Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Memorandum Fraud?

Sorry, Jabba; things moved on. Dan Scavone offered 15 contentions against d'Arcis' credibility, did he? Let me see...

1) D'Arcis did not send the letter.
Even if this is true, it is not evidence against its truthfulness, especially as he had just been sworn to perpetual silence whatever he thought.

2) D'Arcis does not name the painter who painted the Shroud.
This is true, but he may not have known who the painter was. His claim was that Bishop Henri investigated the Shroud and discovered the painter, not that d'Arcis had.

3) There is no record of the "inquest" Bishop Henri held.
This may be true, but I don't think it matters. Three possibilities occur: a) The "inquest" was nothing more than an "inquiry", not a formal commission, and no written record was made. b) There was a written record but, like most records, it has disappeared over time. I don't believe the relevant archive is anything like complete. c) There was a written record, but after the Shroud had become generally accepted, it was destroyed deliberately.

4) The only communication we have from Bishop Henri to Geoffrey de Charny was to "praise, ratify, and approve a divine cult of this sort." Well maybe it all went sour or Henri changed his mind, as, even after this letter was sent, the Shroud nevertheless disappeared for 30 years.

5) D'Arcis cathedral collapsed in 1389, so d'Arcis wanted money.
This is not evidence of his dishonesty.

So I don't find these five amount to evidence against d'Arcis, and I can't find the other ten. If you could list them, I'll explain their value to you...

Hugh,
- Before I see if I can express other contentions from Scavone, wouldn't you agree that these five do provide reasonable doubt as to d'Arcis' credibility -- and to the credibility of his "testimony"?

 

[pgwenthold]

Hugh,
- Before I see if I can express other contentions from Scavone, wouldn't you agree that these five do provide reasonable doubt as to d'Arcis' credibility -- and to the credibility of his "testimony"?

Here's what Hugh wrote in his comment..."So I don't find these five amount to evidence against d'Arcis,"

I think that answers your question.

None of the supposed 5 objections mean anything.

 

[Giordano]

Here's what Hugh wrote in his comment..."So I don't find these five amount to evidence against d'Arcis,"

I think that answers your question.

None of the supposed 5 objections mean anything.

Not unusual for Jabba- re-asking questions if the first response was unacceptable to him:

"Perhaps you really meant the opposite of your post and you misworded it?"
"You must have misunderstood my question."

 

[hugh farey]

I'm sorry, Jabba, but I think I must be using the words 'reasonable doubt' in a different way from yourself.
I cannot personally be sure that any of the d'Arcis correspondance exists at all. I've never seen it, not even photographs of it. Perhaps it was all forged in the 19th century. However, I have no 'reasonable doubt' that it does exist, as described.
I do not know whether d'Arcis sent his letter or not. Just because a received copy has not been found in the papal archives is no guaranteee of it never having been sent. Perhaps someone discovered it and hid it to again to discredit d'Arcis. Or perhaps he never sent it. Possibilities abound, and it is not unreasonable to admit that, but I do not think any of them amount to evidence of 'reasonable doubt' about its content.
And so on. To admit that there is little true certainty in any field of Historical inquiry is reasonable, but to my interpretation that does not necessarily amount to reasonable doubt about the veracity of particular conclusions.

The main argument against d'Arcis' veracity is that Bishop Henri seems to have supported de Charny's enterprise in one letter, but condemned him in another. I do not think this casts 'reasonable doubt' on d'Arcis. In fact, considering the Shroud was put away for 30 years before 1355 or so, it seems that Bishop Henri's alleged condemnation had some force - even if he didn't actually make it.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm sorry, Jabba, but I think I must be using the words 'reasonable doubt' in a different way from yourself..

Oh, there's no doubt about that.

Let me give you an example:
Jabba: "I think there is reasonable doubt about the 14C dating."
Others: "What's your basis for that?"
Jabba: "There could be an invisible patch on the spot they tested."
Others: "Why didn't anyone detect that invisible patch?"
Jabba: "They could be unconsciously biased"

I'm not making this up. He considers it "reasonable" to doubt the 14C dating because it's POSSIBLE that the people selecting the sample were so biased that they overlooked the presence of an invisible patch.

He clearly uses "reasonable doubt" in a way that makes no sense at all.

 

[Craig B]

Dan Scavone is one of the Holy Grail lot. I have challenged his bizarre interpretations of documents many times. What Jabba never seems to realise is that these people, and Ian Wilson is another example, are all complete jokes in the academic community.

Here's my favourite failure of scholarship in Shroud studies.

