[IMPORTANT APPENDIX. Although Teddi Pappas was not singled out as particularly responsible for the ‘Facts’ about the Shroud mentioned on the ‘Sign From God’ website, she was among the Directors, and, as such, as I said below, “ought to be responsible for the content published under their names.” With this in mind, she has re-examined the ‘facts,’ and, according to a comment below, has been “making an effort to get board members together to discuss this, but that is easier said than done as everyone is up to their eyeballs in work right now.” Fair enough. The upcoming Conference at St Louis is no doubt concentrating their minds wonderfully. Even so, Teddi is so scrupulously determined that everything that appears under her name has her own ‘nihil obstat’ that she has (26 May 2025), “resigned today from the board of directors of “Sign From God” and from the “Sign From God’s “National Shroud of Turin Exhibit Team.” Her name has been removed from the Sign of God website.
I wrote a little while ago that it was well nigh impossible to find “an honest authenticist.” I think we may have found one.]
In a series which has recently started but could go on for ever,1 Dan Porter has queried some of the ‘Facts’ about the Shroud listed on the ‘Sign From God’ website, which is closely linked to a projected National Shroud Of Turin Exhibition. The creative team is a fairly comprehensive list of senior authenticists, some of whom, such as Joe Marino, Russ Breault, Teddi Pappas, and Cheryl White, have conducted proper research at primary source level, and ought to be responsible for the content published under their names. Sadly, a page devoted to “Shroud of Turin Facts” (signfromgod.org/shroud_of_turin_facts) is the usual collection of half-truths, misrepresentations and downright “made-ups” that typify most of the less worthy platforms devoted to the authenticity of the Shroud, and although Dan selected the Pollen and the Radiocarbon Dating as his first targets, his “No Good #n” could easily develop into a thirty part refutation of almost every one.
Although I will choose a couple to illustrate my own thoughts, the purpose of this post is more general: what do we mean by a ‘fact,’ and what are they for? And perhaps, the answer to the first is best achieved by answering the second. ‘Facts’ are not simple truths. Quite often, they are not truths at all; they are beliefs, which may or may not have any objective foundation. And in that case, a list of such ‘facts’ is hardly likely to be a basis for any kind of discussion. In all his work on the Resurrection, Gary Habermas seeks to persuade disbelievers on the basis of a group of ‘minimal facts,’ the critical point about which is that these facts are accepted as truths even by people who don’t believe in the Resurrection. In other words he argues from a joint baseline, his and the skeptics’, the point being that if he does so logically and reasonably to the Resurrection as a conclusion, they can have no logical reason to disagree. Whether he succeeds or not is not the business of this post.
Is the list of facts in Sign From God for a similar purpose? I think the short answer is no. It is mainly to reinforce the avowedly authenticist view of its creators, for the benefit of people who are inclined to accept the Shroud’s authenticity anyway. They are ‘facts’ which the readers would like to believe and mostly accept uncritically. However the front page of Sign From God starts: “Your Quest Begins With a Mysterious Cloth…” suggesting that least some of the purpose of the list is to persuade the ignorant, the uncertain, the doubtful, or even the frankly skeptical that the Shroud is, indeed, the genuine cloth which once wrapped the body of Jesus in his tomb.
But real ‘Signs from God’ are not things but experiences. Even a hardened atheist must feel a sense of awe as that noble, battered face emerges from the photograph as it changes from positive to negative, and although he won’t attribute his emotion to a sign from God, thousands do. Other people have experienced signs from God in church bells, sunsets, waterfalls, fires, each little flower that opens and each little bird that sings. Signs from God are personal revelations, and also occur in visions, dreams and internal experiences. We do not have to poke our fingers into holes in somebody’s hands to experience a sign from God. In fact, Jesus suggested that it was better not to: perhaps he didn’t want everybody having a go! The experience of the Shroud is all that is necessary – and, really, all there is – to qualify as a sign from God, not whether it is authentic or not.
I think some authenticists are confused by this. They think the ‘experience of the Shroud’ somehow depends on its authenticity, and, conversely, although it is never so expressed, that if it is not authentic, it cannot be a sign from God. I think they’re wrong. Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe. For me, and, I suspect, most people who have come across it, the ‘experience of the Shroud’ has nothing to do with whether it is ancient or medieval.
But if you think that the Shroud being the actual burial cloth of Jesus is important, and want to persuade dissenters, then the best thing would to follow Gary Habermas’s example, and draw up a baseline of agreed ‘facts’ acceptable to both parties, and argue logically from there. A kind of shortcut to this list might be for everybody to agree that if some research has been submitted to a scientific journal of recognised integrity, peer-reviewed and published, then the ‘facts’ concluded by the authors can be considered, at least for the purpose of this discussion, objectively true.
