If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   (foxnews.com) divider line 433
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14919 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-01 10:09:47 AM

GeneralJim: This incident mentioned in Climate Audit

A description of the GISS data wipe on Real Science

The issue discussed by Jennifer Marohasy


Well, at least after a shiat-ton of badgering we finally got you to link sources to back up your conspiracy theory. Sure, they're random anti-science blogs run by nutjobs like yourself with no actual evidence of anything, but hey: progress!
 
2013-04-01 10:17:01 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Wow, GeneralJim is a farking nutjob.

So, you believe that medieval forgers, who were often slovenly enough to just put a pig bone in a bottle, and call it the bone of a saint, had UV lasers and graphics computers, and took the time to generate a 3-D image that nobody would have the technology to view for nearly 2,000 years -- and I'm a nutjob because I say they COULDN'T do that?

1.bp.blogspot.com

Even this guy thinks you're whack

 
2013-04-01 10:19:15 AM

Gunther:

Well, at least after a shiat-ton of badgering we finally got you to link sources to back up your conspiracy theory. Sure, they're random anti-science blogs run by nutjobs like yourself with no actual evidence of anything, but hey: progress!

If I could buy your opinion for what it's worth, and sell it for what you think it's worth, I could retire in luxury.
 
2013-04-01 10:26:37 AM

GeneralJim: Gunther: Well, at least after a shiat-ton of badgering we finally got you to link sources to back up your conspiracy theory. Sure, they're random anti-science blogs run by nutjobs like yourself with no actual evidence of anything, but hey: progress!
If I could buy your opinion for what it's worth, and sell it for what you think it's worth, I could retire in luxury.


Please never respond to one of my threads.
 
2013-04-01 10:46:52 AM
GeneralJim: 
If you are stupid enough to think that medieval relic forgers had UV lasers and 3-D rendering computers, you need to do the honorable thing, and go drown yourself.  If you think that medieval forgers found out some other way to "print" those precise images, image printing that Western science was unable to reproduce until 2011, images which could not be viewed without a computer and reasonable software, and which the computer technology of the mid-1970s was unable to generate, the cure is the same.
 
Wow. This is some weapon's grade stupidity you got here.
 
Let's note that I never mentioned UV Lasers. You did (endlessly). This is typical of how you think science works. You found one tidbit of science you like and you are now fixated on it ... convinced that it represents fact. Reading far more into it than is justified by the results.
 
Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.
 
The fact that you cannot comprehend this simple fact demonstrates the depth of your stupidity. Your inability to see things objectively. Your tunnel vision created by your preconceived notions.
 
The forging of religious artifacts was a well known and profitable industry at the time and there is no way to know all the methods they may have tried.
 
You are making the absolute claim that they could not have made the forgery. You cannot know this ... it is an illogical and irrational position.
 
2013-04-01 11:16:47 AM

weirdneighbour: Please never respond to one of my threads.


here here, please don't come into another one of my threads
 
/subby
//goddamn, you need a life
 
2013-04-01 11:45:34 AM

GeneralJim: Sorry, that's not going to make a tint like the ones on the shroud.


Blatant delusion.
 
Precision is what's needed, not vast amounts of power.  Vast amounts of power end up doing one thing, like burning directly through the cloth.
 
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
Yeah, totally unlike the shroud.
/nimrod
 
2013-04-01 12:01:14 PM

GeneralJim: No, look at what I have said. I have ruled out it being a MEDIEVAL forgery, as long as you'll grant the lack of UV or higher frequency lasers and 3-D imaging computers in medieval times.

 
You haven't proven that those technologies are required to create the image on the shroud. You just keep asserting that they are. Tests of the cloth have convincingly shown that there are pigment-like materials on the cloth which doesn't require lasers or computers to apply.
 

GeneralJim: Okay, if you skip the facts about the nature of the image made, it is theoretically possible to create an image related to the closeness of the cloth to skin when draped over it. Two questions come to mind: First, why in the HELL would that be the objective of someone making a fraudulent religious relic? Second, this was thought of by the scientists in the 1970s -- they tried having artists aim for the "correct" result, and they tried using a computer to generate the image, and nothing worked. While it is possible that medieval relic forgers were more talented than modern artists, they would not have any way to check their work. And, again, one has to ask why they would be aiming for something they could not see. If you found a CD alleged to be of Jesus' voice, and claimed that it was not from the time of Jesus, but a medieval forgery, it would be a very similar situation. How would medieval forgers make a playable CD in the first place?


