Robust statistics on new scientific tests are dating Shroud of Turin on the time of Christ!

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Tangerine

Dear Tangerine,

It is clear that you are trying to boycott the thread in all possible ways. Everybody that have read my threads in the past knows since years ago that I am an European member of the ATS community.

My native language is not English, and maybe you don't believe this, but there are many Scientists with serious academic careers and credentials that are not American and that have published their research in other languages and even they are working right now in some of the best Universities in the USA.

Now, let me suggest you , just for elemental respect to the copyrights, that when you cite anything of Dr Fanti work please at least use the formal way to provide pages of his book from which you are extracting quotes , before to carry out any interpretation of them for the rest of the readers.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

If I were boycotting the thread, I wouldn't be posting. You do not understand the meaning of the word boycott. You do also not understand the meaning of the word elemental. I didn't cite Fanti's "work". You did. You seem terribly confused about this topic and the process of supporting your claims on this thread. I leave you to your confusion. By now it is apparent to others that you have utterly failed to support the claim made in the title of your thread.

Dear readers of the thread and forum,


It is clear that indeed somebody is confused here on what is the topic of the thread:

The Robust statistic tests carried out on the new dating of the Shroud of Turin,

a topic discussed in the book:

The mystery of the Sindone, published in Italian and English by editorial Ricotti.

and also to whom belong the claims that are on discussion:

Professor Dr Giulio Fonti et Al, An interdisciplinary research team of Universities of Bologna, Modena, Udine, Parma, Padua and London.

I am going to reply again when I see that somebody post something really relevant with respect to the subject, not about
other personal matters.

By the way when anybody is referring to claims that belong to the theory that is the topic of this thread is necessarily citing the ideas of its author, in other words Dr Giulio Fanti who has written the mentioned book.

I am the person that opened the thread, but not the author of the research work that it is describe on it, that is something quite evident
if your read carefully my posts before to reply.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Let me help the serious readers of the thread to grasp the principal result of the new research on the Shroud we are discussing here:

There is something really meaningful to clarify , especially for the ones of you that don't have a strong foundation in Statistics, it is why this is called Robust Statistics method used by Italian and British Universities to determine an important bias of the radio carbon dating of the shroud.

The beauty on the approach used by Dr Fanti, on his questioning of the dating of the shroud, is that he is using analysis of Variance, that was carried out by his team on the original data that was provided by the results of the three laboratories that worked on 1988 to show that there is something wrong in the sample.

The key factor here is that such ANOVA checking is uncovering the fact that the material tested was not homogeneous, but pretty heterogeneous, more than what is acceptable from the point of view of knowledge by Statistics of how a pure substance behaves.

This contamination is showed with actual numbers from the results of the test of 1988, so It doesn't require additional testing. In other words the same data that was used to "prove" that the Shroud was not as old as it must be, is now saying to us that there is something pretty abnormal on the sampling.

This abnormality reach a point that it is reasonable to conclude that the level of impurities present in the sample is critical to bias dramatically an accurate dating of the original object.

Dr Fanti team has showed that what actually was measured is the radio carbon of a kind of mixture in between the object itself , the Shroud, and something else that didn't correspond originally to it, but was added to it along its History.

This is in a friendly and flat language what this research is contributing in the discussion that the Shroud couldn't be accurately dated using Radio Carbon.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

Validation that the entire story is true and there a was a Man (the Son of God) who did all that has been said He did for Me? I will Celebrate the Shroud's vindication with everyone else. 'Til then:

I pray for who still believe and we share that faith with.

The issue with the source content is that they (Fanti and collaborators) haven't actually proved anything.

What they have done is provided a "probability range" of the shroud being from "around" the first century, using questionable samples as a basis (quote from the comments section of one of the OP links) ...

Fanti’s work was done with HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE samples that would have never been used by any credible and ethical scientist in order to “prove” anything. The fact that all his research is based on this kind of highly questionable material says it all…

... no certainty at all.

They have used a bunch of tricky methodology to decrease the potential age window of the shroud, and increase the "confidence window" for that age bracket, all the while shaving of any statistical outliers to homogenise the results in a manner that suits their hypothesis.

This is evidenced by comments such as "... For me the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favour to the authenticity,... ", or "... possibly caused by the mysterious energy that produced the image. ", and then basing "chemical analysis" on the shroud with a "mystery" as its basis. Without adequately defining what you are testing at the outset leaves a lot of wiggle room to massage the results in your favour.

This speaks... in fact screams... of confirmation bias.

