Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

[turingtest]

Another worthwhile article is Professor Giulio Fanti's "Turin Shroud: Comprehensive Impossibility for a Work of Art," published earlier this year in the Medical and Clinical Case Reports Journal. Fanti explains some of the reasons that the Shroud could not be a work of art, including the fact that the Shroud has a double-body image imprint. Here's the abstract for the paper:

This study builds upon previous research that has demonstrated the hypothesis suggesting the Turin Shroud (TS) is a medieval artistic production to be medically implausible.

Beyond the medical considerations, the TS exhibits a double-body image imprint. This phenomenon remains unexplained in its entirety and has not been successfully reproduced in a laboratory setting, even with the most advanced and sophisticated modern techniques.

This research extends the critical analysis of this hypothesis, which continues to be widely disseminated in popular media, by examining the technical and procedural challenges a Hypothetical Artist (HA) would have faced in attempting to produce the observed double-body image on the TS.

This study's primary motivation stems from the author’s extensive research on the TS, spanning more than twenty-five years of university-level scientific investigation. Based on this research, the author asserts the authenticity of the TS, as the body of supporting evidence is substantial, while no verifiable data has been identified that would suggest otherwise.

Following a summary of the medical procedures theoretically required for an artist to produce such an imprint, this study further examines, with experimental results too, the even more complex and implausible technical operations that a hypothetical artist would have needed to undertake to produce the TS’s double-body image-an outcome that remains, even with modern scientific advancements, effectively "impossible" to replicate.

Say, that's great. Has the "it's a miracle!" hypothesis been successfully reproduced in a laboratory setting?

 

[catsmate]

Another worthwhile article is Professor Giulio Fanti's "Turin Shroud: Comprehensive Impossibility for a Work of Art," published earlier this year in the Medical and Clinical Case Reports Journal.

Fanti was once a reasonable scientist, it's rather depressing to see him reduced to writing this drivel for a pseudo-journal like that.
But then given his history of embarrassing retractions, it's probabe no-one wants to publish his drivel in a real journal

Fanti explains some of the reasons that the Shroud could not be a work of art, including the fact that the Shroud has a double-body image imprint. Here's the abstract for the paper:

It's nonsense. But then Fanti is a delusional idiot who's ranting about matters he's utterly unqualified to talk about.

The Salem Effect in action.

 

[JayUtah]

Fanti was once a reasonable scientist, it's rather depressing to see him reduced to writing this drivel for a pseudo-journal like that.
* * *
It's nonsense. But then Fanti is a delusional idiot who's ranting about matters he's utterly unqualified to talk about.

Don't you think you're being a bit unfair? I mean no one in this thread is qualified to comment on the absurdity of a physicist lecturing on art history to a bunch of doctors.

[pause for laughter]

Tl;dr = it's a giant self-indulgent straw man, placed before an ill-equipped and disinterested audience. Half of Fanti's references are to his own work, including documentation for such howlers as, "Combining these facts, it can be deduced that the body of Jesus passed through the TS without materially compromising it." (p. 3) We're supposed to accept the judgment of a person on artistic feasibility whose supposedly better hypothesis is stuff like :—

"The perfect congruence between the CHB, which extensively mentions the Resurrection of Christ, suggests that an intense form of light-energy made the human body transparent to matter. Extending this hypothesis, one can similarly explain how the Baby Jesus came out of the womb of the Mother, according to the Marian dogma of the 'Virgin before, during and after the birth.'" (Id., internal citations omitted)​

Then in a desperate "no-evidence-is-somehow-evidence" ploy, Fanti cites to all the various harebrained pseudscientific—and fully religious—claims for how the image got on the shroud (pp. 5-6), notes that no evidence for any of them has been demonstrated, and then drops the bombshell conclusion that this all just proves how hard it would be for an artist to produce the image.

I'm sure we're supposed to focus on all the impressive-looking, largely unremarkable micrography and lab analysis. "Oooh! Science!" and ignore that the meat of the paper is just some guy saying, "I can't figure out how someone did this, but also miracles exist."

 

[Reformed Offlian]

the TS exhibits a double-body image imprint.

And the Pray Codex doesn't. Amazing how Shroudies can't shut up about the image this, image that, image image image bloodstains image image.

...until they get to the Pray Codex. Then suddenly the image apparently doesn't figure into the discussion, just like it doesn't figure in the illustrations of the Pray Codex itself.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I'm sure we're supposed to focus on all the impressive-looking, largely unremarkable micrography and lab analysis. "Oooh! Science!" and ignore that the meat of the paper is just some guy saying, "I can't figure out how someone did this, but also miracles exist."

