Sunday, April 27, 2014

"How Valid are the Vignon Markings?": My response to Dan Porter

Here is my response to Dan Porter's latest post about me. Porter evidently cannot restrain himself from attacking my posts publicly on his blog, but at least he is not attacking me personally! This time Porter attacks one of the Vignon markings and by extension all of them. This is further confirmation of what I wrote in a previous post:

My personal observation is that Porter has, over the years, drifted from a pro-authenticity to an anti-authenticity position, perhaps without realising it.
If Porter keeps up attacking what I write in my blog, instead of doing original research of his own, I may just have to ignore him, because I have better things to do with my time than continually respond to Porter. Again Porter's words and quoted words of mine are in bold.

[Above: Vignon marking "(2) three-sided `square' between brows" (see my "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #2" post: Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical (auto-corrected). As can be seen, the `topless square' is actually part of a flaw in the weave on the Shroud, which extends up to the hairline (and indeed along the entire length of the Shroud, front and back (see below).]

How Valid are the Vignon Markings?
April 26, 2014

A reader writes:

I suggest that you only focus on the Shroud of Turin content on Stephen Jones’ site. Ignore what he says about you or your blog.
Better advice would be for Porter to do his own original research on the Shroud instead of being a scavenger of the original work of others.

Others, in comments and emails, have offered similar good advice.

Okay, here goes. On April 14, Stephen wrote:

Vignon paid particular attention to a topless square (Vignon marking 2 above) on the 8th-century Christ Pantocrator in the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome[11] Artistically it made no sense, yet it appears on other Byzantine Christ portraits, including the 11th century Daphni Pantocrator, the 10th century Sant’Angelo in Formis fresco, the 10th century Hagia Sophia narthex mosaic, and the 11th century "Christ the Merciful" mosaic in Berlin[12]. And at the equivalent point on the Shroud face, there is exactly the same feature where it is merely a flaw in the weave[13].

I disagree. Artistically, a topless square, or at least the right and left vertical lines of one, are quite common. Porter is using the word "vertical" loosely. My (following Wilson's) claim is that the `topless square' on the Shroud, and in some artists' depiction of it (e.g. the catacomb of St. Pontianus face) is "starkly geometrical". Clearly Paul Vignon, an artist, and Ian Wilson, with artistic training, were not claiming the "common" brow furrows of the human face are a unique marking found only on the face of the Shroud and in some Byzantine artists' depiction of Christ's face. Porter should give credit to them (and me) for having some intelligence!

It makes perfect artistic sense as some of the pictures, below, show. Maybe the artist copied the lines from the faint lines on the shroud or from a statue of Aristotle. Maybe he simply introduced it artistically. "Maybe ... Maybe." Porter has joined the ranks of the negative sceptics who tear everything down with their doubts and build nothing up to take its place. But as can be seen, there is a topless square on the face on the Shroud, which is just a flaw in the weave.

And as the late paleontologist Prof. Colin Patterson pointed out, copyright courts rule that it is "proof `beyond reasonable doubt'" of plagiarism if two or more works share the same error, and also that the original is the work in which the shared error is a physical flaw in the text:

"An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy." (Patterson, C., "Evolution," 1999, p.117. My emphasis).

Moreover there are fourteen other Vignon markings, so Porter would have to have an ad hoc pagan art explanation of each one of them. But according to Ockham's Razor, the simplest explanation which accounts for all the facts is that which is to be preferred, and that simplest explanation is that the Byzantine artists were copying the Shroud which has all 15 of the Vignon markings, including some of which, for example the topless square, are physical features of the Shroud.

There is no reason to bring in pagan statues as the source of the inspiration of Byzantine Christian artists from the sixth century onwards. It is Wilson's point that before the Shroud was re-discovered in the sixth century, the pagan art that the Christians followed showed Jesus as a youthful, beardlesss Apollo.

In fairness to Stephen, he is only saying what many before him have said. Porter is patronising me (and indeed all those, like Wilson, who have been persuaded that Vignon's iconographic theory was correct). I am not "only saying what many before [me] have said." Like everything about the Shroud, I have examined the claims for the Vignon markings for myself and am persuaded by the evidence that they are true. That is, Byzantine artists in the sixth to the 11th century had the Shroud as their model. Or in some cases they painted their Christ's face from a copy which was painted from from the Shroud.

