Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Filippo Lippi]

So, I've only been looking in occasionally and I'm almost certainly missing something, but has it really taken 3,209 posts to get around to building a foundation for the discussion? Am I mistaken about the definition of "foundation"?

Oh crap!

This is the fourth iteration, there have been many more than 3.2k posts

 

[theprestige]

So, I've only been looking in occasionally and I'm almost certainly missing something, but has it really taken 3,209 posts to get around to building a foundation for the discussion? Am I mistaken about the definition of "foundation"?

It's the fringe reset. The threads follow a repeated cycle:

Declare intent to build the foundation for discussion > Build the foundation > Discuss > Get thoroughly debunked > Declare intent...

 

[Slowvehicle]

1. I accept that I have little or no direct evidence that the shroud is authentic.
2. I do think, however, that I have a lot of indirect, or circumstantial, evidence.
3. That is what I’m currently trying to show…
4. I’m still not sure how to apply the wording – but, I’m trying to show how the different pieces of my alleged evidence fit together for consilience towards authenticity.

5. At this particular point I’m not trying to avoid producing evidence -- I'm just trying to build the foundation for the discussion.
6. I’m trying to show how various bits of indirect evidence support authenticity.
7. And, when put together, make for a substantial argument.
8. I’m trying to show how logic/deductive reasoning/math/Bayesian statistics should be used to determine the relevance and impact of each new piece of information.
9. I can (easily) make mistakes in determining what is evidence and how strong the evidence is, but Bayesian statistics is surely the appropriate math for figuring out how new evidence effects the (posterior) probability of the old hypothesis.

10. For one thing, new info can be consistent with two complementary theses but support one over the other. Garrette’s example (#3102-1/25/16) is a good one.
11. In regard to ‘bloodstains’ on the shroud, I claim that if they are real blood, they support authenticity of the shroud – not very much, but a little.
12. But once we get that far – if we can once accept that the stains are blood – I claim that the particulars of the stains will add a lot of support to authenticity.

13. In regard to the amount of limestone on the shroud, I have claimed that such is also supportive of authenticity – also, not very much, but a little.
14. At this point, I’m suspecting that I may have been taking authenticist implications for granted, and the amount of limestone on the shroud may not support authenticity…
15. As the blood issue is my primary concern right here, I’ll research the limestone issue a little more, but then move back to the blood issue.

16. From #2855, 1/19/16, Me:
– What we’re doing here is trying to determine the new probability of an old hypothesis when certain new info is added. In the limestone case, we learn that there is all sorts of limestone on the shroud. In my estimate, the likelihood of so much limestone being on the shroud — given that the shroud is authentic — is maybe 95% — while the likelihood of so much limestone being on the shroud — given that the shroud is inauthentic — should be no more than, say, 50%. The reason for this relatively small likelihood — given inauthenticity — is our lack of knowledge about the shrouds origin under this “given.” This forgery might have a lot of limestone on it — but then again, it very well might not…
– Again, if I understand what you’re saying, “context” is the key — but in the sense that we simply don’t have much context if the shroud is not authentic, and this lack of context on the inauthentic side increases the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth — which decreases the likelihood that the cloth is inauthentic…
– That’s a lot of twists and turns — hopefully, I ended up in the right direction.
17. I didn’t quite make it.
18. I should have said this lack of extra context, given an inauthentic shroud makes the likelihood of no, or little, limestone on the cloth greater than the likelihood of no, or little limestone on the cloth, given the authentic shroud.
19. Inauthenticity (~H) shares all the background evidence with authenticity (H), but authenticity adds some additional history favoring the likelihood of the new evidence.
20. That should do it.

21. We have a lot of difficulty following the logic here (it isn’t just me) because the Bayesian approach adds a twist we don’t expect.
22. It’s like trying to shave viewing the second of two mirrors…

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Others have pointed out that this transparent attempt at a fringe reset is just that, so I will address only a few points.

First, I have pointed out to you before that 'some random cloth form the first Century C.E. is not a claim being forwarded by anyone but you. Please read carefully: the CIQ had a recorded history of being stored in churches (where limestone is not absent)and being displayed outside of buildings (where limestone is not absent) in a city where limestone is not absent, for 700+ years. Whether the CIQ is taken to be the actual cloth used to "wrap" some putative HJ before, during, and after his transformation into the MJ; or is taken (as the evidence suggests) to be a manifestly medieval bit of linen; it has spent the last 700+ years in an environment in which it could not but accumulate limestone residue. The mere presence of CaCO₃ is consistent with either case, but supports neither more than the other.

Second, you do, in fact, take committed sindonist arguments, and contributions, at face value--often, as has been demonstrated, without reading, much less apprehending, them. Your "research" often resembles nothing so much as the title results of a first-order web search.

