Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[abaddon]

So Hugh, moving along with the "paper" by Spicer.

Among the many STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) findings regarding the images of
a crucified man found on the Shroud of Turin (ST) there are six that point to a clear and natural
explanation for both the dorsal and ventral images of the cloth [22, 16, 1, 2, 3, 8, 20]. These are:
1. Images on the cloth exist only of the dorsal and ventral surfaces of body and these images lie
only on the fibers found at the extremities of the cloth

He neglects to mention that this is consistent with a painted artefact.

2. No image or discoloration exists between the two surfaces of cloth, i.e., within the cloth

He neglects to mention that this is consistent with a painted artefact.

3. There is no image of the top of the head or sides of the body enclosed by the cloth [14]

He neglects to mention that this is consistent with a painted artefact and that there is insufficient room for one.

4. The image density on the cloth appears to embody information on the vertical distance be-
tween the cloth and the portion of the ventral body imaged, as if the cloth were held flat and
horizontal slightly above the body or, in the case of the dorsal image, between the cloth on
either the floor or shelf on which the body lied and the back of the body. In essence, the
closer the cloth was to the body the darker the image, and the farther away the fainter the
image [13]

Yup, back to a levitating cloth. Who would have thunk?

5. A body image is visible in areas where there was no contact between the body and the cloth

He neglects to mention that this is consistent with a painted artefact.

6. The coloration does not appear under the threads where they cross in the weave of the cloth

7. Both the dorsal and ventral body images appear to have similar contrasts

Still all consistent with a painted artefact.

Why does he not mention this? It is because he started out with the conclusion and is attempting to make everything and anything fit that ordained conclusion.

Now, I'm still not finished with the introduction, there is more to follow, but by now what point is there in proceeding further with this nonsensical "paper"?

 

[hugh farey]

Hugh, by adding the info about the limestone, the probability of H increased from 0.1 to 0.174311927, and the posterior probability of H is .074311927 larger than the prior probability of H.
- And then, if the posterior probability of H is larger than its prior probability, the posterior probability of ~H has to be smaller than its prior probability.
- Hopefully, I got it right this time...

You did get it right, and I understand your reasoning. Given this calculation (and to be honest I still don't understand where the dividing comes in), and your figures, then yes, the presence of limestone on the Shroud increases the probability of it being authentic and decreases the probability of it being medieval. The same would no doubt apply to the blood. Your first, erroneous calculation suggested that the probability of authenticity would rise from 0.10 to 0.67, which was, as you now see, somewhat wishful; but the new calculation, that the probability of authenticity would rise from 0.10 to 0.17, is correct. However, as MRC Hans points out, the probability of a medieval cloth containing limestone is likely to be more than 50%, and nearly everybody on the site thinks that the likelihood of the shroud being authentic is less than 1%. By guessing 75% for the medieval limestone, 95% for authentic limestone, 1% for authenticity and 99% for a medieval origin, and entering them into your equation, we get a rise in the probability of authenticity from 0.010 to 0.013, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. However, by these calculations, your stated premise is justified. However I believe Jay Utah knows a great deal more about this formula than I do, and he does not think the equation you have used is appropriate in this case. It would be interesting to know exactly why.

- Check out http://shroud.com/pdfs/imprint.pdf. I wonder if Spicer knows about this...

I really think that in comparison to that of the Shroud, the image formation of the Jospice mattress is a complete red herring. However, as a comparable exercise in the investigation of a mystery, it might be worth raising here. It is, after all, as far as we know a unique image of a man on a sheet, and we do not know how it occurred. Various hypotheses have been proposed, and opposed, and I am not aware that any consensus has been achieved. Its religious impartiality makes it a less emotional topic than the Shroud.

Everybody else: my apologies for not responding to all your comments, some of them very reasonable, but I have had so many messages from the moderators recently I don't feel able to.

Is it true that a conducting body between two insulating sheets in a vertical electric field tends to collect charges on the horizontal more than the vertical planes? Does anybody know?

