Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
My guess would be from Jerusalem.If it is a forgery, where did the forger get the rare limestone from Jerusalem?
My guess would be from Jerusalem.If it is a forgery, where did the forger get the rare limestone from Jerusalem?
Yeah, but how would the forger have known the limestone from France was different from the limestone in Jerusalem?My guess would be from Jerusalem.
I suggest re-reading my initial post in this thread (#98) and considering each of the "if"s in the final paragraph.
Look at table two, and the reported X^2 value of 6.4.
That's where the inhomogeneity comes from.
Ideally one should manipulate age estimates which have been derived by comparable procedures, and which can be shown to have comparable sampling distributions. In the following discussion we shall assume this to be the case. However, while this certainly should be a valid assumption for determinations supplied by the same laboratory, its validity may well be questionable for determinations supplied by different laboratories.
So overall, you base your conclusion of heterogeneity on a p-value of 5%, calculated under some highly questionable assumptions. Can you not see that this is extremely weak evidence?If one assumes that the only sources of errors are due to the counting procedure and that these errors are comparable, as discussed above (noting that appropriate changes must be made if this is not the case), ...
I just went back and checked all your posts for all six pages. You said not a word about the portrait problem. You didn't address it at all.No, I have addressed that, it's not a portrait.
I claimed it was not a painting, that applies to portraits too.I just went back and checked all your posts for all six pages. You said not a word about the portrait problem. You didn't address it at all.
How about a paper with two statisticians contributing?I suggest re-reading my initial post in this thread (#98) and considering each of the "if"s in the final paragraph.
In addition,
- In that table two the chi^2 analysis was "under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation". That assumption is extremely questionable and is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
- A "conventional" chi^2 test is not applicable to continuous data, such as age estimates. I see Damon et. al. used "the recommended procedure of Ward and Wilson". I haven't had time to read this carefully, but even on a quick scan, a couple of assumptions leaped out as questionable in this circumstance (emphasis added):
So overall, you base your conclusion of heterogeneity on a p-value of 5%, calculated under some highly questionable assumptions. Can you not see that this is extremely weak evidence?
I suggest that you try to deepen your statistical understanding, or collaborate with a statistician, before depending on such weak statistical evidence.
In order for this paper's conclusions to hold, your hypothesis that the archbishop switched the samples would have to be abandoned.How about a paper with two statisticians contributing?
You asked " Where did the forger get the limestone? ".Yeah, but how would the forger have known the limestone from France was different from the limestone in Jerusalem?
This forger has a lot of skillz.
Too many.
No you didn't. A forger could make a painting showing the 3-D splaying. The issue was 2-D portrait rendition versus 3-D draping distortion. The face should have been distorted to nearly twice it's width, and back to the OP, if there was a crown/cap.of thorns left on the corpse for whatever reason, the space between the front and back images would have been yet longer, to cover the additional space.I claimed it was not a painting, that applies to portraits too.
Why?In order for this paper's conclusions to hold, your hypothesis that the archbishop switched the samples would have to be abandoned.
Yes, but it raises a new question. How would the forger have known he needed to get dirt from Jerusalem?You asked " Where did the forger get the limestone? ".
I answered the question. Your reply doesn't rule out my answer.
Did you actually read the paper?Why?
The samples heterogeneity could be explained by the switching of the samples.
Any reasons why that conclusions of that paper do not hold?
Still, it's not a painting. The crown/cap of thorns wasn't left on the corpse as far as I know. We know it was a cap because of the injuries to the head revealed from the shroud.No you didn't. A forger could make a painting showing the 3-D splaying. The issue was 2-D portrait rendition versus 3-D draping distortion. The face should have been distorted to nearly twice it's width, and back to the OP, if there was a crown/cap.of thorns left on the corpse for whatever reason, the space between the front and back images would have been yet longer, to cover the additional space.
Because he was forging something that supposedly came from Jerusalem?Yes, but it raises a new question. How would the forger have known he needed to get dirt from Jerusalem?
That's actually irrelevant.Did you actually read the paper?
It wouldn't be a very good relic if it was a painting...Still, it's not a painting. The crown/cap of thorns wasn't left on the corpse as far as I know. We know it was a cap because of the injuries to the head revealed from the shroud.
Why would you think so? But I'm guessing your evasion is best explained by the proposition that you didn't.That's actually irrelevant.
I will continue discussing it when you can explain how the assumptions in the paper are consistent with your claim that the archbishop switched the samples.Can you explain why it is wrong?
Yes, but how did he know dirt from Jerusalem is different from dirt in Lirey, FranceBecause he was forging something that supposedly came from Jerusalem?
Just a wild guess.
Have you ever seen dirt?Yes, but how did he know dirt from Jerusalem is different from dirt in Lirey, France
Because I claimed the archbishop switched the samples because they were heterogeneous.Why would you think so? But I'm guessing your evasion is best explained by the proposition that you didn't.
I will continue discussing it when you can explain how the assumptions in the paper are consistent with your claim that the archbishop switched the samples.
My, what a simplistic approach. Try harder.Because I claimed the archbishop switched the samples because they were heterogeneous.
The paper concludes the tests are heterogeneous.
The two are consistent, and the paper does not rule out that the archbishop switched the samples, doesn't confirm it either.
Yes, it's different in different places, and usually contains microscopic particles of rock.Have you ever seen dirt?
