![]() corona discharge or any other radiation). Then the whole discussion is over.Ĭ) The Shroud is the original burial cloth of Jesus and the image is a result of some peculiar process, whether purely natural or supernatural, but having physical effect (e.g. Which is VERY tricky (not just producing a correlation alone, which is fairly easy -see Craig and Breese work as an example, but must take into account all other properties of the image).ī) The Shroud is a pure miracle, beyond any scientific reasoning. Then the artist, whatever method he did use, must have (intentionally or not) reproduced the correlation. Does it alone prove, that the Shroud indeed once covered a body (not to say about resurrection of Jesus)? Of course not! Yet this is a very significant fact, that should be taken into consideration, regarding any theory how the image came to be.Ī) The Shroud is a fake, a product of an artist. The point of 3D properties is, that there exists a correlation between the image intensity and a postulated distance between the Shroud and the body it supposedly once enveloped. The standards of presentation are different.Įvery image point on the Shroud can be described by three coordinates, two positional and intensity: (X,Y,I). The popular presentations are just popular presentations for common people. Vocanson, “2D reproduction of the face on the Turin Shroud by infrared femtosecond pulse laser processing,” Applied Optics 58, 2158-2165 (2019) The reproduction has of course the same 3D characteristics as the original Shroud, but not the other properites -the fibers for example, are completely burnt and instead of conationing a ~200 nm thick discoloration on the surface like the original. In 2019 they reproduced the Shroud face using infrared laser. Does it imply that this particular copy enveloped any dead human body? Of course not! There is not magic, the 3D properties were simply transferred, via photographic reproduction, from the original Shroud onto the printed copy. Yet it has the same 3D characteristics as the original Shroud. This is a photographic copy of the Shroud in Spain. But I don’t think, yet (emphasis YET) that we are able to see our way clear to say that the data rules out pictorial methods or that the data is necessarily spatial or for that matter that the cloth covered a body at the time of image formation.Īnd now, it is time to make a pot of coffee. Yeah, it is probably not a woodcut either. Or, as in my case, it is perhaps used to try to reassure with a dose of what I hope is science, and simultaneously doubt is science. The problem is that carefully worded hypotheses tend, when summarized, to become bold “facts” when the Shroud becomes a tool of proof-of-Resurrection-evangelization. But it is far from conclusive, as I see it. did not know what they are talking about. I have never meant to imply that Jackson, et al. (e,g, “If the Shroud did in fact cover a body shape at the time of image formation, which is possible, the interpretation is physically valid”. I found nothing new and still see it as a long-form begging the question. And at your request, I did reread the paper. Why did it take from 1976 until well into the next century to realize that a photograph or a painting (pictorial art, really) was NOT ruled out by the 3D data in the Shroud’s image? I set it to plot a height map with moderate smoothing, which pretty much emulates the VP-8 Image Analyzer but without the green screen. The woodcutting and the print is by an artist named monthian from Phuket, Thailand. It’s a full-frontal face view of the painter Claude Monet. It seems to show about the same amount of 3D as the Shroud face. This is a woodblock print that works very well. ![]() And, thinking back, I probably snickered in agreement. “3D? Yeah, right!” (or something to that effect), said someone near me in the darkened room. Woodblock or intaglio techniques known to be in use in the 14th century in Europe and in France account for all of the visible attributes of the Shroud image including the 3-d effect, reversed contrast, the resolution, uniformity between the frontal and dorsal images and the extensive detail observed. In summary, we have presented a reasonable plausibility argument that the Shroud image must result from a contact process. Joseph Accetta, one of the original STURP team members and subsequently, the “Principal Scientist and Instructor” at Georgia Tech’s Research Institute, presented a paper, Origins of a 14th Century Turin Shroud Image. ![]() In 2014, at the Shroud of Turin conference in St.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |