![]() ![]() You don't say (well, you do, which is more the pity). Or does it add 3.5 cm to one length, and subtract it from the other? Anything to do with the paper in question is in blue.Ĭomputerized anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud Let's do that, shall we? Let's go through that paper with a toothcomb, and see how the conjuring trick was performed that either adds 7 cm to one length or subtracts it from the other (take your pick). It's achieved my friends with computer "re-imaging" of course, and as always where computers are concerned, one has to look carefully at each and every assumption that is programmed in if one is to avoid the dreaded "GIGO" syndrome that so afflicts the world of megabyte jiggerypokery. ![]() So how was that conjuring trick performed, in such a way that a 7cm difference in length vanishes? Was it a muscular spasm in a supposed cadaver that kept the toes extended when measuring the dorsal length but conveniently turns them up when measuring up the ventral? Well, what do you know? The two images are "superimposable", provided you line up at the head end, and overlook the small matter of the feet being in different places. Here's one picture that accompanied a Daily Mail article that made the point well, but was strangely not commented upon in the article: In fact there are many aspects of the Shroud image that are hyped in my view, often misleadingly so as to suggest paranormal phenomena, and others that are strangely overlooked, or at any rate, rarely commented upon.Ī particular one that bothers me right now is the size disparity between the ventral (front) and dorsal (rear) image.Why should there be a size disparity if the v&d images on the shroud are from the same subject or representation thereof? There may well be intensity differences that are related to 3D properties in the original image, but they are not selectively processed, nor does the computer tell you anything about how the image was formed on the cloth (beware explanatory diagrams that show a sheet of linen held above a picture of a crucified man, suggesting projection across space with no lens or other imaging system shown). Anything, late-acquired burn marks included, that gives tonal contrast is interpreted as differences in relief and displayed accordingly. Yes, we are told that ordinary photographs and paintings do not respond in this fashion, but the fact that the 1532 burn marks do should be sufficient to show that there is nothing unique about the image of the crucified man. In fact the computer merely scans the digitized image for light and dark regions, and then "raises" the light and "lowers" the dark to create a 3D relief. They make it sound as if there is something mysterious, almost supernatural-like about the man depicted. I've previously drawn attention to those images of the Turin Shroud that are described as having "3D-encoded" information. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |