When Hugh suggested that he and OK had “different definitions of the word “evidence,” I felt compelled to finish up this post inspired by Teddi.
Why would anyone prefer to have faith instead of evidence for something?“ Teddi Pappas asked me recently. The question brought to mind Christopher Hitchens’ Razor—the principle he helped popularize: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” It’s a sharp, unapologetic tool that shifts the burden of proof onto the one making the claim, not the skeptic. For Hitchens, it served well in his role as a leading voice of the New Atheist movement. For me—a believer in God, in Christ, and in the Resurrection—it’s been useful in a different way: it helps explain why, after nearly twenty-five years, I no longer believe the Shroud is authentic.
It is because of the evidence: right and wrong, good and bad, meaningful and no so meaningful.
The word “evidence” derives from the Latin evidentia, meaning “clearness, distinctness, visibility.” Yet what constitutes clear, distinct, and visible proof varies dramatically across human endeavors. This essay explores how different disciplines conceptualize, gather, evaluate, and rely upon evidence, revealing profound epistemological differences in how we pursue knowledge and truth.
The Faith Inherent in Evidence
Teddi presents a false dichotomy that misunderstands the nature of evidence itself. In reality, evidence and faith are not opposites but interrelated aspects of knowledge acquisition. One cannot have evidence without having faith in how that evidence is derived, how it should be interpreted, and what kind of evidence it represents.
All evidence exists within frameworks of understanding that require certain acts of faith:
- Faith in methodological assumptions (that our measuring instruments are reliable)
- Faith in cognitive capacities (that our perception and reasoning are generally trustworthy)
- Faith in disciplinary paradigms (that the conceptual frameworks of our fields capably organize reality)
- Faith in evidential hierarchies (that certain types of evidence should outweigh others)
Even the most rigorous scientific evidence requires faith in the reliability of informal and formal peer review, the honesty of researchers, the accuracy of statistical methods, and the adequacy of experimental design. This is not religious faith but epistemic faith—confidence in the processes by which we generate and validate knowledge.
Different disciplines place this epistemic faith in different foundations. Let us explore how various fields conceptualize and utilize evidence, revealing the diverse ways human inquiry seeks to establish what can be known.
Evidence in Law: Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In legal contexts, evidence bears the weight of determining freedom or incarceration, liability or exoneration. The legal system has developed perhaps the most formalized conception of evidence among all disciplines, with explicit hierarchies, rules of admissibility, and standards of proof.
Legal evidence typically falls into three categories:
- Direct evidence: Firsthand accounts from witnesses or participants
- Circumstantial evidence: Facts that, when connected, suggest a conclusion
- Documentary evidence: Physical items including records, photographs, and objects
What makes legal evidence distinctive is not just its categorization but its procedural constraints. The Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States, for instance, establish complex parameters for what can even be considered in a courtroom. Hearsay evidence—secondhand information—is generally inadmissible with numerous exceptions. Character evidence faces similar restrictions. These rules reflect the legal system’s attempt to balance truth-seeking with fairness and practicality.
Most importantly, legal evidence operates within explicit standards of proof. In criminal cases, evidence must establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”—a threshold significantly higher than the “preponderance of evidence” (more likely than not) standard in civil cases. This graduated approach acknowledges that evidence in law serves justice rather than absolute truth; the consequences of error determine how compelling evidence must be.
Evidence in Science: Falsifiability and Replication
Science approaches evidence through a fundamentally different lens. While law looks backward to establish what happened, science looks forward, using evidence to build predictive models of reality.
The hallmarks of scientific evidence include:
- Empirical observation: Data collected through controlled experimentation or systematic observation
- Replicability: Results that can be reproduced by independent researchers
- Falsifiability: The potential for evidence to disprove a hypothesis
Karl Popper’s philosophy of science places falsifiability at the center of scientific evidence. Under this framework, good scientific theories are not those with abundant supporting evidence but those that make specific predictions that could potentially be falsified by evidence. The strength of Einstein’s theory of relativity lies not in its confirmation but in its vulnerability to disproof that it has repeatedly survived.
Scientific evidence also operates within probability rather than certainty. The p-value, a statistical measure indicating the likelihood that observed results occurred by chance, represents science’s acknowledgment that evidence always contains uncertainty. Scientists rarely claim to “prove” hypotheses; instead, they accumulate evidence that increases confidence in particular explanations while remaining open to revision.
This provisional nature of scientific evidence distinguishes it from legal evidence. While a legal verdict is (ideally) final, scientific consensus remains perpetually subject to challenge from new evidence. The retraction of published scientific papers—a common occurrence—demonstrates that scientific evidence exists in a continuous state of evaluation rather than achieving permanent status.
Case Study: Evidence and the Evolving Big Bang Theory
The development of Big Bang cosmology provides a compelling illustration of how scientific evidence operates. The theory’s evolution demonstrates the dynamic relationship between observation, interpretation, and theoretical revision that characterizes scientific evidence.
Edwin Hubble’s observations in the 1920s provided the first crucial evidence: distant galaxies were moving away from us, with their redshift proportional to their distance. This empirical evidence suggested an expanding universe—a dramatic departure from the prevailing static universe model. Later, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson’s 1964 discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) provided powerful corroborating evidence, as this radiation had been predicted by Big Bang theorists.
Yet the accumulation of evidence didn’t simply confirm a static theory. New observations repeatedly challenged scientists to revise the Big Bang model. The discovery that the universe’s expansion is accelerating rather than slowing—evidenced by observations of distant supernovae in the 1990s—forced cosmologists to postulate dark energy, a mysterious force never directly observed. The flatness problem (why is space nearly flat?) and horizon problem (why is the CMB temperature so uniform?) led to inflationary theory, proposing an exponential expansion period in the early universe.
More recent evidence from the Planck space telescope has refined our understanding of the universe’s composition and age with unprecedented precision, while also raising new questions about cosmic inflation models. Each new piece of evidence doesn’t simply accumulate atop previous knowledge but potentially restructures the entire theoretical framework.
This scientific journey illustrates three key aspects of scientific evidence:
- Evidence in science is theory-laden—observations gain meaning within explanatory frameworks
- Evidence operates within a network of interrelated predictions and observations
- The relationship between evidence and theory is bidirectional—evidence shapes theory, but theoretical frameworks determine what counts as significant evidence
The Big Bang theory has never been “proven” in an absolute sense. Rather, it represents our best explanation for an ever-expanding body of evidence, remaining open to revision as new observations emerge.
Evidence in Mathematics: Proof Beyond Doubt
Mathematics stands apart in its conception of evidence. Unlike empirical disciplines, mathematical evidence consists entirely of logical proof—deductive reasoning from axioms to conclusions with absolute certainty.
A mathematical proof represents evidence in its strongest form: an argument so logically tight that, if the premises are accepted, the conclusion must be true. There is no probability involved; a mathematical theorem, once proven, is considered eternally valid within its axiomatic system.
This deductive character of mathematical evidence contrasts sharply with the inductive reasoning dominant in science. While scientific theories remain provisional, mathematical proofs (once verified) achieve a status of certainty unmatched in other domains. Euclid’s proofs from over two millennia ago remain as valid today as when first demonstrated.
Yet even mathematics has its complications. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrated that within any consistent mathematical system complex enough to include basic arithmetic, there exist true statements that cannot be proven within that system. This suggests limits to what mathematical evidence can establish, even within mathematics’ formal purity.
Moreover, the rise of computer-assisted proofs—like that of the Four Color Theorem—has challenged traditional notions of mathematical evidence. When proofs become too complex for human verification, does their evidentiary status change? These developments suggest that even mathematics’ seemingly absolute conception of evidence contains nuance.
Evidence in History: Interpretation of Fragments
Historical evidence presents distinct epistemological challenges. Historians cannot conduct experiments or directly observe past events. Instead, they work with surviving traces of the past:
- Primary sources: Documents, artifacts, and records created during the period under study
- Secondary sources: Later interpretations and analyses
- Archaeological findings: Physical remnants uncovered through excavation
Historical evidence is inherently fragmentary and incomplete. Only a tiny fraction of human experience leaves documentary evidence, and only a portion of that evidence survives. This incompleteness means historical evidence requires interpretation to a degree unnecessary in more empirical disciplines.
Context becomes crucial in evaluating historical evidence. A document must be understood within its cultural, political, and social environment. The historian must consider who created it, for what purpose, under what constraints, and with what biases. This interpretive dimension makes historical evidence more subjective than scientific evidence, though methodological rigor still applies.
Historical evidence also faces unique challenges of authenticity and reliability. Determining whether a document is genuine, accurately dated, and truthfully reported requires specialized knowledge and techniques. The infamous Hitler Diaries hoax of 1983 demonstrates the consequences of accepting fraudulent historical evidence.
Perhaps most distinctively, historical evidence exists in a web of interrelationships rather than as isolated data points. A single piece of evidence gains meaning through its connections to other evidence, creating patterns that suggest broader historical realities. This emphasis on pattern recognition rather than strict causality distinguishes historical evidence from scientific evidence.
Evidence in Theology: Faith and Revelation
Theology presents perhaps the most distinctive conception of evidence among major disciplines. While theology employs logical argument and historical analysis, it also recognizes forms of evidence that secular disciplines do not:
- Revelation: Knowledge believed to be directly communicated by the divine
- Religious experience: Subjective encounters with transcendence
- Scripture: Texts considered to have divine authority
- Tradition: The accumulated wisdom of religious communities over time
Borderlands: The Shroud of Turin and Retroductive Evidence
The Shroud of Turin investigation illustrates a fascinating intersection between scientific and theological approaches to evidence. This case demonstrates how the same evidence can be interpreted through different disciplinary lenses, particularly when investigating singular historical events that cannot be directly replicated.
The Vertically Collimated Radiation Burst (VCRB) hypothesis exemplifies retroductive reasoning—working backward from effects to posit causes. Researchers identified 27 distinct pieces of evidence related to the Shroud’s image formation and followed this evidence to a hypothesis: that radiation emanating from a body created high-frequency alternating current in the linen fibers, causing the distinctive discoloration pattern. The hypothesis further proposes that neutrons from this radiation burst produced new C-14 in the cloth, potentially explaining the controversial radiocarbon dating results.
This approach parallels cosmological investigation of the Big Bang in several ways:
- Both examine physical evidence of purportedly singular events that cannot be directly replicated
- Both utilize retroductive reasoning to work backward from observable effects to their causes
- Both propose mechanisms that cannot be directly observed but can be evaluated for their explanatory power
- Both make testable predictions that could potentially falsify the hypothesis
Yet there’s a profound risk in such retroductive approaches. As critics have metaphorically observed, when reverse-engineering complex phenomena, one might mistake “a piece of wood carved to resemble a bird” for “a god of gears and even of time itself.” This caution speaks to how easily humans can overinterpret evidence, attributing complex mechanisms and profound significance to what may be simpler phenomena. Just as someone unfamiliar with cuckoo clocks might imagine elaborate supernatural mechanisms behind a wooden bird’s emergence, researchers might construct unnecessarily complex explanations for phenomena that have simpler origins.
This risk applies equally to cosmological theories and Shroud investigations. The elegance of a theory and its explanatory power don’t necessarily correspond to its truth. When working backward from effects to causes, especially with limited evidence of singular events, multiple explanations may fit the same data. The challenge becomes distinguishing between equally plausible hypotheses without overreaching beyond what the evidence can genuinely support.
However, the Shroud investigation highlights the complex interplay between scientific and theological evidence. The VCRB hypothesis employs scientific methodology while potentially supporting claims of supernatural origin—the image as evidence of resurrection rather than merely an unusual physical phenomenon. This places such investigation at the boundaries between disciplines, where different standards of evidence may come into tension or complementarity.
The Cautionary Tale of Shroud Pollen Evidence
The investigation of pollen on the Shroud of Turin offers a particularly instructive case study in evidence reliability. In the 1970s, Swiss criminologist Max Frei collected dust samples from the Shroud using adhesive tape and claimed to identify dozens of plant species native to Palestine, Turkey, and regions along the presumed historical route of the Shroud. This botanical evidence appeared compelling—microscopic witnesses seemingly placing the cloth in the Holy Land centuries before its documented European appearance.
The pollen evidence was especially attractive because it seemed to provide objective, scientific corroboration independent of faith commitments. Pollen, after all, cannot be forged and should function as a reliable geographical marker. However, subsequent scientific scrutiny revealed serious methodological flaws:
- When other botanists examined Frei’s work, only two pollen types could be confirmed with certainty
- Frei’s identifications were made solely from pollen structure without the accompanying plant parts typically required for precise classification
- Most devastatingly, DNA analysis published in Scientific Reports identified pollen from North American and East Asian plants that were introduced to Europe only after the Medieval period
This collapse of what seemed like strong evidence demonstrates several crucial principles about evidence evaluation:
- Contamination vs. Original Context: What appeared to be evidence of the Shroud’s presence in Jerusalem could equally represent contamination from pilgrims, researchers, or clergy who had visited the Holy Land and then handled the Shroud
- Confirmation Bias: The desire to authenticate the Shroud led to premature acceptance of evidence that aligned with predetermined conclusions
- Methodological Rigor: Initial claims based on incomplete methodology failed when subjected to the full standards of the relevant scientific discipline
- The Importance of Falsifiability: The presence of New World pollen effectively falsified the claim that the pollen evidence confirmed ancient Middle Eastern origins
The C14 Dating Controversy: When Evidence Collides
Perhaps the most significant evidential challenge in Shroud research is the radiocarbon dating performed in 1988. Three independent laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to between 1260 and 1390 CE—seemingly definitive scientific evidence against the cloth’s first-century authenticity. This represents what might be called the “elephant in the room” for Shroud research—a powerful piece of scientific evidence that appears to contradict claims of authenticity.
The response to this evidence illustrates different approaches to reconciling conflicting evidence:
- Acceptance: Some researchers accept the medieval dating and consider the Shroud an artistic creation or devotional object from that period
- Methodological Challenge: Others question whether the sampled area was representative, suggesting it came from a medieval repair or “invisible reweaving” rather than the original cloth
- Alternative Dating Methods: Some researchers have pursued different dating techniques like vanillin testing or multiparametric mechanical tests, claiming these support an older age, though these methods have not achieved wide acceptance in the scientific community
- Theoretical Revision: As in the VCRB hypothesis proposed by Robert Rucker, some researchers suggest that the carbon dating itself was altered by neutron radiation: “The Vertically Collimated Radiation Burst (VCRB) hypothesis was developed by identifying 27 evidences related to images, then following this evidence where it led. The resulting hypothesis is consistent with the evidence related to the images, makes predictions that are testable and falsifiable, and can explain multiple mysteries of the Shroud. This hypothesis proposes that a radiation burst from the body caused a high frequency alternating current in the fibers that caused the discoloration on the fibers that caused the images. This radiation burst included neutrons that produced new C-14 on the cloth which shifted the carbon date in the forward direction.”
- Conspiracy Theories: Some propose deliberate sample tampering or institutional bias, though these claims lack substantiating evidence
This range of responses demonstrates how evidence that appears definitive within one framework can be contested when it conflicts with other forms of evidence or prior beliefs. The C14 dating controversy exemplifies the challenge of weighing different types of evidence against each other—scientific measurement versus historical context, physical testing versus image analysis, experimental data versus theoretical modeling.
The situation raises profound questions about evidence hierarchies. Should modern scientific testing automatically supersede other forms of evidence? Does the explanation requiring the fewest additional assumptions (the medieval creation) hold primacy? Or should we prioritize explanations that account for the largest number of observations, even if they require more complex mechanisms?
These questions cannot be answered through evidence alone but depend on meta-evidential frameworks—the principles by which we weigh different types of evidence against each other. This reveals that even the most seemingly objective evidence operates within interpretive systems that themselves cannot be proven through evidence.
This borderland between scientific and theological evidence reveals how disciplines can approach the same physical phenomena with different questions, methods, and standards of sufficiency—highlighting the contextual nature of what counts as compelling evidence.
These sources of religious evidence operate under different epistemological assumptions than empirical evidence. Revelation, in particular, represents knowledge that bypasses ordinary human capacities—a direct communication from the divine that serves as its own validation.
Yet theology doesn’t abandon rationality. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, developed a sophisticated system that distinguished between truths knowable through reason alone and those requiring revelation. This “two-books” approach—reading both nature and scripture as sources of evidence—has allowed theological traditions to engage with scientific discoveries while maintaining distinct truth claims.
The relationship between faith and evidence remains complex. Tertullian’s famous phrase “Credo quia absurdum” (“I believe because it is absurd”) suggests that some religious commitments transcend evidential reasoning entirely. Yet most theological traditions balance this fideistic impulse with evidentialist arguments, from Anselm’s ontological proof to contemporary natural theology.
What distinguishes theological evidence most fundamentally is its orientation toward questions of ultimate meaning rather than empirical prediction or historical reconstruction. When evidence serves purposes of salvation, moral guidance, or cosmic understanding, its evaluation follows different criteria than when it serves scientific or legal purposes.
Hitchens’s Razor: The Burden of Evidence
Christopher Hitchens popularized the epistemological principle: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” This principle, known as Hitchens’s Razor, places the burden of proof on the party making a claim rather than on those skeptical of it.
The principle appears straightforward but contains subtleties when applied across disciplines. What constitutes sufficient evidence to prevent dismissal? Legal evidence beyond reasonable doubt? Scientific evidence meeting statistical significance? Mathematical proof? The answer depends on context and what’s at stake in the claim.
Hitchens’s Razor proves most useful in combating unfalsifiable claims—those constructed to be immune to evidential evaluation. By demanding evidence as a prerequisite for serious consideration, the principle guards against intellectual sleight-of-hand that shields propositions from critical assessment.
Yet Hitchens’s formulation raises questions about evidence’s relationship to burden of proof. Some epistemologists argue that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence—lack of proof for a proposition doesn’t demonstrate its falsity. Others contend that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, suggesting a sliding scale of evidential requirements based on a claim’s plausibility.
Conclusion: Evidence as Disciplinary Lens
This exploration reveals that “evidence” functions less as a universal concept than as a disciplinary lens—a tool customized for particular intellectual environments and purposes. Legal evidence serves justice; scientific evidence enables prediction; historical evidence reconstructs the past; theological evidence addresses ultimate concerns.
These varied conceptions of evidence reflect different answers to fundamental questions: How do we know? What constitutes proof? What degree of certainty is necessary or possible? The standards and methods of evidence in each discipline embody particular epistemological commitments and practical goals.
Understanding these differences helps us navigate interdisciplinary conversations more effectively. When a legal scholar, scientist, historian, and theologian debate complex questions, their disagreements often stem not from the evidence itself but from different conceptions of what evidence is and how it should function.
Perhaps most importantly, appreciating evidence’s disciplinary character encourages intellectual humility. No single standard of evidence serves all human purposes. The mathematician’s proof, the scientist’s experiment, the historian’s document, the theologian’s revelation, and the economist’s model each illuminate different aspects of reality. Together, they form a richer picture than any single evidential standard could provide.
Evidence, in this light, represents not just a tool for establishing truth but a window into how different intellectual traditions conceive of knowledge itself—a concept as multifaceted as the human quest for understanding that it serves.
FACT CHECK
Google’s Gemini Advanced 2.5 Artificial Intelligence Model was used for an independent fact assessment. The prompt was “Fact check [Pasted Content].” Here is the model’s unedited report:
Fact Check Result: Accurate
The provided essay accurately explores the concept of “evidence” across various disciplines and philosophical perspectives. Here’s a breakdown of the key claims and their accuracy:
- Etymology: The statement that “evidence” derives from the Latin evidentia meaning “clearness, distinctness, visibility” is correct.
