Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[David Mo]

David, you either haven't read or haven't understood Riani's paper. Almost nothing of the above quote is accurate.

Maybe my English is very bad because I thought my points were elemental.

"... begins with a speculative hypothesis about the true nature of the object ..." No it didn't. It began with a statistical exercise based on the 12 dates obtained by the three labs.

"... the distribution of the fragments of the fabric ..." No. The distribution of the radiocarbon dates. Riani made no comment about whether the fabric was integral or not.

Riani et al. don’t know how the samples were actually cut in subsamples. Figs. 1 to 4 imply a hypothetical reconstruction of the emplacement of the subsamples. For example, if Arizona had used parts from the two pieces the hypothesis would have fallen. If the mathematical hypothesis of Riani et al. had not been appropiated to a spatial translation it would have been useless for any purpose in the present debate. You make your own spatial hypothesis about an unknown contaminant agent on the basis of the spatial hypothesis of Riani et al.

"... emphatically conclude ..." No. Their actual conclusion was "Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared." That is not an emphatic conclusion, but a cautiously worded attempt to avoid explaining how the gradient calculated was caused.

"... doesn’t prove that the fabric is medieval ..." The authors do not suggest or even imply that anywhere in their paper.

" ... It is a mystery to me how Riani et al. conclude that the “contamination” of the Shroud can be greater than 1300 years ... " It would be a mystery to me, too, if they had concluded any such thing. But they don't. They make no comment at all about the date of the shroud. I don't know how you could possibly have understood that they had. The word 'contamination' or any similar word does not occur in their paper. The word 'patch' does, though, in this sentence: "There is also no evidence of any patching in this part of the TS which might cause a jump in dating."

I think we are speaking of two different articles:

“Thus the TS becomes slightly more recent as we move away from the corner leading to suppose that a greater contamination could be found in the centre of the cloth”. (14)

“Here, where contamination is more likely at the edges of the material, the experimental region could be shrunk away from the edges”.(16)

“The intervals might also be chosen to exclude corners of the material, if it is thought that contamination of these regions is more likely”. (17)

“Thus the TS becomes slightly more recent as we move away from the corner leading to suppose that a greater contamination could be found in the centre of the cloth”. (14)

Due to the heterogeneity of the data and the evidence of a strong linear trend the twelve measurements of the age of the TS cannot be considered as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity. The statement of Damon, Donahue, Gore, and eighteen others (1989) that “The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval” needs to be reconsidered in the light of the evidence produced by our use of robust statistical techniques. (Marco Riani, Anthony C. Atkinson, Giulio Fanti, Fabio Crosilla, “Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Partially Labelled Regressors and the Design of Experiments”,7. Conclusions).​

"... Remember: the aim of the dating was to determine if the Shroud is authentic ..." Nonsense. The aim of the dating was to discover the date of manufacture. If it had proved ancient, then some discussion about authenticity would no doubt have ensued.

If the purpose of the radiocarbon dating had not been an evaluation of the authenticity we would not be here now. Don’t be so naive, please.

You cannot base a criticism of my hypotheses on such a complete misunderstanding of what I was trying to explain. Nor does an arbitrary dismissal of any theory as "too imaginative" rest on reason. Neither the radiation hypothesis nor the bioplastic film hypothesis were particularly imaginative. They were presented as possibilities, open to investigation, investigated, and found wanting, but that does not make them over-imaginative. Imagination is at the heart of scientific progression and long may it continue, as long as the ideas put forward are open to rational investigation. I draw the line at aliens...

“Imaginary” is better?

The fact is that there is a rate of dispersion that it is unlikely due to chance. Riani et al. have demonstrated the mathematical possibility of a lack of homogeneity of the samples.
But a mathematical possibility is not a physical possibility. The mathematical variables ought to be translated to physical concepts to become a physical hypothesis. V=s/t means nothing if we cannot translate s and t in terms of measurable space and time.
In the theory of Riani et al. “lack of homogeneity” is an abstract concept without correlate to any physical concept. So this theory is only a mathematical one and cannot be presented as an alternative to solve a physical problem (if any it is) related to the radiocarbon dating.