Using a bas-relief type of sculpture to transfer the image to the shroud would actually be a fairly practical way to simulate the desired effect of Jesus' image, especially if the forger didn't possess strong drafting skills. It's an even better way to mass-produce shrouds if you're in the shroud-forging business.
 
Here's an entirely prosaic recreation based on this idea:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin- re plica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html
 
And again, the "3D" effect isn't magical--it's just a byproduct of this type of shading when used as a bump or displacement map in 3D software. The close-up images of the faces in the article I linked show that the shroud image and the recreation both use shading based on elevation. Either will exhibit the "3D" effect if used as a bump map. I don't know why you think that the shroud image producing this effect is somehow proof that some advanced technology must have been employed to create the markings on the cloth.
 
2013-04-01 03:09:33 PM

GeneralJim: Gunther:

If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that - you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".

What is it with the entire warmer alarmist crowd?  You spend so much effort writing what you wish people opposing you would say...  and that accomplishes nothing.
You set up near impossibilities.  Take NASA -- they don't keep their replaced data on-line.  I mean, they're NOT retarded, unlike some of their sycophants.  Yeah, right, there's the "current_data" file and the "data_before_we_fraudulently_altered_it" file.  Next best thing, however, is the following....  a guy notices that the NASA GISS data set has changed, with a list of the changes, the only big one to correct a Y2K mistake by James Hansen.  He has a copy of the old file, and downloads the new data from NASA, to play with off-line.   Months later, he goes back and the data is different.  There are no notices about the new changes, or lists of changes made, which is against ALL government data regulations.  The data that was there is scrubbed.  So, he downloads a copy of the "new" data, making three different copies that he has.  He writes about it to the author of an auditing blog, who goes to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and gets a copy of the file which has been deleted / replaced for himself -- and the file matches the first guy's file that he got from the NASA site.  This story is published, and shortly thereafter, the record from the Wayback is scrubbed.

So, the audit blog guy, with three data sets, plots the changes to the original one that NASA acknowledges in ...



This is why you should actually read the articles you cite. From the first link:

"It is entirely possible that the change in GISS US since August 2007 is primarily due to the replacement of USHCN v1 methodology (TOBS and that sort of thing that we discussed in the past) with Menne's changepoint methodology used in USHCN v2."

The reason why stuff like this isn't covered in "the media" is that they at least recognize (with some exceptions) that a lack of evidence or information at that time does not mean you get to make up stuff in order to fill in the gaps.
 
2013-04-01 08:11:37 PM

GeneralJim: Mock26: Ah yes, the classic "go look it up yourself" defense, the sure sign that you are blowing hot air and are unable to back up your claims. Toss in the indignant insult and your response is pure gold!Ah yes, the "you won't do whatever I say, so I win" defense.  The links aren't hidden or secret; the Wikipedia article on the "Shroud of Turin" has the links.


Good thing you are not lawyer.

GeneralJim: "Your honor, I have evidence that proves the accused is guilty."
Judge: "What is your evidence?"
GeneralJim: "Look it up yourself, loser!"
 
2013-04-01 08:15:44 PM
This sort of thread where people deny such simple science makes me wonder.

Is extreme stupidity(and hence a lot of religiosity) possibly some type of anosognosia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia

In a short example.  Someone who is completely blind, but denies it and makes excuses when they can't pass a simple test such as, "How many fingers am I holding up?"
 
2013-04-02 12:13:08 AM

Farking Canuck:

Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.

Here's the crux of your stupidity -- until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin.  But surely, scientists today could duplicate anything a medieval con artist could do...  couldn't they? So, come up with ANOTHER way to do this -- should be easy. Any illiterate medieval peasant can do it, right? So, do it.
 
2013-04-02 12:48:50 AM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.
Here's the crux of your stupidity -- until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin.  But surely, scientists today could duplicate anything a medieval con artist could do...  couldn't they? So, come up with ANOTHER way to do this -- should be easy. Any illiterate medieval peasant can do it, right? So, do it.


