some photos of some of the images posted here and what they look like put to the hardest test. It is amazing how well the Shroud holds up to this. https://www.youtube.com/@GoodShepherdFilms3333/community
This shows what other images look like when put to the hardest test. In our new video we show what the Shroud of Turin image looks like under the hardest possible test. This was done by turning the perspective and the level of depth to the maximum on a 3D surface plot software. Like gold is tested by fire the Shroud of Turin image passed the hard test to be genuine solid 3D info .
We also put a 3D Statue Head that we coated with glow in the dark UV light paint and put it to this same hard test and it also passed. This statue head was submerged underwater and was emitting UV light underwater in a dark room and we took a snapshot of it while underwater and no other light interference. So far the only image that is man made and contains solid 3D info involved the 3D object itself emitting light. Thought provoking….
Both the Shroud and the 3D Head that was emitting UV Light have the same quality of depth info
In a comparison analogy if we tested a car battery and it the volt meter read out 12 volts one might think the battery is good. But when the battery is put under a load it fails. Testing for solid depth information is like this. It must be tested under a load. That is what we did here in this Part 1 Video.
It was our goal in our 3D video project to come up with a definitive test for 3D depth info that would simply tell us YES or NO. It does contain accurate depth info or not.
We have found that if an image contains accurate depth info it will not distort and warp out of shape and become deformed when put under the hardest test, that is turning the volume of the perspective to the max and doing the same to the gain on the depth.
Seeing is believing so take a look for yourself. What looks right and what does not look right?
The only image we have found that passes the hard test for depth info other than the Shroud was the artist drawing of a face image that is shown here that used the Shroud as a role model to make it. Having accurate depth info right in front of you and copying it does not in any way debunk the info on the Shroud as not being extremely unique.
We could make a photo copy of a $100 bill and say “It looks similar to a real one” but it is NOT the same method that was used to make the original. Producing similar results by copying something means nothing. One must produce the SAME RESULTS. Not similar.
So we made this video and and posted these photos to clarify our position and to allow a 3D analyzing software tell us what is authentic and what it not. Take a look for yourself and decide.
We did not post the results of the artist drawing based on the Shroud here because there is a max limit of 5 photos. However we can tell you that it passed the hard test for 3D info. It was copied from the Shroud. We will post that as well.
But anyways, Tell us which of these images look to have the most accurate 3D info. What looks right and what does not look right… https://youtu.be/guveFX16ruo
Hi Dan
There is nothing wrong with the video. All the information is correct other than a 3 second audio part I will fix on the youtube video editor. I’ve deleted over 1 million views off the channel of older presentations. I have no problem deleting a video. But there is nothing wrong with it. Dr. John Jackson did a presentation with this display. I watched it 7 times. He said “food coloring has light attenuating properties” Our presentation was not about proving that food coloring has light attenuating properties. We know water slows down the speed of light. So the speed of light was slowed down to create the depth info on the statue. We can do some other tests to see if the UV light emitting statue creates better, worse or the same info without food coloring in the water. We’ll get to that in the Part 3 Video. When we took a photo of the statue we did with 1. Camera flash on
2. Flash off 3. 3D Object out of the water with flash on camera 5. Glowing object out of water no flash on camera 6. 3D object without UV light paint in regular light 7. Statue head evenly illuminated and other light settings. We’ll get to that in Part 3 and show those. Anyways, the witness giving the most important testimony here is the 3D analyzing software! We ran the test for depth information on the UV emitting statue on the screen recorder so the whole process could be viewed. No trickery. We turned the perspective and the gain to the max and the image did not distort in any way. That is a very hard test to pass. The depth info was accurate to the object itself in every detail. That is the testimony of the 3D analyzing software. The images you posted here all failed this test. Except for the artist drawing based on the Shroud. That one passed. In our experiment we have the actual 3D object that was replicated and thus making it possible to check and see if the depth info was accurate to the object itself which it was. The wood print of the old man that is posted here warps and becomes deformed under the hard test and fails. But the statue head succeeded and passed. All the images you posted fail the test for accurate 3D info. Yet you post these as some kind of evidence that the 3D info on the Shroud could be done using these methods when that is not true! So you should take your own advice and delete this post. You have false info here. These images you posted do not contain accurate 3D info. The image of the statue head did pass the test for accurate depth info. Why would I delete that?! The description to the video should be better, that we will update. Do you want to see the results from the 3D analyzing software on the images you posted? I’ll give it to you. I posted them on our community page . So far the only images that have ever survived the test for solid 3D info is The Shroud, that Statue Underwater and the artist drawing. The complexity of the Shroud image is WAY beyond that of the simple copy of the face done by an artist. They simply copied something already known to be accurate. And the statue head depth info is FAR SUPERIOR and more accurate than anything you have ever posted and you treated this like it was some kind of joke. Really?! That’s OK I understand. No big deal. But take a 2nd Look. Here are the results of the images you posted by the 3D analyzing software. I will also give you the artist drawing. That one passed. https://www.youtube.com/@GoodShepherdFilms3333/community
I’ve been looking at all the models since 1980. Dr Jackson’s is the only one that explains all the data. We owe gratitude to John and Rebecca for what they have done and a greater gratitude to Jesus for the Jacksons and their solid commitment to the mission. The Cloth is the perfect record of the most important three days in every human life.