 

[abaddon]

And what on earth is your position on Spicers paper anyway?

Here you appear to endorse it

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.

And here you appear to reject it

Jabba, I detect a rising panic in the medievalist camp, don't you?

Sadly, I can think of lots of reasons not to accept Spicer's hypothesis, and, as I have demonstrated, reasons not to accept the accuracy of your Bayesian equation, and can calmly and rationally refute almost every authenticist argument, which I do. In contrast, some of my fellow so-called skeptics only make jokes, belittle and hurl insults. It is clear that given any reasons to accept authenticity, however inadequate, rather than the straw-men they raise and shoot down themselves, they do nothing but flounder.

So which is it?

If you endorse it, you are a sindonist, but you carefully stopped short of full endorsement. You simply threw it out as though it was of some value. Either you do think it has some value or you do not. But you decline to identify that as well.

If you reject it, then what are you doing presenting it as any kind of evidence of anything? But again you very carefully stopped short of actual rejection. You simply claimed that you could see reasons to not accept the "paper" but you didn't say if those reasons were sufficient to reject it nor did you specify if you actually rejected.

Jay is correct. You have firmly set out your stall in intentional ambiguity and I can only imagine but one reason for that.

 

[abaddon]

Is it true that a conducting body between two insulating sheets in a vertical electric field tends to collect charges on the horizontal more than the vertical planes? Does anybody know?

Yup, it is true. The problem is the field in the area would have to be so large that everyone in Jerusalem would look like this

 

[Alderbank]

- Check out http://shroud.com/pdfs/imprint.pdf. I wonder if Spicer knows about this...

Jabba, why do you waste anyone's time with this?

The link is to a tedious article written by a catholic priest with no scientific training and apparently no common sense or critical faculties. The priest alleged that at a hospice in the North West of England, about 15 minutes drive from where I live, mysterious brown stains appeared on a bri-nylon mattress cover. The priest claimed to have had the item scientifically analysed by scientists but with inconclusive results. The priest decided the stains resembled the face on the Shroud. He claimed that the image of Our Lord and Redeemer has only ever appeared twice - on the Shroud and on this nylon mattress cover (obviously toast doesn't count) and he concludes that both the bri-nylon mattress cover and the Shroud are authentic. No supporting evidence is offered.

Honestly Jabba why waste anyone's time with this?

 

[abaddon]

Jabba, why do you waste anyone's time with this?

The link is to a tedious article written by a catholic priest with no scientific training and apparently no common sense or critical faculties. The priest alleged that at a hospice in the North West of England, about 15 minutes drive from where I live, mysterious brown stains appeared on a bri-nylon mattress cover. The priest claimed to have had the item scientifically analysed by scientists but with inconclusive results. The priest decided the stains resembled the face on the Shroud. He claimed that the image of Our Lord and Redeemer has only ever appeared twice - on the Shroud and on this nylon mattress cover (obviously toast doesn't count) and he concludes that both the bri-nylon mattress cover and the Shroud are authentic. No supporting evidence is offered.

Honestly Jabba why waste anyone's time with this?

Simultaneously imprinted face and buttocks, which is more than a little odd.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay is correct. You have firmly set out your stall in intentional ambiguity and I can only imagine but one reason for that.

It is possible for a person to be both anti-sindonist and anti-skeptic. It wouldn't be the first -- or the thousandth -- time someone posted at this forum decrying those rude skeptics (or rather, the caricature he has drawn of them) without weighing in on the fringe topic that serves as the proxy for his anti-skeptic rant. Hugh shoves Spicer's paper under your nose not because he believes in its conclusions, but because he thinks we cannot be "true" skeptics unless we approach the paper in the way he does. After all, he's blogged extensively about the cloth, and no one can possibly know as much about it as he does.

I don't have to point out the irony in Hugh arguing how insulting skeptics are, in a post that gets moderated for insulting content. Between Jabba's Effective Debate™ and Hugh's Cordial Debate™ the real debate over evidence seems to be practically derailed.

