Discoveries about The Shroud Of Turin

[A51Watcher2]

I have followed the investigations of The Shroud Of Turin about as long as I have researched UFOs.

What I find most fascinating are the aspects of how the image was made.

The 1988 carbon dating tests have come under fire in recent times for several reasons but primarily for the sections of cloth that were chosen for testing.

The most interesting findings for me are the ones that have been done since the advent of computers.

- If you subject a 2D image to 3D software, the result is trash. However if you subject an image that is 3D based you of course get excellent results.

Researchers were astounded to discover that The Shroud image gave excellent results to 3D software. 

To date no one has been able to find how the image was imprinted on the linen.

Since the provenance of the Shroud can be traced back to at least medieval times we must consider the technology available at the time for forgers to attempt such a task.

The image does not consist of paint and only exists on the surface of the linen and does not penetrate all the way through.

Many ways of creating this image has been tried by many people in recent years and all have failed except one. -

UV light has produced very similar results.And not just an afternoon at the beach with no sunscreen.

We are talking a HUGE sudden blast of UV.

Now WHO in medieval times would have access to tech that would allow them to imprint linen with a huge blast of UV on the surface only with with a 3D digital software ready image?  

Start at 4:05 for 3D software comparisons -

 


For UV imprinting info start at 17:08 -



So the main question as I mentioned is - WHO the heck had these 2 types of tech available at hand so many ages ago to imprint this image in such a manner?

[stilhuman]

this is so interesting! really makes my imagination run wild!

[Ninurta]

I too have followed the investigation into the Shroud of Turin since the  days of the VP8 Image analyzer and the STURP Investigation, There is  some information not presented in the videos, or which is inadequately covered, that I'd like to bring forth.

The image is faint. Very faint. The images we usually see are  contrast-enhanced to bring out the detail of the image, to a more  visibly obvious level. The image is so faint that the cloth must be viewed from a distance for the image to be seen at all. When you get too close to it, the faint differences in the fiber colors just merges together into one color or shade of color.

The image is in the "negative", probably due to the method of  production. It was not seen as a positive until the photographs of  Secundo Pio in the early 1900's. A positive image was seen to occur on  the negative plates of his photography sesstion.

The image is ONLY on the surface. The VERY surface. it only goes one  fiber deep into the cloth. Not one thread deep, but on FIBER deep on the very surface threads of the weave.

The image was produced by a process of "dehydrative oxidation" - a fancy way of saying burned or scorched. There is no pigment in the image as  would be present in a painting. The color of the very surface fibers was
changed (against the background color) by a process of scorching. This  could be produced by an acid burn, or by radiant heat or sufficiently  strong radiant light.

The 3D effect is a result of varying distances of the cloth from the  radiant energy source. Radiant energy attenuates as the inverse of the  square of the distance from the source (1/d^2). At twice the distance, it is 1/4 as intense. at 3 times the distance, it is 1/9 as intense.. at 4 times, 1/16th, and so on. So, more distant areas would be less  affected by the radiant energy. That's why I think it's more likely to  be caused by some sort of radiant energy than say for instance an acid  burn. Acid would have been applied more uniformly, and would not have  produced the proper 3D effect.

It's pretty similar in end result to some 3D imaging techniques I've  tinkered with over the years. Specifically grayscale bitmaps (or "heightfields"). In  grayscale bitmaps, each pixel is represented by a different grayscale  level, and each grayscale level represents a different elevation or  distance. I've used it to reproduce 3D terrain elevations on maps from  grayscale 2D images.

Years ago, there was software available called "basrelief.exe" that  claimed to create 3D images from 2D originals, but it had flaws. The 2D  image used to create the 3D image had to be directly photographed, and
the flash used. The reason was that the software pulled it's depth  information from the intensity of the flash that struck the photographed surface - brighter intensity was interpreted as closer to the camera.  Any other lighting, such as ambient light striking the surface from  another angle, would distort the 3D result image. About the only way to  make it work approximately correctly was to photograph the subject in  complete darkness so that only the flash from the camera provided any  light for the software to interpret

Grayscale bitmaps are pure height level information presented as an image. White is "higher" or "closer" and black is "lower" or "farther". shades of gray represent varying distances in between - lighter gray closer, darker gray farther. So height levels can be reconstructed and then artificially lit from the side or another angle to bring out the 3D quality of the image. Each pixel has it's own height based upon the intensity of the gray present in it.

I doubt that anyone would have had that experience or information concerning heightfields or grayscale bitmaps in medieval times, and the shroud is at least that old, so how was it produced?

If the shroud were wrapped around an actual body or a statue, the image would have come out distorted as it followed the curves of a body - but it didn't. It came out as if the cloth were held in a flat plane above and below the body (like a film negative in relation to the camera lens), and then "flashed" or "exposed" for lack of a better term.

How on Earth could that happen naturally, or in a process of fakery when such concepts were entirely unknown?

.

[A51Watcher2]

Well said Ninurta thank you.

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Fascinating video! Great post by Ninurta.

Another intriguing mystery that goes beyond John Dee magick.

[Michigan Swamp Buck]

I too have followed the investigation into the Shroud of Turin since the  days of the VP8 Image analyzer and the STURP Investigation, There is  some information not presented in the videos, or which is inadequately covered, that I'd like to bring forth.

The image is faint. Very faint. The images we usually see are  contrast-enhanced to bring out the detail of the image, to a more  visibly obvious level. The image is so faint that the cloth must be viewed from a distance for the image to be seen at all. When you get too close to it, the faint differences in the fiber colors just merges together into one color or shade of color.

The image is in the "negative", probably due to the method of  production. It was not seen as a positive until the photographs of  Secundo Pio in the early 1900's. A positive image was seen to occur on  the negative plates of his photography sesstion.

The image is ONLY on the surface. The VERY surface. it only goes one  fiber deep into the cloth. Not one thread deep, but on FIBER deep on the very surface threads of the weave.

The image was produced by a process of "dehydrative oxidation" - a fancy way of saying burned or scorched. There is no pigment in the image as  would be present in a painting. The color of the very surface fibers was
changed (against the background color) by a process of scorching. This  could be produced by an acid burn, or by radiant heat or sufficiently  strong radiant light.

The 3D effect is a result of varying distances of the cloth from the  radiant energy source. Radiant energy attenuates as the inverse of the  square of the distance from the source (1/d^2). At twice the distance, it is 1/4 as intense. at 3 times the distance, it is 1/9 as intense.. at 4 times, 1/16th, and so on. So, more distant areas would be less  affected by the radiant energy. That's why I think it's more likely to  be caused by some sort of radiant energy than say for instance an acid  burn. Acid would have been applied more uniformly, and would not have  produced the proper 3D effect.

It's pretty similar in end result to some 3D imaging techniques I've  tinkered with over the years. Specifically grayscale bitmaps (or "heightfields"). In  grayscale bitmaps, each pixel is represented by a different grayscale  level, and each grayscale level represents a different elevation or  distance. I've used it to reproduce 3D terrain elevations on maps from  grayscale 2D images.

Years ago, there was software available called "basrelief.exe" that  claimed to create 3D images from 2D originals, but it had flaws. The 2D  image used to create the 3D image had to be directly photographed, and
the flash used. The reason was that the software pulled it's depth  information from the intensity of the flash that struck the photographed surface - brighter intensity was interpreted as closer to the camera.  Any other lighting, such as ambient light striking the surface from  another angle, would distort the 3D result image. About the only way to  make it work approximately correctly was to photograph the subject in  complete darkness so that only the flash from the camera provided any  light for the software to interpret

Grayscale bitmaps are pure height level information presented as an image. White is "higher" or "closer" and black is "lower" or "farther". shades of gray represent varying distances in between - lighter gray closer, darker gray farther. So height levels can be reconstructed and then artificially lit from the side or another angle to bring out the 3D quality of the image. Each pixel has it's own height based upon the intensity of the gray present in it.

I doubt that anyone would have had that experience or information concerning heightfields or grayscale bitmaps in medieval times, and the shroud is at least that old, so how was it produced?

If the shroud were wrapped around an actual body or a statue, the image would have come out distorted as it followed the curves of a body - but it didn't. It came out as if the cloth were held in a flat plane above and below the body (like a film negative in relation to the camera lens), and then "flashed" or "exposed" for lack of a better term.

How on Earth could that happen naturally, or in a process of fakery when such concepts were entirely unknown?

.