- Core Thesis: The central argument—that what constitutes evidence, how it’s gathered, evaluated, and relied upon varies significantly across fields like law, science, mathematics, history, and theology—is a well-established concept in epistemology and accurately reflects the practices within these disciplines.
- Evidence and Faith: The essay argues that evidence requires “epistemic faith” (faith in methods, senses, paradigms, etc.), distinguishing it from religious faith. This is a valid philosophical perspective often discussed in epistemology and philosophy of science. It accurately presents the idea that underlying assumptions are necessary for any knowledge system.
- Disciplinary Descriptions:
- Law: The description of legal evidence (direct, circumstantial, documentary), the role of rules of admissibility (like the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding hearsay and character), and differing standards of proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt” vs. “preponderance of evidence”) is accurate for common law systems like the U.S.
- Science: The characterization of scientific evidence focusing on empirical observation, replicability, falsifiability (correctly citing Popper), its probabilistic nature (mentioning p-values), and its provisional status (subject to revision and retraction) is accurate.
- Big Bang Case Study: The summary of key evidence (Hubble’s redshift, CMB discovery, accelerating expansion/dark energy, inflation theory addressing flatness/horizon problems, Planck refinements) accurately reflects the historical development and evidential basis of the theory. The interpretation of this evidence as theory-laden and involving a bidirectional relationship between observation and theory is consistent with philosophy of science.
- Mathematics: The description of mathematical evidence as logical proof based on deduction from axioms, aiming for certainty, is accurate. The mention of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and challenges posed by computer-assisted proofs correctly identifies complexities within the field.
- History: The portrayal of historical evidence as fragmentary (relying on primary/secondary sources, artifacts), requiring interpretation and contextualization, facing challenges of authenticity, and often involving pattern recognition is accurate according to historiographical principles.
- Theology: The identification of distinct sources of evidence like revelation, religious experience, scripture, and tradition, alongside the use of reason (citing Aquinas’ “two books” approach) and its focus on ultimate meaning, accurately describes common theological methodologies.
- Shroud of Turin Case Study:
- The essay accurately presents the Shroud as a complex case study involving different types of evidence and interpretations (scientific, historical, potentially theological).
- It correctly describes the VCRB hypothesis (including retroductive reasoning and its potential to explain C14 dates) as proposed by some researchers like Robert Rucker.
- The account of the pollen evidence (Frei’s initial claims, methodological criticisms, and contradictory DNA findings) is accurate.
- The summary of the C14 dating controversy (the medieval results and the various responses – acceptance, methodological challenges, alternative dating, theoretical revisions like VCRB, conspiracy theories) is accurate and highlights the difficulties in weighing conflicting evidence.
- Hitchens’s Razor: The explanation of the principle (“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”), attributing it to Christopher Hitchens, and noting its nuances regarding burden of proof and sufficiency of evidence, is accurate.
Conclusion: The essay provides a well-researched and accurate overview of how evidence is understood and utilized across different human endeavors. Its descriptions of specific disciplinary approaches, philosophical concepts, and case studies are factually sound and reflect established knowledge and ongoing debates within those fields.
The Shroud of Turin is unique; there is nothing equivalent to it with all the characteristics already mentioned in thousands of articles already published. It is impossible to replicate it in its entirety, even with all the technology of the 21st century. No artist of the Middle Ages would create a masterpiece like this, contradicting everything that was represented in sacred art and still remain anonymous, producing nothing more than that. Only blind minds still doubt its authenticity.
Publications that matter and readers who take it to heart. Where are they. The C14 is the elephant in the room. Ways around it that are convincing to people other than Shroudies don’t exist. I used to say whaat you say but I can no longer do so. Yours truly, the blind mind.
The C-14 test was so poorly done that it should not be and is not a significant data point in the debate about authenticity. Even Hugh said as much in one of the Real Seekers podcast. I don’t remember his exact wording but he can clarify in a reply. The main point that invalidates it as a reliable data point is the fact that only one sample location was chosen. There is simply no way that one can guarantee because of that fact that the sample is representative of the whole cloth. Non-authenticists should be able to but apart from Hugh I’m not aware of any who do. To do so is just bad science.
Absolutely not. I said no such thing and implied no such thing. The radiocarbon measurement is widely regarded, not least by exponents of both the invisible mending and the radiation hypothesis, as having been impeccably carried out and accurately calculated. The idea that it was “poorly done” is transparently absurd.
What authenticists hope is that the accurately measured radiocarbon does not accurately convert into a calendar date. The invisible menders think that the radiocarbon was enhanced by the interpolation of more modern material, and the radiation exponents that the radiocarbon was enhanced by neutron reactions, although there is no evidence for either. Most authenticists believe both at the same time, and also that the radiocarbon measurements are completely worthless, even though each is mutually exclusive of the other two.
What I did say was that even without the radiocarbon test, other evidence from textile technology, historical literature and liturgical development would be adequate to maintain a medieval hypothesis, but that’s not to say that the radiocarbon results are not significant.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Sorry to have not remembered your view correctly. However, that the C-14 test was poorly done is transparently absurd applies to you but not to the many people who find substance in the data I compiled in my 800 page book, a supplement with over 80 additional entries and dozens of new added and similar findings in the STERA archives. Frankly, Hugh, it blows my mind that someone as scientifically-minded as you finds all the data I’ve found to be much ado about nothing. And it also blows my mind that you find that only one controversial sample having been taken is adequate and rigorous enough to warrant ascribing significance to the results. Can you honestly say that if you had been allowed to design the C-14 test that you would have only taken one sample from the area from which it was taken???? IMHO, the C-14 results are not significant, but the millions upon millions who went to see the Shroud after the C-14 dating and currently believe the Shroud is authentic–now that’s significant.
Regards,
Joe
Your book describes the infighting and squabbling that led up to the test very well. However, it is clear that a sample was taken from the Shroud, and that every measurement of the radiocarbon content of that sample was accurately determined to be about 90% of modern. The entire raison-d’être of both your invisible mending and Bob’s neutron radiation hypothesis is not to demonstrate that these measurements were false, but to explaining why they were correct.
The number of places from which samples are taken can certainly increase confidence in the correctness of the measurements if they are sufficiently similar, but a single sample is adequate provided it is representative of the whole. So far, all the arguments suggesting that the sample was unrepresentative have not been found compelling, and the cloud of obfuscation built up around the subject by authenticists has had the effect of making them, not stronger, but less compelling still.
Hugh wrote, “So far, all the arguments suggesting that the sample was unrepresentative have not been found compelling…” That’s your opinion, not a fact. Ray Rogers examined both samples from the main Shroud and from the C-14 sample and found them both physically and chemically different. Not sure why that would translate into “not compelling.” I have cited numerous other experts who independently believed that repairs had been made in the C-14 area. Your assertion reminds of a situation from American history. Some people and even lawmakers of a certain party claimed that the events of January 6, 2021 was nothing but a bunch of harmless tourists. Most observers were able to realize that explanation was clearly absurd.
Joe. I think I need to report this now. This is from the Introduction to the book I hope to finish some day:
“There are, among Shroud researchers, some who think that the radiocarbon dating was wrong because of repairs to the cloth; newer material was introduced into the samples that the laboratories took for their testing. Raymond Rogers, a prominent chemist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, thought so. He had analyzed some of the Shroud’s fibers.
“My source for understanding this—for I am such a pitiful layman—was a paper by a French researcher, Thibault Heimburger, who had reviewed Roger’s work. He wrote, ‘. . . there is an extraordinary set of self consistent data converging on the inevitable conclusion: the 1988 radiocarbon dating is invalid and nobody knows the true age of the Shroud.’
“I met Heimburger at a conference at Ohio State University in 2008. We had a wonderful lunch together, and I drove him to the airport. I was relying on his assessment of Rogers’s work. However, as time passed, there was no enthusiasm for this theory; neither commercial nor academic laboratories showed any interest—which is a tell. No one anywhere, except for a few Shroud enthusiasts, was calling for further investigation. Years went by, and I found this to be quite compelling.
“While drafting this book, I heard a rumor that Heimburger had changed his mind. I wrote to him and asked him if this was true. He responded to my email: ‘About the Shroud: [What you heard was] right: I do not think that the Shroud is authentic.
The main reason is that the radiocarbon dating is essential. I think that the so-called non-representativeness of the C14 corner is based on weak facts.'”
I suppose either time will tell OR it will a long-standing stalemate but Rogers wasn’t the only one who thought there were repairs there.
I’m sorry, Joe. The work you and Sue did was impressive—truly. But given the stature of the institutions involved, including the British Museum, the credibility of Nature, and the test of time, I have to go with the C14 results. As I see it, the evidence points to a medieval origin for the Shroud. Who knows—perhaps time will reveal something new. There’s still so much mystery surrounding it, and mystery is undeniably compelling. But not compelling enough, at least for me, to make a leap of faith over reason—not in my head, anyway.
Dan,
I do not share with you your high esteem for the British Museum and Nature. I know too much information behind the scenes. For one thing, Nature has had to retract papers just like other journals have so they’re far from infallible. BTW, did you know that Nature recently retracted one from 2006? Hmm, that’s almost 20 years ago–sometimes it takes a bit of time for all the information to come out. In any event, something significant regarding Nature could come out after the St. Louis conference. That’s all I’m going to say for now on that. There’s always new info coming out about the Shroud so there’s the possibility of some mind-changing along the way.
Correction: Non-authenticists should be able to admit they can’t guarantee that it is definitely representative but apart from Hugh I’m not aware of any who do.
The C14 is the elephant in the room. Ways around it that are convincing to people other than Shroudies don’t exist.
I don’t think so. The problem is, that very few people know and understand the scientific peculiarities of this one specific 1988 C-14 test. And most actually do not care, are not interested in. They are convinced this way or the other.