In a recent podcast,2 a very emphatic Brian Donley Worrell insisted, vehemently, just that, that when a group of scientists have their work peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals, these are ‘facts,’ which it is thoroughly dishonest to deny. “Some people,” he says bluntly, “are just flat out liars. […] The bedrock of what we do is based upon facts. […] Once it has been established that facts are facts and that they have been peer reviewed, […] in order for a person to come along and say, ‘Hey, I have a suggestion, that’s not how it works,’ and they say something that is not only erroneous but laughably inconsiderate of what has been considered peer-reviewed factual information, it angers me and it makes me very sad.” Also Dale Glover, in all his ‘Shroud Wars,’ podcasts, also places huge emphasis on “peer-reviewed secular scientific journals,” and many less well informed popularisers do the same.
I think that’s a fair bedrock. So let’s take one of these ‘facts.’ It was published in the single most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the world, and authored by twenty of the most respected scientists in their field. Were I to deny it, according to Brian Donley Worrell, I would be a flat out liar, erroneous and laughably inconsiderate, and make him angry and very sad. It is this: “Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As Controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.“3
Clearly Brian Donley Worrell is a charlatan. The following facts – which by his own definition he would be a “flat out liar” to deny – also appear in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
• “I found no blood and established the presence of Fe2O3.xH2O and HgS corresponding to two common artist’s pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder.”4
• “The inconsistencies identified by the authors seem not only to point against their own reality, but against the authenticity of the Shroud itself, suggesting that the Turin linen was an artistic or ‘didactic’ representation from the XVI century.”5
For Worrell, apparently, a fact is just something he wants to believe. The same is true of anybody who bangs on about the truth of STuRP’s peer reviewed-papers and the falsity of Paul Damon’s, Walter McCrone’s and Matteo Borrini’s peer reviewed-papers, without even noticing the contradiction.
Peer review, it turns out, is no guarantee of ‘fact’, and nor should it be. That’s not the point of peer review, which is essentially to check whether the conclusion follows from the data, not whether the data is correct in the first place.
A ‘fact,’ agree several online dictionaries, is “an event or thing known to have happened or existed,” which may be true, but how do we get to know whether something has happened or existed? Another definition is “a truth verifiable from experience or observation,” which may be more helpful. The first ‘fact’ on the Sign From God webpage is “The Shroud of Turin is an ancient linen cloth measuring 14 feet by 3.5 feet with a faint image of a crucified man…” and that’s true. I have verified that by observation and experience. But it’s finished by “… that millions believe is Jesus Christ.” Is that a fact? Various sources say that since 1978, between two and four million pilgrims have visited Turin to see the Shroud every time it is exhibited, which seems reason to guess that most of them believe the man depicted on the Shroud is Jesus Christ. I have neither observed nor experienced this fact, but I believe it is one. So do you. Vicarious experience will stand in for personal experience; argumenta ad populum and ad auctoritatem will suffice to verify a fact, with the proviso that both sides of the discussion agree on it.
But I do not agree with the next ‘fact,’ so it cannot be submitted as part of a baseline of mutual agreement. “The cloth is the most analyzed artifact in the world” is a guess, based on the urge to support authenticty by argumenta ad populum and ad auctoritatem, but with minimal evidence. It is usually supported by the information that 40 scientists spent 120 hours studying the Shroud in 1978, or the information that 600,000 man hours have been spent studying the Shroud, on the grounds that no other artefact has had the same – but without any evidence to support either the first two or the last one. Shroud.com lists 26 “investigators” in 1978, and although the Shroud was open to study for 120 hours, there were rarely more than 6 people studying it at any one time – see the detailed test plan at shroud.com – and the average was between 7 and 8.6
The sub-headings ‘Fact’ and ‘Facts’ occur ten times somewhat randomly down the Sign From God page, each followed by a variety of statements of very varying truthfulness, from “The Shroud has resided in Turin, Italy since 1578,” which I agree is a ‘fact,’ and “These dimensions correlate with ancient measurements of 2 cubits x 8 cubits,” which is arrant nonsense. By combining truth and falsehood, the authors no doubt hope to subsume the latter into the former, thus presenting a stronger case than they actually have.
The most widely quoted ‘fact’ is derived from a press release (not a peer-reviewed paper) issued in 1981 by John Heller,7 which markedly overstates the conclusions found by the scientists on which it is based. To begin, “No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils” is not a fact, it is a challenge – and it’s not true. Much of what follows is more nuanced, but that opening sentence is all that most authenticists recognise. That, and “it is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body,” which is also unjustified. The peer-reviewed summary of the 1978 investigation says no such thing.8
Other lists of facts that might be worth considering include the ‘Critical Summary’ by John Jackson,9 the ‘Critical Compendium, by Giulio Fanti, the ‘List of Relevant Features’ by Dale Glover,10 and ’10 Mindblowing Facts About The Shroud Of Turin’ by the Catholic Talk Show.11 The trouble with all of them is that what begins as an attempt to offer a list of undisputed data very quickly gets smothered by the purpose of the paper into a mishmash of assorted ideas, some acceptable to all, some acceptable to authenticists, some unjustified and some just plain wrong. In the first two cases it doesn’t take long before the ‘fact’ that the Shroud once wrapped the body of a man becomes explicit (Jackson: Fact B9, Fanti: Fact C9), which is hardly likely to recommend them to an impartial researcher. Glover’s list is less dogmatic, does not consist of statements, and considered as discussion points rather than ‘facts’ has proved useful in his ‘Star Wars’ series. His first entry, it seems to me, not only sums up the entire authenticist case, but brings us back, full circle, to where we started.