 

[abaddon]

It is possible for a person to be both anti-sindonist and anti-skeptic. It wouldn't be the first -- or the thousandth -- time someone posted at this forum decrying those rude skeptics (or rather, the caricature he has drawn of them) without weighing in on the fringe topic that serves as the proxy for his anti-skeptic rant. Hugh shoves Spicer's paper under your nose not because he believes in its conclusions, but because he thinks we cannot be "true" skeptics unless we approach the paper in the way he does. After all, he's blogged extensively about the cloth, and no one can possibly know as much about it as he does.

I don't have to point out the irony in Hugh arguing how insulting skeptics are, in a post that gets moderated for insulting content. Between Jabba's Effective Debate™ and Hugh's Cordial Debate™ the real debate over evidence seems to be practically derailed.

I disagree. I have been doing a point by point rebuttal of that risible "paper" which was demanded and ignored when presented. The excuse presented was the demands of dealing with mod traffic which we all know is pretty minimal here so I don't buy that for a millisecond.

Since what was demanded has been provided and ignored, I am not going to waste further time on that nonsensical "paper".

And someone quote me, I am likely on ignore.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Not particularly interested in which camp someone might be in, just the quality of argument. And we could help ourselves to another thread if we wanted to go over the flaws of the skeptic movement with a wide brush.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba! You're winning!

Do you have any evidence for this statement? Can you point to any evidence for authenticity that Jabba has posted that has stood up to scrutiny?

You're wearing them down.

Regarding this as a method of "winning" relies on the basic fallacy of assuming that the shroud is authentic until all argument about it has ceased. Do you assume that every piece of cloth in existence is the authentic burial shroud of Christ? If not, why this particular piece of cloth? EVIDENCE, please.

Come on scientists, let's have some science!

Come on, you self-professed "skeptic", let's have some evidence.

You claim that the proponent for authenticity is "winning"; show us the evidence for authenticity.

 

[JayUtah]

Since what was demanded has been provided and ignored, I am not going to waste further time on that nonsensical "paper".

Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed, at least by some here. Not to diminish your contribution, but I wouldn't have wasted any time on it. And here's why.

There is, of course, the content of the paper, which is an elaboration of a hypothesis that could be tested, but hasn't been. That's science only in the sense that it's the beginning of a scientific inquiry, not the end of it or even the middle. A method for testing it involves showing effects -- immediately visible or otherwise -- that must follow from the proffered hypothesis and cannot follow from confounding hypotheses. Conversely it requires showing the absence of effects that would be produced by confounding hypotheses. Until such a method is devised and exercised, it is proper to hold the null hypothesis. The null is that the hypothesized causes do not produced the observed effects. The proponent of the hypothesis bears the burden to devise and exercise it, thus falsifying the null. Until that's done, science has no obligation to contend.

Then there is the way the paper is framed here. That is, the sponsors of the paper here in this forum are quite effluent in their praise of its author and their exposition of his history of employment as a scientist. That praise and exposition is meant to qualify the paper as science. This is a fallacious appeal to authority. When we reject the paper according to the manner it has been framed, this is not an irrational or emotional rejection. It is a proper rejection of a thing propped up to be science, but which fails to meet the requirements by its nature. When someone recites a scientist's credentials as a way of urging me to validate something from him that obviously isn't science, I simply remind myself that an eminent scientist knows that what constitutes science is what I explained in the paragraph above. Minus that, there is no science regardless of what fanboys want.

And if I were at all reticent about such a rejection, the resounding slam of the coffin lid comes in the form of an egregious reversal of the burden of proof. The notion that an unproven hypothesis would need to be affirmatively refuted by people who dispute its alleged proposed effect is adequate proof of the rhetorical game that's being played.

 

[Christian Klippel]

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.

Unless the field changes repeatedly and with long enough periods, only one side of the "plate" would have stuff stuck to it that way.

Not to mention, of course, the obvious sillieness of that "explanation" in the first place. It's the equivalent of saying "If pigs could fly, it would rain bacon".