I am quite confident, that since Rogers 2005 work (whom I trust, I have no reason not to), the 1988 C-14 results are actually irrelevant. See:
How Raymond Rogers PROVED that the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud was WORTHLESS
&
Why critics of Rogers’ 2005 work refuting the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud are wrong
&
But since the man is dead, no one cares about him and his results. And one can still maintain politically correct nonsense, that the 1988 C-14 tests were reliable and unrefuted. Turin may maintain its not their fault, that they chose this particular sample. Hugh and Joe may run a pointless quarrel no one is interested in. Believers in authenticity may believe, believers in medieval may in their comfort believe they have a “scientific” reason to doubt authenticity. And so on.
Besides, a short, concise lexicon entry: https://leksykonsyndonologiczny.pl/en/history-of-the-research-on-the-shroud/physical-analyses-of-the-shroud/determination-of-the-age-of-the-shroud/
Oh Dan, so much to read, after simple remark about relatively minor detail about some correlation of two parameters…
Regarding cosmology, I recommend reading books written by P.J.E. Peebles, one of the leading experts in the filed and Nobel prize winner:
-“The whole truth”: https://www.amazon.com/Whole-Truth-Cosmologists-Reflections-Objective/dp/0691231354 (I have a polish language edition: https://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/5087455/cala-prawda-rozwazania-kosmologa-o-poszukiwaniach-obiektywnej-rzeczywistosci)
-“The Cosmology century”: https://www.amazon.com/Cosmologys-Century-History-Understanding-Universe/dp/0691234477 (I also have polish edition: https://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/4985727/stulecie-kosmologii-jak-zrozumielismy-wszechswiat )
There are a few more which are more technical: “The principles of physical cosmology”: https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Physical-Cosmology-Phillip-Peebles/dp/0691019339 and “the large scale structure of the Universe” (400 pages of complex equations!): https://www.amazon.com/Large-Scale-Structure-Universe-Phillip-Peebles/dp/0691082405
Out of this, “The whole truth” is relatively the simplest to read. But the general claim of Peebles (that today we know “the truth” about the cosmology of the Universe, or at least we have a good approximation of it) can be debated.
On the other hand regardign science and general definition of it, there is a very interesting operative deifinition of science in a bokk written by Italian physicist, mathematician and historian of science Lucio Russo, “The forgotten revolution: how science was born in 300 Bc and why it had to be reborn”. See pages 15-21: https://books.google.pl/books?id=MOTpnfz7ZuYC&printsec=copyright&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Though limited (as Russo himself admits) it gives a good overview, how science and scinetists operate, at least in the view of Russo. His book stirred up considerable discussion and controversion with his provocative theses. But I really recommend to read it (though of course one can discuss some of his views).
And BTW, the title of the post seems to be a clickbait. I see no clear justification of the view presented in the title. There is no word ‘real’ at all in the whole post! Only a few instances of ‘reality’.
Thanks for the links. On the title, maybe I got carried away. I didn’t finish out my thinking on Hitchens. Somthing like ““What can be asserted without ADEQUATE evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” I’ll give it some thought.
Ray Rogers was by far the most authoritative scientist of the STuRP team apart from his mentor Walter McCrone, and his work should be respected and treated seriously. But that does not mean it was flawless, and although it seems Joe and OK accept everything he wrote as some kind of gospel, perhaps the majority of authenticists today find themselves seriously at odds with some of it.
If the radiocarbon in the corner is enhanced by the interpolation of more modern material, then it was not enhanced by neutron radiation, and all the “flash of light” enthusiasts have nothing on which to base their hypothesis. Rogers’s Thermochimica Acta paper has been seriously criticised by Mark Antonacci, an ardent authenticist, beginning: “Mr. Rogers doesn’t seem to have presented any palpable or convincing evidence to support his […] claim,” and ending: “Because of the numerous errors and shortcomings in Rogers’ analysis and methodology, along with the lack of any definitive, objective corroborating evidence on the cloth itself, or in his article, Rogers has not begun to “prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin.”
For a slightly less emotional, but more analytical approach, my own “Dear Mr Rogers” articles at medieval shroud.com provide a multitude of detailed queries about his methods, his sources and his lack of references. One of his colleagues at Los Alamos, Stanley Kosiewicz, whose work Rogers referenced, wrote to me to say that he thought Rogers had misrepresented and misapplied his 1980 paper ‘Cellulose thermally decomposes at 70°C’ and was not at all pleased.
All this, in answer to Joe’s uncertainty above, is why I find Rogers’s paper ‘not compelling.”
Best wishes,
Hugh
Rogers accepted the C-14 results until he did his experiments and had them confirmed by other scientists. Gove, on the other hand, had an anti-religious bias that prompted him to work to get STURP eliminated (based on his misconception that STURP was nothing but a bunch of religious zealots trying to prove the Resurrection. While STURP had their faults, there’s no doubt that the dating would have turned out differently had STURP been allowed to conduct it. Gove, against wishes of Turin, attended, with the permission of the Arizona lab, all of the scientists there having signed a non-disclosure agreement, their testing. By the way, Gove also disclosed the results early to his assistant, with whom he had a bet riding on a pair of cowboy boots pertaining to the results of the test. Note what Gove said in an interview in May 1988, “It is a well-known fact that scientists can produce whatever result they want. If you believe that passionately in something, you can steer the results. My God – we’ve all been guilty of that.”
I have no doubt that Hugh can come up with some witty reply that will justify in his mind the words and actions of the C-14 scientists, but I’ll take Rogers’ overall integrity over the C-14 scientists any day of the week.
Joe,
“While STURP had their faults, there’s no doubt that the dating would have turned out differently had STURP been allowed to conduct it.” You may think that, and you are welcome to your opinion, of course, though I’m not wholly sure what you mean. Do you claim that if STuRP had measured the radiocarbon in the sample, it would have come out much less than what was found by the Tucson, Zurich and Oxford labs, thus suggesting a first century date?
Best wishes,
Hugh
If STURP had been allowed to conduct the C-14 test, the corner that was chosen would have been avoided, samples from multiple locations would have been taken, and there would have been less uncertainty about the results, not that it would specifically had come out 1st century.
Unjustified optimism, I’m afraid, Joe. STuRP produced a detailed protocol as part of their 1984 test proposal, and the only part of the Shroud which wasn’t the charred fragments from the patches was exactly the corner which was eventually selected, from where, I’ve no doubt, the results would have been exactly the same. The charred fragments could have had more enriched radiocarbon, justifying Bob’s hypothesis, much less radiocarbon, justifying your hypothesis, or the same as the corner sample, further confirming the medieval provenance. That’s what my money’s on.
Hugh:
If the radiocarbon in the corner is enhanced by the interpolation of more modern material, then it was not enhanced by neutron radiation
And so be it. I never bought neutron radiation claims. This is not how destructive neutrons would behave. There is more agenda in the neutron camp than just the explanation of the 1988 C-14 results.
You see, Dan? Science and substantive arguments actually does not matter at all. Really. Most people (most scientists including) do not understand them anyway. So why bothers?
The work and conclusions of Rogers (which as I have shown no one directly challenged, despite commonly pointed shortcomings) are completely irrelevant. Not because they are wrong, but because they are inconvenient to many, pro- and anti-authenticity alike. And as Rogers is dead for 20 years, it is easy to attack and dismiss him, since he cannot defend his position. It is not to say, I am uncritical follower of Rogers. Contrary -there are certain issues I would disagree with him. But regarding his 2005 work on C-14 sample, I have no reason not to trust him. I spent years weighting all the facts and arguments as impartailly as I could. It is pointless to deceive oneself. And Rogers work makes most sense to me. I am more prone to believe someone created ‘invisible mending’ of that corner (which is, I think possible), than to believe that someone in the 14th century created the Shoud of Turin with all its complexity. But Rogers work dismantled the myth of 1988 C-14 dating, discredited credentials and interests of many. So now Rogers, maybe a great specialist in his field in his time, but (as most great researchers) relatively obscure, is simply now passe. Everyone can attack and renounce him, point various flaws and shortcomings of his works (which are actually VERY COMMON in scientific literature -I received too much envy by pointing them in the works of others :-P ) and so on. It is easy to find a stick to beat a dog!
Besides, if Rogers is wrong, and C-14 result of 1260-1390 is right, then Fanti and his colleagues are wrong in their dating the Shroud to the 1st century. Why? What went wrong with them? And vice versa. And the more arguments the more and more puzzles.
The 1988 C-14 dating is scientifically irrelevant actually. A single wrong measurement, they do happen occasionaly for whatever reason (we do know what reason in this particular case!) -but convenient to many.
And besides -if someone is interested:
And besides -if someone is interested -the pictures:
https://ibb.co/Xf659Xv8
https://ibb.co/nFRTdh9
https://ibb.co/6JBMRyS8
I will leave interpretation aside. It is irrelevant anyway.
Hi OK,
Interesting pictures, but they do not justify the invisible mending position in any way. Firstly, if the Shroud looked like that, then it would have been clearly noticeable to everybody who looked at it, and the possibility of a discrepancy investigated far more thoroughly than it was. But, of course, the Shroud doesn’t look like that at all: your alleged difference in weave is nothing more than a distortion caused by several factors, such as the direction of the light and the resolution of the photograph. How can I be so sure? Because of at least eight other photos showing exactly the same area, from 1978 to 2008, none of which show the same distortion. Furthermore, the area you illustrate is not on the radiocarbon area, which had been cut away before the photo was taken. There are more photos of the radiocarbon area and the radiocarbon samples photographed by the labs, and they don’t show this discrepancy either.
Best wishes,
Hugh
But, of course, the Shroud doesn’t look like that at all: your alleged difference in weave is nothing more than a distortion caused by several factors, such as the direction of the light and the resolution of the photograph.
The resolution and direction of light is the same on each of the photographs. Which are slightly angled -thus the reflected light creates different interference patterns on slightly different weave structures.