For as long as I have gone to college and studied and worked with digital graphics in the past 30 plus years I have never heard about what you describe here. I even worked with stereo images I produced and developed in my own darkroom as well as built my own stereoscope to view them with. When I got into digital images I made a pair of red-blue filter glasses to view my 3-D images with, that trick helped me land a good graphics job too.

But what you have described makes absolutely perfect sense when I think about the grayscale images I've made and worked with over the years. What a great concept, it should have been covered in my fine arts college classes (too long ago I guess) I bet it was used on NASA projects all the time. Kudos for that information.

[Ninurta]

For as long as I have gone to college and studied and worked with digital graphics in the past 30 plus years I have never heard about what you describe here. I even worked with stereo images I produced and developed in my own darkroom as well as built my own stereoscope to view them with. When I got into digital images I made a pair of red-blue filter glasses to view my 3-D images with, that trick helped me land a good graphics job too.

But what you have described makes absolutely perfect sense when I think about the grayscale images I've made and worked with over the years. What a great concept, it should have been covered in my fine arts college classes (too long ago I guess) I bet it was used on NASA projects all the time. Kudos for that information.

While the grayscale heightfields technically ARE raster graphics, using them as a graphic image is not the purpose of them, so that's probably why they were not included in graphics art courses. They're more of a "Geographic Information Systems" (GIS) thing, for use in mapping and terrain analysis.

I learned to work with them years ago when most of the geographic analysis data I was getting was in the form of Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). A DEM is just a great big file of nothing but numbers, were each number is the elevation of a particular point on a grid. Software figures out how many rows and columns are represented, and then arranges the elevation values at the proper intersections of the grid.

Grayscale heightfields, on the other hand, do give a sort of a visual representation of the same data, being raster graphics, but their true beauty is only displayed when they are used to create terrain images of landscapes that can be lighted from whatever direction you prefer to bring out the details you are looking for. They effectively create 3D images of Earth's surface that can be rotated and manipulated.

They're used for things like slope analysis and to figure out what areas of land are masked from which locations - useful for setting up ambushes or antennae for line-of-sight radio communications, or setting things like artillery emplacements..

Programs I used them with included "3DEM", which has been defunct for years as the author stopped updating it - pity, it was a pretty nifty program - "MicroDEM" written by Peter Guth at the USNA, where it was still hosted last time I checked, the associated Army version called "Terrabase II" (was hosted at Ft. Leonard Wood by the Corps of Engineers), and a program called "Terragen" which is used to create photorealistic landscapes and can use either real terrains or just made-up fractally generated terrains. The program doesn't know if it's real or not, it just knows it's a grayscale image that needs to be made into a landscape..

It's hard to get DEMs any more. it seems like the USGS has stopped supporting them. All of the data I've gotten from USGS in the past couple of years has been in the form of grayscale heightfields. Data quality for those has increased dramatically. DEMs could be got in 1 KM, 90m, and 30m grid spacings - one elevation measurement for each point on the grid - and some few select ones in 10m grid spacings. The last few grayscales I've got were down to 1m grid spacings, 10X the resolution of the 10m DEMs, 30X the normal 30m DEM grids. Much bigger files, but much better resolution. I can pick out creek terraces and ATV trails on some of the local ones I've got.

I'm fixing to go to bed now, but maybe when I get up I'll try to pick out a couple examples to demonstrate how they work. Once one sees that, it should be readily apparent how it works with the image on the Shroud of Turin.

.

[A51Watcher2]

At 6:30 - Barrie Schwortz explains why the blood on the shroud is still red and has not faded to dark brown over time as blood normally does -

[Ninurta]

Here is  grayscale heightmap pf the entire world to demonstrate how elevation values are represented by grayscaled pixels. It's zoomable, and as you zoom in on any particular area, the resolution increases. It look like it maxes out at about 90m resolution. If you will notice the "ghostly" quality of the image it produces, you'll see the same quality in the Shroud of Turin.

https://tangrams.github.io/heightmapper/

Here is a demonstration of how the 3D "shape from pixel intensity" works:

http://docs.mcneel.com/rhino/7/help/en-u...tfield.htm

"Rhino" is a 3D object package, sort of like CAD. I tried tinkering with it long ago, but the learning curve was beyond my ability.

I've just now stumbled across the first site above. It looks like one can subset the data for any chosen portion of the Earth's surface and then export that data for use locally, but I've not learned how to use that site yet.

.