Margaret later refused to return the shroud to the Lirey church as she considered it an unsuitable home for the cloth as the church was in a state of disrepair which she claimed in court in 1443. (Keith) Laidler mentioned this as he stated that in a deposition Margaret claims that her title to the Shroud rested on the fact that the relic was 'conquis par feu by Geoffrey de Charny'. Laidler claimed that the most likely translation for this phrase is 'conquered by, or through fire' which on the face of it, is a nonsense ... could Margaret have been referring to an earlier Geoffrey de Charny, to the Templar Preceptor of Normandy, roasted to death on the Ile-des-Javiaux in 1314? If so, then her enigmatic phrase 'conquis par feu' takes on a startling relevance. She is telling us that Geoffrey de Charnay through the flames, that he kept faith with the Order of the Temple unto death, that he had the right to hold the Holy Shroud by enduring the fire without revealing the sacred secret of the Order.

The expression is "conquis par feu Messire Geoffrey de Charny" which is perfectly ordinary French for "conquered by the late Sir Geoffrey de Charny". Nothing to do with fire.

I think Wilson has perpetrated this howler too, but I can't find it.

See http://www.notrefamille.com/dictionnaire/definition/feu Décédé; défunt.

 

[David Mo]

And your post, apparently responding to it, nearly 3 weeks later:

I don't think so. I had posed a particular problem with my interpretation of the table 1 of Nature and it has not been answered. Surely, it is a problem with my interpretation, but I couldn't solve it with my readings of some articles by Van Haelst, Brunetti, Rinaldi and others. Idem to some forums.

I have a great respect for Hugh's clarity of expression and his mental alertness, so I had intend to obtain some explanation... without success.

I'm afraid I will have to await to a more appropriate occasion.

 

[hugh farey]

Sorry, David, things move on. I had intended to reply to your last inquiry, but it disappeared under later stuff!

This is the Nature paper problem.

Two people go and count cows in a field. One says 72, the other says 75. They are both adamant they must be exactly correct. What is the farmer to think? Were they counting different fields? Had cows escaped, or broken in? Or was one of the numbers a miscount, and the statement that they must be exactly correct is untrue. Maybe both the numbers were wrong. Can the farmer have any idea how many cows are in the field?

The farmer assumes they were both at least counting the same field, and that no cows had escaped or entered. One (or both) of the counts was wrong. Either the first was 3 cows too low, or the second was 3 cows too many. To be on the safe side, he decides that both his counters are only accurate to plus-or-minus three, and concludes that there are between 69 and 78 cows in the field.Note that even if the counters had counted different fields, and even if cows were moving in and out, the farmer could still be confident that there were about this number, and not, say, 4 cows or 250 cows.


But suppose the first man had said '72, but I can't be certain, I could have been a couple wrong either way', and second man had said '75, but I can't be certain, I could have been a couple wrong either way' then, paradoxically, the farmer could happily conclude that there were 73 or 74 cows in his field. Remarkably, increasing the reported error also increases the precision of the probability.

This is exactly what happened in the case of the Shroud, and also explains why the other samples, whose results were more spread out, nevertheless give more precise probabilities. As reported, the Oxford range of results (750+/- 30: 720-780) does not coincide at all with the Zurich range (676+/-24: 652-700), although the Zurich range does coincide with the Arizona range (646+/-31: 615-677). What is the "Farmer" (i.e. the Nature statistician) to do? Did the Oxford man count the wrong sample, or had extra material been added or subtracted from his sample, or had he simply misreported his error? Can anything useful be extracted from these counts?

And the answer, of course, is yes. The Nature paper assumed that the error measurements were in fact wider than reported, and made adjustments to the statistics based on that. However, even if any of the laboratories was completely wrong; even if they had all counted different samples or the samples had been tampered with, we can still say that the dates of all of them must be later than (a bit of a guess) 1200 and earlier than (another guess) 1400.

I hope that helps!

 

[zooterkin]

I don't think so.

You don't think so, what? You don't think it would have helped to quote the post you were replying to, from three weeks ago, or even mentioned that's what you were doing?

I had posed a particular problem with my interpretation of the table 1 of Nature and it has not been answered. Surely, it is a problem with my interpretation, but I couldn't solve it with my readings of some articles by Van Haelst, Brunetti, Rinaldi and others. Idem to some forums.

Since you didn't mention Nature until now, again I suggest it would help if you include some context so that the rest of us know what on earth you're referring to, and maybe that would let us give some useful replies.

I have a great respect for Hugh's clarity of expression and his mental alertness, so I had intend to obtain some explanation... without success.

I'm afraid I will have to await to a more appropriate occasion.

I'm not sure what is inappropriate about now, just explain what it is you want to know.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm sorry, Jabba, but I think I must be using the words 'reasonable doubt' in a different way from yourself.