It is “1.a) Photographic Negativity (or Quasi-Negativity).” Dale knows, and is one of the few to say so, that the Shroud is not a photograph, but does exhibit an astonishing characteristic of being more impressive, and apparently resembling a real person better, when seen with its colours inverted. If they would but admit it, that’s the only the only reason the Shroud is a Sign from God, and really it is reason enough.
====================================
* Checking primary sources. “Just the facts, Ma’am,” was reputedly the catchphrase of Detective Joe Friday in the American crime drama franchise Dragnet. But it’s not a fact. Rather like “Elementary, my dear Watson,” not once in over 250 episodes were those words actually spoken, although they can be heard in the 1987 comedy spoof with Dan Ackroyd playing the original Joe Friday’s nephew.
1 ‘Not Good #1’, #2 and #3 at shroudstory.com.
2 ‘Shroud Wars Panel Review (Part 16C),’ Real Seekers, at youtube.com/watch?v=HxC8tZv7GVU&t=1789s.
3 ‘Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,’ Paul Damon et al., Nature, 1989.
4 ‘The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?’ Walter McCrone, Accounts of Chemical Research, 1991
5 ‘A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin,’ Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli, Journal of Forensic Science, 2019
6 ‘Operations Test Plan for Investigating the Shroud of Turin,’ The Shroud of Turin Research Project, 1 at shroud.com/pdfs/STURP%20Test%20Plan%201978%20OCRsm.pdf
7 ‘A Summary of STuRP’s Conclusions,’ John Heller, 1981, at shroud.com/78conclu.htm
8 ‘Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin,’ Lawrence Schwalbe and Raymond Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta, 1982
9 ‘Hypotheses Regarding the Formation of the Body Image on the Turin Shroud. A Critical Compendium,’ Giulio Fanti, Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 2011
10 ‘shroud-part-40-good-final-book-verison-hypothesis-feature-comparison,’ Dale Glover, 2022, at realseekerministries.wordpress.com/2022/04/23/shroud-wars-new-evidence-on-dating-fomring-the-shrouds-images-with-giulio-fanti-robert-siefker-bob-rucker/
11 ’10 Mindblowing Facts About The Shroud Of Turin,’ The Catholic Talk Show, 2019, atyoutube.com/watch?v=Big323a7X0c&t=65s, whose banner is “5 Mindblowing Facts About the Shroud of Turin,” and the first sentence of which includes, “We’re going to be looking at the 12 astounding facts about the Shroud of Turin,” and continues with the same regard for consistency, accuracy and truth.
Hi, Hugh,
1) Regarding Dan: Of course he blocked me (at least temporarily until he could try to get his ducks in a row to respond to me . . .) Others’ comments have been posted, and my comments are typically posted practically immediately. None of the posts went through from the very beginning. My repeated attempts were spread out over the course of about 24 hours. No, how my name was presented had nothing to do with it as, again, not a single post went through nor my attempt to reply to your comment. Dan was either blocking me or buying time for himself while making it, at the same time, appear like I didn’t respond. Win-win for Dan, except for there’s more than one way to skin a cat . . .
2) Regarding Martin Pendrigh. I didn’t remember who he was but that is pretty random–an account manager. What’s that, really? A bean counter? Doesn’t sound like something that a scientist ever gets called much less someone who is actually involved in radiocarbon dating samples and knowing the ins-and-outs of it. So, I think my “random” characterization’s quite fair and indicative of his being something else other than the type of person that needed to be consulted.