See also page 49 here:
https://calun.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Datowanie-radiow%C4%99glowe-pdf.pdf
Sorry OK, I don’t follow that. Of the three images you listed above, the top two are the same photo and do not show any irregularity of the weave. The bottom one, with the fingers, is the only one which shows the irregularity, and is of significantly lower resolution. I don’t get the point of the X-ray photos either, as they are composites of the Shroud and the backing cloth.
Regarding the first two. If you look carefully on the areas inside and outside the red border, you will find slight but noticeable differences how the weave pattern changes. Those are different areas for some reason. Of course there are more such distinct areas on the Shroud where weave pattern changes -but it is worth noting.
The third one and X-rays -there are some irregularities, as you and several people have noticed.
The point is, the cloth is not as uniform as it is claimed. Of course it proves nothing so far. But shows that the purported invisible reweave can be hidden somewhere among such anomalies (which do exist). However to prove its existence, one needs detailed chemical examination based on samples both from the C-14 area (which on various photographs is somehow anomalous anyway) and the rest of the cloth. This is exactly what Rogers did -and as far as I know, no one else.
But of course Rogers is deceased. And misunderstood (like many great minds). And inconvenient for many people:
* anti-authenticity camp -for obvious reasons
* Turin and their toadies -because he showed they screwed the job with the sampling
* neutron camp -because their theories (which have more agenda than explanation of the 1988 results) are then redundant
So much for the topic.
Joe, OK, and Hugh: There is a bottom-line reality to the carbon dating issue: most people will simply accept the scientific consensus. One might persuade a few that—perhaps, and it is a significant perhaps—the cloth was mended in ways that skewed the results, or that some form of contamination tainted the sample area, or that alternative dating techniques might yield a different conclusion. These are not impossible scenarios, but they rest on a fragile chain of special pleading.
More speculative still are the theories proposing that radiation emitted during the Resurrection itself altered the cloth’s carbon signature—a leap into theological science fiction that raises an awkward question: why would divine providence allow the one artifact that could vindicate the Resurrection to be misdated by the very tools humanity would one day develop?
Ultimately, the people most receptive to these explanations tend to be those already inclined to believe in the Shroud’s authenticity. For the unconvinced observer, these increasingly elaborate theories begin to look like ingenious workarounds designed to rescue a cherished conclusion from inconvenient data.
For the unconvinced observer, these increasingly elaborate theories begin to look like ingenious workarounds designed to rescue a cherished conclusion from inconvenient data.
Which is a daily bread in science. In your essay you mentioned cosmology. So a few examples.
Do you have an explanation for a Hubble tension: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Possible_resolutions_of_the_Hubble_tension Which people like Jim Peebles try to downplay, because, in his opinion, we know “The whole truth” (or at least a good approximation of it).
What value of the Hubble constant is correct? Derived from supernovae (and other local Universe measurements) ~72 km/s/Mpc. Or from Comsic Microwave Background?: ~67 km/s/Mpc
Here you have a recently published paper in Nature:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08047 The title: “Andromeda’s asymmetric satellite system as a challenge to cold dark matter cosmology”
And you have the story taken from the Edwin Hubble 1936 book, “The Realm Of The Nebulae” (see https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.210893/page/n113/mode/2up on pages 96-100).
To quote:
pg 97:
The theory had taken two forms. “Island universes” implied merely that the nebulae were independent stellar systems, scattered through extragalactic space. “Comparable galaxies” carried the additional implication that the dimensions of nebulae were more or less comparable with those of the galactic system itself. In flat contradiction to both formulations of the theory, there still existed the direct and powerful evidence of large angular rotations.^^ As early as 1916 van Maanen had reported an annual rotation for MlOl of the order of 0″.02.“ Between 1921 and 1923, he published rotations of the same order for six additional spirals and later reported measurements tending to confirm the earlier results.
and pg. 98:
The contradiction was removed only in 1935 when investigations of several of the nebulae by various measurers, using much longer intervals, gave negative results and indicated that the large rotations previously found arose from obscure systematic errors and did not indicate motion, either real or apparent, in the nebulae themselves.
Had van Maanen observations of the apparent rotation of spiral nebulae been treated the same way, the 1988 C-14 measurements of the Shroud age are, we would still believe our Galaxy, the Milky Way, is the only galaxy in the Universe! The error of van Maanen observations had been found only in 1935, about 10 years after Hubble’s observations determined, that those spiral nebulae are other galaxies similar to Milky Way. The error of 1988 C-14 measurements were found in 2005 by Rogers. But there are those, who do not accept that. Simply because they have some interests in not accepting that. Not because Rogers was wrong.
Actually VERY, VERY FEW people understand all the details and peculiarities in scientific theories. Even among scientists.
There are maybe 10 max 20 people in the entire world, who understand all the scientific peculiarities of the 1988 C-14 problem. And try to research it in a scientific way. Most people actually don’t care about it. They simply made their mind, this way or the other, without knowing and understanding all the data. They don’t need it.
And there is one big problem in Shroud research that can be summarized in one word:
MONEY.
To perform scientific research you need money. Just as you need for anything else. You have money -you can hire qualified researchers and pay them grants. You have no money -you don’t have research. Almost all the research on the Shroud has been performed by volunteers who devoted their precious time and their resources (money included) simply because they found the topic interesting. But you cannot rely only on volunteers in the long term.
Dan, it is not my job or mission to convince every last person on the planet that the Shroud is authentic. I’m not going to lose sleep over the fact that you and Hugh don’t believe it’s real. There are people who don’t believe the Holocaust happened or that the U.S. Capitol wasn’t really attacked on January 6, 2021. People are going to believe whatever they want for a variety of reasons, and that includes about the Shroud on both sides of the aisle. If it’s not authentic, one has to figure out why so many intelligent people, including numerous surgeons and doctors believe it wrapped a real crucified man (and if that’s the case it’s certainly Jesus and not just some random victim). And one would also have to explain why countless people have had mystical/spiritual experiences that convince them the Shroud is authentic. Do we just automatically throw all of those in the trash bin? In our current system that includes free will, you can think anything you want. Ultimately, there’s an element of faith regarding one’s stance about the Shroud.
Joe, I wasn’t going to comment on a previous post likening me to Andrew Clyde, but now you’ve clumped me in with David Irving I think I must ask you to reconsider. For a start, are you sure that Andrew Clyde, a devout Christian and previously deacon of the Prince Avenue Baptist Church, Georgia, doesn’t think the Shroud is authentic? I think he’s more likely to be on “your side” than mine.
I put that in quotes because I don’t think it’s kind – in fact I think it’s downright unChristian – to liken people who don’t share one particular view of yours to other people who don’t share a different view. There are lots of good authenticists who think the Pope is the antiChrist; can I assume you’re one of them? I’ve no doubt authenticists in the USA are split between pro-Trumpers and anti-Trumpers; I don’t know which one you are, but can I assume you think the others are Holocaust deniers?
If there are any real arguments in favour of authenticity, they are seriously weakened by these irrelevant and unjustified attempts to win the moral high ground with these absurd comparisons.
But hey-ho, never mind, it’s just yet another nail in the authenticist coffin….
Hugh, I don’t know anything about Andrew Clyde and David Irving. I don’t think any answer from me is going to satisfy you so I’m not even going to try.
Joe, hope you have one comment left …
Many details of the Pray Codex have been discussed by Farey, Corvaglia, Casabianca and others.
The Pray Codex and the othonia
There are five images found in the Pray Codex (Hungary, 1195) and four have features related to the Shroud of Turin:
Crucifixion
https://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0060.html
Deposition
https://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0061.html
Anointing / women at the tomb
https://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0062.html
Post-resurrection
https://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0063.html
1. In the Anointing, it has been noted that the thumbs of Jesus cannot be observed. In the Deposition, the right arm of Jesus goes behind his mother. Zoom in to see His right palm below her head. His right thumb can be seen folded into His palm due to the nail in the wrist. The palm of His left hand cannot be seen.
2. In the Anointing, Jesus is lying on a cloth. It can be assumed the other figures are Joseph, Nicodemus and John (l to r). John is holding something in his left hand between his fingers and his thumb about the width of a credit card (3.35 in or 8.5 cm) – the same width as the side strip of the Turin Shroud (8-9 cm). Moving from his hand to the right of the viewer the material makes a twist shaped like a 2 before going under his robe (then under Jesus). In the lower right of the image the piece of cloth continues along the edge and ends just above the right corner (ending with a fringe of half circles). Back to John’s hand – the material goes to the viewer’s left behind Nicodemus and can be seen in the left hand of Joseph. It goes towards him, then up. Adding up the lengths gives a minimum of 10 ft compared to the 14.6 ft length of the Turin Shroud. It seems that the artist discerned that the side strip and the main cloth were the othonia in John’s Gospel. It is presumed that the side strip was previously reattached since the water damage which goes across the seam is thought to have occurred prior to the fourth century.
3. In the Women at the tomb, just to the right of the angel, the side strip appears as a coil of cloth. If a clock face is drawn on it, at 8 pm there is a fringe of half circles. It is resting on top of the main cloth (which is twelve times wider). Instead of an image of Christ, the interior dorsal surface shows irregular red crosses to indicate the bloody wounds. The exterior frontal surface shows the pronounced zigzag of a 1/3 Chevron twill weave. It is off by 45 degrees, with breaks likely due to faults in the weave or the artist remembered it incorrectly. Note that the interior (image) surface is a 3/1 Chevron twill – a less prominent weave which gives a flatter surface for the image. Under the angel’s foot are two red zigzags which follow the weave and correspond to the largest flow of blood from the spear wound in the chest. Blood soaked through and appears on the exterior surface of the Shroud which can be seen in the pictures taken in 2002. The Bible records only Joseph being buried in a sarcophagus, in Egypt.