Greetings,

Chris

 

[JayUtah]

Not to mention, of course, the obvious sillieness of that "explanation" in the first place. It's the equivalent of saying "If pigs could fly, it would rain bacon".

Or stated in a more scientifically amenable way, it's an ad hoc hypothesis. It's specifically formulated to explain one controversial question, and not much if anything else. Naturally individualized phenomena are interesting, but science benefits most when it solves classes of putatively similar problems by discovering broadly applicable mechanisms. Here even its proponents and sponsors admit to it being necessarily the confluence of prospective phenomena acting in rare or unprecedented concert.

The upshot is that ad hoc hypotheses generally require a higher standard of proof. Because they are narrowly tailored, they risk committing the fallacies of limited scope and depth. And when proposed in the context of controversy, where bias is not only possible but expected, the bar is raised yet higher.

When Spicer is ready to meet those standards, he may then yet attract a scientific audience.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Here even its proponents and sponsors admit to it being necessarily the confluence of prospective phenomena acting in rare or unprecedented concert.

The "rare" part can definitely be dropped, only leaving "unprecedented". And what's worse, if we go by known physics, there won't be any precedent to that either.

A static electric field will transport a charge from one polarity to the opposite one, and only in that direction. So, to have a conductive Jesus in an electrical field projecting an image to both parts of the shroud, the following must happen:

- A static electric field must be applied for a long amount of time, so that the charge can "drag" particles with them to one side.
- It then needs to disappear, to give the just-moved-particles time to settle down on the surface of one side of the shroud (lets say the top) in such a way that they can't be removed from there.
- Then the field has to be applied again, in the opposite direction, to do the same for the bottom of the shroud

The latter step of course has to be unable to move the particles from the top part back to the body.

Unless one would propose that the body itself is the conductor that generates the charge (field), and some counterparts happened to be above and below the body, with the shroud parts inbetween.

Just saying "an electric field did it" and "Jesus was conductive" isn't enough. Because a static electric field will transport stuff in only one direction, meaning that only one part of the shroud would have an image on it. Having a quickly alternating field doesn't help either, the particles dragged along with it would just "wiggle back and forth", so to say, leaving nothing on either part of the shroud.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[abaddon]

Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed, at least by some here. Not to diminish your contribution, but I wouldn't have wasted any time on it. And here's why.

The reality is the sindonists wilfully ignore it. And that is why I place HF in the arena in which he has chosen to place himself. I did not choose to place him there. That was his own doing.

There is, of course, the content of the paper, which is an elaboration of a hypothesis that could be tested, but hasn't been.

Yet Spicer declines to do so. I wonder why?

That's science only in the sense that it's the beginning of a scientific inquiry, not the end of it or even the middle. A method for testing it involves showing effects -- immediately visible or otherwise -- that must follow from the proffered hypothesis and cannot follow from confounding hypotheses. Conversely it requires showing the absence of effects that would be produced by confounding hypotheses. Until such a method is devised and exercised, it is proper to hold the null hypothesis. The null is that the hypothesized causes do not produced the observed effects. The proponent of the hypothesis bears the burden to devise and exercise it, thus falsifying the null. Until that's done, science has no obligation to contend.

Sure. But the proponents will not do so. They will simply lie.

Then there is the way the paper is framed here. That is, the sponsors of the paper here in this forum are quite effluent in their praise of its author and their exposition of his history of employment as a scientist. That praise and exposition is meant to qualify the paper as science. This is a fallacious appeal to authority. When we reject the paper according to the manner it has been framed, this is not an irrational or emotional rejection. It is a proper rejection of a thing propped up to be science, but which fails to meet the requirements by its nature. When someone recites a scientist's credentials as a way of urging me to validate something from him that obviously isn't science, I simply remind myself that an eminent scientist knows that what constitutes science is what I explained in the paragraph above. Minus that, there is no science regardless of what fanboys want.