Third, you might want to consider whether this is a venue that will ever be receptive to something that can only be true if "magic" is invoked. You should not bring "magic" to a factual discussion, and expect to be warmly received.

In hopes that you might read this, I remain,

Contributorily yours, &ct.

 

[abaddon]

So, I've only been looking in occasionally and I'm almost certainly missing something, but has it really taken 3,209 posts to get around to building a foundation for the discussion? Am I mistaken about the definition of "foundation"?

Oh crap!

Much worse than that. Starting from 23-December-2011

Part 1: 9561 posts.
Part 2: 4089 posts.
Part 3: 3556 posts.
And Part 4: 3224 posts to date.
or 20,250 posts, not including the motley collection of side threads created by/for Jabba for his "effective debate" of the shroud all of which he abandoned when it didn't go his way.

You may ask how this particular hamster wheel has been sustained. It is easily demonstrated by the limestone issue.

When nailed on it, he concedes the point thusly:

14. At this point, I’m suspecting that I may have been taking authenticist implications for granted, and the amount of limestone on the shroud may not support authenticity…
15. As the blood issue is my primary concern right here, I’ll research the limestone issue a little more, but then move back to the blood issue.

Or in other words, he is not conceding the limestone point at all, he is simply reserving the right to bring it up again in the future while giving the mere appearance of a concession. Note, also, the sudden switch to blood on the shroud being the primary concern as if we all forgot that this has been done to death in the preceding 20K+ posts.

Further, note how he never addresses the consequences of his claims.

If the limestone on the cloth, as he claims, could only originate from the first century he must now bear the burden of proof that the cloth was isolated from limestone for the following 2,000 years.

If the "blood" on the cloth is actually blood (which he can't demonstrate anyway) he must now bear the burden of proof that no blood was available in the ensuing 2,000 years.

 

[Mojo]

It's the fringe reset. The threads follow a repeated cycle:

Declare intent to build the foundation for discussion > Build the foundation > Discuss > Get thoroughly debunked > Declare intent...

I would disagree about the second point. Nothing that could be considered a "foundation" has ever been built. He might have dug himself into a few random holes, but he's never even properly marked out his foundations.

 

[Craig4]

Jay,
- Over the four years of discussion, I've provided my alleged reasons for being here, over and over again. I claim that I have two horses in this race -- the authenticity of the shroud, and trying to develop effective debate. Neither horse is doing too well, but they still have a long way to go, and I have a lot of excuses.
- I am a wannabe Christian, and wannabe authenticist, but my sense of ultimate meaning (religion?) comes from my belief in immortality that I tried to argue elsewhere on this forum, and still feel sure I'm right. In other words, I'm not wedded to Christianity. My sense of ultimate meaning does not depend upon Christianity, it depends upon my belief that, scientifically speaking, our individual consciousnesses are absolute miracles. I believe in free will and that I'm a miracle. In other words, I believe in magic...

If it's magic then why even bring up evidence? By definition, there can be no physically explainable evidence for magic.

 

[John Jones]

Jay,
[...]. In other words, I'm not wedded to Christianity. My sense of ultimate meaning does not depend upon Christianity, it depends upon my belief that, scientifically speaking, our individual consciousnesses are absolute miracles. I believe in free will and that I'm a miracle. In other words, I believe in magic...

Then stop making false appeals to science and bogus statistics. Stop slandering scientists in general , and personally attacking the skeptical scientists who have studied the shroud. Stop misquoting your interlocutors here. These things make your argument appear to be incompetent if not downright dishonest.

If you're going to cite a paper or person in support of your position, make sure their statement actually says what you claim it does. Nothing discredits you more than attributing a position to a person that they do not hold.

 

[Garrette]

Much worse than that. Starting from 23-December-2011

Part 1: 9561 posts.
Part 2: 4089 posts.
Part 3: 3556 posts.
And Part 4: 3224 posts to date.
or 20,250 posts, not including the motley collection of side threads created by/for Jabba for his "effective debate" of the shroud all of which he abandoned when it didn't go his way.

You may ask how this particular hamster wheel has been sustained. It is easily demonstrated by the limestone issue.

When nailed on it, he concedes the point thusly:
Or in other words, he is not conceding the limestone point at all, he is simply reserving the right to bring it up again in the future while giving the mere appearance of a concession. Note, also, the sudden switch to blood on the shroud being the primary concern as if we all forgot that this has been done to death in the preceding 20K+ posts.
Further, note how he never addresses the consequences of his claims.

If the limestone on the cloth, as he claims, could only originate from the first century he must now bear the burden of proof that the cloth was isolated from limestone for the following 2,000 years.