4. In Mark 14:52, a young man runs away leaving behind a sindon (linen cloth). Linen was used for undergarments and burial clothes for thousands of years – archeological finds all have a plain weave. For a Jewish burial, both the body and the cloth were expected to decompose within a year so a loose plain weave makes sense. In Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46 and Luke 23:53 a sindon is used to wrap Jesus – Mark includes that Joseph bought it at the agora (market) after Jesus died. But if the sindon that Joseph bought is the Shroud of Turin, every feature made it more durable – a dense 3/1 twill weave with z-spun linen. This was not the ideal burial cloth but was most likely an imported expensive tablecloth with a selvedge along both sides and fringes on the ends. It is improbable that Joseph could buy such a cloth with a seam. It might have been Joseph that bought Jesus’ chiton (linen tunic) without seam that the soldiers gambled for.
5. John always refers to othonia (plural linen cloths or wrappings). He was at the cross so it makes sense that he helped Joseph and Nicodemus with the deposition and burial. So Joseph gets the sindon and John helps cut the side strip so he refers to the pieces together as othonia. In John 19:40 they lay Jesus in the sheet and cover him up, then bind (same word as John 18:12) the narrow linen strip around Him. The other Gospel writers did not know that detail. In Luke 24:12 Peter sees the othonia lying in the tomb. In John 20:5-7, both John and Peter see othonia lying while the sudarion (head cloth) was folded by itself. If Jesus left His image on the cloth and passed through the cloth, no one would see the image inside the cloth when they went into the tomb. The Jewish aversion to blood/death may explain why so little is known about the burial linens during the early centuries AD.
6. Jesus was crucified naked – the soldiers took all His clothes. He was taken from the cross naked. There is no relic of the holy Loin Cloth. Yet the artist of the Pray Codex shows Him covered with a loin cloth in the Crucifixion and the Deposition as is the norm. The same artist shows Jesus naked in the Anointing which is not the norm but does correspond to the Shroud of Turin. No other image provided by Corvaglia shows Jesus completely naked with both hands over His groin.
7. The observation of the right thumb in the Deposition and the identification of the 8.5 cm wide wrapping cloth provide further evidence that the artist of the Pray Codex saw the Shroud of Turin close up. The cutting of the cloth explains the usage of sindon vs othonia in the Gospels. It also explains the very obvious seam which reunited the two pieces into one Shroud.
8. A linen cloth with the same weave as the Shroud of Turin has not yet been confirmed in any century. More complex diaper woven linen tablecloths are depicted in Renaissance paintings and are used as canvas after 1490.
Hugh Farey
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n84part4.pdf
Marco Corvaglia
https://www.marcocorvaglia.com/en/sindone/sindone-e-codice-pray
Tristan Casabianca
https://philarchive.org/archive/CASTIO-30
https://catetown.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/weave-sample-31-and-13-chevron-twill/
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/search/?page=1&page_size=50&q_object_name=Tablecloth+linen&year_made_from=1200&year_made_to=1400
https://labo.pt/
Hello, anon!
Jesus was crucified naked – the soldiers took all His clothes. He was taken from the cross naked. There is no relic of the holy Loin Cloth.
You are wrong -there is a bloodied relic of the traingular holy Loin Cloth in Aachen. See: https://heiligtumsfahrt.bistumac.de/en/the-aachen-pilgrimage/the-relics/
Also see the book (which is an absolute MUST!) “Witnesses to mystery” pg. 298-302: https://www.rosikonpress.com/pl/products/witnesses-to-mystery-124.html There is a photograph with a visible bloodstain and more description.
Besides, the images Pray Codex (which date to the mid 12th century) almost certainly depict the Shroud of Turin. However I don’t think this is so much relevant nowadays. Today, after all statistical analysis of the C-14 data, even skeptics contend that the result 1260-1390 is inaccurate and somehow off. But the question is, how much off it is, and what is the reason. Pro-authenticity thinks it is 1300 years off. Skeptics say it is off maybe 200 years at most (which is within the margin of the Pray Codex dating) due to some minor contamination. But today, after Rogers, Fanti, Sudarium of Oviedo etc. we have more evidence, we can be quite confident, that the Shroud of Turin originated in the 1st millenium (say before about 700 AD) rather than the 2nd millenium.
No comment but I have added the Corvaglia reference to my bibliography on the HPM. See: https://www.academia.edu/49297754/Does_the_Hungarian_Pray_Manuscript_Indicate_the_Presence_of_Jesus_Shroud_in_the_12th_Century_an_English_Language_Bibliography.
Joe, do you know of any literature that suggests a single sheet of linen was cut to produce a large wrapping sheet and the side strip (a long binding strip)? [Sindon -> othonia]. I think either you or Hugh could easily answer that question. Maybe the only thing we all could agree on is that there is a line of stitching on the Shroud.
Anon, the question about the sidestrip, like most aspects of the Shroud, is not an easy question to answer. A good summary of the uncertainty can be found in an article by British textile expert John Tyrer: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part6.pdf
Hi Anon,
The Side Strip is a bit of a puzzle, as it is attached so conformably that if it were cut off, it could not have been used for anything else (such as securing the cloth to a body) before being re-attached. My possible interpretation, based on something Riggi de Numana suggested, is in “The Side Strip” at medievalshroud.com.
Thanks Joe. I reread the Tyrer paper. It seems he could not decide if there was a side strip w/seam or a single cloth w/cord. He does not propose a reason for the existence of the side strip. He does say that “The presence of the edging strip certainly holds some unsuspected information”.
Thanks Hugh for your reply.
Your description in “The Side Strip” does not account for the selvedge on the outer edge of the side strip. It seems odd to me that the image is shown on the cloth with the hanging rod. If that were the case, why take off the rod? But if the image comes later, what is the rod for? You show how the seam could be sewn but not how the cloth is cut to transform the loop into the side cloth.
Cutting the side strip off and reattaching it later is consistent with the appearance of the Shroud. It doesn’t clarify when it was done. You have provided lots of arguments that is a Medieval creation. My post was an attempt to understand why the side strip was cut off. Obviously this assumes that it WAS cut off in the first century.
These two examples of Egyptian linen binding cloths (with simple weave) can be compared in width to the Shroud side strip:
Mummy bandage (1330 BC)
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/548838
1.65m x 6cm (5.4ft x 2.4in)
Mummy bandage (330 BC)
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/557894
2.31m x 10 cm (7.6ft x 4in)
Shroud side strip (length=length of shroud)
4.4m x 8cm (14.6ft x 3.1in)
Interested in ST as an intellectual puzzle, let me appeal to Hugh Farley and Dan and others with the same view, that they overlook some basic principles of science when they so doggedly promote the Oxford/British Museum carbon testing of the Shroud (1988), as if it’s truth from on high. Remarkably these testers at a press conference sat in front of a blackboard with their result written “1260-1390.” Those numbers were interpreted to mean the age of the Shroud. A telling feature of those figures is what followed—an exclamation mark ( …1390!). Its use was rather peculiar for a scientific endeavor supposed to be dispassionate.
The scientific method is predicated on the control and elimination of bias. The more bias, the less reliable the results. Nearly any student of Statistics 101 will tell you that. Yet the so-called testing hardly was scientific. It has no reason to be considered in debates about the ST unless it concerns failures of C-14 testing. It’s main failure was sampling by convenience—not by the gold standard of representative sampling. Because the ST has obvious foreign material sewn into it as a repair of fire damage, it cannot be assumed that the original ST material is equally distributed throughout.
Over its possibly 2,000 years or more of use, other repair work could have been done but hidden to the untrained eye. Indeed Joe Makino and his wife Sue Benford provided well-regarded research showing just that: The Oxford/British Museum sample came from a part infused with foreign material during the Middle Ages, research later validated by chemical test of like-fibers by the highly esteemed Los Alamos chemist, Ray Rogers. Indeed a Hollywood movie is planned about how Joe and Sue “proved” that the C-14 testing was flawed (https://www.churchpop.com/actor-rob-schneider-is-making-a-film-about-the-shroud-of-turin-it-was-breathed-into-me/).
The C-14 sampling was flawed by convenience sampling. It was convenient, being solely in a corner of the shroud– thus easily accessible but limited to just that sole sample material. As “bias is the primary disadvantage of convenience sampling” (e.g., Simkus, 2023), one always must be leery of any such research basis. Doubly more so for this testing because Rolfe (2022) evinces the C-14 was further biased in that the deeper the sample material (of three slices of the same sample) into the Shroud, the older the C-14 test result. It may not be coincidental that it took the C-14 testers nearly twenty years before they released the testing data.
Given this unorthodox manner of the testing, one must wonder if the data was ever cooked in line with conveniently sought aims of the testers. “A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent” (Bailey, 2021). That fraud exists in various research fields is well established. Could the exclamation mark mentioned earlier indeed suggest a hidden agenda involved? Marino, Rolfe and others would agree as they point to evidence the principal testers had ulterior motives. A hard pill to swallow for ST skeptics, but the C-14 testing is a convenient (read shallow) way to argue.
Hi Ray, (no relation to Douglas Donahue, I suppose? Devout Quaker and co-author of the radiocarbon paper published in Nature?)
Thank you very much for writing, although I fear you’ll need to get a lot better informed if your comments are to be thought of as more than preaching to the converted.
I’l speak for myself, rather than Dan or others, although I dare say their thoughts align with mine in most cases, but I most certainly do not “doggedly promote the Oxford/British Museum carbon testing of the Shroud (1988), as if it’s truth from on high.” Nobody has examined the primary sources relating to the carbon testing more than I, or corresponded more with the scientists involved. The truth of the carbon testing as I understand it is from the roots, not from on high.
Let’s have a look at some of your statements, shall we?
“Because the ST has obvious foreign material sewn into it as a repair of fire damage, it cannot be assumed that the original ST material is equally distributed throughout.” Absolutely true. Nobody has ever assumed any such thing.
“Other repair work could have been done but hidden to the untrained eye.” Also absolutely true. Nobody has ever denied it.