Welcome, Hugh, to that select group otherwise known as "everyone".

 

[Jabba]

I'm sorry, Jabba, but I think I must be using the words 'reasonable doubt' in a different way from yourself...

Hugh,
- That does seem to be the case.
- Maybe, I should try different wording.
- I don't think that we can reasonably accept d'Arci's testimony simply as the truth. There are reasons to be suspicious of it. And personally, so far, I find Scavone's reasons significant.
- If this was in a court of American law (I know even less about British law), Scavone's testimony should raise significant doubt amongst the jury as to the veracity of d'Arci's testimony.

 

[Belz...]

- If this was in a court of American law (I know even less about British law), Scavone's testimony should raise significant doubt amongst the jury as to the veracity of d'Arci's testimony.

Of course it would, Jabba.

 

[Giordano]

- If this was in a court of American law (I know even less about British law), Scavone's testimony should would raise significant doubt amongst the jury in my mind as to the veracity of d'Arci's testimony.

FIFY to reflect your view of reality.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

What is it with your repeated reference to "courts of law?" As has been told to you more than once, this is not a court of law, you appear to not really understand how courts work, nor do you (by repeatedly not responding to crucial questions) appear to be particularly effective in representing your "client."

Whether the Shroud is authentic or not has nothing to do with the opinion of a given 12 people; we are discussing scientific and historical evidence that overwhelming states that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus. In fact, you are lucky that it is not a jury trial: the jurers have been polled repeatedly, and the vote has remained for several years around 60 to 1 (you being the 1) against authenticity. Why do you think that a true jury trial (inappropriate as it would be) might do your position any better?

If you want a meaningless vote in favor of the Shroud being authentic, take one at one of the pro-Shroud websites. But you must somehow believe that our opinion is more important and valuable. The fact that you keep coming here and re-stating your same, unconvincing arguments, yet expecting a change in our conclusions, is quite fanciful.

 

[jond]

It's probably worth reminding everyone who hasn't read through the entire debacle, that Jabba believes that he is the only participant here who isn't biased. This despite his statement that his belief in the shroud is what props up his belief in Christianity. A truly astonishing delusion, this, but there it is.

 

[Garrette]

It's probably worth reminding everyone who hasn't read through the entire debacle, that Jabba believes that he is the only participant here who isn't biased. This despite his statement that his belief in the shroud is what props up his belief in Christianity. A truly astonishing delusion, this, but there it is.

Not only that, but he repeatedly says or implies that the only obstacle to acceptance of his position is the skeptics' inability to comprehend what he is saying. Hence, words like his recent phrasing "Maybe I should try different wording."

 

[Peter May]

The only thing "Miraculous", about the Turin shroud, is that the myth has lasted so long!
In terms of extended marketing phenomena by the Roman Catholic church, this might be deemed miraculous.

It is most important to understand the nature of what we see, not what we want to see.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba,

What is it with your repeated reference to "courts of law?" As has been told to you more than once, this is not a court of law, you appear to not really understand how courts work, nor do you (by repeatedly not responding to crucial questions) appear to be particularly effective in representing your "client."

See my definition of "reasonable doubt" above. Perhaps if he can throw "reasonable doubt" on all the evidence pointing to an inauthentic Turin Tablecloth (TTC), the TTC suddenly becomes authentic.

For reference, Jabba has stated his purpose on this confused, confusing website.

I've just noticed that he is attempting to

put any sarcastic skeptics into their rightful places… which would be a good thing

My place is laughing in the face of people who think that the TTC is authentic.

 

[Garrette]

See my definition of "reasonable doubt" above. Perhaps if he can throw "reasonable doubt" on all the evidence pointing to an inauthentic Turin Tablecloth (TTC), the TTC suddenly becomes authentic.

For reference, Jabba has stated his purpose on this confused, confusing website.

I've just noticed that he is attempting to






My place is laughing in the face of people who think that the TTC is authentic.

On that site, Jabba says that debate should be "between acknowledged experts."

So, Jabba, who and where are the acknowledged experts supporting your side?

 

[Aepervius]

Hugh,
- That does seem to be the case.
- Maybe, I should try different wording.
- I don't think that we can reasonably accept d'Arci's testimony simply as the truth. There are reasons to be suspicious of it. And personally, so far, I find Scavone's reasons significant.
- If this was in a court of American law (I know even less about British law), Scavone's testimony should raise significant doubt amongst the jury as to the veracity of d'Arci's testimony.

If it was an US court of law, the *science based* carbon dating would have trumped everything else. See : DNA analyzis for example in the eye of the public.