Argumentum ad Tsoukalos?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why can't it be detected them?

Except there is no patching in the sampled area......

What "science" is that? All you've produced is assertions and nonsense.

Right.......

Yes I have, as have others. You don't want to listen to those of us with vastly greater knowledge and skills.

Except there is no chi-squared issue. Magical thinking doesn't impress me.

"Those of us with vastly greater knowledge and skills"?! It would take several pages to recount all the erroneous statements you have made in this thread.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

"Those of us with vastly greater knowledge and skills"?! It would take several pages to recount all the erroneous statements you have made in this thread.

At least catsmate doesn't think that David Ford is a professor at the University of Maryland, or that the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

 

[catsmate]

"Those of us with vastly greater knowledge and skills"?! It would take several pages to recount all the erroneous statements you have made in this thread.

Feel free to do so.....

 

[bobdroege7]

No, that's not the basis of the statistical norm you're applying to the chi-squared test.


What makes that the desired value?


No, that is not the statistical model. The statistical model is linear regression, suitable when the underlying behavior is known to be linear. The output of the model is a line. The line is a statistic, much as a z-score is a statistic. But it is not a statistical model. The regression model strives to minimize the sum of variances, which then becomes irrelevant once you have the line. The line itself is a model in a different sense, not the statistical sense.


That should give you plenty of time to research the origin and use of confidence intervals.

So you have epically failed to answer why Damon et al used the chi^2 test in their paper.

Please address this discrepancy.

I am quite familiar with confidence intervals, but that is not the topic, so quit changing the subject.

 

[bobdroege7]

Insofar as they are directed to me, they are just an attempt to Gish-gallop away from the rebuttal of Casabianca.


Still circular. Any syllogistic contortion that amounts to asserting the conclusion as a premise qualifies as circular logic even if there are intervening inferences.

Where was that rebuttal of Casabianca?

 

[JayUtah]

I am quite familiar with confidence intervals, but that is not the topic, so quit changing the subject.

Nice try. The topic is Casablanca. The question on the table is why he believes the 95% confidence interval is the right one to use in his analysis. You can demonstrate your familiarity with confidence intervals by answering that question.

 

[JayUtah]

Where was that rebuttal of Casabianca?

It's ongoing, except that you want to talk about something else rather than allowing me to complete it. My rebuttal requires you to answer the questions I ask about Casabianca's work, your understanding and interpretation of it, and your basis for advocating it.

 

[Thermal]

Where was that rebuttal of Casabianca?

He says "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn".

Oddly apropos.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Sigh, you [bobdroege7] are still unable produce evidence for this amazing contamination, which can resist hot acid baths and cannot be seen by textile experts.

I've cited several scientific articles that discuss this evidence.

Anyway, here is yet another scientist who has concluded the Shroud is authentic: Dr. Osvaldo Negrini Neto, a physicist and forensic scientist at the Instituto Forense de Tecnologia in São Paulo, Brazil. I quote the abstract for his article "The Shroud of Turin and the Resurrection" in which me mentions the introduction of medieval fabric into the Shroud's cloth:

One of the most studied relics in the history of science, the Shroud of Turin – also known by Christians as the “Holy Shroud” – remains one of the deepest scientific mysteries. Although C14 (carbon 14) dating in 1988 apparently cast a strong doubt on the authenticity of the shroud, this doubt now appears to have been dispelled by high-precision scientific methods that proved that the samples analyzed were, to say the least, not representative of the whole; in addition, it was proven that among the linen fibers in the samples there was a cotton weave, characteristic of a restoration made at least four centuries ago. This fact called into question the C14 dating; later (2005), high-precision chemical analyses carried out by the renowned American laboratory of Los Alamos not only confirmed this mixture of fibers but also demonstrated that a chemical substance derived from flax, linin, present in the samples, indicated that the age of the shroud was close to two thousand years. In this paper, we will present a challenge to C14 dating, the already established scientific arguments against it, and a new argument that casts strong doubt on the date assessed by this method. As for the engraved image, we can go even deeper: no physical or chemical process attempted to date has managed to reproduce the engraved image. As far as possible, we have tried to stay away from religious hypotheses based exclusively on faith and ideas about fraud in C14 dating and in the formation of the image, as these are not the objectives of this present discussion. (https://www.academia.edu/128345656/...D_THE_RESURRECTION?email_work_card=view-paper)

Cue the usual talking point by some skeptics herein that no one can really be a scientist if they believe the Shroud is authentic, no matter what education and qualifications they have. They must say this because most of the experts who have examined the Shroud have concluded it is authentic.

