Athetotheist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:30 pmIf the cloth was pressed against the body, there should be severe wrapping distortion. How was this avoided?There should be even more severe wrapping distortions if the cloth had been wrapped around a body, especially around the head.
It’s the other way around. Let’s look again at the video of Nickell’s reproduction attempt….
He presses the cloth to completely conform to the bas-relief. Every point on the bas-relief face is touching the cloth. Obviously when the cloth is then pressed flat, there would severe image distortion.
Interestingly, Nickell does not show in the video the final image of the cloth pressed flat, as what we would expect to see. Instead, he shows a picture taken of the cloth pressed against the face. If he had actually showed the cloth stretched flat, the image distortions would’ve refuted the claim a bas-relief was used.
and why even try to produce a negative image?It could have been accidental.
He would then have been the first ever person to accidentally create a negative effect. Even intentionally creating a negative effect is not feasible unless there is a photographic negative to copy from.
Why are the ears missing?The bas-relief didn’t have ears.
Look at Nickell’s model above. Though it’s not Jesus (which is by itself strange since isn’t he try to replicate the TS?), there are ears on his model. So even Nickell didn’t omit ears with his model in his replication attempt.
Why should there be 3-D information encoding through a bas-relief?Bas-reliefs have three dimensions.
A bas-relief does, but simply staining a cloth pressed against it does not. The reason there is depth encoding is there is a correlation between cloth to body distance and colored fiber density. Simply applying dabs on a bas-relief will not produce this.
Why should there be x-ray imaging effects?The enlongated Gothic style makes it look like x-ray imaging.
For a bas-relief, he then must’ve made the sculpture with long fingers. There is no reason to do that. Gothic representations are not meant to be accurate depictions of Jesus. Yet the TS is anatomically accurate (on the first order). The bas-relief sculpture would’ve had to make the body anatomically accurate, except for the fingers. That doesn’t make any sense.
Further, there is no Gothic image of Jesus showing his teeth. Yet, we see imaging of his teeth on the TS.
Why is there imaging on the back side of the cloth?A second bas-relief was used.
I’m not talking about the dorsal and ventral images on the same side of the cloth. On the other side of the cloth, there is a faint image that correspond in the facial area with the front side. More info about that here:
viewtopic.php?p=1107332#p1107332
Jackson’s cloth collapse hypothesis doesn’t explain the head gap; bas-relief does. Without a better explanation than that, bas-relief holds up the best.
I touched on that here…
otseng wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:44 amAlso, any theory that involves radiation from the body would also not have a head gap. There is one radiation scenario that could account for it if the radiation is not emitted in all directions, but only radiated like a laser in a single direction. I don’t like that theory because it has an ad hoc nature to it of proposing radiation being emitted perfectly vertically in a single direction instead of omni-directionally. Another theory that explains the head gap is the theory from the head of STURP, John Jackson, has proposed, the cloth collapse theory. Instead of radiation going out of the body, the cloth collapses into the body and the image is formed during body contact. This would explain the head gap and many other features as well.
To elaborate, the head gap is a result of angle encoding. Angle encoding means there is a relationship between the angle of the cloth relative to the horizontal plane of the body and the image discoloration density. The more angle, the less imaging. So, for areas where the cloth is perpendicular to the ground, there is no imaging. Angle encoding also involves image projection distortions. Suppose a circle of light was projected onto a cloth lying on a flat surface. If the light was projected straight down onto the cloth, the light on the cloth would be a circle. If the light was projected at an angle to the cloth, the light on the cloth would be an oval.
How would angle encoding be explained by the cloth collapse? The cloth would collapse into the dematerializing body, which generally would be in the direction of the plane of the body. The amount of discoloration would be a factor of the amount of time the fibers interact with the body dematerializing. The parts of the cloth with a high angle would not collapse into the body and have no imaging. This includes the top and sides of the head, which explains the head gap and missing ears. Angle distortion explains the long fingers and second order distortion of facial proportions.
I admit I do not know the exact mechanics of how the cloth would’ve travelled, but only theorize how it could’ve moved. One thing though is I do not believe the entire body instantaneously disappeared. The face is darker than the rest of the body, so the dematerialization process took longer at the head. Did it dematerialize from the outside in? Did it dematerialize in layers like a MRI scan? Perhaps both?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1124310#p1124310