I doubt that your mysterious contaminant be more substantial than other imaginary hypothesis. Good luck, in any case.

 

[hugh farey]

Goodness me. I do apologise, David; we are indeed quote two different papers! Yours, "Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Partially Labelled Regressors and the Design of Experiments" is available on the internet (I only found it by Googling some of your extracts above), dated 2010 (http://www.lse.ac.uk/statistics/research/RAFC04May2010.pdf). However, although this is close to yours, it is not exact, so perhaps you have yet another version. Mine is "Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin" which I bought from Statistical Computing, where it was published in 2012. The two are entirely similar, but some of the conclusions of the peer-reviewed paper have been toned down considerably.

In particular:
“Thus the TS becomes slightly more recent as we move away from the corner leading to suppose that a greater contamination could be found in the centre of the cloth.”
becomes, at http://www.lse.ac.uk/statistics/research/RAFC04May2010.pdf:
"If we stay within the sampled region, the TS becomes slightly more recent as we move away from the corner. One explanation is that of greater contamination towards the
centre of the cloth"
and in the peer-reviewed version:
"The effect is that of a decrease in radiocarbon age BP as x1 increases. Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared."

Isn't that interesting?

Your next two quotations are suggestions about future tests, on the assumption that contamination is the cause of the gradient observed. However, they do not substantially affect the thrust of my comment, which was that this paper does not suggest that the Shroud is not medieval and it does not suggest that the radiocarbon dating was 1300 years out. It does suggest that there is a gradient (the word 'conclusive' does not appear in the peer-reviewed version), and all I have done is suggested an explanation for it.

 

[David Mo]

Goodness me. I do apologise, David; we are indeed quote two different papers! (...)
Isn't that interesting?

It is interesting because repeated, Hugh. It is not the first time that Giulio Fanti uses two languages: One for the sindonists circles (hard) and other to the scientific reviews (lighter). He is not the only one to play this game. Mark Guscin doesn’t mention the Shroud in his book about the Mandylion. The “sindonology” has its limits.

Other:

“Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared”.

I don’t understand. Tab. 1 of Nature shows that Arizona presents the most dispersed and young results in all the cloths. And considering the measurement of the four cloths in all the labs, Nubia is even more dispersed that Turin. Some contamination is also possible in Nubia?

Other:
I don’t see in my unpublished version any reference to a quantification of change of ages due to the hypothetical contamination. Conclusion excepted.
Only this:
“If we stay within the sampled region, the TS becomes slightly more recent as we move away from the corner. One explanation is that of greater contamination towards the centre of the cloth”. (14)

Something else in your published version?

 

[hugh farey]

Something else in your published version?

No; as I say the word 'contamination' does not occur in the journal version. Having established a statistical gradient, the authors seem to bend over backwards not to explain it!

As for understanding the statistics, although the range of measurements for Nubia is large than that for the Shroud, that is because it is almost twice as old. Actually the standard deviation from the mean is less than for that of the Shroud, which makes those measurements considerably more precise. That is why its chi-squared value is as little as 0.1, compared to the Shroud's 6.4.

 

[David Mo]

As for understanding the statistics, although the range of measurements for Nubia is large than that for the Shroud, that is because it is almost twice as old. Actually the standard deviation from the mean is less than for that of the Shroud, which makes those measurements considerably more precise. That is why its chi-squared value is as little as 0.1, compared to the Shroud's 6.4.

Excuse me. I intended to say Sample 3 (Thebes). Or Provenza, Sample 4, where only a measurement of Arizona is slghtily different to Turin (the cloths are of the same age).

 

[hugh farey]

Referring to the Nature paper, I see that the discussion began with a review of the spread of the averages for each sample provided by the three labs. The difference between the highest and lowest is Shroud - 104 years, Nubian - 14 years, Egypt - 55 years and French Cope - 70 years. It was this that led the authors to say: "The spread of the measurements for sample 1 is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted."

I agree with you however that their description of the other three averages: "An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 is exceptionally good" is over enthusiastic with regard to the St Louis cope.

 

[Jabba]

d'Arcis Memo

- The following has been cut and pasted from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci.

