Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[wardenclyffe]

This thread got me interested in the shroud again and I'd like to ask Jabba about an alternative hypothesis of its creation and how that affects his "calculations." One hypothesis I have run across is that it is a forgery at all. But rather a ceremonial item meant for use in reenacting the resurrection story on Easter Sunday. In effect the story would be acted out an the cloth would be presented to provide a visual for the narrative. No one would be portraying it as the true shroud of Jesus.

Over time such ceremonial items tend to take on a meaning of there own and apparently the Shroud was connected to a miracle and thus became venerated for that reason. It was over time with the forgetting of the origins that the veneration changed into the cult of the Shroud that considers it to be genuine. This is how it became a fake. It appears to be a well supported hypothesis albeit come to indirectly from circumstances as there is so little know about the origins. One of the reasons so little is known, is that such linen objects were in common use by the church at the time so they were not notable.

This is my summary of a view put forward by Charles Freeman. I learned about it listening to an interview with Freeman. You might want to run this third option into your probability mix.

If you do a search back in time in this thread and its predecessors, you will find that Charles Freeman has actually posted here.

Ward

 

[Nonpareil]

A sneaky way of admitting you were using the wrong model all along, without really admitting it. L() is not the same concept as P(). Maybe you should stop wibbling about with math you clearly don't understand and provide some actual evidence.

Directly indicating that the cloth is two thousand years old, for preference.

Because nothing else matters.

 

[Pixel42]

Basically, there are two main hypotheses, although each has numerous variations. They both assume the body was 'draped' rather than 'wrapped'.

Thanks for that informative post.

Your original post made me think I had completely misunderstood the authenticists' position, but the first one is actually exactly what I'd been assuming was their general view. I don't see a big enough difference between 'wrapped' and 'draped' for the use of the former word to justify dismissal as a straw man; the image would be distorted if the cloth had been used as an actual shroud, which I think is the point being made. I was also aware of the second one, as it's often resorted to when the problems with the first one are pointed out.

 

[theprestige]

There is a lot to be said for knowing why one's opponents think what they do if one wishes to refute their arguments.

We know why Jabba thinks what he does. We can only refute the arguments he has actually introduced.

The problem here is that you are introducing arguments that even Jabba hasn't made.

The problem here is that you haven't yet noticed that Jabba isn't even making the common authenticist arguments.

The problem here is that you haven't yet figured out that what's going on in these threads is that Jabba is trying to sneak up ever so slowly on the common authenticist arguments, and that he keeps getting properly refuted long before he actually gets to those arguments.

The problem here is that you're trying to defend a line of discussion that isn't actually being attempted even by Jabba.

The problem here is that you're fighting to establish an authenticist debate that Jabba isn't competent to sustain and that nobody else is interested in having.

 

[wardenclyffe]

I don't see any of that as a problem.

Ward

 

[theprestige]

I don't see any of that as a problem.

It wouldn't be a problem if Hugh were introducing his own arguments and defending them on his own behalf.

The problem here is that Hugh is trying to rehabilitate Jabba's arguments, which he does not even agree with, but does not even understand what Jabba is actually trying to argue.

 

[hugh farey]

You had no problem with Jabba pulling a number out of a "dark place," and specifically suggested we focused on his misuse of the model rather than on the impropriety of encoding one's bare belief as a number and calling it science.But let one of his critics commit the same error, and you're all over that critic. You really don't approach this discussion fairly at all.

No. I don't mind Jabba or pgwenthold selecting numbers at random. What is not fair is for anyone to criticise his opponent for using an unjustified number, and then using an unjustified number himself. To be fair, pgwenthold attempted to produce a justification, but it was a straw-man of exactly the kind we deplore in authenticists. If Jabba is taken to task for his specific selection of 10% as the probability for authenticity, then it is fair to take Maurice Ledificile (who first claimed it) or pgwenthold to task for their specific selection of 0%. As he is not a 'skeptic' we cannot expect Jabba to abide by 'our' rules, but as a 'skeptic', we can expect pgwenthold to.