Even accepting their dubious starting point, at best they are establishing a 95% probability of the shroud being from Jesus' time... the problem with statistic is the "statistical anomaly"... I'll take a 1 in 20 punt that the shroud is a hoax from the middle ages.

The other point of this thread; Good Forum Etiquette.

To The Angel of Light
You have shown excellent restraint and good manners, The Angel of Light, in dealing with Tangerine's relentless approach in this thread. You have been a beacon of decorum, even if I don't agree with your views and feel that you are blurring the line between good science and your beliefs. However, you have been unwilling to admit that there is no actual proof and merely statistical number play in Fanti’s experiments, which may have led to Tangerine's attitude to begin with. In Fanti’s own words; "... there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs."

To Tangerine
While I agree with everything you are saying, and generally respect your views in other threads, you are showing very little compassion in your approach to The Angel of Light (who has been patient and beseeched you for discussion), and your tone doesn't come across as friendly. Rather it comes across as short, confrontational and verging on rude (you have dropped a few personal attacks). The Angel of Light is much better than many religious fundamentalists who just throw scripture at you. Angel has been forward with sources, and seems to be willing to have an informed discussion about the science behind Fanti's work. However, you have been very abrupt in your responses which doesn’t engender good conversation.

Sorry Angel, I do believe that Fanti is really just pushing bad science, which seems to be why he is publishing a book; both to make money from a controversial subject (never a good look), but also to have a vehicle to publish non-peer reviewed results in (I can't find any indication of peer review for the content of his book), and given his known ideological position on the shroud doesn’t bode well for his scientific credibility.

Thanks for the thread!

Some of the comments in this link from the OP are hilarious!...

Yes, we’ll need to see the experimental protocols in detail. With that caveat, one has to say that initial impressions are not favourable, even if we had been unaware of Professor Fanti’s previous excursions into “theoscience”. If I were an Italian scientist, I’d be thinking right now about an urgent letter to the Accademia dei Lincei, that country’s equivalent of the UK’s Royal Society, or the US National Academy of Sciences etc. The Lincean Academy (anglicized name) is even older than the Royal Society, having been founded in 1603, with the distinction of having had Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) as one of its founder members. Methinks Galileo would be turning in his grave right now, seeing what currently passes for science in the cradle of the Renaissance.

They really speak volumes as to the respect others have of Fanti's work. lol

... moving along...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

you do realize that Jesus Christ besides his high intellect also had a great power over multitudes of people as well as one on one encounters with people which elude to the fact he had a dominating physical form...

the easiest example of this is when he drove out the money changers from the temple, that was him alone against a horde...

Another example is when he confronted a large group of supposedly holy men who were about to stone a woman to death, when he spoke the famous words. " let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

Although the message itself is strong and just I don't see it being taken seriously without a strong physical presence backing up his disagreement with thier death sentence....

There are many other things written in the bible that make it easy to believe he stuck out like a sore thumb in a crowd...

I would go so far as to say he was not white he was not black but bronze and that he had very light blonde hair not an Afro or straight instead was wavy and his eyes were blue like a burning flame another thing his voice was very loud and deep able to be well heard by large groups held captive by his intellect presence and communication...

everyone always so ready to knock jesus down...all Jesus ever wanted for everyone is to lift you up!

that being said I myself have always believed the shroud is the real deal and is only becoming more mysterious as technology reveals more of the evidence hidden on the shroud which makes it more and more miraculous and adds greater credence to its authenticity...

I would also like to say although I have never seen Jesus I do believe in him and I know full well he has done many things for me... these things I attribute to his aide alone, he offers all his blessings... you just have to have faith... it is in this way he has revealed himself to me... So for all you have done and will do...

Thank You Jesus!

a reply to: The angel of light

See the thing is that EVERYTHING about the Shroud is wrong. The projection of a man is a 2d projection not a 3d projection. The projection doesn't look like someone from Jesus' time and locale would look (more than just the height thing I pointed out earlier). Ever since this thing has been known about it is claimed to be the burial shroud of Jesus, so your story of it being an icon doesn't make sense.

All the pieces just align to say that this was created to fool a bunch of religious people, and despite it being a poor forgery it's still working. This is like scientists still using Piltdown Man to prove Evolution. It's already been proven a hoax, so you are supposed to drop it from the pool of available evidence. Granted there isn't much evidence (if any) for Jesus' existence, but that doesn't mean you cling to an obvious hoax so that you can say evidence exists.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Krazysh0t

*off topic Jesus cheerleader rant snipped*

Don't care and it's all completely off topic. Nothing about what you just said confirms that the Shroud of Turin is the real deal and just adds unneeded emotional baggage to the investigation, so I deleted it. That goes for the rant in your third paragraph as well. You liking Jesus is irrelevant to this conversation. The only thing that is relevant is the evidence which disagrees with you completely.

that being said I myself have always believed the shroud is the real deal and is only becoming more mysterious as technology reveals more of the evidence hidden on the shroud which makes it more and more miraculous and adds greater credence to its authenticity...

TECHNOLOGY is revealing that the shroud is a fake and has been revealing that ever since technology was allowed to look at it. I posted pretty concise evidence that this is the case, but hey a Christian ignoring evidence and inserting his own conclusion and making up evidence to fit his preconceived conclusion is par the course for these conversations. I'm not surprised here.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Hi Dear Puzzlesphere,

Let me comment , this not just for you but for everybody that decides to take part on a high level discussion of this topic ,it is better in order to preserve the technical level of the discussion to add in any quote the exact name of the publication and the author of it. That is much clear than only suggest to the readers to check a link.

I am absolutely sure that I judged correctly a so much clear attempt to boycott the thread and deviate it in other directions, like for instance in to try to deny the historicity of Christ. I think that is possible another interesting topic but has nothing to do with this one of the Shroud.

There are dozens of reliable Historic accounts either from Historians of that time, civil records or from Jewish religious records that certified beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed in the time frame we use to associate with him and that was executed by the Roman Empire under the charges of subversion of the public order.

Again, I mention this just as a remark , anyway the discussion of the proofs of the existence of Jesus as a Historic figure belongs to other kind of threads in other very different forum of ATS, not this one, and it is unacceptable that somebody try to kidnap the thread to transform it in a show around anti-Christian personal obsessions, traumas or fanatic convictions.


Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

the Shroud....actual relic OR middle ages/ Enlightenment era prop...
It seems like a US Open Championship match... heads bobbing back-&-forth watching a tennis ball go over the net...first one side slams a serve but a return volley surprises the crowd...over & over again the players pull off super returns which ups the level of anticipation for the next backhand or finesse..


what needs to be explored more is not the artifact itself but the act/event/process whereby a 'Transfiguration' takes place...or the changing of physical biological matter into the stuff of ? higher dimensional? Spirit essence

Jesus was described as changing into the higher dimensional 'body' on some mountain in front of 3 apostles... and Jesus conversed with (I think) Moses and Elijah who were also in the energetic bodies of Angels/spirits

on that mount of transfiguration... the garments that Jesus /Isa should have been 'scorched' with that same 'glory' light-energy as is likely responsible for the image on the Shroud...

a transfiguration and a resurrection event should amount to the same thing... changing the mortal/biological body for a 'spiritual' body'...I sure would like to read about studies, theories, connections to the Cern high energy physics experiments in opening these wormholes to the realm we call heaven where non physical entities live in uncorruptable bodies (bodies not subject to decay or limited cell divisions)

a reply to: St Udio

Well Dear St Udio,

What has attracted a lot my attention from the research carried out on this subject by experts of the Padua, Parma, Bologna, London, Medona, Udine Universities is that I also have relevant expertise in outliers detection , that is in the core of the strategy used by them to demonstrate that something is really wrong in the Carbon Dating of 1988.

I consider their arguments are very clean, they exhibit a good use of the statistics tools to uncover an evident sample contamination.

The distance in time among the tentative dates for the object is so much to be acceptable under the probability distribution assumptions that are characteristic of the Carbon dating data analysis. ( In between the lower bound of the dating and upper bound there are practically two hundred years, when in a well done test of this type the interval must be no
longer than +/- 35 years around a possible date. )

The way the three laboratories agreed to erase at least two of the dates , considering them as outliers, is not only highly questionable as a professional practice, is an attitude that clearly says a lot of the desperation they had to try to close the case at once to defend their own
prestige.

Outliers along History of Statistics many times have been valuable source to detect actual failures in testing methods, even new discoveries have been found through their carefully analysis, like hidden variables that were not originally considered in the original regression model.

When you are working in quantitative data Analysis you must consider all your collected data, it is not professional to ignore part of it to arrive to conclusions that you want to "show" , such a make up is unacceptable in modern statistics.

This is explained in a preliminary paper of Dr Fanti Team that was published before the book was released:

Presented at the International Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images
ENEA Research Center of Frascati (Italy) 4-5-6 May 2010

A robust statistical Analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud Radio Carbon Dating results, G Fanti, F Crosilla , M Riani, A C Atckinson


Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: CornShucker

Well Dear CornShucker,

I agree with you, that many findings around the shroud are just validating what History has told about this so relevant figure , even if you don't see only the biblical Christian accounts, but refer to secular sources of that period.

