Talk:Shroud of Turin

The face of Jesus is European

so now that the face of Jesus is reconstructed as European, Greek Like, what will pseudo scientists say about him being middle eastern 2600:1004:B0A7:A529:0:27:7522:E201 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That he was middle-eastern. By definition. Also, not the first flying clue what you are on about regarding a "reconstruction." Did they find remains and I missed it? Dumuzid (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it would be unexpected if remains were found, per the Ascension . A Midjourney image"became an overnight social media sensation" in the wake of the wider media storm over Dr De Caro's study. Uncanny how much it looks like Newton. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

But it is expected that he made a selfie using the Shroud before he got beamed up? This is so weird. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The following link (click here) claims that: "Jesus’ blood type is the ultra-rare AB+ that universally accepts all other blood types, but is not accepted by any other blood types (probably symbolic of the reality that none can truly come to Christ unless God the Father draws him). This blood type, while extremely rare, has a slightly higher incidence among people of Middle Eastern descent, confirming Jesus’ incarnation and Abrahamic descent."

The close-up of the face currently featured on the article is not reliable, because it is an 'enhanced' image. Unaltered close-ups on the link provided, however, could certainly pass for 1st Century Eastern Mediterranean. (click here)

It wasn't until several centuries after the beginnings of Christianity, that the Arab expansion changed the demographics of the Eastern Mediterranean. Before this, the region had been a cross-cultural hub of three major continents.

In the Acts of the Apostles, there were visiting Arabs among the first Christians at Pentecost (Acts 2:20 - "Both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs — We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”). A prophecy about Jesus is explained to a visiting Nubian African, and a devout centurion hears the Gospel in Caesarea.

In the 1st Century, the Eastern Mediterranean was also multi-lingual, with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin each being widely spoken (among numerous other languages). 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:B056:93A8:3C89:6F47 (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We are not interested in your blog. Take your blog elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed skeptic friendly update to resolve concerns re Dr De Caro's study, and for concordance with mainstream science

Hello all. For ease of discussion I made this demo edit to show changes that might resolve the neutrality and accuracy issues that have caused the recent concern.

I've read all discussions above and may have identified a slight oversight by the veteran editors on this page, which may explain recent contention. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but veteran editors here seem to believe the 1988 Nature finding , AKA Damon et al. (1989) is still considered valid. In fact, it's been undeniably discredited, at least from a mainstream science perspective. Granted, the maths behind this may be little challenging to follow if one lacks post grad training in stats. But it's can be easily demonstrated by a look at WP:BESTSOURCES. The article already has the two best recent sources: Casabianca 2019 & Walsh 2020 but doesn't do an especially good job of representing them accurately.

As you may know, refusal to release the raw data on which Damon et al. (1989) was based was always a red flag for the impartial mainstream scientist. The first few pages of Walsh 2020 reviews previous work casting doubt against the medieval dating. This started to get interesting after good Tristan Casabianca was baptised into faith in 2016. In 2017, he successfully used legal action to force British Museum to release the data. With help from accomplished statistics Professor Benedetto Torrisi & others, he published a paper showing why Damon et al. (1989) can no longer be considered reliable. All credit to Oxford University, despite hosting one of the labs responsible for the embarrassing Nature article, they agreed for Torrisi to publish the study in Archaeometry one of the most prestigious journals in the admittedly somewhat niche field of radiocarbon dating.

Turning back to the other quality recent source, the current version of our article suggests that Walsh 2020 concludes "the stated date range needs to be adjusted by up to 88 years in order to properly meet the requirement of "95% confidence"" This is an entirely false WP:OR reading of what the source actually says. Walsh 2020 could not be more clear that Damon et al. (1989) is too flawed to draw any meaningful conclusions. It states that Damons's procedure is inappropriate since it deliberately ignores the heterogeneous nature of the data uncovered by the analysis and introduces error into the statistical analysis. That We reject the Damon et al. (1989) approach as outlined above. And from its 'Summary and Conclusion' section: Our review and analysis of the Shroud radiocarbon data reveal a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989). No one has made a serious attempt to counter the rebutals of Damon et al. (1989) as the mathematical case is undeniable.