Why do you think I end many of my posts by expounding upon what I've seen fringe theorists do in the past? You seem blithely unaware that Jabba is no different than any other fringe theorist trying to trump up the illusion of rigor by sorry means vastly observed over years by myself and others here.

Quite possibly, but as I have said before, fringe theorists are not repudiated by using their own methods against them. They are very used to that. To tell Jabba he knows nothing about Bayesian statistics is fine by him. He will politely disagree, and we will end up in the yes-I-am-no-you're-not kind of squabble that has been going on for years. So I will follow him into his labyrinth, find where he got his equation from, and find that he has made a simple arithmetical mistake which cannot be denied. 0.5 * 0.9. That's the downfall of his Bayesian probability, not overall denunciations of incompetence.

the difference is that we hold his feet to the fire for them while you admonish us not to be so hard on him. You may not be a sindonist, but you've clearly planted yourself on enigmatic ground.

But you don't hold his feet to the fire. You don't even get close. You give him easy wriggle room, and he wriggles. Walk with him, as I do, and he will walk into the fire himself.

I know I'm doing what you asked us not to do, which is try to poke holes in the theories. If a deeper reading of these two theories actually explains the lack of wrap-around, please let us know.

No, I would never ask you not to poke holes in theories; in fact not poking holes is exactly the opposite of what I would like skeptics to do. The only way theories can be disproved is by poking holes in them. But not knowing what the theories are, not understanding them when you do know, and dismissing them as impossible or silly as a result is not poking holes in anything. If there are any of the authenticists from shroudstory reading this thread, they are smiling to themselves in a gently condescending way, knowing that in the last year or so, many of the skeptics represented here quite literally have no idea what it is they disagree with. I'll explain the exact particulars of one of these hypotheses, why authenticists think it explains the formation of the image, and why, after studying it myself, I think it's wrong, in a different post.

I don't see a big enough difference between 'wrapped' and 'draped' for the use of the former word to justify dismissal as a straw man; the image would be distorted if the cloth had been used as an actual shroud, which I think is the point being made.

No. Understanding how an image could be made from a draped shroud has been the detailed study of several authenticists for many years. The essential difference is that of contact action, such as fluids on the body transferring directly to the cloth (the 'wrapped' shroud), and action-at-a-distance, such as vapours or radiation (the 'draped' shroud). You are correct in that if, even so, the vapours or radiations emerged perpendicular to the body surface, then some wrap-around distortion would still be expected, but if they were collimated in some way, then it would be reduced. Several hypotheses have ben proposed to account for that. Other hypotheses involve a kind of wall of packed spices around the sides of the body, so that the Shroud is effectively horizontal.

We know why Jabba thinks what he does. We can only refute the arguments he has actually introduced.The problem here is that you are introducing arguments that even Jabba hasn't made.

No. I have not introduced any arguments. My comment about 'wrapping a shroud around a body' was a response to an argument introduced by a skeptic. My comments about the 'event horizon' hypothesis and current authenticist thinking were responses to questions from skeptics.

The problem here is that you haven't yet noticed that Jabba isn't even making the common authenticist arguments.

Is it plain that many commenters do not know what the common authenticst arguments are.

The problem here is that you haven't yet figured out that what's going on in these threads is that Jabba is trying to sneak up ever so slowly on the common authenticist arguments, and that he keeps getting properly refuted long before he actually gets to those arguments.

No. He rarely gets properly refuted these days (although I think he has been in the past, and do understand that a kind of weary sniping has taken the place of argument recently). He gets told he's wrong; that's not a refutation, that's a denial, and he is well aware of the difference.

The problem here is that you're trying to defend a line of discussion that isn't actually being attempted even by Jabba.
The problem here is that you're fighting to establish an authenticist debate that Jabba isn't competent to sustain and that nobody else is interested in having.

No. The problem here is that I am interested in the origins of a much disputed artefact, while some other skeptics are only interested in Jabba-bashing. Fortunately, there are others who are interested in the reasons other authenticists hold their beliefs, and why they are wrong. I think there is room for both discussions.