Seriously? You claim to understand science and yet you are actually saying that there is no other way to do something because one way was found??

This thread is definitely getting bookmarked. Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that you put faith ahead of logic and reason.

Thank you for this Easter gift. :)
 
2013-04-02 12:53:45 AM

GeneralJim: until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin


Except that isn't true -  wiredroachpointed out that scientists made a copy using medieval methods in 2009. You just keep asserting that it takes a UV laser over and over and over again without any evidence, presumably in the hopes people will give up and stop arguing with you so you can declare that you "won" the thread, just like you always do.
 
2013-04-02 12:56:41 AM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.
Here's the crux of your stupidity -- until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin.  But surely, scientists today could duplicate anything a medieval con artist could do...  couldn't they? So, come up with ANOTHER way to do this -- should be easy. Any illiterate medieval peasant can do it, right? So, do it.


There's a few problems here with this reasoning. First, the reliance on a single (notably non-cited) report by unnamed Italian scientists. Second, GeneralJim seems to be conflating a lack of information on something with a kind of proof of the non-existence of something.

What he has failed to appreciate in both of these cases is the issue of the quality and quantity of information available. One should probably not take a single uncorroborated and nebulous report as being definitive, and the importance of a lack of evidence of another way to duplicate the shroud is predicated on the assumption that enough people have actually tried to make such an assessment meaningful. This argument of GeneralJim's is resting on two very shaky premises, and probably doesn't warrant the confidence he is investing in it.
 
2013-04-02 12:59:39 AM

Gunther: GeneralJim: until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin

Except that isn't true -  wiredroachpointed out that scientists made a copy using medieval methods in 2009. You just keep asserting that it takes a UV laser over and over and over again without any evidence, presumably in the hopes people will give up and stop arguing with you so you can declare that you "won" the thread, just like you always do.


Good point.

I forgot to mention in my post that any accurate assessment of the available evidence on the part of GeneralJim is complicated by his tendency to actively ignore information he doesn't like.
 
2013-04-02 01:59:23 AM
Just in case there's any doubt about the mythical 3D properties of the Shroud, here's a quick and dirty comparison I did, using the greyscale portraits from the article detailing the Italian re-creation of the overlay transfer technique.

I did this using displacement maps in Cinema 4D to translate the greyscale into 3D geometry. I applied about 3 pixels of Gaussian blur to the images in Photoshop to smooth out some of the noise; otherwise they're untouched. Both exhibit three-dimensionality consistent with a human face, so there's nothing magical about the Shroud in this respect. The shroud's looks a bit more realistic to me, but that's probably because its image from the article is less contrasty than the re-creation's, and will therefore have more gradual transitions in elevation.

drewblood.com

The shroud has pigment on it; it doesn't need to have an exotic origin to have "3D" properties, and radiocarbon dating places it squarely in the 1200s - 1400s. It's a fake.
 
2013-04-02 03:15:27 AM

wiredroach:

And again, the "3D" effect isn't magical--it's just a byproduct of this type of shading when used as a bump or displacement map in 3D software. The close-up images of the faces in the article I linked show that the shroud image and the recreation both use shading based on elevation. Either will exhibit the "3D" effect if used as a bump map. I don't know why you think that the shroud image producing this effect is somehow proof that some advanced technology must have been employed to create the markings on the cloth.

All right, I'll explain it one more time.  Please try to follow along.

It's not a 3-D effect.  It is a 3-D encoding.  The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.  Here, maybe these will help...

Watch this video for information on the 3-D imaging

Watch this video for further information on the cloth positioning information

Watch this video for other information upon which I am not as informed, primarily medical


 
2013-04-02 04:13:10 AM

GeneralJim: It is a 3-D encoding.


False, different values on the greyscale are arbitrarily assigned height values by the designers of the software.
I already covered that, you can take literally any image and run it through the right software and end up with 3d data as that's what the software is designed for.  The only objects that have "3d data" in their natural state are...wait for it.....NOT FLAT(ie 3d, not 2d).  These 3d(real life analog items) can be measured with instrumentation.

A real photo has no 3d data, clever programs written can, however, construct a 3d model of a picture of a 3d item, because we know how light works and how the skin difuses/reflects it and we can reverse engineer it, so to speak, to make a approximate 3d simulacra of things like human faces.

