Sorry Dan, but once you understand that the image of the Shroud is monochromatic, you are back to action at a distance caused by a variation of image intensity, not color. The differences in intensity (density) of the image was noted by Vignon were the reason for his “action at a distance” theory. Yet, how often are the STURP scientists denigrated as Christian fanatics. John Heller had amazing credentials including be chosen by Yale to be advised by Einstein at Princeton when he he was an undergraduate at Yale. De Wesselow was trained at the Courtlandt Institute. Merely calling people like Wesselow or Heller or Adler names, doesn’t due the trick. Louis of the paper on the Oxford sample, that you can’t. But, I submit, particularly after the Pam Moon presentation at St. Life is simple if you can accept the carbon dating tests. There is that troublesome presence of real unscorched blood on the Shroud. Rogers maillard reaction is a kind of scorch at low temperature but he realized that it wasn’t enough. Color (place on the spectrum of light) is different from intensity.Īctually, Colin is about where Ray Rogers was. The three dimensional representation that appears in the VP-8 is not caused by a difference in color but a difference in intensity or density of the image. The Shroud, like his scorch is monochromatic – a single color. His example is interesting but it represents the difference in distance as difference in color. As they say in Yiddish: Neu? I am not Jewish but 45 years in the Bronx will gives you an appreciation of Yiddish. Colin by creating a scorch from a three dimension object has shown that it will have similar properties to the Shroud.
I am a little bit confused by what has been “proven” about the Shroud except to confirm that its image has distance information.
While we are at it, maybe we can drop the other fallacy, namely that the 3D data represents body to cloth distance. It isn’t.Ĭlick on the images to see larger versions But we have to drop the idea that the shroud image is unique. If we continue to speak only of normal paintings and photographs we are still on safe ground. It is not a painting or a photograph of an object it is a scorch. That is published evidence it is published on Colin’s blog and reshown here. Colin found a black swan and we couldn’t say any longer that all swans are white.
And he found that that scorch behaved like (or pretty much behaved like) the image on the Shroud of Turin. It cannot yet be refuted.īut Colin Berry didn’t do what others had done. I ask again that you provide published evidence to refute this claim.Īs long as we continue to think of just regular paintings or photographs of people or normal objects – and we ignore the cries from the fallacy police – we are on pretty safe ground. “OK Hugh ,” wrote Todd, “Maybe you can respond to this quote. It has been repeated and restated over and over by others. There was, among those who understood that a normal painting or photograph of a person or object contained brightness information that was representative of reflected light while the image on the shroud contained brightness information that was not that but rather seemingly spatial data, a sense that the argument was safe. Everything else was distorted no real 3D. Then they tried to do the same thing with photographs of people and objects. Air Force Academy) used a VP-8 analog computer furnished by Pete Schumacher, an engineer with Interpretation Systems, Inc., to make a brightness map of the Shroud image. Jackson, with the help of Eric Jumper (both on active duty and teaching at the U.S. This obvious absence of evidence as evidence fallacy – call it what you want: argumentum ad ignorantiam, the black swan problem – has stood, it seems, since sometime after 1976, when (quoting from A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses – Version 2.1 by Bob Siefker, et. Therefore, the Shroud image, itself, is unlike any other object or image known to exist. It is the “data” existing on the Shroud of Turin, which induces the unique photographic results. The Shroud of Turin induces a result through photographic imaging that is unique, compared to all other photographic results taken from other objects of the same acknowledged period as the Shroud, of prior periods, and to the present day. It’s from a 1999 paper by Pete entitled Photogrammetric Responses From The Shroud of Turin. Todd, a reader of this blog, just yesterday posted the following quotation from Peter Schumacher.
0 kommentar(er)