As regard to the need for a multi-disciplinary process, fortunately, that portion is very much so as I remember it being about 4-5 years ago. It’s the portion about the “don’t smoke around the samples to be radiocarbon dated” and the part about how if a sample has been contaminated by (my words not theirs) dirty/contaminated water or something synonymous like that, then this could impact the reliability of the dating. Again, I am going from memory, so my recall of the precise phrasing is not a quote, but I remember being nothing short of ELATED with seeing what I was seeing there! In fact, if memory serves, this was before I became a member of the Shroud Science Group and I had just been introduced to Joe Marino, and I seem to recall emailing him about this EXCITING INFORMATION that I had come across! We’re talking about hitting the JACKPOT! After finding that, I was likely prancing around the room like a rooster in the manner of Mick Jagger with this EXCITING DISCOVERY! For lawyers, this is nothing short of manna from Heaven!!! As I mentioned previously here, I see now where the company, started in 1979) has had a name change (now “SGS Beta”), and the layout of their website has changed. Regarding the “no smoking around the sample to be dated” matter, their wording has changed–I am quite confident about it. But, you can still see how they mention (under the heading “Sources of Contamination” that cigarette ash can be an artificial contaminant. Now, this is very interesting. When I first saw that, it seemed RIDICULOUS. I thought, who is going to drop cigarette ashes (accidentally or inadvertently) on a sample? Ahhhhh, but then it came to me, hours later! We’re talking, I’m sure, about MICROSCOPIC particles of cigarette ash AS SOMEONE IS SMOKING NEAR A SAMPLE! *** This would be comparable to the FLY ASH that McCrone and Heller and Adler found on the Shroud of Turin–and, I note that fly ash contains MERCURY. But, that’s a discussion for another day. So, if fly ash can get on the Shroud just from the ATMOSPHERE, imagine what smoking near a sample can do. BUT, here’s the critical thing: if their cleaning process is so great, WHY DOES IT MATTER if someone contaminates the sample with a little bit of microscopic cigarette ash???
Another interesting thing on Beta-Analytic’s website (now at radiocarbon.com), is this, and I quote: “Contaminated samples, naturally, will have inaccurate results. The specific effect of the contaminant on radiocarbon dating results depends on the type of contaminant, the degree of contamination, and the relative ages of the sample and the contaminant.” (WHAT AN ADMISSION!!! It doesn’t really get much better than this!
But, because I like to “beat dead horses,” AND I like to “gild the lily,” I give everyone this GEM as quoted from Beta-Analytic’s aforementioned website (this is under the heading “Beta Analytic Standard Pretreatment Protocols”): “Pretreatment does not ensure that the radiocarbon date will represent the time event of interest. This is determined by the sample integrity.”
Let’s get into another gem on Beta Analytic’s website under the heading of “Radiocarbon Dating Samples and their Pretreatment”: “There is no standard method for pretreatment applicable to all samples for radiocarbon dating. The pretreatment method employed depends on the type of sample and the possible contaminants. Radiocarbon dating labs must therefore be informed of the environmental conditions and preservation techniques done to the sample before carbon-14 analysis.” Gee-whiz . . . who in the world can figure out all of the environmental conditions that the Shroud of Turin was exposed to prior its getting into the hands of the House of Savoy? Nobody, that’s who. As such, how does one know which pretreatment method is the best?
Their insistence that a multi-disciplinary process be used when determining the date of a TEXTILE is just nothing short of CHECK-MATE as far as the Shroud of Turin is concerned! Why? Of course, because a tsunami of evidence goes towards evidencing its authenticity, and then the radiocarbon dating was the outlier that went the other way.
All in all, what I am interested in doing is merely NEUTRALIZING the issue with regard to the radiocarbon dating. Why? Well, because Bob Rucker’s hypothesis could very well be True–and that could be one of several powerful pieces of evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. And, no, one does not have to pick between Bob’s hypothesis and Joe’s and Sue’s invisible reweave hypothesis. These two issues are not mutually exclusive, although the test results have to be either right or wrong. But, I don’t need to figure that out. I just need to know that the radiocarbon dating results are not some bogeyman that people need to be concerned about. It’s neutralized BY BETA ANALYTIC’S OWN ADMISSIONS!
Also, I don’t think you’ve quite met my challenge in that “serious” scientists don’t have a mountain of multi-disciplinary evidence of a flat earth, etc. And, as I recall, when Dale roped me into doing a debate against a flat-earth proponent, I recall quite well that you were heavily rallying and supportive and gushing over the flat-earth contingency instead of me in the comments section (which I think that Dale has since removed.) But, plenty of us saw and remembered them. So, perhaps you can give us some of these great points that the flat-earthers have that rival the quantity and quality of evidence that STURP and others have given us?
Anyhow, I’ve gotta get back to work.
Cheers,
Teddi
Next, why is there the need to NOT use shopping bags or paper to wrap a sample for dating? What are they worried about? Isn’t their cleaning good enough to handle what would seemingly be the very minor contamination of a shopping bag or paper? If this is such a concern, then what does the Shroud’s being in two fire and being contaminated with probably dirty-ish water and being handled by so many hands and being contaminated by pollution in the atmosphere and candles burning in church?
Hi Teddi,
Thanks for your multitudinous replies! In no particular order:
1) I don’t think Dan has necessarily blocked you; he may just have to “approve” your comments. This blog, for example, automatically approved your first three comments, but blocked the last one until I approved it. Possible reasons? Too many posts? Too quickly? Or the fact that the last one came from “teddiPappas” instead of “TeddiPappas”? WordPress has a mind of its own in some cases.