If the "blood" on the cloth is actually blood (which he can't demonstrate anyway) he must now bear the burden of proof that no blood was available in the ensuing 2,000 years.

Reference what I highlighted: it's not just that it's a sudden switch to blood that has already been dealt with; it is key to remember that the last time he switched from blood it was because his arguments were destroyed, and he used precisely the same fighting withdrawal, i.e., "yeah, maybe the blood isn't as strong as I thought, so I'm going to think about it and talk about limestone, but I may come back to it."

 

[JayUtah]

Or in other words, he is not conceding the limestone point at all, he is simply reserving the right to bring it up again in the future while giving the mere appearance of a concession.

This is fairly typical of fringe claimants: UFO fanatics, conspiracy theorists, creationists, and a whole host of other nut jobs I could name. Their "effective debate" includes such tactics as the Gish gallop. This is more of a Gish saunter. He's flitting from topic to topic, but at a leisurely pace.

It's quite amusing both to think he's actually doing any research and to entertain the notion that research will fix what is an inherently logical flaw in the structure of his argument. To Hugh's credit, it was exactly this sort of structural flaw that he was trying to bring to Jabba's attention, because it also applies to the blood.

Further, note how he never addresses the consequences of his claims.

Yet another hallmark of the fringe element. They're interested only in winning temporary rhetorical points, achieving the illusion of rigor without actually being rigorous.

 

[Jabba]

Limestone

- Some evidence for authenticity based upon the limestone found on the shroud:


- http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlschneiderpaper.pdf
Against all Christian art tradition super forger created an image with a helmet of thorns, nails through the wrists, and a myriad of scourge marks matching a Roman instrument unused for almost a thousand years. Super forger put serum rings around the blood stains using real blood. He added burn holes to match a 12th century Hungarian manuscript. He added rare limestone from Jerusalem on the nose, knee, and heel. Super forger stitched a side strip onto the cloth with a sewing technique from the 1st century. He also added discolorations to the cloth representing adevice used to display the shroud over a hundred years before in Constantinople. Super forger is just super.

In 1978 the STURP scientists detected dirt on the nose, knee, and heel using reflectance spectrometry. Subsequently it was classified as a form of travertine aragonite, a rare limestone identical to that found in Jerusalem. Dr Ricardo Levi-Setti (University of Chicago) compared shroud sample with samples collected in Jerusalem using a high resolution scanning ion microprobe and observed an excellent match.
(Accepting that aragonite was found on the shroud, and that it was at the locations on the shroud claimed, if it was from France (as suggested by skeptics), its presence on the shroud – and locations on the shroud – are either major signs of a “super forger,” or major signs of incredible coincidence).

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sn029Jun85.pdf
(2) Calcium is found covering the Shroud with predominance on the back, non-image side of the cloth. It was that side which would have been on the bench or ledge in the tomb (see the reconstruction of Christ's tomb). Calcium from the area of the "bloody foot" was compared to calcium (limestone) samples taken in Jerusalem near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site for the tomb of Christ, both samples matched.



http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/villarrealvtxt.pdf
One of the first tests performed directly on the Shroud by the STURP team during the 1978 study of the Shroud was Reflective Spectroscopy conducted by Roger and Marty Gilbert. They seemed to be having analytical difficulties when the spectra they were obtaining changed when they reached the area of the heel. The problem seemed to resolve itself only to reappear when they reached the knee area where they obtained spectra different from the rest of the cloth except for the problem area of the heel. Again the problem resolved itself only to reappear eventually at the nose.

They called on the Sam Pellicori, an Optical Spectroscopist, who via a vertical mounted sliding macroscope looked at the heel area and declared the reason for the “abnormal” readings was “dirt.” In retrospect, Eric Jumper who was the lead person for that experiment concluded that it was appropriate that the man on the Shroud would have dirt on selected parts of his body, especially the heel, and particularly if he had fallen.

In 1982, Ray Rogers sent a sticky tape microscope slide with a speck of an undetermined composition from the heel area to Dr. Joseph Kohlbeck, an Optical Crystallographer at the Hercules Aerospace Center in Utah for analysis to determine if there was anything interesting in the slide. Dr. Kolbeck identified the dark speck as Travertine Aragonite, a rare form of calcite. Dr. Kohlbeck completed his analysis and his results were received with great interest. He eventually passed the slide with the speck to Dr. Ricardo Levi-Setti, Scientist at the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. His analysis also showed that the speck was Aragonite. I called both scientists on March 11, 2012 to verify the results. Cesar Barta of Spain now has the speck.

As a follow-up to this, limestone samples were taken from at least 9 tombs throughout the Jerusalem area but only a separate sample taken from near the Damascus Gate near Golgotha contained Aragonite.