I appreciate the good understanding that many have showed toward my attitude to try to maintain order in the evolution of thread.

I just have done what I know is professional in a scientific discussion, after all this is not a court in which somebody can come here to try to drive the jurors with impressive rhetoric abilities, there is no space for histrionic strategies in a topic like this.

This is a forum that is devoted to Parapsychology, and so it is inserted on the field of science research around what ever is considered as Paranormal, and of course the person of Jesus Christ is plenty of paranormal aspects , especially the ones connected with his death.

Now, I don't think the work of the multidisciplinary team leaded by Dr Giulio Fanti is registered in any fundamentalist Christian movement, what those scientists are doing is to try to answer an question that remain open since long time ago, that is :

Why the radio carbon of the Shroud is contradicting a lot of other non destructive ways of dating that points all together in the opposite direction?.

Before the Radio carbon testing was carried out there were experts in forensic pathology, in cloth techniques, archaeologists, biologists, experts in Art History, Physicists, Chemists that found hints that pointed so much strongly in the direction of authenticity of the object, at least as an object of devotion of early christian times, a very rare kind of so much old byzantine icon representing the actual burial clothes described in the Bible. Images as objects to decorate temples are not forbidden in Eastern Orthodox Christianity or in Latin or Anglican Catholicism even in our days.

I don't want to extend too much my reply, but in favor of the possible authenticity of this piece of linen as the burial cloth of Christ or a very old representation of it there many aspects difficult to deny:

- The presence of pollen of all the area of middle east in the cloth, including plants that are already extint many centuries ago.
- The patterns that were used to manufacture the cloth, typical of the time of Christ in Syria Palestine,
- The absence of artist pigments, solvents, charcoal or pencil at all
- The presence of a faded image that look like what it is stamped in an object exposed to powerful radiation,
- The presence of serum, actual blood and also bilirubin in important amounts
- The clear image stamped of two small roman coins of Tiberius period over the eyes of the man of the shroud
- The fact that the image on the Shroud does not reveal just the external aspect of the body but even internal structures, like a modern RX plate.
- The impressive anatomic precision of all the wounds inflicted on the victim of such death, even contradicting an entire tradition of artist representation of Jesus that we now know do not correspond to the reality, like the nails of Crucifixion crossing the palm of the hands.

So in resume this is far to be a common object of ancient times, is not vulgar imitation that any body at that time could fake, even for the standards of today is a challenging object to be reproduced in all their intriguing details.

Thanks for your participation in the thread,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Ok... I'm not writing an academic paper here... I provided a link (one of your links from the OP)... and am not going to use full referencing techniques in a forum discussion. It was a general comment about the comments in the link talking about Fanti's work, and how unfavourable the comments were of Fanti. They highlight that the samples used were not a good source.

Also... not sure why you lectured me on Jesus's historicity... I never mentioned that at all.

If you read my posts, you'll see that the general gist of Fanti's experiments is probability and guesswork based on bad samples...

... no actual proof.

Your comment about outliers being important is true, and Fanti uses outliers when tey suit him, and exclude outliers when they don't suit him.

Very bad science.

How about you respond to my comments about the OP content rather than preach at me about Jesus's existence?

Fanti is a theoscientist, whose results in his book won't be peer reviewed.

His ideas about the age of the shroud are wrong.

Plain and simple.

originally posted by: The angel of light
deviate it in other directions, like for instance in to try to deny the historicity of Christ. I think that is possible another interesting topic but has nothing to do with this one of the Shroud.

Surely, though, the historicity of Christ is at the core of all of this; for if he wasn't real, then it follows that the shroud is a fake.
So far, the validity of the historicity of Christ is in question.

Fanti is approaching from the wrong end. He has already made his mind up and is massaging the numbers to suit.

interesting stuff…

have you seen the physicist who theorized that the resurrection as indicated by the shroud was a singularity event where the universe was literally renewed…?

hence calling on Jesus to rebuke evil (before this event blood sacrifices were required to cover failings… we had no direct authority over evil before the resurrection.

a reply to: aorAki

no serious scholar doubts Jesus existed historically… and the scholarship, archeology and history is very convincing…

yt: Lee Strobel - The Case for the Resurrection
www.youtube.com...
yt: The Bible Is True! ~ The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
www.youtube.com...
yt: Walter Veith (13) Battle of the Bibles /Total Onslaught
www.youtube.com...
youtube: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB youtu.be...
yt: The Forbidden Book - History of The English Bible (Documentary Film)
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Verum1quaere

no serious scholar doubts Jesus existed historically… and the scholarship, archeology and history is very convincing…

Nonsense!