2) Martin Pendrigh was the National Account Manager of Beta Analytic, not a “random representative.” (I think that’s a bit of a cheap shot, to be honest) And the note on the SSG Beta website, as you have undoubted seen, has been changed from your original observation in 2020, possible as a result of my inquiry. It now says “The lab does not undertake the dating of textiles or other valuable or priceless items unless they are submitted and paid for by a recognized governmental agency, major museum, or other official agency that is investigating the materials as part of a multidisciplinary scholarly process. You may submit your sample through a professional archaeologist, who will make an assessment if your sample is suitable for radiocarbon dating.” Really I don’t think claiming that textiles are particularly likely to lead to inaccurate dating results is a horse that will run. In a second email to me, Martin Pendrigh said “If we had been asked to date the material as part of a scientific study then I can’t see a reason why we wouldn’t have agreed.” It is perfectly obvious that the grubbier any sample of anything is, the more difficult it is to extract a pure sample, but equally obvious that small amounts of contamination will only make a small difference to the result. And, as I’m sure you know, if I thought “this ol’ Texas lawyer” was any kind of threat I’d contact “the biggest radiocarbon dating company in the world” in person, not just quote somewhat selectively from their website, no doubt cobbled together by some “random representative.” Oh, wait a minute: I DID contact them in person…
3) Next, I really think you might get off the fence on this one. There are three main arguments that attempt to discredit the radiocarbon date, and they are all mutually incompatible. One is that there is so much surface contamination that the date is unreliable (which you support with all that stuff from the SSG Beta website). The second is that the radiocarbon corner was largely replaced, invisibly, in the early 16th century (the evidence for which is nothing like as powerful, sorry, POWERFUL, as you would like). And the third is that the event of the Resurrection caused the radiocarbon content to increase so much that even after 2000 years there was enough to date the Shroud to the 14th century. The evidence for all three of these has been examined, discussed and reported on, in detail, by me, among others, and found wanting, but the point is that if one of them is responsible for an incorrect date, then the others are not. Of course there are those who want them all to be true, all contributing to one degree or another, all resulting in the remarkable coincidence of the date of manufacture matching the medieval appearance of the Shroud at Lirey, and maybe you are one of those? Perhaps you could let us know.
4) I note that your Rigor mortis paper was “Received: 19 November, 2024; Accepted: 16 December, 2024; Published: 19 December, 2024,” giving it 27 days for peer-review and all that proof-reading you had such a trouble with. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with papers which only take 4 days from “received” to “accepted,” however. Don’t you? On the whole, I don’t take peer-review terribly seriously; who do you think could possibly have reviewed your paper? Are there secret Shroud experts we don’t know about, or were they well known to us both? As it happens, I think I’m the best peer-reviewer on Shroud subjects there is, even if I only get to see them after publication, and I’m happy with that.
5) I think the Sign From God project has a lot of potential, and think Shroud museums, in the USA or anywhere, can be good things. They can be purely archaeological, which is fine by me, as at least they attract interest in a truly unique and fascinating artefact. Or they can be proselytising, firstly drawing attention to the object, and, using that, to the man it portrays and his teaching. Or they can simply be opportunities for pilgrimage. Whichever they choose, however, they must be scrupulously honest, and I’m afraid that while I think Myra, Joe, Russ and the rest are well intentioned, and honest, they are certainly not scrupulous; and them that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If I had to guess, I’d say Myra compiled the list of “facts” from popular publications, and had/has no idea about 1st century cubits or Turonian limestone, but I’d forgive her that – she is a publicist, not a forensic examiner. Russ has a value all his own, concentrating on the semiotics of the Shroud, which are not dependent on factual truth. Joe, on the other hand, ought to know better. He is a veteran authentic-versus-medieval warrior, and knows very well how important accurate facts are in the debate. I’ve no doubt he does know better, but I appreciate that he is extraordinarily busy just coping with shroud.com, let alone the upcoming conference. But what about all the rest of the “National Shroud of Turin Exhibit” team? However involved in the exhibit they are, getting it factually correct should be among the most important aspects of their involvement, so get ’em checking.
6) Your challenge. Ideas which have large number of adherents, many of whom are serious scientists and who have published detailed evidence supporting their claims, but which have absolutely no traction amongst “the scientific community.” 1) Young earth Creationism, 2) Flat earthers, 3) Pyramids built by aliens, 4) QAnon, 5) The Loch Ness Monster…
Cheers,
Hugh
Hi, again,
I wanted to add the following:
Earlier today, I was searching to find on Beta Analytic’s website what I had seen them mention several years ago about how (1) one should not smoke near samples that are to be radiocarbon dated and (2) how samples that have been in water (like pond water, that sort of thing) can skew the radiocarbon dating. While I did not have the time to do a complete search of their website, I couldn’t find the (paraphrased here) “don’t smoke near the sample to be radiocarbon dated” information or the part about the water contamination posing a problem to accurate dating. I did, however, find where they mentioned how, on radiocarbon.com (Beta Analytic, I see, has changed their name to SGS Laboratory) cigarette ash (among other things) can be an artificial contaminant during sample collection. But, this is not what I am recalling. I am recalling very vividly–as I remember feeling like I hit the jackpot when reading it–that the older version of the website mentioned not smoking around samples that are to be dated–and, the stuff about the water.
