Giulio Fanti’ Tie

Anyone remember the following quotable comment from a discussion last August to a posting entitled, “Giulio Fanti Responds. Are you listening Yannick and Colin?” Giulio had written a rather long posting for the readers of this blog defending the use of Academic Journals, a Nigeria-based publisher of open access journals that normally charge authors to publish their articles. Colin Berry wrote in response:

Only an intense, highly localised corona discharge could have produced the image we see. I refer to Giulio’s tie…

I found the above quote because I was reviewing older postings about scientific journals after receiving an email from UMASS-chem1:

Giulio Fanti, by publishing his book, has subjected himself to intense examination in the near future. He must publish an English language account of his research in a reputable scientific journal as soon as possible. You and the media tell us he intends to. Giulio is telling friends that a paper has already been accepted. That concerns me. Paulette yesterday and Gabriel in past comments are right in their assessments. Gilulio’s paper needs to be in a journal with a respectable JCR rating. If Giulio publishes in a questionable journal he could harm the reputation of shroud science for a long time.

Paulette had written:

Reputable scieentific journals don’t like to publish scientific work that has already been published in books or elsewhere. It used to be that shroud science was published in good journals with solid JCR ratings. Lately, much has been published in dubious journals like JIST or open access vanity journals like those from Academic Journals, which charge authors.

and in another comment . . .

This is all one step removed from TV ads that proclaim “scientists have discovered” this or that that will make you thin or grow some hair. After all this publicity, this is one time that we need enough public information from Giulio Fanti to enable other scientists to confrim his work.

Gabriel had written last August:

Dan, the problem here is not whether we are in favour of an open access system for science. The problem here is that this journal does not belong to the JCR, unlike the papers by Adler, Pellicori and a long etc and as a result, peer-review is not guaranteed at all. That said, we can discuss about the contents- after all we do it all the time with anything published on the Shroud, don’t we?- but please, don’t call it science YET. (corrected)

Here is a link explaining JCR

9 thoughts on “Giulio Fanti’ Tie”

  1. The sad truth is that the media will rarely pick up a positive story about Christianity outside of Holy Week or Christmas. These are the two times they are actually looking for stories with a Christian theme. Otherwise its back to business bashing the Church and any kook who claims to be believe. The fact that Fanti chose to publish in a book first doesn’t surprise me. It allowed him to control when and what was released to the media and it worked. The story was picked up all over the world. One never knows IF a paper will be accepted or WHEN they will publish AND it is surely frowned upon to submit to more than one journal at a time so the process leaves the author completely powerless. Fanti controlled the situation and I don’t blame him. I agree with others that he now needs to publish in English and hopefully to a respectable journal…but if it is turned down…so what…his book is published and the media ran with it. It ended up being a trifecta for the Shroud with the Pope’s exhibition, Shroud 2.0 AP and Fanti’s book.

    1. Trifecta is used for horse racing …
      Have you considered the studies about the expected level of mechanical
      endamagement (with controls in different areas) after the 2002 treatments ?
      How to produce a good work ?
      — —
      So …
      There is also the following trifecta (= three wins or grand
      events) for the analyses on linen samples :
      – FTIR and FTIR-ATR
      – Raman
      – mechanical analyses
      — —
      Now I want to add the possible future trifecta :
      – AFM
      – CFM
      – SNOM
      — — —
      Are the poor troops ready for the nanotech battles ?
      — —
      Perhaps we can prepare the digital environment …
      How to prepare oneself with the adequate qualification ?
      Where are the trained scientist able to reply using the AFM
      three-point bending, etc.
      Have you tried to do the alternative mechanical controls ?
      — —
      I don’t believe in the Nigeria-based publisher,
      but (if you are able to do something) also this way can be used …
      In my idea, first of all, we have to be able to show
      what we are able to do with the new SPMs apparels … using the
      linen fibrils and not destroying the precious samples coming
      from the Holy Shroud …

  2. This only goes to show that other than the problem of authorised samples the question of publication in the correct journal also arises.

    Meanwhile the anti-authenticity camp is also active ( see “An authentic first century burial shroud from Jerusalem”,posted April 2 on the Tabor blog). This is an old story, and, again, the TS is dismissed just because of the weave.

    There are other statements that can also be questioned:

    For instance, it is said that “entrance to this part of the tomb was completely sealed with plaster”, and, further, archaeologists Spiegelman and Greenblatt have expressed the view that the origins and development of leprosy are largely obscure. “Leprosy in the Jewish Bible may well refer to psoriasis” it is stated.

    But is that true? Were first-century Jews unable to distinguish between psoriasis (non-contagious) and leprosy (contagious)? Would there be a colony for people suffering from a non-contagious disease? Would a man suffering from a non-contagious disease be buried in a tomb that was completely sealed?

    The fact that Jesus stayed in the house belonging to Simon the leper, in a leper colony, on his way to Jerusalem led Yigael Yadin to the conclusion that this was done on purpose, to defy the Essenes, since small groups belonging to the sect are believed to have lived in Jerusalem according to him, Father Bargil Pixner and Prof. Charlesworth. Archaeologist Shimon Gibson believes that Jesus’ healings were the main reason for his crucifixion. Did he heal people suffering from psoriasis or leprosy?

  3. There is a strange fact in the book by Fanti and Gaeta.
    The Raman analyses of the year 2002 (by Renishaw) are not considered
    (if I am right in my reading of that new book !).
    Why ?
    What is your opinion ?
    — —
    Also the UVRRS (= UV Resonance Raman Spectroscopy) analyses
    are not considered, but this is a comprehensible (understandable)
    choice … because the researcher (and he was not the prof. Fanti !) who
    tried failed this investigation.
    See also the question of the fluorescenceunder the UV and
    the answer from the samples under control (please, read the remark about
    the UltraViolets written by Fanti at pages 92-93 of the new book) …
    Unfortunately I had no exact information on that trial.

  4. If you put the intense radiation from Giulio’s tie into various downloadable software programs, and analyze the infrared and Raman spectra, you will find it corresponds with 22nd century fabric. Which just goes to show that our University of Padua Professor of Mechanical Engineering is in fact a time-traveller from the future, paying us a brief visit.

    He can see things about the Shroud that are way in advance of what we ordinary mortals can perceive, stuck as we are in a 21st century time warp…

  5. Russ, forget the stupid Dawkins challenge which is now over a year old and ignored. Fanti should now publish his exact procedures and measurements at shroud.com or someplace very public. Challenge scientists around the world to find out if there is anything wrong with his science. Use the same methods to test many linen samples from many times and places. In other words, to put it bluntly, Fanti needs to put his money where his mouth is. Forget peer review. Go fpr public review.

  6. I think Paulette makes an important point. At present any informed discussion can only be confined to those with some Italian literacy, while the rest of us languish in ignorant speculation as to what has been achieved. The sooner the “gaudy tied time traveller from the 22nd century” can inform the rest of us the more progress can be gained. On April 1 (Alan Boyle’s Cosmic Log on Fanti’s New Book) I wrote as follows:

    “There has been little in any English press releases about any details of the work beyond the claims made and the general methodologies, but no specifics. One is left making all sorts of speculative inferences, and possible objections come readily to mind. One expects that there is no fundamental theoretical basis for the inductions made, but that it is entirely empirical, essentially a type of statistical regression analysis. The underlying assumption seems to be that the various properties tested will be solely age-related with little influence from other variables. For example (a) various species of flax – there are many such – Is it known how their properties vary across species? Can the flax species for the various samples be identified? Properties can be expected to vary according to the various processing methods to extract the linen, variable chemical effects, dyeing, retting processes, effects of heat? What about the correlation ratios, and tests of significance? Until a lot more information is available, we are left in a vacuum of ignorance at drawing any kind of valid conclusion!”

  7. In the book (by Fanti and Gaeta) there is a strange question
    (at page 34) about the words by don Antonio Persili
    (probably the source = the title of the book by Persili is the following : “Tutta la verità su Cristo Risorto”, Casa della
    stampa [an unknown editor !], 1989) about the presumed
    burial operations :
    “Prima fu avvolto in una grande tela (la sindòn) con
    il duplice scopo di non toccare il cadavere con le mani nude
    e di non disperdere il sangue. …”
    Then, here my very rough english translation :
    “Before he was wrapped into a great cloth (the shroud) with the double purporse : not to touch the corpse with the naked hands and not disperse the blood”

    So…
    Following the words by Persili the figures of the book
    by Mons. Giulio Ricci in the book “L’Uomo della Sindone è Gesù”
    (1985, Assisi) can be wrong ! (… and that seems to be incredible !?)
    The figures involved in this controvery have the numbers :
    80, 80 bis, 81, 81 bis, 82, 84
    and
    you can see by yourself the presence of the human hand
    in the foot (during the Deposition into the Tomb).
    Where is the truth ?
    Have you understood my question ?
    I hope in your careful reading.
    Thank you for your attention …

Comments are closed.