Turning back to the hundreds of media reports inspired in August by good Dr De Caro , several of them note the fact that many of the > 170 peer reviewed studies released since Damon et al. (1989) have found HS to be genuine, or at least dating to 1st century AD, with some stating this interpretation is increasingly favoured. Of course, these sources were just newspapers, and editors here are free to ignore such sources when it comes to science. And if you don't agree with my WP:BESTSOURCES analyses, I guess it's fine to retain the current pro Damon version. At least until we have a meta analyses or similar review level source that says otherwise, published in a quality journal. Trying to be agreeable here as I'm appreciative of the work you guys do against fringe so don't want to demotivate skeptics by pushing the mainstream view too strongly. But of course I hope you'll find my contribution helpful and will chose to re-revert my revert back to this more accurate version of our HS article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, Habermas's conclusion is that it was due to a miracle. Since no way a vanilla shroud covering a vanilla corpse could produce "the photo of Jesus". He knows full well that's impossible, that's why he claims the shroud is evidence of a miracle. If there is a rule of mainstream science, that is 'there will be no miracles here'.

Stated otherwise, Habermas knows that the claim that the Shroud of Turin was produced by natural processes (i.e. not art) is untenable.

If you want to believe that the shroud was due to a miracle: it's a free country, but that is by default not a scientific claim. Science cannot do anything with such claim, it has no use for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. 20 year's back I'd have welcomed the opportunity to explore that line of thinking further, especially with a keen minded editor like your good self. WP:OR is expressively not forbidden on talk pages, and can sometimes be most valuable for thrashing out the best way to improve an article. But in this case, it's seems more productive to focus on what the best quality scientific sources have to say, rather than offer our own WP:OR opinions on the supernatural etc. Unless I'm missing something, good professor Habermass is not relevant to the WP:BESTSOURCES case for revising this article. I'm not planning to reply further to WP:OR type arguments. And as said, no worries if editors here want to disregard my analysis. As a PS , if you guys are wanting to have a less WP:RS focussed chat with an editor like myself, I'd recommend you consider voting support next time Sennalen appeals her indef. She has quite a liking for some of the editors here, is 30 years younger than me, much cuter and much more patient. PS - I do appreciate the gentle natured reply though tgeorgescu , and what seems to be consideration for my possible feelings as a believer. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Habermas is not the only one positing radiation. Again: why do people posit radiation? Because they know that ordinary physical and chemical processes cannot deliver such image from a shrouded corpse.

And you don't have to know the laws of physics and chemistry in order to tell that for a fact. You just have to know geometry. Geometry does not have a "margin of error", or anything like that.

For those with knowledge of geometry, there are not that many options: either it is art, or the shroud was stretched upon a zinc plate when Jesus got radioactive. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The fun part of a discussion about the Shroud of Turin is that nobody knows how the thing exists or how or where it came from. It has not been duplicated, contains no evidence of being an artwork, and sits uncomfortably, since the 1898 photographic negative, in the middle of a historic whodunit (and whatisit). We cannot claim in Wikipedia's voice that a miracle or a radiation-sensation occurred, which is OR at its finest, but room for cited legitimate doubt about the certainty of dating the cloth deserves a well-written line or two. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Even Ken Ham does not fight against geometry. The only naturalistic explanation for the shroud is that it's art. So, the shroudies have to say it's a miracle because that's the only way of saying "not art". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not a painting, as the image only exists on the very top of the strands of the fabric, not possible with paint. The other artwork explanations have not been duplicated except in piecemeal fashion (which don't approximate the totality of the factors involved). Quite an interesting topic, and that such a mystery exists so deep into the 21st century tests the ingenuity of those who wish to create a reasonable facsimile. And since I'm commenting, I agree with those who say that the first image should be one of the negatives and not a retouched rendition. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

not possible with paint—then not possible with blood, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I know! What I don't know, nor does anyone else, is how this thing was made. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia just reflects the sources. See Shroud of Turin#Hypotheses on image origin. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Casabianca's "proof" is based purely on statistics. This is based on the fact that the dates from the three labs were slightly different - which Walsh et al admit could have been due to the different cleaning methodologies used. There were only three labs, so it is easily coincidental that the three dates were in an apparent gradient. In addition, as has been discussed many times before on this talk page, the Arizona sample was actually taken at both ends of the sampled strip, so there is actually no gradient in real life. Therefore, based on statistics, Casabianca's "gradient-based proof" is fictitious. Just more straw-clutching from a convert recently baptised into the faith. Sad. Wdford (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for engaging with the WP:RS! That's a valiant way to make your case, but I'd suggest it's more helpful to look as this way round:

• Damon's claim to "95% confidence" rests purely on statistics.
• Casabianca forced British Museum to release the raw data on which Damon et al. (1989) was based, exposing it to the public scrutiny of mainstream science.
• Casabianca and colleagues clearly demonstrated Damon's fallacious statistical bases.
• Given that Oxford University allowed Casabianca to publish in the prestigious Archaeometry , that Casabianca's been corroborated by others, and with no significant rebuttal after five years, Damon can no longer be considered reliable.

Just my take of course, if you guys still prefer to retain the existing heterodox treatment of Damon in the article, I guess we can leave it at that.

But how about a mention of Dr De Caro's study, now it's been covered by a skeptic friendly source ? I was thinking of something like: In August 2024, intense media attention was given to a 2022 study finding that the Shroud may date back to the time of Jesus. The study used the novel wide-angle X-ray scattering technique, and caution has been expressed about drawing conclusion on the Shrouds' true age, unless further research validates the results. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Damon et al based their results on an established radiocarbon dating process, which has stood the test of time, and which has been verified repeatedly by a range of C14 experts. No C14 expert has ever refuted the Damon result. Some stats boffins have argued that the dating range is too narrow and should be widened by a few years – see Walsh as already mentioned. Nothing about this is “fallacious”, other than your claim.

Casabianca’s methodology is fine, hence the publication. However his conclusions are unreliable, because he side-steps the FACT that the dating variations could easily be explained by the different cleaning protocols between the three labs – as per Walsh - and that this apparent “gradient” does not require some sci-fi anomaly explanation. Casabianca also leaves out the FACT that the Arizona samples were taken from both ends of the sample strip, which completely eliminates any theories about anomalous gradients. I see that you ignore these FACTS as well?

I am opposed to including any fringe clickbait in the article. However if it was perhaps to be included in the parallel article Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, then the wording would need to be a bit more neutral, such as perhaps this: “In August 2024, intense media attention was given to a 2022 dating study which was based on the untested and unverified wide-angle X-ray scattering technique. This study claimed, like so many others before it, that the Shroud may date back to the time of Jesus. The study has many flaws, including that the sample tested is not verified Shroud material, and thus any conclusions drawn from this about the Shrouds' true age are unreliable and speculative.”

How about that? Wdford (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd expect it might be a little challenging to find a WPL:RS to support that proposed wording. That said, I'm not concerned either way about edits to the Fringe article.

Going back to our main HS article, it may be helpful to clarify that it's a misreading of Walsh 2020 to imagine he's saying we could still have 95% confidence in Damon's 1260 — 1390 date range if only it was adjusted by 88 years. Walsh is saying that if the Zurich & Arizona results were adjusted up by ~ 88 years, then the heterogeneity issue would not have arisen. But they weren't, so even if Damon widened his range by 300 years either way, it would still have been fallacious to claim 95% confidence. Don't worry if this isn't easy to see - the phrase Lies, damned lies, and statistics hasn't resonated in mainstream conversation for over a hundred years for nothing. Even the very brightest can easily misinterpret stats if they lack proper training You could ask the good folks over at wiki project maths if you dont want to take my word for it.

Even better you could learn to be a stats boffin yourself! The extensive quality free training over at Khan's academy might be a place to start. After seeing tgeorgescu wax lyrical about Euclidian Geometary, I'm inspired to quote from Proclus's Commentary on Euclid's Elements : "When 'the eye of the soul' is blinded and corrupted by other concerns, mathematics alone can revive and awaken the soul again to the vision of being, can turn her from images to realities and from darkness to Light

At this point, I think I've stated the mainstream position on Damon's unreliability with perfect clarity. If y'all don't find it convincing, then so be it.I'm going to take my leave from further discussion. As a parting gift though, I'll concede you're essentially correct with your point about cleaning protocol. Walsh does indeed mention several hypothetical improvements for the 1988 work, which had they actually be done, might have afforded Damon's medieval dating hypothesis some validity.FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

IFLScience is not a "skeptic-friendly source". It's mainly clickbait.

