Please excuse this pot-boiler of a posting …

Once again, this site has disappeared completely from Google rankings (under a “shroud of turin” search), and it happened, bizarrely,  “overnight”.

One can only speculate as to reasons – which might be legitimate – albeit puzzling in the suddenness if truly determined purely by algorithm, i.e. non-human agency.

This poster is a retired scientist, and scientists operate via hypothesis/testing. So I’ll start with the following hypothesis.

It’s been a while (approx. 5 weeks)  since I last posted. Maybe the  Google algorithm’s been altered to make it unforgiving on those who fail to post at more frequent intervals. (No, not at the top of my list of hypotheses, but  for now the least ‘judgemental’).

But what can I say by way of new posting that I haven’t said already,  these last 7 years in some 350 and more postings, either here or on other’s sites (notably Dan Porter’s revived shroudstory site in recent weeks)?

Answer? Now’t if the truth be told.

So here’s the pot-boiler referred to in the title. It’s a cut-and-paste of part of a comment I left just yesterday on the Porter site.

 

…  Oh, and unless or until those who attack the radiocarbon dating as erroneous for one reason or another take steps to get it repeated, then the term “Shroud sceptic” is wholly unwarranted. The default label should be “radiocarbon sceptic”, with us alleged “sceptics” re-labelled as promoters of a 14th century origin (while curious to know precisely how the subtle tone-reversed image was created in a pre-photography era).

I say that Lirey clerics watched bread browning in an oven, and hit upon an idea for trumping the then-celebrated Veil of Veronica that was attracting vast numbers of (paying) pilgrims. “Let’s simulate a second imprint” they said, “not just the face, but the entire body, front and back. Let’s check out the Gospels for a pretext (like, you know, Joseph of Arimathea and his “fine linen”, deployed as a means of concealing and transporting a crucified body, still damp with sweat and blood.”

They were successful – beyond their wildest dreams- at least until those party-pooper radiocarbon daters came along in 1988.

How much longer must we wait for a repeat of the C-14 dating, checking out a wider range of locations on the linen, needing (probably) no more than a few excised threads here and there, well clear of body image or bloodstains?”

 

Will it do the trick of rendering this site visible once again to that Google algorithm? Or do we have to start looking for more sinister forces at work, either within or without that otherwise impenetrable black-box that calls itself  Google?

Oh, and while on the subject of Google and its mysterious MO, I’m not in the least bit worried about the uninformative, yawn -provoking choice of title for this posting. Why not? Because Google rankings totally ignore the titles I give each new posting. They give the site’s title, certainly, and they give some or all of the tagline that accompanies that title. But they totally ignore the posting title, thus removing at one fell swoop any new message one is attempting to place and/or promote online.

Google is what is known proverbially a wet blanket,  at least where we private bloggers are concerned. But then it’s not the only wet blanket where ‘sindonology’ is concerned.

Oh no!  (Don’t ask…)

Update, Day 2 (March 21, 2019)

Still no listing  of this site in the  default ‘Any Time’ returns under (shroud of turin).

But we do appear if one clicks on Tools, then Past 24 hours (which I don’t suppose many folk do, bar bloggers like myself who need to keep tabs on what’s new):

google shroud of turin last 24 hrs march 21 19

Will the site appear in 6 days under “Tools/Past Week”, or in 30 days, under “Tools/Past Month”, or in 364 days under …  oh, never mind, this is getting monotonous, indeed faintly ridiculous.

What on earth are you playing at Google? You have near-permanent installations on Page 1 under default  Any Time Returns like one, or even  (this morning) two entries from a UK tabloid newspaper (i.e. The Express, with mere secondary reporting of other people’s ideas).

express page 1 returns google shroud of turin march 21 19

Yet  you can summarily eject long-established sites like this one overnight from more modest placements (typically anywhere between pages 5 to 10).

Are you really expecting us to believe that your listings are determined entirely by pre-programmed algorithm when they display this degree of volatility – to say nothing of baffling arbitrariness?

You need to re-invent yourself, Google. Try introducing some principles, indeed, published guidelines into your otherwise senseless  MO.

Update, Friday March 22, 2019

This latest posting has indeed appeared under Google listings (shroud of turin) for both Past Week (Page 1 of returns) and Past Month (Page 2). But it’s not on Past Year, nor it specifically, or the site in general, under Any Time listings.

Back again (still Friday). Has anyone previously made a link between  the Turin Linen and the short-lived “Order of the Star” established by King John II of France at the suggestion, we’re told of, guess who?  Yes, first documented owner of the Linen, Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Lirey!

Well, I just have, the last day or two, on Dan Porter’s shroudstory site, using the Comments facility. Expect to see  of copy/paste of the new idea here in short instalments quite soon.  Goodness knows why I’m the first (it would seem)  to  have made  what,  to me  at any rate, seems so obvious a connection!

 

March 20, 2019 at 6:14 pm

As I mentioned briefly in an email reply to Dan, just the other day, Jim, there’s an entire dimension that is missing from continuing current debate regarding 1st century authenticity versus medieval fabrication.

I’ll spare you the finer details, and simply provide a link and brief summary for now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_(France)

It concerns the short-lived Order of the Star (apologies to French visitors for the anglicization), said by the above wiki entry to have been founded in 1351.

Who was the inspiration for its creation in concert with King Jean II of France? Why, none other than history’s first documented owner of the Turin Linen, namely Geoffroy de Charny.

Why was the Order short-lived? Because de Charny died at the Battle of Poitiers 5 years later, bearer of the Royal Standard, fighting and defending his KIng, the latter captured and held to ransom. But 1356 was also the approximate time of the first public display of the Linen, maybe by de Charny’s widow, Jeanne de Vergy (both man and wife’s heraldic coats of arms appearing on the Lirey Pilgrim’s badge)

How come so high-profile an owner of the Linen can be so downplayed, eclipsed by all the assumptions of 1st century authenticity, when it’s so easy to conceive of alternative mid- 14th century reasons for its existence (like serving briefly (maybe?) as a ceremonial centrepiece for the newly-formed Order, with echoes of similar religious totems having been used by the earlierTemplar Knights at their secretive gatherings. Income from public displays may also have been part of the thinking (given the Order intended tio provide pensions for its members, to say nothing of meeting some of the costs of regalia, body armour, weaponry etc etc).

See also the splendid historical work that was done many years ago by the late Dorothy Crispino, relating to the manner in which King Jean !! assisted his close lieutenant/confident de Charny in acquiring the financial wherewithal to found that generously staffed (overstaffed?) private chapel on his Lirey estate, with hints that there may have been changes of use that could be linked to acquisition (or as I prefer to think, fabrication) of the Linen.

Best I stop here, except to re-iterate that sindonology has barely scratched the surface where the de Charny/King Jean II/Order of the Star connection is concerned.

One hears of conclusions being arrived at with indecent haste. The haste may not be indecent where sindonology is concerned, but I personally find the fortuitous blind spots to be of truly gobsmacking magnitude.

  • March 22, 2019 at 4:29 am

    PS: To those who say that any new and ingenious means of creating the image would not have remained a secret for very long, then I suggest the following. Re-read what I wrote 2 days ago on that powerful consortium of (a) G de Charny, his King and the Lirey chapel. The read the potted history of the Linen supplied on shroud.com:

    https://www.shroud.com/history.htm

    Note the way that references continue to be made to the Lirey canons claiming ownership for well over a century after de Charny’s death, specifically 1473 and 1482. Note how their claim must have been at least partially recognized, given the reference to late payments of “rent” to the Savoy custodians. Note too the King also steps in at one point claiming ownership! Yet those same canons acquiesced to early demands from the Pope to remove the Linen from display for some 30 years post de Charny’s death in 1356,

    That history begins with a brief reference to de Charny having reportedly acquired the Linen on his travels in Constantinople. That would hardly explain the Lirey canons’ prolonged claims of ownership or for agreeing to read out denials of authenticity when subsequently re-displayed.

    One need hardly say there is an explanation for all these otherwise puzzling aspects of the Linen’s early recorded history. De Charny did not acquire it in Constantinople. It was fabricated on his Lirey estate, probably by the generously staffed team of clerics in his own Monarch-subsidized private chapel, probably with the original intention of being used as a devotional centrepiece by members of the newly founded Order of the Star.

    All that came to naught with the death of de Charny and the capture and ransom of his King. That left the Lirey canons as legal custodians in all but name, but willing, at least initially, to allow de Charny’s widow to assume nominal ownership. Renewed displays in the late 14th century began to re-generate a stream of income, no doubt supporting both de Charny’s widow (albeit remarried) and the continued existence of the private chapel.

    Given this background, how likely is that the word would leak out as to how precisely the relic, correction, icon was created? It’s just about conceivable that given a Papal ruling against authenticity, there would or could have been a demand for multiple icons, all displaying the same life-size double body image etc etc. But if those same canons were still earning a decent income from continued display of the Mark 1 creation, how willing would they have been to allow competitors to muscle in with multiple look-alike copies? I would estimate the probability at somewhere between 0 and 1%, especially when renewed claims and beliefs in authenticity were increasing steadily, year by year, decade by decade…

    • March 22, 2019 at 1:10 pm

      Oops. I wrote:

      “Note how their claim must have been at least partially recognized, given the reference to late payments of “rent” to the Savoy custodians.”

      Wrong way round! That should have been ” late payments or rent FROM the Savoy custodians TO the Lirey canons.”

      Incidentally, by way of postscript, there’s an additional sliver of evidence linking the Linen to the both the Lirey canons and the Order of the Star (via G de Charny).

      Take a look at the somewhat puzzling line from the history sequence on shroud.com. (supplied by the celebrated Ian Wilson no less!):

      1349: … Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight, writes to Pope Clement VI reporting his intention to build a church at Lirey, France. It is said he builds St. Mary of Lirey church to honor the Holy Trinity …

      So why call it “St.Mary of Lirey church” if it’s to honour the Holy Trinity? Why not call it “Holy Trinity Church”?

      Now go to the wiki entry on G de Charny’s “Order of the Star” – see above link – (which he co-founded with King Jean II) and one gets a possible, some might say, probable answer: (My bolding)

      “Notes

      In French the order was initially called les Chevaliers de Nostre Dame de la Noble Maison (“the Knights of Our Lady of the Noble House”). In Latin the order was referred to in early documents as consortium seu societatem militem Beate Marie Nobilis Domus apud Sanctum Odoenum prope Sanctum Dyonisium in Francia (“the knightly company or society of the Blessed Mary of the Noble House at Saint-Ouen near Saint-Denis in France”) …

      In other words, G de Charny, Lord of Lirey, did NOT intend to name his private chapel after the Holy Trinity (goodness knows where that idea came from!). He intended it to be named after the Holy Mother AND PROCEEDED TO DO SO!

      Why? Because that was to be the person whose hallowed name was to be central to the planned Order of the Star, singled out in its full title!

      As for the reference to Constantinople, right at the start of Ian Wilson’s “undisputed history”, words fail me!

      March 20, 2019 at 6:14 pm

      As I mentioned briefly in an email reply to Dan, just the other day, Jim, there’s an entire dimension that is missing from continuing current debate regarding 1st century authenticity versus medieval fabrication.

      I’ll spare you the finer details, and simply provide a link and brief summary for now:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_(France)

      It concerns the short-lived Order of the Star (apologies to French visitors for the anglicization), said by the above wiki entry to have been founded in 1351.

      Who was the inspiration for its creation in concert with King Jean II of France? Why, none other than history’s first documented owner of the Turin Linen, namely Geoffroy de Charny.

      Why was the Order short-lived? Because de Charny died at the Battle of Poitiers 5 years later, bearer of the Royal Standard, fighting and defending his KIng, the latter captured and held to ransom. But 1356 was also the approximate time of the first public display of the Linen, maybe by de Charny’s widow, Jeanne de Vergy (both man and wife’s heraldic coats of arms appearing on the Lirey Pilgrim’s badge)

      How come so high-profile an owner of the Linen can be so downplayed, eclipsed by all the assumptions of 1st century authenticity, when it’s so easy to conceive of alternative mid- 14th century reasons for its existence (like serving briefly (maybe?) as a ceremonial centrepiece for the newly-formed Order, with echoes of similar religious totems having been used by the earlierTemplar Knights at their secretive gatherings. Income from public displays may also have been part of the thinking (given the Order intended tio provide pensions for its members, to say nothing of meeting some of the costs of regalia, body armour, weaponry etc etc).

      See also the splendid historical work that was done many years ago by the late Dorothy Crispino, relating to the manner in which King Jean !! assisted his close lieutenant/confident de Charny in acquiring the financial wherewithal to found that generously staffed (overstaffed?) private chapel on his Lirey estate, with hints that there may have been changes of use that could be linked to acquisition (or as I prefer to think, fabrication) of the Linen.

      Best I stop here, except to re-iterate that sindonology has barely scratched the surface where the de Charny/King Jean II/Order of the Star connection is concerned.

      One hears of conclusions being arrived at with indecent haste. The haste may not be indecent where sindonology is concerned, but I personally find the fortuitous blind spots to be of truly gobsmacking magnitude.

      • March 22, 2019 at 4:29 am

        PS: To those who say that any new and ingenious means of creating the image would not have remained a secret for very long, then I suggest the following. Re-read what I wrote 2 days ago on that powerful consortium of (a) G de Charny, his King and the Lirey chapel. The read the potted history of the Linen supplied on shroud.com:

        https://www.shroud.com/history.htm

        Note the way that references continue to be made to the Lirey canons claiming ownership for well over a century after de Charny’s death, specifically 1473 and 1482. Note how their claim must have been at least partially recognized, given the reference to late payments of “rent” to the Savoy custodians. Note too the King also steps in at one point claiming ownership! Yet those same canons acquiesced to early demands from the Pope to remove the Linen from display for some 30 years post de Charny’s death in 1356,

        That history begins with a brief reference to de Charny having reportedly acquired the Linen on his travels in Constantinople. That would hardly explain the Lirey canons’ prolonged claims of ownership or for agreeing to read out denials of authenticity when subsequently re-displayed.

        One need hardly say there is an explanation for all these otherwise puzzling aspects of the Linen’s early recorded history. De Charny did not acquire it in Constantinople. It was fabricated on his Lirey estate, probably by the generously staffed team of clerics in his own Monarch-subsidized private chapel, probably with the original intention of being used as a devotional centrepiece by members of the newly founded Order of the Star.

        All that came to naught with the death of de Charny and the capture and ransom of his King. That left the Lirey canons as legal custodians in all but name, but willing, at least initially, to allow de Charny’s widow to assume nominal ownership. Renewed displays in the late 14th century began to re-generate a stream of income, no doubt supporting both de Charny’s widow (albeit remarried) and the continued existence of the private chapel.

        Given this background, how likely is that the word would leak out as to how precisely the relic, correction, icon was created? It’s just about conceivable that given a Papal ruling against authenticity, there would or could have been a demand for multiple icons, all displaying the same life-size double body image etc etc. But if those same canons were still earning a decent income from continued display of the Mark 1 creation, how willing would they have been to allow competitors to muscle in with multiple look-alike copies? I would estimate the probability at somewhere between 0 and 1%, especially when renewed claims and beliefs in authenticity were increasing steadily, year by year, decade by decade…

        • March 22, 2019 at 1:10 pm

          Oops. I wrote:

          “Note how their claim must have been at least partially recognized, given the reference to late payments of “rent” to the Savoy custodians.”

          Wrong way round! That should have been ” late payments or rent FROM the Savoy custodians TO the Lirey canons.”

          Incidentally, by way of postscript, there’s an additional sliver of evidence linking the Linen to the both the Lirey canons and the Order of the Star (via G de Charny).

          Take a look at the somewhat puzzling line from the history sequence on shroud.com. (supplied by the celebrated Ian Wilson no less!):

          1349: … Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight, writes to Pope Clement VI reporting his intention to build a church at Lirey, France. It is said he builds St. Mary of Lirey church to honor the Holy Trinity …

          So why call it “St.Mary of Lirey church” if it’s to honour the Holy Trinity? Why not call it “Holy Trinity Church”?

          Now go to the wiki entry on G de Charny’s “Order of the Star” – see above link – (which he co-founded with King Jean II) and one gets a possible, some might say, probable answer: (My bolding)

          “Notes

          In French the order was initially called les Chevaliers de Nostre Dame de la Noble Maison (“the Knights of Our Lady of the Noble House”). In Latin the order was referred to in early documents as consortium seu societatem militem Beate Marie Nobilis Domus apud Sanctum Odoenum prope Sanctum Dyonisium in Francia (“the knightly company or society of the Blessed Mary of the Noble House at Saint-Ouen near Saint-Denis in France”) …

          In other words, G de Charny, Lord of Lirey, did NOT intend to name his private chapel after the Holy Trinity (goodness knows where that idea came from!). He intended it to be named after the Holy Mother AND PROCEEDED TO DO SO!

          Why? Because that was to be the person whose hallowed name was to be central to the planned Order of the Star, singled out in its full title!

          As for the reference to Constantinople, right at the start of Ian Wilson’s “undisputed history”, words fail me!

 

See also my posting from 3 years ago, with its references to de Charny’s  Lirey private chapel etc, with an appreciation of the late Dorothy Crispino’s detailed and thorough historical researches:

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/what-happened-to-make-geoffroy-de-charnys-humble-chapel-the-first-undisputed-mid-14th-century-home-of-the-turin-shroud-a-second-ransom-demand/

 

Oh, and here’s a comment I placed on the same site yesterday, on a different aspect, giving just one reason for thinking the image on the Turin Linen is ‘too good to be true’. It concerns those 372 scourge marks (yes, 372!) which we’re told are entirely blood-imprinted, with no contribution from the body image:

March 21, 2019 at 2:52 pm

Reply to Robert Siefker

Eloquent indeed, Robert. But eloquence cuts no ice where hard, unsentimental science is concerned.

Should you want graphical evidence that the conjoint blood/body image on the Turin Linen is a fake, then take a close look at this image, supplied in the pro-authenticity Fanti/Faccini paper:

Why?

Well, here’s a couple of clues:

While the radiation-mediated ‘supernatural’ school of body imaging desperately tries to assure us that the body image was NOT a contact imprint, there’s rarely if ever any attempt to make the same case for the blood stains.

But ‘blood stains’ we’re told include the 372 scourge marks. Blood (including scourge marks) arrived before the body image we’re told (Adler and Heller).

Scourge marks we’re told were acquired via a whip with metal pellets attached to the tips of a flexible whip-like Roman flagrum.

Would it be possible to leave whip-imprinted markings confined to frontal and dorsal sides of the body, with no signs of any ‘curl around’ injury to (non-visible) SIDES of body, made apparent in ‘cut-off’ imprints on the visible frontal and dorsal surfaces?

I say no, regardless of the explanation for that ‘two-fold’ body image that omits any view of the sides (which I attribute to body imaging via contact, avoiding the sides).

Now take a look at that conjoint blood/body image, focusing on the scourge marks alone. Do you see any evidence of interrupted (“short”) scourge marks, suggestive of incomplete image due to a cut-off on account of curl-around on the sides?

I don’t. All the scourge marks look essentially complete.

Why? Because an imprinting medium was first applied to both sides of a real human body (probably live volunteer, medieval era, probably Lirey cleric), then “scourge marks” applied with an imprinting tool coated with blood (more probably blood substitute) restricted to the visible body imprint, failing to imprint partially close to body sides.

Then, and only then, there was conjoint imaging onto pressed-down linen, giving ‘complete’ scourge marks, with no evidence of partial, interrupted ones close to the cut-off margins of the body imprint.

(I may try to put my case more concisely at a future date, maybe with a couple of visible aids to get across the idea of ‘partial’ cut-off scourge marks close to the edges of the body imprint).

Good try, you Lirey clerics. Indeed brilliant, in so many respects. But you failed the realism test.. Your scourge marks were too good, too complete, too neat, too uniform, too stereotyped, too stylized, too artistic…

 

Update, Saturday March 23, 2019

Wow, it’s hard to credit, some might consider a gross deformation of cyberspace, the equivalent of a black hole running in reverse to create a new galaxy, well, asteroid at any rate.

But it’s happened. Yes, this site has reappeared in Google listings!

reappeared google p7 march 23, 19

What can I say?

Best, I say nothing. At least there’s the revived Porter site on which I can continue to articulate so-called “sceptic” views that otherwise get scarcely a look-in there, or scarcely an  audience here, thanks in the latter instance  to the perverse and fickle nature of the world’s favourite search engine.

“Engine”?  It’s made to sound like an inanimate machine, immune from human intervention, except that is for its initial programming.

Ha,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …..

Sunday March 24, 2019

Below is a long comment that I placed on the shroudstory site. It’s concerning the role of statistics in reporting of science.

I could have said more, much more. Why?  I’ll spare you a welter of detail, except to say this. I did a first degree in a science subject (biochemistry) which included a number of subsidiary subjects (chemistry, botany, German) but statistics was not one of them. It was clearly not seen as de rigeur by my University, nor in all probability by many others. My first paid employment was not in laboratory science but commercial research (commissioning market research, analysing and presenting its findings etc). My employers wasted no time in packing me off to day release and evening classes in statistics, and rightly so, given the research was always based on small but random samples taken from a large population.  Statistical significance testing was crucial. When I returned to laboratory-based research (at a medical school) one of the memorable features was seeing  colleagues park themselves in front of a particular computer console, usually with a frown on their faces. Why?  Because it was loaded with a particular statistics software package: they were “writing up” their findings for peer-reviewed publication. They knew well enough what was “significant” and what was not, through repeating experiments over a period of time in which variations would be introduced to exclude possible interferences of one kind or another. Were those data reported?  Generally no! Why non?  Because peer-reviewed journals invariably insisted on reporting of standard deviations, significance tests etc. So no, they would not accept what was already in one’s laboratory notebook.  All the key experiments had to repeated several times by oneself or a technician, simply to impose standard conditions such that each experiment was an identical replicate, capable of generating those means and standard deviations.

 

In short, the statistics was ‘icing on the cake’, inserted for the most part to maintain appearances, preventing one from exploring new areas of interest. Invariably I found those colleagues knew next to nothing about statistics theory – they were merely hitting keys on that ‘statistics laptop’

But now we have a ludicrous new paper appear (behind a paywall) one that attempts to dismiss the radiocarbon dating, performed on a corner of the Turin Linen,  apparently  not on grounds of there being a single sample (which excludes any meaningful statistical analysis), not on scientific grounds , but, guess what?  Answer:  on statistical grounds (that the data from the corner sample, divided  equally with two extra snips and shared between 3 labs, failed a “statistical homogeneity test”.

Takeaway message:  statistical analysis depends on random sampling. The 88 radiocarbon analysis made no attempt at random sampling across the entire Linen – nor on the corner cut-out shared between 3 laboratories.

So the new paper that concludes the exercise failed a crucial test of statistical homogeneity is like saying  that night-time fails the sunshine test.

You couldn’t make it up!  What kind of  alleged respected journal agrees to publish that kind of totally irrelevant statistically holier-than-thou garbage?

I’ll say no more for now, and leave you dear reader with what I chose to say, albeit  less forcibly on the Porter site:

Here’s a link to the relevant posting.

March 23, 2019 at 12:35 pm

Statistics (especially when testing for ‘homogeneity’ within data), hardly has us all on the edges of our seats . Yet here we are being asked to pay to see what it has or has not revealed regarding the Linen and its surviving content of C-14!

Why bother at all with statistics – which is, after all, a separate discipline from science?

Answer: because it allows conclusions can be inferred regarding an entire ‘population’ derived from taking a sample.

Yes, in the real world, one generally has to be content with taking mere samples, not supposedly commonsensical “representative” ones but ones taken entirely blind, i.e. hit-and-miss RANDOM ones , then applying “confidence tests” that are based on the supposition of TOTAL randomness of sampling!

Yes, let’s be in no doubt as to the bottom line where statistical confidence testing is concerned. Random sampling is the ONLY WAY one can have any degree of confidence (NOT absolute certainty) whether low, intermediate or high, in the validity of final conclusions about the population, if based merely selecting small samples.

So let’s be brutally honest with ourselves, and cease making rods for our own backs: any statistically- sound dating of the Linen would have needed RANDOM samples from the entire linen or at any rate, image and blood-free regions). But we all know that did not and could not happen in the case of a ‘holy icon’ or, as some prefer to believe, authentic relic. So, yes, not surprisingly, the decision was made to restrict sampling to a corner region (that pesky real world intruding yet again!), not a random sample.

Indeed, the single corner sample was further divided with two further cuts into 3 side-by-side (non-randomly divided/allocated) sections for each of the 3 labs. (That’s as distinct, say from dividing into divided into 30 equal size fragments, distributed at random between 3 labs. So, non-random sampling of the Linen AND non-random division of the single sample! Who’s idea was it to deploy a statistical bulldozer to demolish the 88 dating? Er, let me guess….

Best then to view the 1988 dating as a preliminary ranging shot.

Realistically speaking, the primary purpose was NOT to yield a final gold-standard answer. It was to see how PRELIMINARY answers would compare from 3 different, entirely independent labs, each deploying its own preferred decontamination clean-up procedure and other differences. (Yes, a third source of non-homogeneity!).

So why the intrusion of high falutin data homogeneity tests?

It’s as if one had purchased an off-the-peg jacket at a cheap department store, then felt obliged to take it back because one’s next door neighbour, working for a made-to-measure outfitters, observed over the garden fence that too much cuff was showing (then presenting a bill for his professional advice)!

Simple eye-balling of results says that all 3 labs came back with a date somewhere between the mid 13th and late 14th century! That suggests to me that while the non-existent statistical design was less-than-ideal, sob, sob, reflecting the intrusion of extraneous considerations, the actual methodology was reasonably reproducible, probably basically sound. Indeed the answers, even with the modest degree of scatter around mean, were in my humble view remarkably consistent. The ranging shot exercise had served its purpose with minimal disfiguration to the Linen.

OK, so there were inhomogeneities where data spread was concerned, with the possibility of SMALL but significant numerical trends across the width of that corner sample (but NOT based on random sampling so therefore statistically OTT). But that doesn’t justify a rejection of the entire data, far less the bad-mouthing of the personnel involved, some of it bordering on slander or even libel. What it does suggest is the need for a return visit, 30 years later, with ever-more sensitive methodology, able to deal with single excised threads, say, that doesn’t leave disfiguring gaps in the fabric.

So why hasn’t there been a return visit? Answer: take a look at the Discussion Forum, led by STURP’s John Jackson in October 2104 at St.Louis.

Skip the first 20 minutes, then pay especial attention to what’s said either from JJ or the floor between 20 and 30 mins (shame about the poor sound quality). Note the intrusion of the word “dangerous” (like the suggestion that any re-run would “dangerous ” were it to return the same answer, albeit more statistically sound. First priority, we’re informed, must be to determine the scientific basis whereby a 2000 year old linen can seem some 13 centuries younger “than it really is” So listen folks. Let’s not rush into things. Let’s take our time – years, maybe decades… In the meantime we can continue to pour cold water on the 88 dating, largely though not entirely on a failure to snip away anywhere and everywhere all over the Linen.” Yeah, right…

To which I say: data collection must take precedence, albeit preliminary ranging-shot data first, then checked and re-checked. (It’s called science, tedious, boring, repetitive hands-on science ).

Interpretation, nitpicking, eye-rolling, tearing hair out in frustration, one’s own or others’, aerial castle-building, rewriting the laws of physics, throwing toys out of pram etc etc … all these can and must wait till later…

First let’s confirm that the initial data were not a statistical fluke due to possibly atypical sampling location. Are we looking at sampling error? Or are eternal optimists angling for the intervention of a a mind-boggling supernatural phenomenon – based on the claim of shoddy statistics – when statistics were if the truth be told sidelined, indeed ignored from the outset?

Please, let’s request that Turin consent to a re-run of the C-14 dating before wasting any more time on our internet websites – and especially behind- paywall, reach for your-credit-card… statistical print-outs. Let’s cease the never-ending nitpicking over a non-random sample (which rendered number-crunching homogeneity and other significance-testing largely, nay ENTIRELY irrelevant from the word go).

 

Further update (still Sunday March 24)

Here’s a screen shot of the (current) posting on the shroudstory site, regarding that ghastly new publication, still trying 30 years post the radiocarbon dating to destroy its usefulness and credentials on  irrelevant statistical grounds:

shroudstory, casabianca, marinelli et al

 

Authors?  I confess to recognizing just one of the 3 authors, namely the second (self-styled Professor Emanuela Marinelli)

 

Self-styled? Most certainly, if used outside her home country (Italy) in an journal based in Oxford UK.  Why do I say that?

See this MSN article where we see the “Prof” Marinelli laying into her anti-authenticity fellow countryman  Luigi Garlaschelli.  (a genuine prof’ as I recall).  Observe especially the parts I have highlighted in yellow and red!

marinelli

Appendices  (graphics etc needed for insertion elsewhere, notably that Porter site)

 

Appendix 1

wilcox detective world 30 years google search cropped

Appendix 2

J of A wiki

Appendix 3

antonacci v shroudstory radiation

 

Appendix 4

st louis 20 to 30 mins esp 26 sat Oct 11 2014

Appendix 5

bang head

Appendix 6

 

frozen shroud

 

 

 

 

..

 

 

 

 

 

About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.