“Indeed Joe Makino [Marino, actually] and his wife Sue Benford provided well-regarded research showing just that: The Oxford/British Museum sample came from a part infused with foreign material during the Middle Ages, research later validated by chemical test of like-fibers by the highly esteemed Los Alamos chemist, Ray Rogers.” Absolutely not. For Joe Marino, three people involved in textile manufacture made some rather inconclusive statements based entirely on a single black and white low resolution photograph of one of the radiocarbon pieces, while three experts in textile history and restoration examined that area of the Shroud itself in person and found no evidence of repair. Ray Rogers published some investigations of his own in a paper which has been extensively reviewed by several people, not least myself, clearly demonstrating the unreliability of his results.
“It took the C-14 testers nearly twenty years before they released the testing data.” The data was released to and analysed in depth by Remi van Haelst in 1997. It was available beforehand but nobody seems to have required it.
“One must wonder if the data was ever cooked in line with conveniently sought aims of the testers.” No. One need not wonder at all. Any compulsion to wonder is generated by a desire to support faith in authenticity in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. Mention of the “conveniently sought aims of the testers” implies that you know a) that the testers had aims, and b) that you know what they are. Are you sure you do? How many of them, for example, were practising Christians?
I agree with you that the Shroud is an intellectual puzzle, and if you have read any of my blog posts you will know that there is no facet of it that I have not investigated, and do not continue to investigate, in great detail from the primary sources upwards. If you have enquiries about why I reject the alleged evidence for authenticity, please feel free to pursue them and I shall be happy to help.
Best wishes,
Hugh
how would you rationalize and justify this to someone who does not believe in god or Jesus?
doing a school assignment on this right now but I am heavily against the belief of Christianity. and my mindset is “this isn’t real so there is no reason to do forensic research on it because I think its wrong” I am indeed biased in the matter and I mean no disrespect I just want to know if you have a way to rationalize this to an atheist
for context u an working on a project in my forensics class in highschool
*i am
typo
Hi Lilly,
Thanks so much for your honest and thoughtful comment—and for sharing the context of your school project. I really appreciate the respectful tone you’ve taken, even while expressing your strong perspective. That kind of openness is valuable in any discussion, especially one as complex as this.
Since you’ve been up front about your bias, I’ll do the same: I’m a Christian, and I do believe in God and in the Resurrection of Jesus. But my belief isn’t based on the Shroud of Turin—it’s rooted in faith, personal experience, and trust in the broader witness of Scripture and tradition. I don’t think the Shroud is essential to Christian belief, and personally, I don’t believe it’s authentic.
When it comes to “rationalizing” the Shroud to an atheist—or even to most Christians who aren’t already committed to its authenticity—I think it’s a tough sell. The forensic studies can be fascinating, and the image on the cloth is undeniably intriguing, but there’s a real risk of starting with a conclusion and working backward to justify it. In my view, if the Shroud requires belief in the supernatural to make sense, then it won’t serve as persuasive evidence for someone who doesn’t already hold those beliefs.
That said, I know others see it differently—and that’s part of what makes this topic so rich for discussion and debate. Good luck with your assignment, and thanks again for stopping by and contributing. I’m glad you’re thinking critically and asking big questions.
Take care, Dan Porter
Hi Lilly,
I’d love to know a bit more about your assignment. Being for a forensics class, your personal beliefs should be irrelevant, so I’m not sure what you mean by ‘rationalising’ or ‘justifying.’
If you are wondering why an atheist should be interested in the Shroud, then simply treat it as an interesting medieval artefact, and examine some of its aspects that do not depend on it being from the first century. For instance, there are patches of a reddish colour on the Shroud which may or may not be blood. Why not read John Heller & Alan Adler’s paper on their experiments (‘A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,’ which you can find at shroud.com), and try to decide whether their conclusion – that the blood is real blood – is justified by their results. You could compare their findings with those of Walter McCrone, whose paper ‘The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s pigment?’ published in Accounts of Chemical Research, is less easily available, but your school should have access to it.
For other aspects, try searching for “pollen” or “limestone” on my own website, medievalshroud.com, making sure you read all the primary sources as well as my own conclusions drawn from them, and see whether you agree.
There are several other things a budding forensic scientist could experiment with, but that will do for now, I hope.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Thank you! i tried to be polite. for more context on my forensics project- we are currently learning about blood spatter. my teacher wants us to read and do a 2 and a half page handwritten essay on it and the controversy around it as well as our opinion on the matter. i think i will try to see it as supernatural. if you want more information about the project or have any tips or ideas let me know and i will keep you updated!
Hi Lilly,
We independent researchers often have to pay for scientific papers which schools and universities can get for free, so I hope your school can get hold of “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin” by Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli, published in the Journal of Forensic Science, and also “Some experiments and remarks regarding the possible formation of blood stains on the Turin Shroud: stains attributed to the crown of thorns, the lance wound and the belt of blood” by Lisa König and others, and a follow-up paper, “Further experiments and remarks regarding the possible formation of blood stains on the Turin Shroud: stains attributed to the nailing of the hands” by the same team. They were published in the International journal ofLlegal Medicine, and are free to download.
The first paper was hotly disputed by Shroud authenticists, so you ought also to read the three comments which were also published in the Journal of Forensic Science, and the original authors reply.
Oddly, though, the blood is very rarely thought of as supernatural, and even people who think the image was the result of a miracle do not think the same about the blood.
Let us know if there’s anything more we can do to help – we’re better than ChatGPT and better than Grammarly!
Best wishes,
Hugh
Here you have my polemics with Borrini & Garlaschelli’s work:
https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/czy-blood-pattern-analysis-wyklucza-autentycznosc-caunu-turynskiego,1225.htm
Contrary to their conclusions it actually supports the Shroud’s authenticity.
Hi Hugh,
Thank you for your considered comment and your civility. You’re quite correct in stating that I need to be better informed, but isn’t it so for any of us? In fact you might wish to include yourself by your falsely claiming Remi van Haelst in 1997 used the original raw data for the C-14 dating.
Contrarily, van Haelst used published data–not the original raw data. He reworked the data published in the 1988 Nature article. As widely known, it took a court order for Oxford to release the original raw data in 2017 (e.g. McAvoy 2022 in Internat. J. Arch.). By such, “serious incongruities among the raw measurements” were found.
As you seem to view the 1988 carbon dating as truth from on high, I do grant the British Museum and Oxford have certain cachet, however I wouldn’t accept what they do blindly. I must agree with the noted archaeologist, William Meacham, in calling the C-14 testing a “fiasco,” for “the sampling, testing and interpretation done in 1988 were certainly very badly designed and executed.”
Again, the sheer fact of the convenience sampling is enough to invalidate the carbon testing. I recommend we steer clear of this 1988 fiasco and criticize the authenticists’ stand based on sound scientific principles.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Ray
Hi Ray,
Your second and third paragraphs suggests that you have not actually read ‘Radiocarbon Dating The Shroud: A Critical Statistical Analysis’ all the way through. Finding himself confused by the Damon paper statistics, Van Haelst contacted Morven Leese at the British Museum for clarification, and she sent him the same data as was later used by Tristan Casabianca. As is less widely known than you suspect, it was not necessary to send a court order to the British Museum, a polite request would have been fine. Even so, no new ‘serious incongruities among the raw measurements’ were found.
As for the fourth paragraph, I suggest that you have not read my investigations at medievalshroud.com, or you would never have said that I accept the radiocarbon results “blindly.” I suggest the reverse: are you sure you’re not accepting the various objections to the dating blindly? Would you care to quote just one or two things that you think were badly designed or executed, and what you think was wrong with them?
Or maybe not, if you’d rather stick to “sound, scientific priniciples.” For a sound, scientific analysis of almost everything connected to the Shroud, put site:medievalashroud.com “[your topic here]” and go from there.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Hugh,
Thank you for your spirited reply. I had read through the paper but I do not believe that Van Haelst got the full set of raw data as was granted in 2017 and thereafter. Moreover nearly his entire paper concerned the previously published data. Published data and raw data are quite different matter; thus researchers request raw data from experimenters apart from what the latter publish.
However this issue is really mute, for the fact that researchers since 2017 have inspected the raw data and identified major issues with the 1988 research in question. But even more basic than any of that is the fact–the undeniable fact–the 1988 research was based on convenience sampling.
Is it not true that you have not recognized this fact of convenience sampling? If you had already expressed it here, then I apologize for overlooking it. Surely if the issue of convenience sampling is not appreciated properly, then can one really be able to assess scientific research, the issue is so basic?
Thank you ever so much, for ST is so interesting and your contributions help to make it so.
Warmly,
Ray
Hi Ray,
Yes, of course Remi Van Haelst was mostly concerned with the previously published data, as that constitutes most of all the data published. The only substantially new unpublished data, which he received in 1997 and Tristan Casabianca received in 2022, consisted of the eight separate dates, two per subsample, that the Arizona lab originally sent to the British Museum, which condensed them into the four eventually published, in keeping with the results from the other two labs. Casablanca did also receive a couple of very minor discrepancies, complete with full explanations of them, about other results, but he misunderstood them, and anyway they made no difference to his overall conclusion. If you disagree, please explain where, and I’ll have another look. I know of no researchers since 2017 who have identified any “major issues with the 1988 research” that were not published long before hand. Again, if you know better, do explain what, and I’ll review my reviews!
You are, I think, correct that I have not addressed ‘convenience sampling’ as such, so I’ll do so here. What I think you don’t address is whether convenience sampling is necessarily a bad thing, which of course it isn’t. When the radiocarbon dating of archaeological artefacts is considered, the alternative, wholly random sampling is almost never appropriate, as it could result in the defacing of the artefact (although less so nowadays, when such a small sample is needed). However, there is probably a bit of a trade-off between how convenient the sample is and how representative of the whole it is. As it happened, the whole Shroud was considered in detail, not just on the occasion of the sampling in 1988, but for at least four years beforehand, and the place actually chosen was compared on site to another sample taken from the same place in 1973. Ironically, the place was just about the only point of agreement between the radiocarbon team, STuRP, archaeologist Bill Meacham and Walter McCrone, all of whom had recommended that very spot as being the most suitable.