It's also a mistake to both-sides this and denigrate as "skeptics" those who accept the prosaic explanation. Mediaeval forgeries are a thing, miracles aren't. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, you do not seem to be reading Walsh's paper correctly. I don't see anything in there that casts doubt on the medieval dating. I see a statistical indication that the dates might be off by something on the order of a century at most, and that's it. Walsh's analysis questions whether it was correct to combine the three lab's dates into a single mean, but it does not change the fact that each of the three labs found dates that fell solidly in the medieval era and precluded any possibility that the material that was tested was as old as 2000 years. Walsh's point that the heterogeneity should have been investigated does not really impact the overall conclusion that the shroud is medieval in origin.--Srleffler (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

To repeat.[1] Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

From the Casabianca paper - page 7 - "Each TS raw and published radiocarbon date indicates a medieval interval for the fabric."

From the Casabianca paper - final paragraph - "The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth."

Casabianca has show considerable bias in his assumptions and conclusions. He doesn't bother to mention the differences in the cleaning methodologies, or the FACT that the "foreign material" was cleaned off the samples before they were dated, or the FACT that no C14 expert has ever contradicted the Damon results, etc etc. This paper passed peer review only because he made it clear that Damon's reliability is only being questioned for the size of the confidence interval.

Casabianca was clearly clutching at straws, attempting to keep the "debate" alive by twisting the facts. As Walsh recognized, the problem with the confidence interval can be fixed by expanding the confidence interval by just a few decades, and the "lack of heterogeneity" could easily be due to the differences in cleaning protocols. Nothing supernatural going on here, move along. Wdford (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is fair to say that Casabianca was biased or clutching at straws, but it is certainly true that many people who are not experienced in reading scientific and statistical papers misread his concern about the accuracy of the size of the interval as having invalidated the whole test. For anyone who doesn't yet get it: there is no conceivable statistical analysis of the data that is going to expand the interval from 1260–1390 AD to include dates as early as first-century AD. Casabianca and Walsh have made a reasonable argument that the interval might be a bit bigger than was quoted; maybe by as much as a hundred years. Walsh has made a reasonable case that the original team could have approached the statistical analysis differently. Neither paper throws any actual doubt on the conclusion that the Shroud is medieval in origin. --Srleffler (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point.

If we know one thing about True Believers, it's that every criticism of the reality-based explanation is unassailable and validates the entirety of their mad alternative. This applies to all True Believers, from homeopathists to moon hoaxers. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

Amongst the discussion of eras and studies, a bit of attention on the lead image. It is now digitally filtered and a bit refined, but not the original or later negative image straight from the camera. Quite a few editors have discussed replacing it with the true negative image, either from 1898 or later. Main article editors, any objections? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

What's a 'true negative image'? I'd expect anything photographic from 1898 to have very limited fidelity. Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is that, Bon courage? Black and white photography was very sophisticated by 1898, and the lens quality of high end cameras was outstanding. Cullen328 (talk)

Largely because of the generally-apparent limitations of old plate photography. However, reading up on it, I see the photographer for the first photograph (Secondo Pia) did use large plates and get floodlights lights set up, although this caused a glare problem since the shroud was under glass. I'd expect more recent analogue or digital photography to obtain a more 'true' result. Bon courage (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I imagine the OP is referring to the lead image which has a description indicating that the right-hand picture is from a digital filter applied by Dianelos. See c:Special:Contributions/Dianelos and c:Category:Shroud of Turin. Shroud of Turin mentions "negative" and includes an 1898 image. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The opening image is a two-panel, with the first photograph being unretouched and the second one retouched. That itself is confusing, as presenting the unretouched image implies that the second is as well. It is not. The image you linked is a portion of the original and historic 1898 negative photograph of a human head and face that caused much of the resulting brouhaha and is what the page is largely about. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)