More on Sciencebod Reacts (Focus on paper by Fanti, et al)

imageA reader writes (BTW ColinB is also known as Sciencebod in this blog):

ColinB has a point when he says Fanti et al assume that the cloth is genuine and do not entertain the skeptics point of view. I would call its inadequate and not comedic, but the point is still valid.

Does he have a point?

Another reader has a different point of view:

Comedic. So-called scientists. The notion that Giulio’s paper is suitable only for the thrash. Read the junk sciencebob writes on his blog if you want comedy. Does he think for a minute that he can create an image by heat that is superficial to only 200 or even 1000 nanometers, that gets its shades of dark and light color from discontinuities of same shade of color fibers (like in a half tone), that is negative and 3D? Oh, I forget, he denies the 3D is real.

Here is what Sciencebod wrote that prompted the above emails:

. . . Suffice it to say that the desrciption of the computerisied anthropometric study of Fanti et al as “real scientific work” is comedic, as is the paper itself. Nowhere does that paper consider the sceptics’ view that the image was produced from an inanimate replica. e.g. a bas relief or statue. Instead it makes numerous explicit assumptions that it was a body that had been taken down from a cross in a state of rigor mortis with head tipped forward, knees drawn up, that an image had been acquired on a cloth that was loosely draped over etc. Talk about self-serving assumptions – ones that make that final diagram of the two “supeimposable” (sic)outlines totally at odds with unaided, non messed-around-with simple observation, e.g.

link to non-computer transformed dorsal v frontal comparison

Note too they say “superimposable”, not “superimposed” – a crucial difference, and then refer to “compatible”, a term that is shot through with subjectivity.

Nowhere does the paper say how the image was formed from a real person on that draped-over cloth, especially those parts not in direct contact with the cloth. What a worthless publication – the referees should have thrown it straight back, or better still in the bin…

I am only too painfully aware, needless to say, that the icy-cold objectivity of (real) science is not for everyone (present company excepted ;-) and that would include those so-called scientists who use computer-aided (re-)imaging systems in an attempt to escape the evidence of their own eyes, to say nothing of common sense…

The clue to the artefact – a term I use deliberately- lies I believe in those (over)long bony fingers, says he with a gleam in his eye, which I intend to put up for discussion shortly. But probably not here… I know where I am not welcome…


Basis: Sciencebod reacts

6 thoughts on “More on Sciencebod Reacts (Focus on paper by Fanti, et al)”

  1. I only hope that just because sciencebod’s “scientific” claims are not rigourous at all, that doesn’t automatically make Fanti and, more specifically, his supernatural explanations emerge as more rational and serious.

    1. I would be more worried if people interpretted man’s understanding of nature, the universe and everything in it, as being “completely understood” and therefore anything outside of our understanding is just irrational! That is not what science should be, as that type of thinking builds a ‘box’ around the whole essence of science and limits ones’ imagination. Not to mention how utterly proud and conceited a notion it is that man has come to know ALL there is to know….lol. We know only a smidgen of the truth…Don’t believe me? read what Einstein had to say about that.

      Although the notion of a “resurrection-phenomenon”, may be outside our present understanding of science, does not in any way make it irrational or comedic or impossible. The sooner the ‘armchair’ scientists here understand this the better for everyone…..

      Lets not get too big for our britches!


      1. As I’ve said before on this blog; Maybe the Shroud in a small sense has a simple message, amongst others, …that is, it’s God’s way of putting us in our place. A reminder that pride is a sin and to be humble is the way too the Lord.


    2. Fanti’s article is naively biaised. But I would draw a parallel with the C14 datation. In both cases there is an assumption which distorted the way facts have been analysed.

      1/ Fanti’s article. There’s the image of a body, the imprint of which is lying on a linen => there must be an outline.

      2/ C14 datation. They took a sample, textile experts said it’s homogeneous => it must be homogeneous.

      Error ?

      1/ The outline is not continuous whereas it should be => take opportune values and techniques and reconstruct a continuous outline.

      2/ C14 datation. Significancy limit 5% => don’t bother explaining this very low significancy, take opportune statistical techninques, anyway it’s medieval not antique.

      Artefact or new fact ?

      1/ The linen could be folded.

      2/ The sample could may be not representative of the whole linen.

  2. Nice comment !!! He he ! Anyway, Fanti and other who proposed those kind of hypothesis will always have a fan club. That’s the situation in the Shroud World and I don’t think that will change in a near future.

  3. To be more specific on Fanti’s article :

    1/ The raw computerized outline without any reconstruction would have been more informative than the smooth imprint.

    2/ “The technique to point out the outlines used different elaborations, among them a
    preliminary filtering of the image, a determination of the threshold on the basis of preestablished
    grey levels and an adjustment of the outline through suitable spatial filters.”
    more explanations about the techniques would be required.

    3/ “an opportune value like threshold is determined”
    opportune seems subjective.

    4/ There is a zone under the buttocks with no image. Using a computerized method would lead to a discontinuous outline on the dorsal image.

    best regards,

Comments are closed.