Some months ago I was distorted into a ranting AI caricature by an over-assertive authenticist, which I thought was quite funny at the time. Its creator has since used it again in a more spiteful context, but one bad apple does not necessarily spoil the barrel – unless it is left to rot, when it infects the rest. Recently it seems the rot has indeed spread, and I find myself joined by my friend Barrie Schwortz, although this time the creators seem to think the case for authenticity is bolstered rather than weakened by their vulgarity.
Barrie’s picture, in different versions, appears in podcasts such as The Parallax File, Optic Expedition, Mystery Decoded and the Hidden Record, which are clickbait compilations of random film clips, AI generated images and for all I know AI generated commentary as well. This sort of site doesn’t fool anybody… well, actually, it obviously does, looking at the number of views and comments they engender, but surely nobody who really knows or cares. However, they are typified by bold headlines on the banner page; “Shocking!” “Unbelievable!” “Impossible!” “Not Human!”
So far, so unimpressive, but I post this to warn serious scholars not to get drawn into the same iconographic culture. The authenticist view is tarnished rather than enhanced by YouTube banners like these, even though the lower two are from genuinely scholarly sources.
AI seems to dominate popular culture at the moment, and it certainly has its place, but it has to be held on a very tight leash. The moment you loosen your grip your get something like this:
The upper photo is from a photoshoot in front of the British Museum. The lower is derived from a similar photo, but in black and white, so AI has coloured the suits as it saw fit, given Professor Edward Hall (left) a full head of hair and ginger beard, and Robert Hedges (right) a third hand clutching his waistband. Including this kind of thing in a work purporting to be a serious study of the Shroud (‘The Shroud of Turin: A Forensic Summary of the Evidence,’ by Otangelo Grasso) weakens its credibility. Firstly it suggests that the author was not completely in control of his AI assistance, and secondly it encourages speculation as to how much of the rest of the book is equally dubiously arrived at. A claim at the beginning of the book – “every claim has been verified every reference checked” – carries a lot of responsibility.
I’m sorry, William, but you’re going nowhere with this and essentially presenting your opinions in the wrong forum. This blog is about the forensic examination of data, not personal polemic, and merely repeating your vague assertions has no place here. Let’s face it, you haven’t even seen, let alone read, the protocol under which the radiocarbon tests were carried out, so you have have no idea whether it was followed or not, have you?
You’re quite correct that insults are no way to conduct an argument, but although I concur that my assessment of your presentation on Guy Powell’s podcast was hardly effusive praise, it was no more than a dispassionate assessment, justified by detailed explanation. You are hopelessly muddled aren’t you? Let me give you an example from our recent exchanges. It was you – not I – who introduced Bishop d’Arcis to your radiocarbon argument by saying, “the shroud being discussed by the Bishop has a painted image.” I wondered if you knew what you were talking about here, but you didn’t reply, as you haven’t read what the bishop said, so you don’t know whether what he was talking about was a painted image or not. Then it was you – not I – who announced that “Its clear that the Bishop’s evidence wouldn’t make it in a court of law,” to which I simply replied that the bishop’s evidence had indeed already ‘made it’ in a court of law. Then it was you – not I – who went on with “the Bishop’s correspondence regarding the forgery painting on a shroud fails to have any connecting evidence with the Shroud of Turin that has no painted image. Conjectures, guesses and postulations about no paint are not sufficient to meet the standard required to make a connection.” And now you say that it is the “Farey method” which “continues discussing the Bishop.” That’s wrong, and hopelessly muddled.
And you’re hopelessly wrong. You haven’t researched, and don’t know, the proportion of atheists in the world. You haven’t researched, and don’t know, the correlation between belief in a “spiritual realm” and belief in the authenticity of the Shroud. You don’t know what the Wednesbury Principle refers to. You don’t know who decided to sample only one site on the Shroud, you don’t know who recommended that site, and you don’t know what protocol was in place for the testing. You don’t even know what Australian courts say about defamation. That’s hopelessly wrong.