 

[abaddon]

No. I don't mind Jabba or pgwenthold selecting numbers at random. What is not fair is for anyone to criticise his opponent for using an unjustified number, and then using an unjustified number himself. To be fair, pgwenthold attempted to produce a justification, but it was a straw-man of exactly the kind we deplore in authenticists. If Jabba is taken to task for his specific selection of 10% as the probability for authenticity, then it is fair to take Maurice Ledificile (who first claimed it) or pgwenthold to task for their specific selection of 0%. As he is not a 'skeptic' we cannot expect Jabba to abide by 'our' rules, but as a 'skeptic', we can expect pgwenthold to.

0% is justified. Unless you wish to invoke levitating radioactive jesus. Whether wrapped or draped, there is no way the CIQ could have produced that image of a corpse. Suggesting otherwise simply leads down the path of perforce making further consequent claims which get more bizarre and increasingly unlikely. Take the limestone claim, for example. To buy that in any way one must ignore the fact that limestone is and was a common building material in western Europe particularly in churches and stately homes where the CIQ has been stored for it's entire recorded history, not to mention gesso. Now the claim must become that any limestone could only have come from the Levant and nowhere else over the entire known 700 year history of the CIQ.

Quite possibly, but as I have said before, fringe theorists are not repudiated by using their own methods against them. They are very used to that. To tell Jabba he knows nothing about Bayesian statistics is fine by him. He will politely disagree, and we will end up in the yes-I-am-no-you're-not kind of squabble that has been going on for years. So I will follow him into his labyrinth, find where he got his equation from, and find that he has made a simple arithmetical mistake which cannot be denied. 0.5 * 0.9. That's the downfall of his Bayesian probability, not overall denunciations of incompetence.

Not true. It is perfectly valid to illustrate the failure of an argument by pointing out how the same failed methods can be used to drive the argument in any direction in order to reach any desired conclusion.

But you don't hold his feet to the fire. You don't even get close. You give him easy wriggle room, and he wriggles. Walk with him, as I do, and he will walk into the fire himself.

So you say, yet somehow, in all of your interactions you have not only failed to achieve that but have actively ended up encouraging the sustenance of the belief. I put it to you that your tactics are of no more utility than Jabba's "effective debate" methodology.

No, I would never ask you not to poke holes in theories; in fact not poking holes is exactly the opposite of what I would like skeptics to do. The only way theories can be disproved is by poking holes in them. But not knowing what the theories are, not understanding them when you do know, and dismissing them as impossible or silly as a result is not poking holes in anything. If there are any of the authenticists from shroudstory reading this thread, they are smiling to themselves in a gently condescending way, knowing that in the last year or so, many of the skeptics represented here quite literally have no idea what it is they disagree with. I'll explain the exact particulars of one of these hypotheses, why authenticists think it explains the formation of the image, and why, after studying it myself, I think it's wrong, in a different post.

Sorry, but you are wrong. We have seen it all and are heartily and cynically sick of it.

No. Understanding how an image could be made from a draped shroud has been the detailed study of several authenticists for many years.

Nope. They all start with a foregone conclusion and try to work backwards from there.

The essential difference is that of contact action, such as fluids on the body transferring directly to the cloth (the 'wrapped' shroud), and action-at-a-distance, such as vapours or radiation (the 'draped' shroud). You are correct in that if, even so, the vapours or radiations emerged perpendicular to the body surface, then some wrap-around distortion would still be expected, but if they were collimated in some way, then it would be reduced. Several hypotheses have ben proposed to account for that. Other hypotheses involve a kind of wall of packed spices around the sides of the body, so that the Shroud is effectively horizontal.

Those are more commonly known as fantasy and excuses.

No. I have not introduced any arguments. My comment about 'wrapping a shroud around a body' was a response to an argument introduced by a skeptic. My comments about the 'event horizon' hypothesis and current authenticist thinking were responses to questions from skeptics.

