The OK Corral, located in Tombstone, Arizona, is renowned for being the site of the infamous Gunfight at the OK Corral on October 26, 1881. This historic shootout involved lawmen Wyatt Earp, his brothers Virgil and Morgan, and their ally Doc Holliday, who faced off against the outlaw Cowboys, including Ike and Billy Clanton and the McLaury brothers. Lasting just 30 seconds, the gunfight became a legendary symbol of the American Wild West, epitomizing the tumultuous and often violent lawlessness of frontier towns during that era. The OK Corral remains a significant cultural landmark, attracting history enthusiasts and tourists.
And a model for Shroud Science, unfortunately.
If you read some of the comments of the last posting, you are certainly aware that there are some angry reactions. It started when, in feeding off Hugh Farey’s posting that appears on his own blog, The Medieval Shroud, I added in my two cents worth on this blog. Comments flew. O.K., who has actively participated in this forum for a long time, commented rather forcefully. Bill Meachum was quite reasonably offended. I don’t blame him.
I was asked to pull the comments. I was particularly disappointed when Bill, presumably angry at me for allowing O.K.’s comment, withdrew some simple answers to questions I had asked him.
This forum is committed to free speech, and we’ve learned that it’s best not to block, pull, or edit comments unless the author requests it or if the comment contains hate speech or unacceptable language. This policy allows for a wide range of opinions and perspectives, even when they’re not always expressed in the most respectful manner. Remember when Collin Berry referred to Shroud Science as Mickey Mouse Science? That was a case where I waffled on my commitment to free speech and learned some lessons.
As for the anonymity of commenters and posters, it is not only allowed but also fully warranted in many cases. For some, it is a matter of protecting one’s career. This is something we often do for jurors in criminal trials. Opinion articles by anonymous authors have recently appeared in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I am working on a book with someone whose career would be damaged, someone who would suffer financial damage to himself and his family if his name was revealed. Should I not publish? Are we to say to some who choose to be careful they cannot comment or only do so if they are polite and nice?
Well, Dan, I have been waiting for this, and I never doubted your wisdom.
The problem is, the allegations against Meacham’s recent work, are really serious. And someone had to react, even being called an idiot who doesn’t know what he is talking about and makes an absolute fool of himself as well as a coward who won’t use his name while viciously attacking someone. Dan you can leave this recent comment by Meacham. It gives a testimony about himself. I don’t feel offended, I smile at this :-)
But at the same time I cry about how the Shroud science has deteriorated. And attitude and incompetence of some scholars who are considered authority in this domain. And there are some things I don’t want to discuss in public.
If you wish, I can provide some answers to questions you asked Meacham.
Dan
It is my understanding from my anonymous friend, the Oyster Man, that δ18O (oxygen isotopes) and δ2H (hydrogen isotopes) in organic materials such as flax are possibly or probably primarily a consequence of environmental factors at the time of the plant’s growth (and harvesting). I understand that there is much yet to be learned about how this happens.
I understand the scatter of several samples. I do wonder, however, if the sampling is sufficiently predictive, not only statistically, but for other reasons.
How much are the initial ratios affected by the microclimates and year-to-year weather variations? Are not, for example, Israel and the surrounding areas rife with microclimates? I’m thinking of the Negev, Judean Hills, Jordan Rift Valley, Galilee Region, and Golan Heights, Is this a factor that has been considered. If so, is it significant? Might we not encounter closely similar climate pockets in say Israel and Spain? These might be outliers or a commonality with more data points in any analysis.
This all can be reflected in the scatter of the results on the δ18O vs δ2H plane. Which then, can be modelled via some statistical distribution with some parameters (most likely 2D gaussian distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_normal_distribution , but there can be others as well).Which (the parameters) can be then estimated via proper statistical methods. But you need a large number of samples in each group (~100 is an absolute minimum) to fit such distribution. The more, if you do not include just generic regions (‘Israel’, ‘Europe’ and ‘Egypt’) but also suberegions (Negev, Judean Hills, Galilee, Piedmont, Champagne etc.). Of course the results from each of those subregions can overlap, introducing additional degeneracy. And there always can be some outliers.
And then, when you assigned a distribution and estimated their parameters, you can estimate, what is the probability of the test sample (The Shroud) to come from any specific region. Or in Bayesian procedure terminoglogy, what is the likelihood of any particular origin of the test (Shroud sample). But of course, this probability (the likelihood) is not absolute. There is no such a thing as absolute probability (only relative to the all options we specified).