In pitting the “Juridical Science Method v Farey Method,” you do not understand the arena of dispute. For a start your misuse of the term “Juridical Science,” which doesn’t mean what you think it means, does not give us confidence in your subsequent argument, but more importantly your note, “the Farey method does not address the important facts,” is ludicrous. If you have read any of my blogposts on the subject (just enter site:medievalshroud.com “radiocarbon” into a search engine), you will know that I have read, analysed and explained in minute detail all there is to know about the “important facts.” You haven’t. I have examined every document held in the nine grey archive boxes of evidence held in the British Museum, every minute of the hours of videotape taken of the sampling in Turin in 1988, every paper, peer-reviewed or not, published regarding the statistics derived from the results of the tests, and corresponded in some detail with the authors of those papers. You claim that I have “decided to ignore the well documented failures,” when I have, unlike yourself, studied them in detail, corresponded with their authors, and published my conclusions. In opposition to all this, you have read a book.
Overall, I think your point is that detailed scientific evidence is (or at least should be) more compelling in a court of law than emotion, hearsay or personal conviction. I wholly agree with that statement. It’s just unfortunate that your exposition of that statement relies so heavily on the latter, and not at all on the former.
But never mind. The groundswell of authenticist conviction will welcome you to the fold, and I bear you no hard feelings. Ephesians 4:31 says “πασα πικρια και θυμος και οργη και κραυγη και βλασφημια αρθητω αφ υμων συν παση κακια” and that’s exactly how I feel. There’s no need to comment further.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Juridical Science Method
It is a necessity to follow protocols and this is demonstrated by the Colorado USA case of Missy Woods a DNA expert. https://cbi.colorado.gov/sections/administration/media-relations/yvonne-missy-woods-investigation . In addition, the same kind of issues are found in the Queensland, Australia case of Cathie Allen. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-25/qld-dna-lab-mortuary-chief-scientist-sacked/102390212
If found guilty, Missy is facing lengthy jail terms for the failure to follow protocols in DNA testing. There are about 1000 cases where this failure to follow protocols is being investigated. If Missy is found guilty the impact on the cases where people have been jailed due to the unreliable DNA tests can be immense.
Yet, when the C14 testing protocols were not followed, those who want the C14 to support their views have decided to ignore the well documented failures and still maintain that the C14 dating is reliable. Joe Marino’s book documents the failures of the protocols.
The C14 daters have stated that the C14 dates are 95% reliable and that compares to the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard applied in juridical science.
No reasonable person having a firm mind and being fair-minded and fully informed of the failure to follow protocols would accept the C14 dating results.
Juridical Science Method v Farey Method
Its quite common for bloggists to use the Farey method but that method is not scientific.
Farey Stated:
“What William Red does say, at length, is that because quite a lot of quite reasonable people think the Shroud is authentic, therefore its case is proven. His premises, his inferences and his conclusions in support of that idea are hopelessly wrong, hopelessly muddled, and wholly without the reasonableness by which he claims to set great store”
Using the Juridical Science method that statement would be amended to:
“What the court says in its juridical science method, using the reasonable person test, is that a fair-minded person, being of firm mind and fully conversant of the facts would conclude that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.”
COMMENT: Juridical science rejects insults as a means to prove a point or somehow infer that evidence is not as strong as other evidence.
NOTE 1: Juridical science finds it roots in Theological science that states in Ephesians 4:31 to put away all slander.
NOTE 2: The Farey method does not address the important facts, and continues discussing the Bishop when :
i. the C14 dating is non-admissible and the Bishop’s evidence is unconnected and a reasonable person would not accept the middle ages date; and
ii. The large amount of evidence such as pollen, x-ray, and other confirm a 1st century date.
Juridical science was introduced into the Shroud of Turin debate to:
a) provide scientific standards of proof; and
b) provide methods on how to achieve those standards.
Many debaters simply imposed their own standards upon the debate and chose a side of the debate in the same way that they might choose a football team. But now, there is a scientific method to discern the large amount of evidence. Juridical science standards are the best to make a decision and that is demonstrated by its use in millions of court cases. The introduction of Juridical science to the Shroud of Turin now enables a person to make a decision based on a real scientific method of discernment.