Regardless, I know what I saw several years ago on their website and people can either believe me or not.
Most importantly, though, is that the part about they’re not dating textiles unless it is part of An investigation that is part of a multi-disciplinary process is still there!
Additionally, samples with additives/preservatives can throw off the test results (per their website under “AMS Dating Textiles.”
Probably a much more careful search of their website could find the info on smoking and water contamination that j saw about 4 years ago. But, it’s possible this has been removed.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, again,
An interesting paper that I just found on radiocarbon dating. https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/radiocarbon-dating-part-1/
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, again, Hugh,
This is the response that I made to your comment on Dan Porter’s website (and attempted to post it but was blocked.) So, here it is, below.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
I reject the notion that someone can’t assess the strength of evidence. If one finds evidence persuasive or even compelling, then this becomes the evidence one advances in arguments.
For example, a “classic” piece of Shroud scholarship is that there is part of a flagrum in Herculeneum. I used to agree with this since it seemed to make sense. However, I read (and re-read) Nicolotti’s paper dealing with that. I did my own investigation and research (such as looking at other Etruscan objects like hanging lamps, horse tack, that sort of thing that Nicolotti mentioned, and, well (as you Brits would say) “by-golly” I think he’s right. As you can imagine, I was not happy about that, but, it is what it is. I’m pretty sure that I’ve mentioned this change of opinion of mine on SSG. I have zero interest in having defective quivers in my pouch. While they can make my pouch look full and impressive, if I ever actually need to use the, I’ll end up in a pinch, because they’ll be no good.
One last thing about the purported part of a flagrum in Herculeneum, I think that there is a reasonably good chance that the flagrum that was used to create the “scourge-marks” that we see on the Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images likelv had a similar DESIGN as what is seen in the aforemented artifact in Herculeneum. So, see, I’ve given my own assessment of the evidence. And, people can decide to agree with my opinion or not.
(And. my response to Dan’s letter is STILL not up from vesterdav despite others’ comments being posted. I quess I’m being moderated …)
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
While I do appreciate what you wrote in the appendix at the top of your opinion piece, here, I do, however, disagree with your making it seem as if other Shroud scholars are charlatans.
On another note, since you and Dan often like to piggy-back on each others posts, I thought that I would attach my response to Dan’s latest opinion piece which specifically calls me out, but then he blocks my response from being posted. It has now been about 24 hours since I first tried to post my response to him and then to you. If have since tried, repeatedly, to post my response and since it has not gone through–but your response and Ashlee’s has, that indicates that Dan is trying to keep what I am saying from being seen (or, at least in. a timely fashion.) He’ll probably post this now since I am posting it here (assuming you don’t block it.) And, if both of you keep from blocking it, I’ll just find a way to be sure that the public can see the response that Dan, apparently, does not want them to see.
Anyhow, here’s my response that I tried to post to Dan’s piece that he published yesterday entitled: “Deja Vu All Over Again: Beyond Reasonable Doubt”
Hi, Dan,
I just have time for a quick response.
Regarding the open access “pay-to-play” remark. The journal I published in is not listed as a “predatory journal” and what you call “pay-to-play” is inaccurate. In fact, its really as situation of “[author] pays so that the reader can read without paying.” For anyone who does serious research and reads scholarly journals, many of the journals are inaccessible without paying, typically, about $40.00 or so.
Sometimes, an abstract is given (so you’ve got some sort of idea as to what is in the paper) and sometimes an abstract is not given–and one debates whether they want to drop $40 for a paper that might be useless to them. So, lots of important information gets put behind paywalls. So, if an author wants their work to get read by more people, one makes it FREE (open-access.) And, many of the very top journals charge a FORTUNE to publish with them. Well, most people either do not have the means to pay those large sums of money or are unwilling to. So, really, let the author’s work speak for itself and judge it on its merits (or lack thereof.)
Now, with regard to the big bogeyman chasing the Shroud’s authenticity–the 1988 radiocarbon dating results. Well, it really is akin to an “imaginary” evil spirit used to frighten the children (of God.) (And, I’m sure there will be people that will slice up what I’m saving and lust quote part of it in the future in order to make me look “anti-Science,” but that will be perpetrating a fraud on people. If people do it, I’II quote what I’ve said in full and show them to be deceptive and manipulative. Anyhow, as I continue, radiocarbon dating is not “imaginary” in the sense that it is junk science. No, not at all. But, every test has limitations to its reliability. And, some tests have more limits to their reliability than others.