But all of this of course require a large dedicated research program. Not a hasty mindless grab of ANY sample coming from the Shroud (without even making a basic check of the literature) and just a few control samples from 3 generic regions.
Dan:
Can the relative proportions of different isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen within the organic material change over time by fractionation? Might a fire hot enough to melt silver have affected these ratios enough to cause statistical concern? Is not knowing the age of a sample problematic? What experiments have been conducted?
There is no guarantee that any particular sample (coming from the Shroud for example) is not ‘specific’. Which can give false results in any particular test (like the one with two isotope fractions). Thus, the δ18O vs δ2H examination can be used only as an INDICATOR of the Shroud origin. Definetely not the absolute proof.
Dan:
Even if my questions are absurd—and they may be because I don’t know enough—and the cloth currently in Turin is conclusively shown to be from Israel, isn’t it reasonable, nonetheless, to think that a medieval forger in Europe could have purchased the cloth from a merchant dealing in textiles from the Holy Land for his deception?
Your questions are not absurd. Your questions are very sensible.
What we should know today is, that the determination of the key parameters of the Shroud (like its age and provenance) cannot be made on the results of a single experiment or test only.
Let me give an example from other scientific discipline the cosmology:
Here you have a plot, constraining the key parameters of our Universe, the desnity of matter and so called ‘dark energy’: https://www.eso.org/public/austria/images/eso0419d/?lang It is based on multiple techniques, each with different likelihood of the ‘true’ results. The key is that they all give concordant results at some point (which is good and then we can estimate the true result).
And here is the table of measuring the Hubble constant (the current rate of the expansion of the Universe) via multiple different techniques, performed by HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Determining_the_Hubble_constant The results are close, but still a little bit different, due to the unknown reasons (the so called Hubble tension). It is not the case, that a single measurement determine everything. And so it is not in the case of the Shroud.
But the Shroud science is much less organized (and financed) than today’s cosmology.
Hi, Dan,
This makes me think of the iconic portion of Theodore Roosevelt’s speech (“Citizenship in a Republic”) that is commonly referred to as “The Man in the Arena.”
Here it is –I don’t think that we can ever read it too many times:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
There is something to be said about standing up for what one believes in –if what one believes in is worth fighting for. It’s about “having skin in the game.” When people hide who they are, we have no way of assessing their credibility very well.
I can already guess that your book (which you had mused around the start of this year) would be about “Shroudism.” To me, that sounds a lot like equating authenticists with cult members –with the pejorative meaning (not as Henri de Poitiers meant in his letter.) For you to have someone involved with writing your book who is going to go on the attack regarding the Shroud’s authenticity (well, ’cause, let’s talk straight, that’s what you do), then this person is, likely, a pastor or even a priest. A scientist or academic in this more and more Godless society would wear it as a badge of honor to attack Shroud scholarship. So, it’s likely someone who likes to engage in “hit and runs.” I’m not really impressed by such people.
While there are rare occasions where, perhaps, a government official needs to leak information so that they can still remain in their position (and continue to get more information), or they are concerned about being imprisoned, co-writing your book does not come anywhere close to meeting the need for anonymity.
Moreover, this co-author (and probably a very non-Holy Ghost writer) seems inherently untrustworthy in that it would seem that he has strong opinions about Shroud scholarship, Shroud scholars and “Shroudism” (your coined word), yet he wants to hide his true views from the public. So, it would seem that he is a deceiver –and I think that such a person is, inherently, untrustworthy.
I like it when people call them as they seem them. “Straight shooters.” That’s what’s needed at the OK Corral.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, again,
I’d like to add that with jurors, while they can be shielded from having their names publicly known, they are vetted during a process known as voir dire –where the attorney/s on both sides ask them all sorts of personal questions while under oath and under penalty of perjury.
With government officials who leak information, we know that they have undergone at least a certain amount of vetting from either the voters who elected them or in order to get their job (especially if they have a security clearance.) Yet, anonymous leakers often leak in order to put a spin on a topic that they are interested in –without having to put any “skin in the game” and without having to answer questions so that their personal credibility –as well as the credibility of their claims– can be assessed (especially if there is no other independent evidence that can corroborate their claims.)
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi Teddi.