I have too many commitments to helping disabled military personnel to be able to work with your 20 day system.
The bottom line is that the high standard of juridical science means that:
i. the c14 dating is inadmissible as evidence due to its failed compliance with protocols and that is discussed in my podcast on Guy Powell’s site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPfS96Yc3c4 ; and
ii. the Bishop’s correspondence regarding the forgery painting on a shroud fails to have any connecting evidence with the Shroud of Turin that has no painted image. Conjectures, guesses and postulations about no paint are not sufficient to meet the standard required to make a connection.
As a matter of kind advice, your language style contains a large amount of insults. In the first place, insults are not science. In the second place, in Juridical science, insults are evidence of the mindset and intent of the person. In other words, the insults work against the person making them. For example:
“What William Red does say, at length, is that because quite a lot of quite reasonable people think the Shroud is authentic, therefore its case is proven. His premises, his inferences and his conclusions in support of that idea are hopelessly wrong, hopelessly muddled, and wholly without the reasonableness by which he claims to set great store”
Juridical science rejects insults as a means to prove a point or somehow infer that evidence is not as strong as other evidence. e.g. instead of insulting the Bishop’s discussion, Juridical science eliminates the Bishop’s discussion based on the lack of connection with the Shroud of Turin
Juridical science finds it roots in Theological science that states in Ephesians 4:31 to put away all slander. FYI. In Australian courts a person giving testimony that is defamatory may be sued for that defamation.
Juridical science was introduced into the Shroud of Turin debate to:
a) provide standards of proof; and
b) provide methods on how to achieve those standards.
Many debaters simply imposed their own standards upon the debate and chose a side of the debate in the same way that they would choose a football team. Juridical science standards are the best to make a decision and that is demonstrated by its use in millions of court cases. The introduction of Juridical science now enables a person to make a decision based on a real method of discernment.
Hi William,
On the contrary, my response was perfectly correct. You made some assertions and I asked for justification. You haven’t justified your claims, and I suspect you really don’t know much about them.
It’s not only not clear that the “Bishop’s evidence wouldn’t make it in a court of law,” it is a fact that the Bishop’s evidence has already ‘made it’ in at least a quasi-judicial inquiry. Unless you can come up with some rather more convincing refutation than simple assertion, your prediction is no more than optimism. You are mistaken about ‘juridical science’ generally and mistaken that the assertion of forgery on the part of those who examined the Shroud in the 14th century is “irrelevant.”
Clinging to Joe Marino’s book suggests that you don’t actually know much about the Shroud in detail. In particular, the statement that there was a “failure to make the C14 results available for 27 years” would come as a surprise to Remi Van Haelst and Marco Riani, who analysed them in detail several years ago.
Your last paragraph refers to the “mindset of a person who fails to disclose evidence.” In that case, would you care to answer the questions I asked in my previous two replies or would you rather fail to disclose your evidence?
a) Who specifically “refused” to date seven samples, do you know?
b) What samples did STURP specifically advise?
c) How exactly did Bishop d’Arcis describe the image?
d) Did the Shroud look as if it was painted 700 years ago?
Best wishes,
Hugh
Juridical Science in Action
You’ve provided the wrong response.
Its clear that the Bishop’s evidence wouldn’t make it in a court of law. Juridical science holds that the discussion about the forgery is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the age of the Shroud of Turin. As such, discussing the forgery and imputing without evidence that the Shroud of Turin is that forgery is unreasonable
Juridical science analyses behaviour evidence, as such the records in Joe Marino’s book should be discussed. That evidence goes to the confidence and reliability of the results. Most noticeably, the failure to make the C14 results available for 27 years is an issue. Joe’s book records the many years of behaviour of the C14 daters towards the STURP team and others.
Juridical Science analyses the issue of “consciousness of guilt”. This issue relates to the mindset of a person who fails to disclose evidence. As such, that analyses shows that a person who hides evidence does not have confidence that the evidence supports the person who hides it.