Of course they are responses from authenticists. They want to shore up their arguments at all costs. Even at the cost of basic honesty.

Is it plain that many commenters do not know what the common authenticst arguments are.

Arrogance. We know what the are.

No. He rarely gets properly refuted these days (although I think he has been in the past, and do understand that a kind of weary sniping has taken the place of argument recently). He gets told he's wrong; that's not a refutation, that's a denial, and he is well aware of the difference.

Nope. The real problem is that he gets refuted evidentially again and again and again yet keeps on recycling the same claims over and over. Eventually people get tired of typing the same refutations again and again and again.

No. The problem here is that I am interested in the origins of a much disputed artefact, while some other skeptics are only interested in Jabba-bashing. Fortunately, there are others who are interested in the reasons other authenticists hold their beliefs, and why they are wrong. I think there is room for both discussions.

It is demonstrably a medieval fake. What's the ambiguity?

 

[hugh farey]

IRMC

 

[catsmate]

We can only discuss it if it is presented. Do you have any?

I rather doubt it, no other shroudie has produced anything to refute the radiocarbon dating that's stood up to scrutiny.

Mmm, I'm not sure I agree on this approach, but since everything else has obviously failed, I suggest we let Hugh have a go at it.

Anyone for popcorn?

Hans

I doubt he'll bring anything new.

And you would be wrong. As far as I am concerned, hugh presents arguments that are no more than niggly little wolf in sheep's authenticist clothing arguments intended for nothing more than prolonging the crap that is propagated by authenticists. I am getting just a little short with the BS.

Exactly, it's the same old, same old.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>

Where's yoru claimed evidence Jabba?

Is it my imagination or has jabba now decided that the best evidence for the cloth we are discussing being authentic is alleged traces of limestone on it ?

Well he's tried everything else.

Very true. However, the cloth from which the Shroud is made is of a very high quality, and extremely expensive. Whoever produced the image was either very rich or well trusted by his employer, not a clumsy hack with a sheet.

The number of churches in medieval Europe for which a very high quality, 4m long cloth might be made, and the chances of winning the UK lottery, about 1 in 14 million.

WIll you be justifying this number, or will it be another of your unsupported assertions?

I believe Hugh lives in the U.K., meaning that from late afternoon in the U.S. we can expect him to have retired for the evening.

 

[hugh farey]

Will you be justifying this number, or will it be another of your unsupported assertions?

There are two numbers in the comment section you quoted.
Length of the Shroud: "The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 × 1.1 m (14.3 × 3.7 ft)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin)
Chances of winning the UK lottery: "All players who match all six drawn numbers win equal shares of the jackpot; the chance of doing so is 1 in 45,057,474. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingdom)

 

[abaddon]

There are two numbers in the comment section you quoted.
Length of the Shroud: "The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 × 1.1 m (14.3 × 3.7 ft)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin)
Chances of winning the UK lottery: "All players who match all six drawn numbers win equal shares of the jackpot; the chance of doing so is 1 in 45,057,474. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingdom)

So radioactive levitating jebus it is. OK then.

 

[catsmate]

The shroud has spent at least 700 years in churches, castles, an similar edifices which are generally full of limestones, at least in the form of decorations, but often as the walls themselves. No matter what its origin, it would be very surprising NOT to find traces of limestone on it.

Especially given that chalk, also calcium carbonate, was a major part of the gesso used to prepare the cloth for the paint. We covered this about a year ago (in MotS II) when Hugh last brought up this red herring.
We also covered the cleaning of the shroud samples and why this would remove any such carbonate residue before the radiocarbon dating.

 

[catsmate]

There are two numbers in the comment section you quoted.
Length of the Shroud: "The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 × 1.1 m (14.3 × 3.7 ft)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin)
Chances of winning the UK lottery: "All players who match all six drawn numbers win equal shares of the jackpot; the chance of doing so is 1 in 45,057,474. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingdom)

Pathetic.

 

[hugh farey]

So radioactive levitating jebus it is. OK then.

Pathetic.

ROFL.