The fact that Aragonite, a rare form of calcite, was the identified species of limestone on the foot of the man on the Shroud and was also found at on the ground at Golgotha near the Damascus Gate points to a connection between the man of the Shroud and the Biblical Jesus.



- I might be back with more info re limestone, but for now, I'm going back to the blood issue.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Some evidence for authenticity based upon the limestone found on the shroud:

<snip of unsupported assertions>

- I might be back with more info re limestone, but for now, I'm going back to the blood issue.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

I wonder what you thhnk you gain from (once again) offering up unsupported (and ad hoc) assertions as "evidence".

Patiently yours, &ct.

 

[JayUtah]

He added rare limestone from Jerusalem on the nose, knee, and heel.

Begs the question of the contaminant's origin.

Subsequently it was classified as a form of travertine aragonite, a rare limestone identical to that found in Jerusalem.

Begs the question of the contanimant's rarity and geographic distribution.

Calcium from the area of the "bloody foot" was compared to calcium (limestone) samples taken in Jerusalem near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Fallacy of the affirmed consequent.

Eric Jumper who was the lead person for that experiment concluded that it was appropriate that the man on the Shroud would have dirt on selected parts of his body, especially the heel, and particularly if he had fallen.

Speculation presented as evidence.

...only a separate sample taken from near the Damascus Gate near Golgotha contained Aragonite.

Begs the question of rarity and geographic distrubution.

Despite what these sources have claimed without evidence, travertine aragonite is quite commonplace. All these claims beg the important questions of whether this material can be used to narrow down the cloth's origin to a certain distinct geographical region. While in some cases they have sampled the areas around where they purport the cloth to have come from, and have had positive results, they do no science to determine whether that's a distinguishing variable.

That's a classic confirmation bias. Blatantly so.

I might be back with more info re limestone, but for now, I'm going back to the blood issue.

The "blood issue" has been addressed exhaustively already. You seem unable to grasp that it cannot be in any way probative of authenticity. This is not a matter of "research," it is a glaring logical flaw in your argument. It has been explained to you several times. Your refusal to address it suggest you're either unwilling to face that fact, or you are not equipped to perform logical analysis.

 

[abaddon]

- Some evidence for authenticity based upon the limestone found on the shroud:

<snip>

Aragonite is not rare.

Travertine is quarried and is a commonly used building material in ITALY since the time of ancient Rome at least. It isn't rare either. In fact they are still quarrying it there. in several locations.

How is it that you couldn't do some basic fact checking?

 

[pgwenthold]

Aragonite is not rare.

Travertine is quarried and is a commonly used building material in ITALY since the time of ancient Rome at least. It isn't rare either. In fact they are still quarrying it there. in several locations.

How is it that you couldn't do some basic fact checking?

Because someone he wanted to believe said it is true, and therefore he accepts it at face value.

It's just like the blood type claim, which was equally wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

Because someone he wanted to believe said it is true, and therefore he accepts it at face value.

Bingo. The hidden premise to his argument is, "Travertine limestone occurs only in Jerusalem, only in and around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." Unless that premise can be given substance, the argument does not stand. Some of Jabba's sources just mention the material, claim its rarity, and leave it at that. Others say that it's found in specific places in Jerusalem, but they don't say what they did to determine that it's not found in other places where the cloth is known or suspected to have resided.

As has been mentioned, travertine aragonite is a common building material all over the Old World, including Europe. Guess what the streets are paved with in Italy, in some places? (It's slippery as heck to drive on when it gets wet.) Guess what the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is made out of?

 

[Mojo]

- Some evidence for authenticity based upon the limestone found on the shroud:

<snip>

The fact that Aragonite, a rare form of calcite, was the identified species of limestone on the foot of the man on the Shroud and was also found at on the ground at Golgotha near the Damascus Gate points to a connection between the man of the Shroud and the Biblical Jesus.

Travertine aragonite is also found in Yellowstone National Park. Do you think this is evidence that the shroud spent some time in Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho at some point in its Undocumented History?

 

[John Jones]

Until the 1980s, the worlds biggest exporter of Aragonite was Italy. Guess where CIQ has been stored for most of its history?

 

[Rincewind]

The name "Aragonite" does point at Spain as well...

 

[Rincewind]

Until the 1980s, the worlds biggest exporter of Aragonite was Italy. Guess where CIQ has been stored for most of its history?

Apparently in Yellowstone National Park from what Mojo mentioned!

 

[godless dave]

Travertine aragonite is also found in Yellowstone National Park. Do you think this is evidence that the shroud spent some time in Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho at some point in its Undocumented History?

Mormonism confirmed. Checkmate, pagans.