Not a lot of people know that, and most of those who do wish they didn’t… (See “Whose Silly Idea Was It Anyway?” at medievalshroud.)
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Hugh,
Thank you for all of that, really. I appreciate your kind attention. I must inform you though that your claim about van Haelst is quite off-base: 1) van Haelst used published data not original raw data by the 1988 carbon dating ; 2) He never was given the original 1988 raw data. In fact he reports that the lead author Damon never responded, and in van Haelst (2002) he states that all but one researcher evaded him throughout. Yet you wrongly claim that van Haelst (1997) proved that Oxford/BM freely made the raw data available. By evading him? He shows no evidence of getting the raw data—his (2002) makes clearer this point.
van Haelst (2002) >>
file:///Users/apple/Documents/Van%20Haelst%202002%20.pdf
For the record, van Haelst (2002) concludes: “The claimed 95% confidence for the mediaeval age of the Shroud is NOT supported by a statistical analysis, based on the data given in Table 1 of the Nature report, [emphasis, the orig.]” and questioned “Why were the dates biased, in order to support a non-existent 95 % confidence?” He got no answers.
“In 2017, a court order, based on Freedom of Information Act requests, compelled the British Museum to release the raw data from the 1988 carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin. This was done after years of requests by scholars and researchers who wanted to examine the data and assess the validity of the dating results. The British Museum, which had initially released the results of the dating in 1989, had previously refused to release the raw data” (see e.g., Burger 2019; Casabianca et. al. (2019); Di Lazzaro et. al 2020; McAvoy ( 2021, 2022); Moss (2019). See these refs. at end of this post.
A good summary of the errors or misgivings of the 1988 carbon testing is found here: “The Shroud of Turin 1988 Carbon Dating: Triumph or Travesty?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSVMRJ-I1Z0
If half of the what is said is valid, then Oxford/BM ought to be ashamed and explains why they kept the original raw data under wraps for years.
Hugh, I agree with you that convenience sampling is not always contravened. For example it is widely used as a preliminary step in experimental or survey research. I note also that the 1988 convenience sampling was made for–not by– the researchers. But they did not use it as a preliminary step but the be-all-end- all test. Perhaps that was not their intention, but how their research ended—with an exclamation mark ( “1260-1390!”) and project lead Hall’s unsubstantiated claim that ST had to have been fraud. To me those are tipoffs that Hall et. al had an agenda in doing the research. Joe Makino shares this view and has written extensively on it, something I just came across in one of his related articles Makino (2023), https://www.academia.edu/100242554/_Someone_just_got_a_piece_of_linen_faked_it_up_and_flogged_it_Professor_Edward_Hall_and_the_Turin_Shroud
Various issues pertain but I believe they all emanate from how Hall et. al used the convenience sampling—not preliminarily or provisionally— but conclusively. Surely they knew the ST had been repaired as there are obvious patch marks, as well as knowing that their sub-samples were biased by location: The less outer on the ST they were, the older their test score. So the innermost area of the ST could possibly be hundreds of years older than the outer edges. Thus the subsamples were not uniform and possibly contaminated or infused with repair fabric.
Not an iota of tentativeness was expressed about their testing results but rather finality by their exclamation mark (it’s not merely a mark of punctuation but implies a backstory, a subtext, by which we can reasonably surmise a prior view was held by the research project). I am not arguing for a particular side, pro or con for the ST, but rather reliably produced research, dispassionately made. Please continue serving the community by making us think.
Warmly,
Ray
Refs. for the 2017 a court order of the British Museum:
Burger (2019) >>https://aleteia.org/2019/07/22/new-data-questions- finding-that-shroud-of-turin-was-medieval-hoax
Casabianca T., Marinelli E., Pernagallo G., Torrisi B. ‘Radiocarbon dating of
the Turin Shroud: new evidence from raw data’, Archaeometry (2019) 61,
1223-1231.
McAvoy (2019) >>https://opg.optica.org/ao/viewmedia.cfm?uri=ao-58- 25-6958&seq=0&html=true
McAvoy ( 2021) >>https://article.sciencepg.com/pdf/ija.20210902.11
Moss (2019). >>https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shroud-of-turin-was-declared-a-fraud-new-research-has-some-asking-for-a-retrial/
Hi Ray,
I must say I admire your persistence, misconceived though it be…
1). Refer to Radiocarbon Dating The Shroud: A Critical Statistical Analysis; the bit beginning: “I asked the British Museum for some explications. Dr. Morven Leese explained the LOW Arizona errors as follows : Arizona did not send in FOUR, but EIGHT “paired” dates, each pair measured the same day, with the same set of standards and blanks. The EIGHT “dependent” dates were combined in FOUR “independent dates, given in Table 1 (Nature). Each pair of DEPENDENT dates are combined into an INDEPENDENT date.” Then see the table immediately following, where the unpublished Arizona dates are listed, and some rather confusing calculations some way further on still, where they are involved further. It is these eight dates that constitute all the excitement generated by Tristan Casabianca’s paper twenty years later.
2). He was given the eight Arizona dates which constitute the entire basis of the Casabianca argument that the radiocarbon date was wrong, and published them, as you can see. I did not “claim that van Haelst (1997) proved that Oxford/BM freely made the raw data available,” but since you mention it, the sentence quoted above, coupled to the table following, do seem to substantiate the fact that he received what he asked for. The records in the British Museum, which I have spent three days personally inspecting, contain all the correspondence between Morven Leese and Remi van Haelst.
3). The 2002 paper you quote is typical of Van Haelst’s style, and between the lines can be read the gradual straining of the patience of the radiocarbon team and Morven Leese in particular, until they eventually got fed up. The point was not that Morven Leese didn’t explain her reasoning, but that Van Haelst refused to accept it because it didn’t fit his idea of how the statistical analysis should be carried out.
4). The quote about a “court order” is absurd, and not substantiated by Casabianca’s paper. I’ve no doubt that he submitted a Freedom of Information Act request, but there was, in fact, no need, as the information was freely available if he had simply asked to see it. There is no evidence of anybody asking the British Museum for the data previously, and the “years of requests by scholars and researchers who wanted to examine the data and assess the validity of the dating results” is completely made up.
5). I think you misunderstand this:
“Surely they knew the ST had been repaired as there are obvious patch marks… ”
Of course they did. However the radiocarbon sample area wasn’t one of them, and was inspected carefully by two textile historians to check.
“…as well as knowing that their sub-samples were biased by location: The less outer on the ST they were, the older their test score.” No. The less outer the younger the test score.
“So the innermost area of the ST could possibly be hundreds of years older than the outer edges.” No. Hundreds of years younger (see Bob Rucker), but that’s an absurd extrapolation.
“Thus the subsamples were not uniform and possibly contaminated or infused with repair fabric.” Something like that, I agree. However, there is no evidence or repair, so it is possible, as suggested by Schwalbe and Walsh, that some residual contamination is involved. The maximum amount by which any such contamination could effect the date is calculable, and, as Schwalbe and Walsh said, could mean that the date should be adjusted by twenty years or so.
Keep up the good work – it keeps me on my toes!
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Hugh,
We are in mutual admiration of each other, for you so persist as you do. Surely you elsewhere denied that Oxford/BM raw data was under wraps by citing van Haelst 1997 because apparently to you his re-working the published data was equivalent to having received the full set of raw data. Yes of course he got some specks of it with apparently a female staff at BM, maybe part of the research team, but was his attempts to confirm his calculations. He showed no evidence of getting the complete record of data, procedures, protocals and so on.
I agree with you about what his “style” and having to read between the lines. Frankly his 97 article is non-standard and seems like a student assignment report; whereas his 02 article, though still non-standard, was a great cleanup of his 97 one. There I agree with you that, in my words, might have been seen as a gadfly. He ruffled their feathers a bit. But they likely would be accommodating by virture of his being helped (likely) by his professor or academic advisor. It is regretful they evaded him so much however. I would not have brought forth van Haelst had it not been for your misdirected claim using his 97 article to counter the widespread report of the 2017 legal action to gain access to the raw data.
We’re at an impasse you and I and likely mutually at ease with our own view. You are a committed skeptic and seemingly so entrenched, would require the ST to stand up and dance before entertaining anything else. That’s fine for it takes different strokes for differnt folks. i am less committed either way. I truly have appreciated your interest as previously noted. There is no way that a scientific view can accept convenience sampling as taken so broadly as you and others have promoted. Actually :) I am trying to tie loose ends of my correspondence before taking off on a trip with my wife, for it is likely I won’t be at my computer at all for sometime. But I hope we share again for ST is a marvelous endeavor and the exchanges here so civil and welcoming.
My best,
Ray
Indeed. It’s been a pleasure to correspond.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Dan’s writings read like the confections of a sensationalist looking for fame or notoriety.
After reading his tortuous, largely a priori objections, one is left with the many unsolved enigmas of the shroud still hanging and unaddressed. The impression remaining after reading his stuff is one of irrelevance.
He appears to have no interest in the shroud’s real puzzles, which are multifarious and go far beyond the narrow purview of his ‘refutations’.
In common with all of the proponents of the shroud’s ‘inauthenticity’, he can only sustain his position by ignoring most of the growing mountains of evidence in favour of authenticity. His points are narrow, highly selective and carping. His chief inspiration appears to be the bilious eructations of Christopher Hitchens, a man whose incisive scepticism was unfortunately allied to wide ranging ignorance.
Dan can be dismissed as a propagandistic, axe-grinding hack and his contribution to shroud research as more or less useless.
Bravo. You read it. Most people did not and will not. Confections?
Hi Dan , I loved your essay. It was beautifully written You are an intelligent person and possess great culture.
Take care.
PHPL