Sure. That is super. Jabba and hugh will ignore it in it's entirety.

And if I were at all reticent about such a rejection, the resounding slam of the coffin lid comes in the form of an egregious reversal of the burden of proof.

Interesting point. According to jabba and hugh, neither of us should participate in this thread since neither of us believe the shroud to be genuine. I am not kidding. They have both stated this.

The notion that an unproven hypothesis would need to be affirmatively refuted by people who dispute its alleged proposed effect is adequate proof of the rhetorical game that's being played.

And now you stuck a finger in it. It is a game being played.

 

[pgwenthold]

The "rare" part can definitely be dropped, only leaving "unprecedented". And what's worse, if we go by known physics, there won't be any precedent to that either.

A static electric field will transport a charge from one polarity to the opposite one, and only in that direction. So, to have a conductive Jesus in an electrical field projecting an image to both parts of the shroud, the following must happen:

- A static electric field must be applied for a long amount of time, so that the charge can "drag" particles with them to one side.
- It then needs to disappear, to give the just-moved-particles time to settle down on the surface of one side of the shroud (lets say the top) in such a way that they can't be removed from there.
- Then the field has to be applied again, in the opposite direction, to do the same for the bottom of the shroud

The latter step of course has to be unable to move the particles from the top part back to the body.

Unless one would propose that the body itself is the conductor that generates the charge (field), and some counterparts happened to be above and below the body, with the shroud parts inbetween.

Just saying "an electric field did it" and "Jesus was conductive" isn't enough. Because a static electric field will transport stuff in only one direction, meaning that only one part of the shroud would have an image on it. Having a quickly alternating field doesn't help either, the particles dragged along with it would just "wiggle back and forth", so to say, leaving nothing on either part of the shroud.

And to reject that as having essentially no possibility of happening is somehow "the exact same error" as pulling numbers out of your nether regions.

Of course, I am still trying to understand: how does this radiation image result in a body having arms that are unrealistically long?

 

[sackett]

A man on his deathbed is entitled (I think) to any beliefs that he finds comforting.

Hugh: Do you know something about Jabba's situation that others here don't? I'm asking in earnest.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Of course, I am still trying to understand: how does this radiation image result in a body having arms that are unrealistically long?

Easy: Fluctuations in the ether field, dragging the quantums particles around unevenly, of course!

Greetings,

Chris

 

[JayUtah]

Of course, I am still trying to understand: how does this radiation image result in a body having arms that are unrealistically long?

Arm-sized and -shaped local variations in the electrical field, of course. The beauty of this particular bit of conjecture is its elasticity. When the image needs to be a pure, collimated projection then it can be. But because no electrical field is geometrically pure, any deviation from expected anthropometrics can be attributed to that variance. That's why fringe claimants like ad hoc theories so much. Doesn't fit? Just make it more ad hoc-ky.

But of course the arms can't be proven to be abnormally long. Hugh himself was unable to extract good measurements from the photographs, therefore the resulting uncertainty, appropriately projected to the world at large, prevents anyone from claiming the arms are too long. Nevermind the sindonists accept the anomaly of the arms and in some cases go to great lengths (pun intended) to try to explain it in terms of a contorted or bound cadaver. But if you assert something many sindonists take as read, then you're not a "true skeptic."

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- It means that while an event may be consistent with both sides of complementary hypotheses, it can ultimately support one over the other. I contend that the limestone on the shroud ultimately supports authenticity, and detracts from inauthenticity. More relevant here, I claim that the stains on the shroud being real blood would support authenticity and detract from inauthenticity.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Thank you for acknowledging my post.

In what way, specifically, does the presence of limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) "support" "authenticity"?

Is it, in fact, your contention that limestone (specifically, CaCO₃) was less ubiquitous in the mid-13th Century, C.E., than it was in the 1st Century, C.E.?

This, it seems, is of a piece with your assertion that blood was more commonly available in the 1st Century C.E. than in the mid-13th...

Why is it surprising, at all, to find CaCO₃ on the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of linen?