I simply asked ChatGPT’s DALL-E Extension:
Focusing only on the head for now, imagine that the image on the Shroud of Turin was created by radiant heat by holding the linen cloth close to a hot metal statue. Consider the fact that the image on the shroud seems to be a 3D heightmap. What might that statue look like?
It took about 7 seconds to generate the image. I provided no data or images whatsoever. I let it depend on the images and data and the interpretations that are out there. It’s a high-schoolish exercise, and it certainly doesn’t suggest anything new or insightful. I was a bit surprised that it seemed to ignore the problem of non-collimated radiation. It is just a demo of the raw power that is out there in cyber AI land. With the right details, it might generate something useful.
Could we leverage ChatGPT and other AI tools, given appropriate resources and expertise, to explore John Jackson’s Fall-Through hypothesis in new ways? Could we extend Colin Berry’s experiments? Is it possible to continue the work initiated by Ray Rogers and Bob Rucker through modeling with new AI tools?
Can ChatGPT also generate new hypotheses for our consideration?
The image below is from Judgement Day For The Turin Shroud, p. 91, Figure 22. It has been described by Walter McCrone as “The tape of a Shroud ‘blood-image’ area 3-CB showing only a red ochre paint image also at high magnification.” It is obviously controversial.
AI tools designed for medical and forensic laboratories are starting to come online. Still costly and still being tested, they are intended to give human microscope analysts a run for the money.
Incorporating artificial Intelligence into the examination of the Shroud’s microscopic evidence can fundamentally amplify the analytical capabilities of Shroud science, akin to mobilizing a million expert eyes to perform millions of hours of analysis in a fraction of the time. This metaphorical ensemble of “AI experts” operates with a level of detail and precision that mirrors, and often surpasses, human capabilities, conducting intricate analyses almost instantly. AI systems can meticulously scrutinize all of the photomicrographs and digitized samples, identifying patterns, anomalies, and correlations that might elude even the most seasoned researchers. AI can provide detailed explanations for its findings, drawing on vast repositories of data and prior knowledge, thereby enhancing our understanding of the Shroud.
This approach can democratize Shroud science by making comprehensive and expert-level analysis accessible to researchers everywhere, regardless of their physical access to high-caliber microscopes or the human expert manpower typically required for such detailed work, in essence, paving the way for breakthroughs in our understanding of the Shroud. It might certainly minimize the controversy.
PPPS: ChatGPT?
Sin! Do n-o-logy. Congratulate oneself for creating an entirely new branch of non-ology (100% make-believe non-study!).
Why are you even interested? Just curious.
Jackson’s image model is clearly correct as it accounts for all observed chemical and physical characteristics. What occurred in the resurrecting Body is all that’s left of a holistic explanation. Jesus rose from the dead as He said He would. Go figure. Extra-dimensional, aka heretofore unknown by modern science.
PPPPS: Believe that, Chuck, and you’ll believe anything!
Is Jackson’s model correct if the body is sinking into the earth as fast as the cloth is falling. Would the cloth ever enter the mechanically transparent body? We can change the rules for how a mechanically transparent body behaves in the presence of gravity but the more we make up science the less we can claim anything scientifically.
PPPPPS:
Prolonged final farewell from the Internet, latter deployed merely as a preliminary means of communication – albeit spread over some 10 years or so in 370+ postings to my own blogsite plus thousands of comments here and elsewhere, notably on this site.
Bit by bit the truth gradually emerges with the emphasis cast on CRUCIAL DETAIL
capable of being put to discriminatory experimental tests.
(Remember: science is not in fact a subject, as so often portrayed: it’s a modus operandi .
To put it more baldly, science be a GEM-SEEKING modus operandi!)
My “gem” in Model 10? (Answer: new model not, repeat still NOT factual, at least not as yet, instead awaiting a dramatically novel crucial test, one that requires – wait for it-m a STuRP Mark 2, some 40 years post STuRP Mark 1!!).
The gem is that novel involvement of white (or maybe brown or wholemeal) FLOUR. (Yes a white or at any rate whiteish POWDER, more easily browned or merely yellowed than linen by applied radiant heat- generating that oh-so-distinctive chromophoric (coloured) image that is deposited on or within the linen fibres but not a direct scorch on the linen per se!).
How? By generating a CONTACT IMPRINT, one that is NEGATIVE, TONE-REVERSED!
Science operates on the basis of no-nonsense rationality- but not just any old kind of instantly-seized upon rationality. It depends on self-critical rationality where the proponents of science-based new thinking need to waste no
time in putting themselves in the position of conceptual opponents. How one might ask?
Answer: by thinking up counter-arguments
to their own, then proceeding to TEST EXPERIMENTALLY to see which party is right, which wrong! If right – all well
and good.
If wrong: then modify or even modify or even abandon the existing model!
I am afraid that your rhetoric does not present yourself as a credible figure – appearing rather as the incoherent wailing of a closed mind. You could probably sell your power rangers on eBay though…..