Hi William,
The site has an automatic cut-off for comments after 20 days, which suits me fine. People who want to comment after that time are welcome to do so after subsequent posts, as you have.
If you have read more than a few of my posts you will know that this site is forensic to the extreme. Nothing is taken on anybody’s say so, but must be traced back to primary sources. Your arbitrary statement that “The shroud being discussed by the Bishop has a painted image” is wrong. Your arbitrary statement that “The Shroud of Turin does not have a painted image” refers to the cloth as we know it 700 years after its manufacture.
You made two references in your previous comment: “The refusal by the daters” and “the STURP advice,” which I wanted you to check. Who were the ‘daters’ who refused, and what was the “STURP advice.” To those I will now add: How exactly did Bishop d’Arcis describe the image?” and “Did the Shroud look painted 700 years ago?”
Before changing the subject again, please have a go at answering these four questions, if you can.
Best wishes,
Hugh
You closed the two previous blogs after I posted
Juridical Science in Action
Bishop’s Correspondence
In a crime gun needs to be connected to the bullet. The markings on the bullet are compared to the barrel. If there is no match then there is no connection and the gun is irrelevant. The gun is not the weapon that is being sought.
The shroud being discussed by the Bishop has a painted image. The Shroud of Turin does not have a painted image. There is no match so there is no connection. The Shroud of Turin is not the forgery that the Bishop was talking about.
The Bishop’s correspondence is irrelevant to determining the age of the Shroud of Turin.
I certainly agree that AI is worrying with the images that are now being portrayed, as per yours and Barrie’s.
Also the abundance of videos coming out which feature ridiculous statements and content. I have watched a few and they usually string a lot of irrelevant images together with dubious narratives. Dna being one of the usual contenders.
Barrie would have been horrified as you must be.
So what’s with the ginger beard?
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on the book.
You refer to the statement in the introduction that “every claim has been verified; every reference checked.” That sentence appears in the section where I explicitly disclose the use of artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of The Shroud of Turin: A Forensic Summary of the Evidence. The intention of that paragraph was simple transparency. AI was used as a research assistant – for drafting support, cross-referencing, organization of material, and locating sources – but the arguments, interpretations, and responsibility for accuracy remain mine.
Writing a synthesis that spans history, archaeology, textile studies, forensic medicine, and physics inevitably involves a large body of literature and many competing interpretations. Verifying a manuscript of this scope is therefore a substantial task. During the preparation of this book I devoted extended periods to line-by-line verification, reviewing claims and references with structured review prompts and consulting multiple AI systems in parallel. Used carefully, these tools can be extremely helpful: they allow rapid cross-checking, comparison of interpretations, and identification of relevant sources that might otherwise be overlooked.
At the same time, AI does not replace critical judgment. Most systems are trained on broadly overlapping bodies of published material, which means they often reflect the same scholarly debates and disagreements present in the literature itself. In historical questions – such as the possible historical route of the Shroud – sources frequently contradict one another, and scholars differ in how the evidence should be interpreted. In such cases, verification involves weighing competing claims rather than confirming a single settled conclusion.
For that reason, I see AI not as an authority but as a useful research partner – a tool that can accelerate exploration of the literature and highlight connections between disciplines, while the final responsibility for evaluation and interpretation remains with the author.
The aim of the book is to synthesize and present the existing body of research – from textile specialists, forensic pathologists, physicists, historians, and members of the STURP investigation – in a coherent narrative that allows readers to see how the different lines of evidence relate to one another.
Researchers who have devoted decades specifically to Shroud studies naturally possess deep familiarity with the literature and may detect nuances or emerging debates more quickly than others. That experience is valuable, and careful criticism from specialists is always welcome. At the same time, scholarly discussion ultimately progresses through engagement with the evidence and sources themselves. For that reason, the most constructive form of critique is to address specific claims or interpretations so they can be examined, clarified, or corrected if necessary.
My goal with this book was to assemble the available forensic, historical, and scientific evidence concerning the Shroud in a transparent and accessible way. If particular claims or references require refinement, I would welcome the opportunity to improve them in future editions. Serious discussion of the evidence benefits everyone interested in the subject.