I know that people on both sides of the debate regarding the aforementioned radiocarbon dating results make great arguments. And, you know what I say:
GREAT! Whether the 1988 results were correct or not, they can both be used to point to the Shroud’s authenticity! (I won’t try to explain the intricacies of Bob Rucker’s hypothesis and analyses, but I invite people to examine them for themselves.) But, on the other side of the coin, Joe Marino and his late wife Sue Benford (and then confirmed by Ray Rogers and others) make POWERFUL arguments WITH LOTS OF EVIDENCE for there having been an invisible reweave at the very area that the cloth was cut for testing. There’s nothing difficult to believe about this as the testing area was in the area where people were holding the edge of the cloth for displaying it and folding it. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this puts stress on a cloth–particularly one as old as the Shroud of Turin. This is just common sense.
Joe has written about evidence that there have been numerous repairs to the Shroud because of the need to mend areas due to handling (this is independent of the patches put on by the Poor Clare nuns after the Fire of 1532.) So, why do people persist in in the fiction that a high-quality invisible reweaving technique is a fiction? I ask: Where is the evidence ON THE CLOTH of those documented mendings, huh? WE DO NOT SEE THEM, right? Hence, those were “invisibly repaired,” also–unless some conspiracy theorist wants to argue that this documentation was “planted” before Joe and Sue ever even came up with their evidence-based hypothesis and Rogers shored it up.
But, back to the C-14 testing. I am most definitely not known for my brevity.
However, (perhaps a miracle, itself!), I can easily NEUTRALIZE the C-14 results so that they pose NO HARM to the Holy Shroud’s authenticity. How do I argue this? Well, Beta-Analytics (and I’ve been arguing this publicly since at least
October of 2020) is the largest radiocarbon dating company in the world (based on the information that I had read–probably from their own website.) Going from memory, but people can easily google them and double-check, they are based out of Florida. Go to their website and see what they say when the topic of radiocarbon dating a TEXTILE (SUCH AS THE SHROUD) comes up. They explicitly state–go see it for yourself–that radiocarbon dating a textile should be part of a MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PROCESS. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines here, does it? What that means is that the radiocarbon dating of textiles can be UNRELIABLE. So, it is imperative (as any archeologist would tell you) that you look to see what other pieces of evidence (if available) inform about the date of the textile being dated. So, again, as any archeologist worth their salt knows, if, at a site, there are one or more artifacts around a cloth that yield a date (or have something on them that signals to experts how old the item is based on other factors), then that is a very, very credible and serious indication that something went wrong with the radiocarbon dating results.
Additionally, Beta-Analytics mentions on their website about how one should NOT SMOKE around a sample that is to be tested. WHY NOT? If their cleaning process is so great, why can’t I smoke a pack of Marlboros and blow smoke directly onto the sample to be tested? Well, I think the answer is obvious, yes?
Additionally, why does the Beta-Analytics website mention that there can be challenges radiocarbon dating samples that have sustained water damage. Well, the cloth that was radiocarbon dated came from an area that was water-stained (and heavily handled and polluted contaminated by countless hands.) So, here we have another very serious (and very easy to understand) problem.
So, while it’s great that people can lampoon the reliability of the C-14 tests through far more geeky and sophisticated ways, this ol’ Texas lawyer can shoot it down with the “testimony” of the biggest radiocarbon dating company in the world. If they don’t know what they’re talking about, who does?
Hugh has mentioned before how he contacted some random representative from Beta-Analytics about ?2 years ago. He and I duked that out already, and I showed that there were problems with his not-very-high-up-the-food-chain-source.
And, ultimately, it really doesn’t matter what some random rep that’s not the head honcho says. The website for this important, for-profit corporation speaks for itself. If nothing else, Hugh raised this issue to a representative of Beta-Analytics about 2 years ago. The fact that they hadn’t removed those caveat that I mention from their website points to those caveats being TRUE.
Additionally, what Beta-Analytics posts is a sort of admission against their own interest–which is always the “gold-standard” for reliable information as no sane person or organization seeks to undermine their credibility, value, etc. Beta-Analytics is, I would imagine, a very substantial corporation, and by admitting what they did, they are admitting the LIMITATIONS of the reliability of the radiocarbon dating of textiles.
With regard to the other issues, we’ve discussed these ad nauseam. While I’d still have fun discussing them, I’ve got to get back to work. For people to learn more about the topics that I did not respond to, just look at various STURP papers that have been published on shroud.com or even look to discussions about these topics on this website. And, people should understand, we do not always have the time to respond to remarks. So, a lack of a response should not be construed as an inability to respond.
And, yes, the evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity meets the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. The operative word being “reasonable.” There is too much of a mountain of evidence that points to authenticity for it to be anything else than the authentic burial cloth of Christ. Any singular piece of evidence will have tiny little areas where a skeptic can try and poke holes with the “what if” game. But, please, show me an example of something that has a many, many pieces of strong (but not 100% perfect) evidence that comes from different sources and different fields of study with regard to a certain proposition, but that the proposition is false. As to identity, the puncture wounds around the head are the clincher. There is only ONE person known in all of history to be crucified with a crown of thorns: JESUS OF NAZARETH!
I leave you and Hugh with a challenge: See if you all can imagine a situation (or know of a situation–which you all will not) where something has so much evidence pointing to its being what it is purported to be, but it is not. Again, the evidence needs to be very varied and from different disciplines. Show me something that even remotely approximates the Shroud situation, and then we’ll take it from there.
Well, gotta get back to work,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
Yes, let’s talk about “half-truths”–such as the ones you make about me and the “Sign From God” organization.
You claim that I am part of a “creative team” with the “Sign From God” organization. Well, last time I checked, I am one of the board of directors that was added after the group was initially founded. That is, actually, clearly specified on the “Who We Are” page. The board of directors is not a “creative team,” and I was not involved in creating the “Facts” presented on the “Sign From God” website. I did not write those. You claim that I (and others) ought to be responsible for the content published under our name. Well, anyone can go and see that under that list of “Facts” is NOBODY’s name. There is no author listed, so please tell me how that is published under my name, because it is not. In fact, I cannot even tell you with certainty who actually wrote that list that appears on the website, and I do not even know whether or not it underwent an approval process from the entire board that existed at the time that this information was placed on the website.
You claim that the “Facts” page is “the usual collection of half-truths, misrepresentations and downright “made-ups” that typify most of the less worthy platforms devoted to the authenticity of the Shroud.” Well, Hugh, of course YOU are going to think that since you (and now Dan Porter) are passionately devoted anti-Shroudists. Yes, that is my new word for you both. You are not mere “skeptics,” just like Bart Ehrman is not really an “agnostic” (despite his having claimed that for years, although now he will sometimes admit he is an atheist.) But, NO, Hugh, the information contained in that quick list of highlights is not “the usual collection of half-truths, misrepresentations and downright ‘made-ups.'” It is a good, overall summary of some important highlights that is meant to stimulate interest in the public on a popular level so that people will go and learn more of the fascinating details about the Shroud of Turin.
I do think that this list needs to be updated and tweaked–particularly with regard to the claim that the blood type is known. As you know, for a long time, that was scientifically solid information, but now it is not. So, you and I would agree that that needs to be removed. I have been making an effort to get board members together to discuss this, but that is easier said than done as everyone is up to their eyeballs in work right now. But, knowledge of blood type is just information that gilds the lily, and it is not a foundational piece of evidence that is needed to establish the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity. I don’t use that information or a lot of other pieces of commonly mentioned information when I build my arguments as they are really just not needed much less necessary.
As you, also, know, you can put a bunch of authenticists in a room and there will be disagreements on various pieces of evidence (since there is a mountain of evidence supporting the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity as the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.) This is just like if you put a bunch of other experts in a room about a topic–there will be variances of opinion, and that is okay as it shows that nobody is “drinking the Kool-Aid.” That said, I agree with most of the things mentioned in that list. But, had I written them, they would have been a bit more nuanced, but (as you know), I write things more on a technical level that tends to not have mass appeal, and the purpose of this website is to get the masses to be interested in learning more about the Shroud. So, playing the “Gotcha Game” with information that is clearly meant to be quick bullet-points of information is different from high scholarship which has a very different level of detail and whose tone is far different from what is on the Sign From God website.
Regardless, the main thrust of the information is to show that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, and the positive evidence for that hits the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sure, you, Dan and others disagree, but your doubt is not reasonable.
In closing, I leave you with the admonition of: “Just the facts, Sir.”
Best regards,
Teddi Pappas
I agree about facts and nuance.
Ref footnote 8 you say ‘the most widely quoted fact is derived from a press release issued by John Heller in 1981
(From the official summary of STURPS conclusions)…….”no pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils”, is not a fact, it is a challenge- and it’s not true. ‘ …and “it is clear there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body”, which is also unjustified. You here reference Schwalbe and Rogers lengthy paper on the different hypotheses of image formation.
Whilst they don’t actually say that there has been bodily contact, an inference is made under the ‘The Image is not an artifact’…….”no other natural processes have been examined that might have produced such a detailed and anatomically correct image on a cloth without the presence of a human body”.
In the initial summary they do conclude “that the image is the result of some cellulose oxidation- dehydration reaction rather than an applied pigment”.
In the 2004 December edition 60 of the BSTS newsletter, in an interview Rogers goes further.
“We proved that the Shroud is not a painting, but some people still claim it is”.