GeneralJim: The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.


False, when you consider how a shroud hangs on a real body, you'd get something more akin to:
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Spatial relations, how do they work?

In order for a medium to attain a portrait like image with that point of view, the medium would have to be more or less flat.  A draping shroud as you described would be distorted like the above when later laid flat.

A central burst of energy would project to all areas of the hanging shroud, yielding a wrap-around view, not a slim and undistorted portrait when laid flat.

/said it all before
//not like it will help this time
///delusional buffoon
 
2013-04-02 05:48:14 AM

Farking Canuck:

Seriously? You claim to understand science and yet you are actually saying that there is no other way to do something because one way was found??

Typically, you don't get it.  I am NOT saying there is no other way to make that image, and we can make it now.  Odds are there are other ways.  But nobody has done it yet.  And, in the 21st century, if we have only figured out one way to do it, what are the odds that some 13th or 14th century sleazeball relic forger could come up with a way that we cannot?  Additionally, why would he (or she) even try?  I mean, what would be the motivation to make an image composed of fiber char of just the surface, when rubbing in a bit of pigment would do the same?   There are other anomalies, NOT FOUND IN ANY FORGED RELIC, ANYWHERE:

- The image is a photo-negative, but the blood is photo-positive

- The blood only shows under UV, is human, type AB, and filled with billirubin, indicative that the donor was severely beaten

- The image consists of char marks on the carbohydrate layers of the fiber

- The cloth is consistent with other retrieved first century shrouds

- The cloth contains pollen from Palestine, in proportion to first century plants there

- The cloth also contains pollen from Constantinople, where the "real" shroud was housed

- The image shows very faint flowers, all species from first century Palestine

- Dirt on the footprint on the shroud has been identified as originating in Jerusalem's Damascus Gate

- The image is incredibly faint without intense enhancement, but has many bizarre details:

- The hands were penetrated at the wrist - medieval representations show the palm being pierced

- The image fuzzes out at the edges, while medieval art is almost entirely sharp-edged -- outlined

- There are coins on the eyes of the image - a 1 Lepton and a 2 Lepton coin, minted in A.D. 29-30

- One of the coins has a misspelling: a "C" rather than a "K."  Coins with that same flaw were circulated

- Front and back appear to be different heights - anatomically determined to be correct, considering positioning of the body

- Forensics have determined that the body in the image was crucified

- Although crucified, the body's legs were NOT broken, as was Roman custom in crucifixion.

- The body in the image was flailed by a Roman Flagrum, a very specific device, the exact number of times specified by Roman law


This is as weird as if Galileo had produced an accurate map of the back side of the moon. "Pfft, forgery" would not cut it. How would a forger know what was on the back side of the moon? Seriously, you can make a better case that aliens planted the Shroud just to fark with us, than that a medieval forger used unknown methods to solidify an image on cloth, an image which was both 3-D encoded and a photo-negative on a cloth which was in Palestine in the first century, and later in Turkey, using anatomical details of the Crucifixion which had been lost, only to be discovered in the twentieth century. Occam's razor says it's Jesus' shroud.


 
2013-04-02 06:05:29 AM

wiredroach:

The shroud has pigment on it; it doesn't need to have an exotic origin to have "3D" properties, and radiocarbon dating places it squarely in the 1200s - 1400s. It's a fake.

Sorry, that's just not true, other than the carbon dating bit -- and the science on the carbon dating is very sketchy.  It matters not if there is pigment on the shroud - the image on it is not made with pigment.  And, YES, it does need exotic origins to get 3-D encoding.  Oh, FFS, just look above at the list of bizarre properties of this piece.  If it is a medeival forgery, it was done by the greatest genius the world has ever seen -- the forger anticipates UV id of blood, photography, 3-D imaging, displays PERFECT knowledge of anatomy and Roman Crucifixion, and is an expert on both the "legendary" Shroud, and plants of Palestine in the first century, and later Turkey.
 
2013-04-02 06:54:53 AM

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: It is a 3-D encoding.

