I can do it off the top of my head because I actually know and use these principles professionally. You don't, so you can't. So stop pretending you can. Everyone has correctly seen it as yet another dodge.
But that's not what you're doing. You're using it to disguise your assumptions and preconceptions, which you have quantified simply as arbitrarily chosen numbers, and from it make a circular argument that tries to convey the illusion of rigor without achieving it. As I said many times, a Bayesian inference is only as good as (and only valid under) the initial inputs. All that can be said according to your model is that if one already believes the shroud is authentic, this new evidence will only reinforce it. Neither you nor Hugh understands this because you don't understand the intent of the science. Even Hugh mistakenly thought you had computed an actual probability of authenticity.
I have explained all this at length, many times. Praising my explanation doesn't excuse your inability to address it.
Neither Bayesian nor classical statics applies. The only thing that supports authenticity is actual evidence. Produce it, and quit screwing around with stuff you don't understand.