- Hopefully, I don’t need to cite all the primary sources…
- The original document did not include the numbering
- The first set of claims represent shroud skeptics’ take on the d’Arcis’ memo; the second represent shroud believers’ take.
- Probably the most basic aspect of my thoughts about effective debate is the need to go slow, with small steps (effective debate will necessarily be tedious). Consequently, I’ll try to focus on the d’Arcis memo – itself, a relatively ‘tiny’ piece of the puzzle?
- I have two objectives here: 1) support authenticity of the shroud, and 2) develop an effective debate model. I figure that I will have won if I can do either.
- Let’s see if we can develop an actually effective debate about the d’Arcis memo.


1. The Shroud of Turin suddenly appeared in France , in Lirey , in the diocese of Troyes, towards 1355. Immediately Henri de Poitiers , the bishop of the local diocese of Troyes, which was opposed all’ostensione made, considering it an obvious fake.
2. The exhibitions resumed after about thirty years, and yet the new bishop, Pierre d’Arcis , opposed.
3. After a long standoff between him and the dean of the church where the exhibitions took place in 1389, the bishop appealed to Pope Clement VII with a long memorial, in which he tells how his predecessor had even found the artist that ‘ had ‘cleverly painted’.
4. The Pope allowed the exhibitions only as long as you say every time that it was a representation, and not the true Shroud of Christ.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited in compliance with rule 4. Do not copy and paste material available elsewhere; include a few sentences and a link.

 

[tsig]

- The following has been cut and pasted from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci.

<SNIP>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content removed.

I thought dead men tell no tales.


Or maybe that's dead men wear no tails?

 

[carlitos]

Jabba, adding the numbers and letters to each sentence really helps me process the information. Thanks for including those.

 

[Jabba]

d'Arcis Memo

Jabba, adding the numbers and letters to each sentence really helps me process the information. Thanks for including those.

Carlitos,
- I assume you're joking, but numbering does help me, and I think it's useful in debate in general.

 

[Mojo]

I have two objectives here: 1) support authenticity of the shroud, and 2) develop an effective debate model.

Repeating your claims while ignoring the rebuttals isn't going to cut it.

 

[Aepervius]

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content removed.

I thought dead men tell no tales.


Or maybe that's dead men wear no tails?

I am more for a McCoy "it is dead Jabba"

 

[Jabba]

d'Arcis Memo

Repeating your claims while ignoring the rebuttals isn't going to cut it.

Mojo,
- I provided what I understood to be the "non-authentic" arguments, and otherwise finding your specific responses to the "authentic" arguments would take me a long time. Whereas, you guys should know them.
- From my reading of both sides, my conclusion is that the d'Arcis memo is probably a "red-herring."

 

[wollery]

Mojo,
- I provided what I understood to be the "non-authentic" arguments, and otherwise finding your specific responses to the "authentic" arguments would take me a long time. Whereas, you guys should know them.

By that token, shouldn't you, as an authenticist, know the responses to the non-authenticist points?

I merely ask because you never seem to.

 

[zooterkin]

- From my reading of both sides, my conclusion is that the d'Arcis memo is probably a "red-herring."

You're talking about 'sides', when that's the wrong way to look at it. It's simply a case of looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads. There is no evidence that supports the cloth being a first century burial cloth from Palestine, let alone the miraculously decorated one of Jesus. There is plenty of mutually corroborating evidence that it is a mediaeval painted cloth. If you wish to ignore reality, feel free, but don't pretend there is anything left to debate regarding authenticity.

 

[Craig4]

- The following has been cut and pasted from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci.

- Hopefully, I don’t need to cite all the primary sources…
- The original document did not include the numbering
- The first set of claims represent shroud skeptics’ take on the d’Arcis’ memo; the second represent shroud believers’ take.
- Probably the most basic aspect of my thoughts about effective debate is the need to go slow, with small steps (effective debate will necessarily be tedious). Consequently, I’ll try to focus on the d’Arcis memo – itself, a relatively ‘tiny’ piece of the puzzle?
- I have two objectives here: 1) support authenticity of the shroud, and 2) develop an effective debate model. I figure that I will have won if I can do either.
- Let’s see if we can develop an actually effective debate about the d’Arcis memo.