 

[JayUtah]

Anyway, here is yet another scientist...

Yawn.

Cue the usual talking point by some skeptics herein that no one can really be a scientist if they believe the Shroud is authentic, no matter what education and qualifications they have. They must say this because most of the experts who have examined the Shroud have concluded it is authentic.

Straw man.

 

[bobdroege7]

Good grief this is drivel, you really don't have a clue about radiocarbon dating, do you? In addition to what might, charitably, be described as a rote understanding of stats.

You are not able to answer the questions in my post.

It does not take a degree in statistics to understand radioactive decay.

And you have nothing but slurs, adhoms, and nonsense.

 

[JayUtah]

You are not able to answer the questions in my post.

I'm not agreeing to your attempt to change the subject. You brought up Casabianca specifically and asked if anyone could rebut him. Now in the middle of that rebuttal, you don't want to cooperate and you suddenly want to direct the rebuttal toward a destination you think is more favorable.

It does not take a degree in statistics to understand radioactive decay.

It doesn't take a degree in statistics to understand confidence intervals either. But understanding them is helpful in understanding why Casabianca's treatment hasn't gotten much traction in the field.

Why did Casabianca use the 95% confidence? Where does that come from? Why is that particular number used?

And you have nothing but slurs, adhoms, and nonsense.

If you believe any of my posts are personal attacks or otherwise uncivil, report them for moderation. Otherwise do not claim as much for rhetorical effect.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So you have epically failed to answer why Damon et al used the chi^2 test in their paper.

Please address this discrepancy.

I am quite familiar with confidence intervals, but that is not the topic, so quit changing the subject.

What do Casabianca et al say about sample 4? Damon et al. derived both a similar age to the Shroud, and also a similar measurement uncertainty. Do Casabianca et al conclude that sample 4 is also heterogenous?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I've cited several scientific articles that discuss this evidence.

Anyway, here is yet another scientist who has concluded the Shroud is authentic: Dr. Osvaldo Negrini Neto, a physicist and forensic scientist at the Instituto Forense de Tecnologia in São Paulo, Brazil. I quote the abstract for his article "The Shroud of Turin and the Resurrection" in which me mentions the introduction of medieval fabric into the Shroud's cloth:

One of the most studied relics in the history of science, the Shroud of Turin – also known by Christians as the “Holy Shroud” – remains one of the deepest scientific mysteries. Although C14 (carbon 14) dating in 1988 apparently cast a strong doubt on the authenticity of the shroud, this doubt now appears to have been dispelled by high-precision scientific methods that proved that the samples analyzed were, to say the least, not representative of the whole; in addition, it was proven that among the linen fibers in the samples there was a cotton weave, characteristic of a restoration made at least four centuries ago. This fact called into question the C14 dating; later (2005), high-precision chemical analyses carried out by the renowned American laboratory of Los Alamos not only confirmed this mixture of fibers but also demonstrated that a chemical substance derived from flax, linin, present in the samples, indicated that the age of the shroud was close to two thousand years. In this paper, we will present a challenge to C14 dating, the already established scientific arguments against it, and a new argument that casts strong doubt on the date assessed by this method. As for the engraved image, we can go even deeper: no physical or chemical process attempted to date has managed to reproduce the engraved image. As far as possible, we have tried to stay away from religious hypotheses based exclusively on faith and ideas about fraud in C14 dating and in the formation of the image, as these are not the objectives of this present discussion. (https://www.academia.edu/128345656/...D_THE_RESURRECTION?email_work_card=view-paper)

Cue the usual talking point by some skeptics herein that no one can really be a scientist if they believe the Shroud is authentic, no matter what education and qualifications they have. They must say this because most of the experts who have examined the Shroud have concluded it is authentic.

So, another "renowned scientist" repeating the same Shroudie talking points as all the other "renowned scientists"? Why should anybody care?

 

[JayUtah]

So, another "renowned scientist" repeating the same Shroudie talking points as all the other "renowned scientists"? Why should anybody care?

It's even dumber than that. The premise is, "The radiocarbon dating is untrustworthy because the investigators did not consider all the speculated magical effects of the Resurrection on the process." There's a reason this is self-published.