Hi Chuck. We did the same experiment. Exactly how he did it. He used food coloring in the water to slow down the speed of light. His exact words were “It has light attenuating properties”
He did a one hour presentation on this. I watched it 7 times. We do everything the same way he did it and got the same excellent results. The 3D analyzing software is proof of that. We give him credit for the display and a nice photo of him doing a display of his hand he had an X Ray done on and compares it to the Shroud. It is a great display. We are going to update that one as well and get his great display some more notice. A lot more notice! Instead of using the VP 8 Analyzer we used a more modern 3D surface plot analyzing software. We also turned the gain and the perspective on our statue head to full maximum on the analyzing software. It did not distort in any way and the depth info was the best I have ever seen. That is something Dr. John Jackson did not do. But he did a great job. There is no other image I have ever seen that survived this test other than the Shroud and also a face drawing an artist did using the Shroud as a role model. So to dismiss what we did is to dismiss what he did as well. It is an updated display of what he did. It was a brilliant and creative idea and now instead of less than 100 people that know about it, up to several hundred thousand or even a million people will see it now. There is nothing wrong with the presentation we made on this. All the info is correct. In fact we are going to go even deeper into this in our Part 3 conclusion of this series. We have over 3 million views on our channel, I am going to give this video to some associates of mine who get better views than us and have them upload it on their channels and make sure Dr. John Jackson’s great display gets the recognition it deserves. He said in the presentation that he was hopeful that some day in the future someone would come along and put all this information together and explain it fully. Well I am that person he has been waiting for. Regardless of others opinions based on false info slowing down the speed of light is a requirement to produce accurate 3D information that is accurate to the object itself that was replicated. What Dr. John Jackson did was find a way to make a holographic image without using lasers. The second I saw his presentation I knew I had to update the display and give it more recognition.
https://www.youtube.com/@GoodShepherdFilms3333/community
This shows what other images look like when put to the hardest test. In our new video we show what the Shroud of Turin image looks like under the hardest possible test. This was done by turning the perspective and the level of depth to the maximum on a 3D surface plot software. Like gold is tested by fire the Shroud of Turin image passed the hard test to be genuine solid 3D info .
We also put a 3D Statue Head that we coated with glow in the dark UV light paint and put it to this same hard test and it also passed. This statue head was submerged underwater and was emitting UV light underwater in a dark room and we took a snapshot of it while underwater and no other light interference. So far the only image that is man made and contains solid 3D info involved the 3D object itself emitting light. Thought provoking….
Both the Shroud and the 3D Head that was emitting UV Light have the same quality of depth info whereas other images that are posted on other blog sites as having the same caliber of depth do not pass the test for solid 3D info. There are consequences for posting false info. This hurts people and helps no one. The Bible warns us that teachers will be judged more harshly. We should take that seriously
In a comparison analogy if we tested a car battery and it the volt meter read out 12 volts one might think the battery is good. But when the battery is put under a load it fails. Testing for solid depth information is like this. It must be tested under a load. That is what we did here in this Part 1 Video.
It was our goal in our 3D video project to come up with a definitive test for 3D depth info that would simply tell us YES or NO. It does contain accurate depth info or not.
We have found that if an image contains accurate depth info it will not distort and warp out of shape and become deformed when put under the hardest test, that is turning the volume of the perspective to the max and doing the same to the gain on the depth.
Seeing is believing so take a look for yourself. What looks right and what does not look right?
The only image we have found that passes the hard test for depth info other than the Shroud was an artist drawing of a face image that used the Shroud as a role model to make it. Having accurate depth info right in front of you and copying it does not in any way debunk the info on the Shroud as not being extremely unique.
We could make a photo copy of a $100 bill and say “It looks similar to a real one” but it is NOT the same method that was used to make the original. Producing similar results by copying something means nothing. One must produce the SAME RESULTS. Not similar.
What is most disturbing but yet also predictable is how other images are presented on blog sites and other social media platforms as having the same 3D info on the Shroud when they do not. They spread misinformation. This hurts people.
So we made this video and and posted these photos to clarify our position and to allow a 3D analyzing software tell us what is authentic and what it not. Take a look for yourself and decide.
We did not post the results of the artist drawing based on the Shroud here because there is a max limit of 5 photos. However we can tell you that it passed the hard test for 3D info. It was copied from the Shroud. We will post that as well.
But anyways, Tell us which of these images look to have the most accurate 3D info. What looks right and what does not look right… https://youtu.be/guveFX16ruo
Such an emotional discussion, as has evolved here, was never my intention. I apologize, David. It is all too easy to blame our emotional responses on the nature of the internet, that new stage upon which we now argue and judge ideas. The fault is mine, however, in not fully recognizing that there are people behind the videos and written articles that appear here.
I’m not going to say that I agree with your position on the Shroud’s 3D characteristics. I don’t. But I do respect your intentions and hard work. We should probably just agree to disagree and let it go at that.
You have the honor of having had the last word on the matter. Comments are now closed for this posting.