False, different values on the greyscale are arbitrarily assigned height values by the designers of the software. I already covered that, you can take literally any image and run it through the right software and end up with 3d data as that's what the software is designed for.  The only objects that have "3d data" in their natural state are...wait for it.....NOT FLAT(ie 3d, not 2d).  These 3d(real life analog items) can be measured with instrumentation.

So, where did the medieval forger get this software, and how did he run it?  Also, note that neither the body in the image, nor the Shroud itself were FLAT at the time.  Watch the video at the link below.  Seriously.

A real photo has no 3d data, clever programs written can, however, construct a 3d model of a picture of a 3d item, because we know how light works and how the skin difuses/reflects it and we can reverse engineer it, so to speak, to make a approximate 3d simulacra of things like human faces.
And where would a medieval forger get these "clever programs" and how would he run them?
GeneralJim: The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.

False, when you consider how a shroud hangs on a real body, you'd get something more akin to: [encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 304x166] Spatial relations, how do they work? In order for a medium to attain a portrait like image with that point of view, the medium would have to be more or less flat.  A draping shroud as you described would be distorted like the above when later laid flat. A central burst of energy would project to all areas of the hanging shroud, yielding a wrap-around view, not a slim and undistorted portrait when laid flat.

/said it all before
//not like it will help this time
///delusional buffoon

Delusional buffoon? Fark that. You come up with some computer generated slop, some crap made of red ochre, and say it's the same? Bollocks. It sounds to me like you are using the "There is no God, so the Shroud is false" logic. Your imaginary medieval forger would not have had a computer.

Blah, blah, woof, woof.  You're simply wrong about the imaging.  Watch this video to show you why.

Additionally, the "copy" you tout above ISN'T a copy -- the image is made of red ocher; looking similar to the naked eye is not the point.   The image on the Shroud of Turin is not made of red ocher.  I'd also like to see what happens to it when it is processed as in the video linked in this paragraph.  Now THIS red ocher shroud is a forgery, and would be easily identified as one.  "Ha.  The pollen is not from Palestine, the dirt from the footprint is not dirt, and not from Palestine, etc., etc."

And, what of the bazillions of other bizarre features of this cloth?  You have, so far, ignored all of them, probably because they don't fit your narrative.  A list of some of them is only a few posts up-thread.  Ask yourself, why on Earth would a forger do all of that, having to develop new human knowledge to do it, when a smear of red ocher would be sufficient for his "clientele?"

 
2013-04-02 07:35:23 AM
I don't know about you guys but now he's started linking to crank youtube videos I'm TOTALLY convinced
 
2013-04-02 07:42:17 AM
OK, I hate to pull a Jim and write across multiple posts, but I just had to respond to this one thing:

GeneralJim: And, what of the bazillions of other bizarre features of this cloth?  You have, so far, ignored all of them, probably because they don't fit your narrative.


Whereas you would never ignore anything inconvenient, like the fact that samples of the cloth were carbon dated in 1988 by several different independent laboratories and found to date from1260 - 1390. And before you even start in with the bullshiat about the samples being taken from a medieval repair, from that wiki page:


Leading STURP scientist Dr John Jackson further discounted the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. This could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.


Or in other words...
 
2013-04-02 08:42:10 AM

GeneralJim: wiredroach: And again, the "3D" effect isn't magical--it's just a byproduct of this type of shading when used as a bump or displacement map in 3D software. The close-up images of the faces in the article I linked show that the shroud image and the recreation both use shading based on elevation. Either will exhibit the "3D" effect if used as a bump map. I don't know why you think that the shroud image producing this effect is somehow proof that some advanced technology must have been employed to create the markings on the cloth.
All right, I'll explain it one more time.  Please try to follow along.
It's not a 3-D effect.  It is a 3-D encoding.  The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.  Here, maybe these will help...Watch this video for information on the 3-D imagingWatch this video for further information on the cloth positioning informationWatch this video for other information upon which I am not as informed, primarily medical


There is no such thing as 3D encoding on a 2D image!!!!
 
2013-04-02 08:49:45 AM
So...the shroud is fake, yes? Cool. Lights out on this thread, good work, guys!
 
2013-04-02 08:56:58 AM

GeneralJim: All right, I'll explain it one more time.  Please try to follow along.


cdn0.hark.com
YOU SMUG F*CK!!!
 
