[js1138]

I’ve been out of town on business, and I see not much has happened here. I’m going to close out my participation in this debate with a couple of non-inflammatory observations.

First of all the Photoshop filter is not an exact equivalent of the VP-8 analyzer. Whether this is important, I don’t know.

The best source of information I found on the subject asserts that digital manipulation can be exactly equivalent to the VP-8 analog device.

One source implied that Bryce-4 is similar, if not equivalent. I believe somewhere in my collection of obsolete software I have a copy of Bryce-4. Someday I will dig it out and play with it.

The images available on the internet are rather low resolution jpeg versions. The combination of low resolution and possible jpeg artifacts makes any definitive claims bogus.

I stand firm on several claims. First, the process of forming a 3D image from a single flat image is inherently interpretive. You cannot get the 3D effect simply by manipulating contrast. The “extrusion” effect is created by introducing implied light and shadow. That is what leads the human eye and mind to interpret an image as having depth. This processing is not objective. When you do this to an image you are in some sense falsifying the data.

Second, images formed by a process similar to x-rays do not have any “angle of incident light” information. For this reason you can choose any arbitrary angle in the Photoshop filter and get equally plausible results.

Third, images formed by incident light, such as the Obama image, are sensitive to angle, because light and shadow are objectively embedded in the image. The emboss filter will not produce equally plausible effects with arbitrary angles.

Fourth, my honest playing with the shroud image leads me to the conclusion that is has embedded information implying an angle of incident light. This is true even if you use smaller offset parameters. I will listen to anyone who has a complete technical description of the VP-8 algorithm or the Bryce algorithm. I’m betting that they have a parameter equivalent to the Photoshop angle.

Fifth, I have not seen anyone address the rather obvious fact that claiming the shroud image is a “graph” of the distance from the cloth to the body is nonsense. Such a graph would not produce a pronounced image of the pupil of the eye.

Sixth, I have learned a lot from arguing this controversy. I’m always willing to be wrong or partially wrong. I simply haven’t seen much to convince me that I am wrong. I have had to narrow my claims. Take that as a victory if you must.

[Swordmaker]

Such a graph would not produce a pronounced image of the pupil of the eye.

You obviously do not bother to read postings that rebut your claims. There are no images of pupils on any of the Shroud images. No one but you has claimed that the objects on the eyelids are "pupils." Since you have now been told, with proof, that what you claim are "pupils," are actually non-body part objects, your repetition of the claim is itself fraudulent and is therefore a strawman argument, repeated by you because it is easy to disprove that pupils would be imaged unless light were involved.

When I finally realized what you were referring to, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you just did not know and had made a mis-interpretation of the image that Diamond posted. However, after I posted the facts, with photographs and quotations of the current state of the science and scholarship, falsifying your mistaken belief, you now repeat the claim that Diamond's image shows pupils. Either you did not read the posting, or you prefer to ignore it or misrepresent the evidence.

Nor do you acknowledge posts showing proofs invalidating your basic premise that merely changing the angle would produce your image. Proofs I posted in response to your criticism "May I point out that you have failed to show a series of renderings starting with one good one and demonstrating what happens whin you change the angle and nothing else."

You also claimed that "If you are so stupid to start with an interpretation that doesn’t look 3D, there is no point in playing with the angle.

I, however, DID start with a fairly good pseudo 3D image and merely changed the angle. I changed the angle twenty times, every 18ºs, which is a good representative sample, and failed to generate anything that looked even remotely like your fraud, or anything that did not show some "plausable" Pseudo 3D effect. I posted every one of those images. I also showed how, starting with a fairly good Pseudo 3D image, merely changing the offset, which you claim you didn't touch, would exactly duplicate your misrepresented fraud.

You challenged us. You said that ANYONE could duplicate what you did using Photoshop and, merely by changing the angles, get the same results. I accepted your challenge and proved you were not telling the truth. One major difference. I know how the emboss filter works. Obviously, you don't.

Why don't YOU start with your blurry, fraudulent image with the massive offset and work backwards using only angle and show us a valid 3D image. Post every step. Show the settings on the screen capture as I did, not your unsupported statement of what they are.

Fourth, my honest playing with the shroud image leads me to the conclusion that is has embedded information implying an angle of incident light. This is true even if you use smaller offset parameters. . . . So how did I choose it?

The simple answer is I played with the parameters to produce an effect similar to the internet images.

We KNOW you chose it. Deliberately. Yet, through 30 or 40 posts and replies you claimed you ONLY CHANGED THE ANGLE. Now, you admit you "played with the parameters."

Now, post the similar "internet images" on which YOU claim your fraud is based, that looks like your fraud. Provide a link to the legitimate website where you saw this similar image.

Here, I'll post your image, again, because the exemplars you claim are on the Internet should look just like this: