A reader writes:
This is an Op-Ed. I’m surprised JIST published it.
Another reader writes:
Here is paragraph 1 of the conclusion of Fanti’s paper.
The most important hypotheses of the body image formation of the TS are presented and critically commented on, in view of its peculiar characteristics, some of which are well-known and others of which have only recently been detected.
Great, wonderful, well done. Now here is paragraph 2:
The results have been summarized in two tables, leading to the inference that a source of radiation is the best hypothesis and that, of the various hypotheses based on radiation, CD is the best, although no complete results can be obtained because of the difficult and in some cases dangerous environmental conditions required for experiments. . . .
Baloney, baloney, baloney. This is based on a simple scoring table of 24 characteristics for 12 methods that looks like a street gambler’s punchboard. It assumes that each of the characteristics has about the same weight. C11 reads, “The pronounced rigor mortis of the body is evident, especially on the back image near the buttocks.” C24 reads, “No image can be found under the bloodstains, because they formed before the body image.” Should these two characteristics have the same weight? And why is there a “because” in C24 which changes the characteristic into an argument. The scoring is essentially binary, using x, o and ? for inconsistent, verified and dubious. All of it seems totally subjective, e. g. like how evident is rigor in the butt. I would trust Zugibe or a forensic pathologist, not Fanti on this.
So what does Fanti end up telling us?
Table II shows that, in general, the hypotheses based on radiation are the best (with only seven “X”), followed, respectively, by “gas diffusion” (with eight “X” and one “?”), “contact” (with ten “X” and two “?”), and “artist” (with 12 “X” and five “?”).
Seven versus eight? It gets better.
BTW: Of the 12 methods discussed in this paper, only Garlaschelli and Allen achieved life-sized images. Even so, everyone except Joe Nickell somehow got “o” for buttocks rigor. Explain that. Didn’t Nickell only draw a face?
It is more like judging a ballroom dancing contest than a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
And the winner, dancer and judge alike, is Giulio Fanti doing a two-step corona discharge tango while holding up a card with Nine o’s and only 1 x.
I must disagree. I think Prof. Fanti’s paper is wonderful. The scoring method shows great originality. I cannot think of a better set of characteristics. The other reader if he wishes to criticize it should tell us what his list should be and how he would weight each item differently to achieve different results.
sadly fanti should have stopped while the paper was still a critical commendium and not tried to push his cd agenda with a dubious scoring method
two papers with different conclusion. fanti shows how fractured the ssg world is between natural and supernatural and also fanti and enea big time. my bet is still on rogers when better developed
Quote : “The results have been summarized in two tables, leading to the inference that a source of radiation is the best hypothesis and that, of the various hypotheses based on radiation, CD is the best, although no complete results can be obtained because of the difficult and in some cases dangerous environmental conditions required for experiments. . . .”
No, seriously ??? I’m VERY surprised by this conclusion !!!!
CRAP ! Fanti, in my opinion, is the very best example of goal-oriented pseudo-science in the Shroud world. A guy that from the very beginning has one conclusion in his head (the Shroud is a proof of the resurrection and was done by a supernatural burst of radiation) and do EVERYTHING he can, and I mean EVERYTHING, to make others believe he’s right.
Seriously, do you really think it’s the correct way to do science folks ???
Although I do not agree with Fanti’s scoring, or his CD conclusion. What is wrong with the forcefullness of his belief? Aslong as people have a brain to consider, or not, his proposals to be right? No one need accept his proposals out of hand! I doubt very many would actually.
What would you say to the Wright brothers extreme belief of the possibility of flight? Many thought they were wrong, even nuts! Science did not believe flight was possible, yet they were one-sighted and sturn in their beliefs…We’re all aware of the outcome!…Would you say they were doing “incorrect” science?
I don’t know if that is a good analogy but I hope my point was clear.
R
Fanti is agenda driven and it’s obvious as the nose in anyone’s face. I hope my point was clear.