The question was why a forger would think the dirt in Jerusalem would be different than the dirt in France. The answer is that everyone would know that, because everyone has seen dirt.Yes, it's different in different places, and usually contains microscopic particles of rock.
Why try harder when a simple explanation works.My, what a simplistic approach. Try harder.
You have me there.Yes, but how did he know dirt from Jerusalem is different from dirt in Lirey, France
The simple explanation is that the shroud is a medieval forgery.Why try harder when a simple explanation works.
Straw man.Or tell me why the paper is wrong. That is tell me why the samples from the shroud are homogeneous.
Yes, but we are talking about a Geologist's understanding of dirt, not a person from the 13th century.The question was why a forger would think the dirt in Jerusalem would be different than the dirt in France. The answer is that everyone would know that, because everyone has seen dirt.
No, we don't have to suppose that a forger would need to know about geology in order to believe that he might need dirt from Jerusalem in order to forge something allegedly from Jerusalem.Yes, but we are talking about a Geologist's understanding of dirt, not a person from the 13th century.
Wow, that's s a stretch.But you are wrong, because at the time, everyone thought there was only fire, water, earth, air.
But it's not a medieval forgery, because the carbon dating does not support that, because the dates for the shroud are heterogeneous.The simple explanation is that the shroud is a medieval forgery.
See how unsatisfying that is? You seem to think you can just wield statistics and science as if they were magic spells, and that somehow this gives you evidence for such astounding claims as accusing the archbishop of sabotaging the findings—a claim for which you have zero evidence.
Straw man.
We are not talking about whether or not it is a painting. I don't think you are flummoxed by the issue of 3-D splaying of the image.Still, it's not a painting. The crown/cap of thorns wasn't left on the corpse as far as I know. We know it was a cap because of the injuries to the head revealed from the shroud.
You have quite a talent for missing the point. You claim you don't have to delve into the assumptions behind the research you've submitted as evidence because you have a "simple" answer derived solely from one of the paper's conclusions, and that ends the debate. I pointed out how anyone can put forward an answer, note that it's "simple," and propose to end the debate. Think really hard about why I might have made such a statement.But it's not a medieval forgery, because the carbon dating does not support that, because the dates for the shroud are heterogeneous.
The forger had 18th century knowledge in the 13th century, that's a big pill to swallow.No, we don't have to suppose that a forger would need to know about geology in order to believe that he might need dirt from Jerusalem in order to forge something allegedly from Jerusalem.
Wow, that's s a stretch.
No, we don't have to suppose that a 13th century forger knew he would need dirt from Jerusalem because of a particular thing someone would discover 500 years later about dirt.The forger had 18th century knowledge in the 13th century, that's a big pill to swallow.
I am not the one trying to end the debate.You have quite a talent for missing the point. You claim you don't have to delve into the assumptions behind the research you've submitted as evidence because you have a "simple" answer derived solely from one of the paper's conclusions, and that ends the debate. I pointed out how anyone can put forward an answer, note that it's "simple," and propose to end the debate. Think really hard about why I might have made such a statement.
You miss the point entirely.No, we don't have to suppose that a 13th century forger knew he would need dirt from Jerusalem because of a particular thing someone would discover 500 years later about dirt.
In the 13th century, a person could be hit over the head with a hammer and killed. In the 19th century we discovered that this is due to electrons repelling each other according to like electromagnetic charge. Does that mean that no one knew in the 13th century that getting hit over the head with a hammer could be fatal?
To paraphrase you: "My simple answer is good enough and we don't need delve any deeper." Did I misunderstand you?I am not the one trying to end the debate.
Whether the method they use to determine heterogeneity is valid under your claim that the archbishop switched the fiber samples with ones not from the shroud.What assumptions in the paper need delving into?
In terms of your circular argument regarding the archbishop, you very much do.I don't need to think harder.
Asked and answered.There is dirt from Jerusalem on the shroud, how did the forger know that local dirt was different than Jerusalem dirt.
Asked and answered.It's all the knowledge that the forger couldn't have had that are revealed in the shroud.
Irrelevant speculation.And if he was making an image of Christ, how would not have made a distorted image, because that would have got him killed.
Not what I expected to learn, to be honest.At least we are learning about something in this thread! Don't knock it ..er... down.
Because that is how you shroud a corpse for burial.And how do you know it was mummy wrapped?
A traditional Jewish shroud consists of a tunic; a hood; pants that are extra-long and sewn shut at the bottom, so that separate foot coverings are not required; and a belt, which is tied in a knot shaped like the Hebrew letter shin, mnemonic of one of God's names, Shaddai. Traditionally, mound shrouds are made of white cotton, wool or linen, though any material can be used so long as it is made of natural fibre. Intermixture of two or more such fibres is forbidden,1 due to the prohibition of Shaatnez. A pious Jewish man may next be enwrapped in either his kittel or his tallit, one tassel of which is defaced to render the garment ritually unfit, symbolizing the fact that the decedent is free from the stringent requirements of the 613 mitzvot (commandments). The shrouded body is wrapped in a winding sheet, termed a sovev in Hebrew (a cognate of svivon, the spinning Hanukkah toy that is familiar under its Yiddish name, dreidel), before being placed directly in the earth (or in a plain coffin of soft wood where it is required by governing health codes).