1. The Shroud of Turin suddenly appeared in France , in Lirey , in the diocese of Troyes, towards 1355. Immediately Henri de Poitiers , the bishop of the local diocese of Troyes, which was opposed all’ostensione made, considering it an obvious fake.
2. The exhibitions resumed after about thirty years, and yet the new bishop, Pierre d’Arcis , opposed.
3. After a long standoff between him and the dean of the church where the exhibitions took place in 1389, the bishop appealed to Pope Clement VII with a long memorial, in which he tells how his predecessor had even found the artist that ‘ had ‘cleverly painted’.
4. The Pope allowed the exhibitions only as long as you say every time that it was a representation, and not the true Shroud of Christ.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited in compliance with rule 4. Do not copy and paste material available elsewhere; include a few sentences and a link.

Maybe it would better if you did less organizing and more providing evidence. It seems to me that all this list making is nothing more than a smokescreen for the fact that you simply cannot produce evidence to support your belief. This is really far less complicated than you are making it out to be. If you have evidence that the CIQ is authentic, present it.

 

[Jabba]

d'Arcis Memo

- The following has been cut and pasted from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci.

- Hopefully, I don’t need to cite all the primary sources…
- The original document did not include the numbering
- The first set of claims represent shroud skeptics’ take on the d’Arcis’ memo; the second represent shroud believers’ take.
- Probably the most basic aspect of my thoughts about effective debate is the need to go slow, with small steps (effective debate will necessarily be tedious). Consequently, I’ll try to focus on the d’Arcis memo – itself, a relatively ‘tiny’ piece of the puzzle?
- I have two objectives here: 1) support authenticity of the shroud, and 2) develop an effective debate model. I figure that I will have won if I can do either.
- Let’s see if we can develop an actually effective debate about the d’Arcis memo.


1. The Shroud of Turin suddenly appeared in France , in Lirey , in the diocese of Troyes, towards 1355. Immediately Henri de Poitiers , the bishop of the local diocese of Troyes, which was opposed all’ostensione made, considering it an obvious fake.
2. The exhibitions resumed after about thirty years, and yet the new bishop, Pierre d’Arcis , opposed.
3. After a long standoff between him and the dean of the church where the exhibitions took place in 1389, the bishop appealed to Pope Clement VII with a long memorial, in which he tells how his predecessor had even found the artist that ‘ had ‘cleverly painted’.
4. The Pope allowed the exhibitions only as long as you say every time that it was a representation, and not the true Shroud of Christ.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited in compliance with rule 4. Do not copy and paste material available elsewhere; include a few sentences and a link.

Repeating your claims while ignoring the rebuttals isn't going to cut it.

Mojo,
- I provided what I understood to be the "non-authentic" arguments, and otherwise finding your specific responses to the "authentic" arguments would take me a long time. Whereas, you guys should know them.
- From my reading of both sides, my conclusion is that the d'Arcis memo is probably a "red-herring."

By that token, shouldn't you, as an authenticist, know the responses to the non-authenticist points?

I merely ask because you never seem to.

Wollery,
Taken from http://shroudstory.com/?s=d'arci, in answer to #1. Pierre stated that Henri had the shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. It was removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area, to keep it from being captured by English forces.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, the d'Arcis memo has no bearing on whether the cloth is from the 1st century or the 13th/14th century. Whether the memo is real or fake, whether it was sent or not sent, what the Bishop said or didn't say - none of it is evidence of 1st century or of mediaeval manufacture.

 

[pgwenthold]

Jabba, the d'Arcis memo has no bearing on whether the cloth is from the 1st century or the 13th/14th century. Whether the memo is real or fake, whether it was sent or not sent, what the Bishop said or didn't say - none of it is evidence of 1st century or of mediaeval manufacture.

So let's get back to the question: What is the evidence the shroud is the 1st century burial cloth of Jesus?

Apparently...
1) The d'Arcis memo claiming it was a 13th/14th century forgery cannot be trusted
2) The 14C dating cannot be trusted

So that means it's the 1st century burial cloth?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

It's almost as if something irrelevant was posted in order to keep up the appearance of a debate about the authenticity of the TDR when all sides know that there is none.