2013-04-02 08:59:41 AM

GeneralJim: the science on the carbon dating is very sketchy


Is there a worldwide conspiracy of scientists in this field as well? Damn those evil bastards! We can't trust any of them! Hang them all!!

/sorry ... it is probably just a few scientists in on the conspiracy who have somehow tricked all the rest because they are idiots
//right?
 
2013-04-02 10:25:35 AM
I said it before.  I say it again.  The shroud is a medieval fake.  Anyone that thinks otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

There is no middle ground.  There is no "oh but it MIGHT be".  It is FAKE.  period.  Aside from the FACT that magic does not exist, the shroud is so fake it is not even worth mentioning any longer.  We KNOW it is fake.  We pretty much know how they did it and can reproduce it closely using methods available in medieval times.  It is sad to those that WANT it to be real that science progresses and that fakes can be spotted in these times that could not have been in the year 1400 but COME ON.

It's fake so....  liar or fool if you claim it is real.
 
2013-04-02 11:06:05 AM

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: It is a 3-D encoding.

False, different values on the greyscale are arbitrarily assigned height values by the designers of the software. I already covered that, you can take literally any image and run it through the right software and end up with 3d data as that's what the software is designed for.  The only objects that have "3d data" in their natural state are...wait for it.....NOT FLAT(ie 3d, not 2d).  These 3d(real life analog items) can be measured with instrumentation.


So, where did the medieval forger get this software, and how did he run it?

You must be on serious drugs.

The artists who created the thing, like any other work of art ever, just created the art.
THERE IS NO 3D INFORMATION IN IT.

It's no different from any work of art ever, it can be fed into a modern machine as a 2d program and a bump/displacement map can be made from it. You can do this with, quite literally, any 2d image that is not a uniform picture.(that will still yield a uniform deformation.)

You can do this with the Mona Lisa, or a poloroid of your crap in a toilet, or a screen-cap of a fark thread.  It's not magic, you don't just make up the rules as you go.  Well....you do.
 
2013-04-02 11:08:28 AM
Ready for round two?....It's real dammit. and you're a fool to think otherwise. dickheads
/praise Jebus
 
2013-04-02 11:31:09 AM

GeneralJim: Watch this video for information on the 3-D imaging



Quote from this page: "The Shroud image however, varies in intensity in direct correlation with the apparent distance it was from the cloth at the moment the image was formed." This is exactly the effect I described in my post and rendering above. You don't know what you're talking about.

You state: It is a 3-D encoding.  The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.

That's gibberish. The shroud in no way exhibits anything of the kind. You're misinterpreting the above quote from your page.

Watch this video for further information on the cloth positioning information

Ray Downing, the video's "expert," is described as a graphic artist. I'm a graphic artist. So my credentials are as good as his. His website includes renderings of horses with wings, so they must be real, too. And his method is essentially the same as mine, with a better source scan and adding the three-dimensional shape of a human face as he assumes it would be lying under the cloth. His photo-realistic rendering in no way is a direct, unambiguous translation of the Shroud image. He's adding his own interpretation into the process.

His proof that the carbon dating is wrong? "We have a painting of the shroud of Turin from 68 years before the outermost date..." Never mind that we also have historical paintings of mermaids, UFOs, Athena, etc. Neither does the painting show how the shroud was wrapped around the body. And the painting doesn't look like the Shroud image or his own rendering (the painting's hair parted strongly on the left, the longer, straighter nose), so it's clearly a different depiction that makes its use as a precedent irrelevant. Even if it were a similar image, it's only 68 years older than the fake shroud and as such would be a 12th-13th depiction, which would hardly a journalistic record of Christ's burial.

drewblood.com drewblood.com


"Does the Shroud of Turin and my depiction of Jesus look the same? Yeah." Yeah, because he based one on the other, not because either is any proof of what Jesus actually looked like. Even one of the schmoes they interviewed on the street in your link was able to point that out. Just because you can make something with a computer using some kind of source data doesn't mean you can extrapolate a photorealistic result.

You just don't understand what you're talking about with regard to the 3D effect.
 
2013-04-02 12:17:26 PM
I must be like Jesus....
/poser and photoshop
//very exotic
///rushed, know the thread has got to be about done


img198.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 33 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report