In my forthcoming book, the Oyster Man, is actually the ‘believer’ who quite brilliantly counters my skepticism–the more sane one, perhaps. You guessed wrong. He leaks nothing. He offers no evidence that cannot be challenged. He is the “good guy.” And he is very real. Some will even doubt that. That’s OK, no pun intended.
Anonymity: The Gospels feature numerous anonymous characters who challenge Jesus or serve as examples in His parables: the Rich Young Ruler who asks Jesus about eternal life, the Syrophoenician Woman who persistently seeks her daughter’s healing, demonstrating great faith. There is an anonymous Samaritan who shows compassion, illustrating true neighborly love. There is the Prodigal Son, the Woman at the Well who engages in a transformative conversation with Jesus. There are things to be heard from countless anonymous sources.
The anonymity of the beloved disciple in the Gospel of John warrants mention. It has led to significant scholarly debate. The disciple is never explicitly named, which raises questions about the traditional identification as John the Apostle. This anonymity might suggest that the beloved disciple is a symbolic figure rather than a specific person. Additionally, the possibility that this figure represents an ideal disciple or a composite of several followers adds to the complexity of the interpretation.
The authorship debate further complicates the issue. Some modern scholars question whether John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John, proposing instead that it could have been authored by a different John or another follower of Jesus. Historical-critical analysis often posits that the beloved disciple might be a literary device used to convey theological themes rather than an actual historical person. This perspective challenges the traditional view and suggests that the beloved disciple’s role is more about the message than the identity.
I take it on faith that the disciple is John and that John wrote the Gospel even though I find the evidence wanting.
You say, “There is something to be said about standing up for what one believes in –if what one believes in is worth fighting for. It’s about “having skin in the game.” When people hide who they are, we have no way of assessing their credibility very well.”
Oh, but we do. We do!
I like O.K. I don’t always agree with him. Sometimes he challenges my skepticism. I appreciate that. In fact, he has changed my thinking about things on occasion. In the absence of answers from my friend, Bill Meacham, and in the apparent lack of much other information on the subject at hand, would you say that O.K.’s comment should not be aired because you don’t know his name. This is not, may I remind everyone, a peer-reviewed journal. Nor is it the witness stand in a court room. It is a place to discuss, to opine, to speculate. I find O.K. “seemingly” credible. I believe him. Are there an other opinions on the subject of isotopes being used for geographic provenance?
Hi, Dan,
Speech is not really “free” if it involves saying things that are not True. Anonymity shields people from consequences for false speech —such as the risk of being sued for libel and/or slander. That is why there is something presumptively untrustworthy about people who speak without disclosing who they are —they lack “skin in the game.”
Also, when someone tells a story, they might not name every person that is mentioned in the story. This could be due to their names not being known by the person telling the story or because their names are not relevant. This is entirely a different situation from someone who speaks but shields his/her identity so as to avoid any potentially negative repercussions from one’s speech.
Best regards,
Teddi
Perhaps one of the reasons of anonymity is that one doesn’t have to listen such insults as being called “an idiot who doesn’t know what he is talking about. And makes an absolute fool of himself” thrown at his real name?
It seems clear to me that Meacham did seriously abuse his position within STERA. And someone had to point this out, no matter who, anonymous or not.
What did Meacham actually do? The following list:
1. He grabbed the only Shroud sample that was easily available to him (that is the remaining threads for the Raes sample).
2. He did not checked their actual provenance, he did not make any basic literature research on the previous studies of them (especially Rogers 2005 paper that shown they were not original, but part of the reweave in the C-14 area).
3. He hastily put them to ill-though test, where most of them were destroyed, along with a few control samples.
4. He obtained completely meaningless results. Nevertheless, he did not analyze them carefully, instead he tried to spin the results to show what he desired. He arbitrarily deleted two inconvenient measurements, labelling them as ‘outliers’, despite he had no basis for that.
5. Then tried to convince everyone else, that he must be right.
When pointed all of these., he obviously got irritated. Meacham had an option to defend his results, address all those issues. Instead, he resorted to the 38 and last stratagems of Schopenhauer’s Eristics, that is Ad Hominem against me. And make Dan censor me.
His attitude is a real disappointment also to me. What should be done, is to carefully think over all the things first, and act second. Meacham did exactly the other way round. And I realized, that he doesn’t know at all what is he actually doing. He has elementary misunderstanding of any data analysis (like, I had noticed, many archaeologists whose papers I did read). He shows a 0-1 attitude of a stereotypical Bible Belt fundamentalist. It seems he could not even imagine, that the values of the measurements of some quantities from different geographical areas can overlap! This is absolutely elementary issue!
The problem, I suspect, is much deeper, than the results of some silly experiment. And trust me, he is not the first one (nor second) academic authority, I found making elementary mistakes (or behaving dishonestly). And trying to hide his or her faults behind arrogance. This is typical behavior, from my experience. I wonder whether Meacham has been regularly throwing insults on his collaborators, who dare to disagree with his opinions. He likes fierce polemics (just read his Shroud articles from the 1980s or his book “The rape of the Shroud”) -I wonder whether not too much. This is toxic.
Dan:
I take it on faith that the disciple is John and that John wrote the Gospel even though I find the evidence wanting.
And you should not. Because the evidence, that John Apostle is indeed the author of the Fourth Gospel as well as Revelation and 3 Letters (all Johannine works) is OVERWHELMING.
A couple years ago, I gathered all relevant early christian testimonies on the authorship of Johannine works (as well as pother evangelists). Then analysed them and wrote a biography of John the Evangelist (as well as other Evangelists). See https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-8-jan-ewangelista-biografia,1427.htm Some of those testimonies you have in english https://web.archive.org/web/20210509213832/http://textexcavation.com/fourgospels.html
Generally, based on all these testimonies, and some creativity, one can put all puzzle together and create a coherent biography of John the Evangelist. And all the objections raised by skeptic against John authorship (alleged illiteracy, lack of understanding of the sophisticated concepts like ‘logos’, differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics etc.) can be quite easily resolved.
The Beloved Disciple may be anonymous in the Fourth Gospels, but his disciples (on whose request he had his gospel written down) knew perfectly well his identity. And transmitted this knowledge further. Especially Saint Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who was student of Saint Polycarp who was (together with Papias) a disciple of John the Evangelist himself. So the unbroken chain of tradition is:
John -> Polycarp -> Irenaeus
And this is just one of many similar links. The authorship of the Gospel of John (as well as other three Gospels) was a common and undisputed knowledge in the early Christianity. As well as the fact, that John the Apostle was an author of both Gospel and Revelation (as well as 3 letters atributed to him). Only later it started to be doubted on purely ideological grounds (rejection of early Christian teaching of millennialism).
There were never two Johns. This is just a late invention of Eusebius aimed to downplay the Revelation, and based on very weak premises (the fact that Papias for some unknown reason mentions John twice). And contradicted by Irenaeus (it is clear form his writings, that Papias was the student of the author of Gospel of John). See “The alleged presbyter John” in Catholic Encyclopedia https://web.archive.org/web/20210519022601/https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
What reconstructed biography shows, is that John came from priestly family (we know this from the testimony of Polycrates of Ephesus around 190 AD).
He once carried the Jewish High Priest golden plate (petalon) when they dressed him up for liturgical ceremony. And while John’s family did not serve in the Temple (that is for majority of the year, see 1 Chronicles 24, they did serve just twice a year for a week), they fished in the Sea of Galilee.
Later in his life, around 96 AD, John the Apostle was exiled to Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation in atrocious Greek. And later, after the death of emperor Domitian, he returned to Ephesus, where (after confirming and authorizing the three previously written Synoptic gospels), on request of his disciples he dictated the Fourth Gospel, which was written down by Papias, the secretary of John. Who corrected all John’s language mistakes, thus the differences in language between the Gospel and Revelation. And finally, around 100 AD, according to the legend, the Beloved Disciple, John the Apostle, ordered himself to be buried alive. After that his body allegedly disappeared.
This is all in the early Christian writings, many from the 2nd century. But one should READ and TRUST them. And try to build a coherent picture. Not disregard them as the so called “critical scholars”, originating from 19th century rationalist liberal protestants do. They discarded the Christian tradition, with disastrous results. The authorship of Johanine works (actually all Four Gospels and most of the New Testament) is actually extremely well attested.
But the key is, just like in the case of the Shroud, that this is POLITICALLY INCORRECT. Simply it is TOO WELL attested.
The evidence in favor of the authenticity of New Testament writings (as well as the Shroud and Christianity in general) is simply TOO STRONG. That’s why it is so politically incorrect and vigorously attacked by non believers (atheists, agnostics, Jews etc.). They cannot accept that the New Testament writings are really testimonies of direct witnesses of Jesus. And the tradition they passed, is unbroken up to this day.
Based on evidence alone, no one would have doubted authenticity of Johanine works had the author not been the Evangelist. The attestation is stronger than many other ancient writings (like for example the writings of Irenaeus, who never mentions his name, which is only later attested by manuscript titles, as well Eusebius living more than 100 years later and other authors). But the so called “historical-critical” scholars simply use double standards. The so called “historical-critical” method is actually a pseudoscience, a bunch of insinuations, denialism and anti-Christian conspiracy theories lectured at today’s universities! They cannot build any coherent history of Christianity, they can only destroy. While the traditional Christian history actually fits all the data much better.
Oh Dan, my friend, you publish more rubbish from “O.K.” and make a totally inaccurate analogy to the famous wild west shoot-out. Far from that dramatic showdown, this was only a crazed masked shooter hiding behind a tree and firing wildly at someone in the known community. Fortunately he couldn’t hit the side of a barn!
It is true that sometimes anonymous opinion pieces are published by major newspapers. These are informative pieces by people in important positions or with specific knowledge to contribute. They are NOT incendiary, derogatory rantings of a nutter.
If anything remotely like the libelous crazy remarks of “O.K.” appeared in any print publication, there would immediately be a libel action. But of course such a scurrilous rant would NEVER be printed even with a real name byline.
Your blog could also be sued for libel, it is not protected by the internet “public square” exception, so be careful.
You seem content for your blog to host really nasty stuff in a “wild west” fracas totally lacking in civility. Contrast it with what a much respected Shroud scholar once wrote, in response to a rather minor flare-up in a discussion group:
“Any criticism rendered by a Shroud colleague should be offered only in a constructive and positive manner, free of personal deprecations and other offensive implications. Everyone who is thoughtful and courageous enough to participate in a Shroud discussion has the right to offer a good-faith hypothesis as a “starting point for further investigation” and discussion, as well as the right to expect that any engagement on their proposal, even a critical engagement, will be both respectful and courteous.”
Do you think that the defamatory and wildly offensive attacks by “O.K.” actually do anything to advance the understanding of the scientific issues?
I have zero interest to engage in debate with a loser who hides his identity and relies on personal attack and gross distortions to try to convince. I would only say to anyone interested in discerning the truth to read my report, then compare it with “O.K.”‘s 5-point description of it. Every point in his list is absolutely and demonstrably untrue.
That is the last you will hear from me, and not from my lawyer either, since you are a friend and probably not a multi-millionaire!
I would only say to anyone interested in discerning the truth to read my report, then compare it with “O.K.”‘s 5-point description of it. Every point in his list is absolutely and demonstrably untrue.
Then please demonstrate this, rather than make threats to Dan.
All these 5 points are based on what you had already published on Marco Tosatti’s blog: https://www.marcotosatti.com/2024/03/25/the-linen-of-the-shroud-is-middle-eastern-new-isotope-tests-prove-it-meacham/ And it is clear to me, your results are completely unreliable. And misleading to many people. And the way you conducted all of this, is in my opinion, unacceptable and unprofessional.
So once again, 1-2-3-4-5:
1. He grabbed the only Shroud sample that was easily available to him (that is the remaining threads for the Raes sample).
Did you have any access to any other Shroud samples you could use, besides Raes? As far as I know, the only other Shroud samples besides Turin are in possession of Giulio Fanti.
2. He did not checked their actual provenance, he did not make any basic literature research on the previous studies of them (especially Rogers 2005 paper that shown they were not original, but part of the reweave in the C-14 area).
So did you make any relevant literature check? Especially the key Rogers 2005 paper, which claimed Raes and C-14 area are not original part of the cloth. If you did, you should have mentioned that important fact.
3. He hastily put them to ill-though test, where most of them were destroyed, along with a few control samples.
Were these samples destroyed, or not. The isotope testing is obviously destructive.
4. He obtained completely meaningless results. Nevertheless, he did not analyze them carefully, instead he tried to spin the results to show what he desired. He arbitrarily deleted two inconvenient measurements, labelling them as ‘outliers’, despite he had no basis for that.
As me, Hugh and perhaps others pointed, the results are ambiguous. There is no rationale to reject these two points as outliers.
5. Then tried to convince everyone else, that he must be right.
As we all see.
Everyone has the right to criticism. You have the right to defend your results.
You did not address the problems I underlined. Instead you started ad hominem against me. I am not pleased of all of these, but you have actually discredited yourself.