...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Well, you asked for it, so here goes:

One of the many hypotheses explaining how the image we see on the Shroud could have been made by a dead body lying in it was proposed in 2015 by Daniel S. Spicer, PhD, until recently Research Professor of Physics at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and now Emeritus Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.

Although he took half an hour to explain his idea at the St Louis Shroud Conference that year, in essence he considered the body as a conductor of electricity between two insulating plates, the enfolding linen cloth. In a vertical electric field, such an arrangement leads to charges gathering on the horizontal surfaces in preference to the vertical surfaces. Polar gas molecules such as water, ammonia and urea, or similar constituents of body fluids and/or embalming spices, would collect at these points, such that the transfer of such gases from one surface to the other would be more or less collimated, with the result that any image forming reactions were more or less vertically above the sites from which the gases stimulating them were emitted, and ‘wrap-around’ distortion largely, but not wholly, eliminated.

The validity of the hypothesis lies in the availability of a suitable electric field, the availability of appropriate chemical reactions, and the weakening of those reactions with respect to the distance of the cloth from the body.

Spicer lists no fewer than nine other hypotheses involving electric fields, but considers that his is the only one which reduces wrap-around distortion to an acceptable minimum. He presents numerous difficulties and unresolved issues, suggests simple laboratory experiments to clear them up, and makes predictions regarding their outcome. He is determined that his mechanism is a completely natural process with no miraculous overtones, although he himself is convinced that the Shroud is authentic.

Spicer’s paper, co-authored with E.T. Toton, can be found at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlspicerpaper.pdf, and his presentation at the St Louis conference at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2iJCMuGho&feature=youtu.be&list=UUSv7BD9sKjIcA24ct1Hz_Aw

 

[abaddon]

ROFL.


Now, for the grown-ups. Well, you asked for it, so here goes:

One of the many hypotheses explaining how the image we see on the Shroud could have been made by a dead body lying in it was proposed in 2015 by Daniel S. Spicer, PhD, until recently Research Professor of Physics at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and now Emeritus Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.

Although he took half an hour to explain his idea at the St Louis Shroud Conference that year, in essence he considered the body as a conductor of electricity between two insulating plates, the enfolding linen cloth. In a vertical electric field, such an arrangement leads to charges gathering on the horizontal surfaces in preference to the vertical surfaces. Polar gas molecules such as water, ammonia and urea, or similar constituents of body fluids and/or embalming spices, would collect at these points, such that the transfer of such gases from one surface to the other would be more or less collimated, with the result that any image forming reactions were more or less vertically above the sites from which the gases stimulating them were emitted, and ‘wrap-around’ distortion largely, but not wholly, eliminated.

The validity of the hypothesis lies in the availability of a suitable electric field, the availability of appropriate chemical reactions, and the weakening of those reactions with respect to the distance of the cloth from the body.

Spicer lists no fewer than nine other hypotheses involving electric fields, but considers that his is the only one which reduces wrap-around distortion to an acceptable minimum. He presents numerous difficulties and unresolved issues, suggests simple laboratory experiments to clear them up, and makes predictions regarding their outcome. He is determined that his mechanism is a completely natural process with no miraculous overtones, although he himself is convinced that the Shroud is authentic.

Spicer’s paper, co-authored with E.T. Toton, can be found at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlspicerpaper.pdf, and his presentation at the St Louis conference at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2iJCMuGho&feature=youtu.be&list=UUSv7BD9sKjIcA24ct1Hz_Aw

Not peer reviewed, self presents as a scientific paper yet is not, starts with the conclusion and works backwards, simply changes radioactive jesus into electric jesus and leaves you appearing to be a closet sindonist.

What are we to make of this reply?

 

[abaddon]

ROFL.


Now, for the grown-ups. <snip>

And knock it off with the insults. It is childish and will be reported if it continues.

 

[hugh farey]

And knock it off with the insults. It is childish and will be reported if it continues.

So radioactive levitating jebus it is. OK then.

 

[abaddon]

So radioactive levitating jebus it is. OK then.

Glad you admit it.