The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present

The book is a historical review of some 35 major deniers of Jesus historicity (radicals, mythicists) covering the period 1780 – 1926, [...]

Drews describes the social consequences of a denial of historicity, and explains why so many theologians and secular researchers stick to historicity, though the ahistoricity of Jesus is scientifically as sure as that of Romulus and Remus, or the seven legendary kings of Rome. The consequences are generally underestimated.

It is quite understandable that the denial party is unique only in that point [of the non-historicity, Ahistorizität], and otherwise offers a variety of diverging explanations [each denier has his own independent hypothesis]. The church has done everything for 2000 years to obscure and hide away the origins of Christianity, so that there’s no way to get any further without speculative hypotheses.

It is obvious that no serious researcher could claim the historicity of Jesus, unless it were the savior of the dominating religion of the prevailing culture. So there’s nothing but Christian prejudice which keeps even secular researchers from admitting non-historicity

Papers, Essays and Books Critical to the Historicity of Jesus Christ :

Baron D'Holbach, Ecce Homo! The Critical History of Jesus of Nazareth, Being a Rational Analysis of the Gospels. 1770
J Archibald Robertson, Jesus: Myth or History?, 1946
"Bruno Bauer", by Douglas Moddach, 2009, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)
"History of religions"
Andrew George, What’s new in the Gilgamesh Epic?, Un. of London
Gary D. Thompson, "The Development, Heyday, and Demise of Panbabylonism" A. J. Allan, "A Forgotten Chapter: the Radicals"
Hermann Detering, "The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles", 1996
Hermann Detering: Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus. Die Paulusbriefe in der holländischen Radikalkritik – "The Pauline Epistles Without Paul", 1992 (English abstract). The full German text Die Paulusbriefe in der Holländischen Radikalkritik, 1992, 531 p. (The Pauline Epistles in the Dutch Radical School) not accessible online. The Table of Contents indicates a detailed examination of each member of the Dutch School. The extensive Introduction, p. 1-17 is accessible.

"Willem C. Van Manen & the Dutch Radicals", in Radikalkritik
Willem C. van Manen, "Paul & Paulinism", ca. 1900
Willem C. van Manen, Epistle to the Romans, ca. 1900
See also An Outline of Van Manen's Analysis of Pauline Literature in Thomas Whittaker's The Origins of Christianity, (1904–1933). Includes reviews of Acts, Romans, and 1 & 2 Corinthians
Hermann Detering, "G.J.P.J. Bolland", English Summary by Klaus Schilling

G.A. van Den Bergh van Eysinga, Early Christianity's Letters (1951)
Thomas Whittaker, "Prof. G.A. van Den Bergh van Eysinga", (1934)
Klaus Schilling, "A survey: G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga", (2003)
G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, "Does Jesus Live, or Has He Only Lived? A Study of the Doctrine of Historicity" (1930) – English Summary by Klaus Schilling (2003), a commentary on Drews's "Denial of the Historicity of Jesus"
G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Das Christentum als MysterienReligion (1950, "Christianity as a Mystery Cult")

Radikalkritik
Radikalkritik – Articles, reviews and books in English
Ernest Renan, Life of Jesus, 1863
Edwin Johnson, Antiqua mater – A Study of Christian Origins, 1887, published anonymously
Hermann Raschke, "Historical and Metaphysical Christ", excerpt from The Workshop of the Evangelist Mark (1924), p. 26-30 (text in German)
"A History of 'Jesus Denial' "— "Demolishing the Historicity of Jesus", in Jesus Never Existed, by Kenneth Humphreys

The following books support aspects of the Christ myth theory:

Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions by Godfrey Higgins, 1836
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (or Christianity Before Christ) by Kersey Graves, 1875
The Christ Myth ( or Die Christusmythe) by Arthur Drews, 1909
The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present ( or Die Leugnung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart) by Arthur Drews, 1927
Did Jesus Exist? by George Albert Wells, 1975
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, 1999
The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light (or The Pagan Christ: Is Blind Faith Killing Christianity?) by Tom Harpur, 2004
The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, 2005
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (or God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion) by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

a reply to: The angel of light

They attack just about every thread that has anything to do about Christianity/religion. Its like arguing with a wall. They will act arrogant and treat you like a simpleton. Tangerine/Krazie

Very interesting read. although, I'm still skeptical