I had believed it was important. It was something that helped me believe that the shroud was real. Then, one day I was shaving. (I still believe it is real but I’ve discounted this at least.) I wish Porter would be more precise and not use American slang. Of course the Shroud is "real"! What Porter presumably means is that he once believed the Shroud was authentic based on this Vignon marking and others.

Porter claims that he still believes that the Shroud is "real," i.e. authentic, but if he applied the same piecemeal negative scepticism to the remaining reasons why he still claims to believe in the Shroud's authenticity, that he applies to this topless square Vignon marking, Porter would discount those also and inevitably complete his slide into full Shroud anti-authenticity.

And if Porter really did still believe the Shroud was authentic, then why would he discount this topless square Vignon marking having been (like the 14 others) copied from the authentic Shroud of Turin, which has this same topless square, exactly where the artists depicted it?

Especially since, as we shall see, the `topless squares' on the statues and photos that Porter posted are not where they are on icons based on the Shroud.

Thoughts? Should other Vignon markings be questioned as well? Should the whole concept be reconsidered? Or, am I mistaken? Porter is indeed "mistaken" as we shall see. And what's worse is that he is happy to publicly undermine individuals' belief in the authenticity of the Shroud, so that he can have more debate and more readers on his blog for him to boast about.

Bridge of Nose on Shroud of Turin See my Shroud Scope photo above. The topless square on the Shroud extends from the level of the eyes up to the middle forehead (and indeed its two parallel sides continue down the face and even down the entire length of the Shroud, front and back). There is no human feature which does that, as can be seen on the photos that Porter himself posted as evidence of his argument.

[Right (click to enlarge): Front of the Shroud showing that the two parallel lines which form the two sides of the topless square are actually flaws or characteristics of the Shroud's weave, which extend down the entire length of the Shroud, both front and back (not shown): Shroud Scope, Durante 2002 Horizontal (cropped and rotated vertical)].

Christ Pantocrator in the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome As can be seen in my enlarged and cropped face-only copy of the icon below, the topless square on the Christ Pantocrator painting from the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome, is as Wilson described it, "starkly geometrical"

[Above: Face only of Christ Pantocrator from the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome: Catacomba di Ponziano, Wikipedia, 2 August 2013. Note the geometrical three-sided square above where a human brow is usually furrowed, but exactly matching where there is an apparent geometrical three-sided square on the Shroud face.]

and "depicted most unnaturally" and indeed too high, "If it was intended to be a furrowed brow":

"The seventh century saw another wave of Pantocrator-type depictions of Christ, which we have shown to be based on the Image of Edessa. One of these can be found in the little-visited St Ponziano catacomb in Rome's Transtevere district ... on the forehead between the eyebrows there is a starkly geometrical shape resembling a topless square. Artistically it does not seem to make much sense. If it was intended to be a furrowed brow, it is depicted most unnaturally in comparison with the rest of the face. But if we look at the equivalent point on the shroud face ... we find exactly the same feature, equally as geometric and equally as unnatural, probably just a flaw in the weave. The only possible deduction is that fourteen centuries ago an artist saw this feature on the cloth that he knew as the Image of Edessa and applied it to his Christ Pantocrator portrait of Jesus. In so doing he provided a tell-tale clue that the likeness of Jesus from which he was working was that on the cloth we today know as the Shroud." (Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved,"p.142. My emphasis).

11th century Daphni Pantocrator image

Selfie with iPhone Thanks to Porter for proving my point! His brow furrow is not square, nor does it extend up as far as the Shroud's, or the St. Pontianus' depiction of it.


Drawing of Hugh Laurie by Gary Wood Thanks again to Porter for proving my point! Hugh Laurie's brow furrow begins further down, is more square than Porter's (but still not geometrically square) and it does not extend up as far as the sides of the topless square on the Shroud, or the St. Pontianus' depiction of it.

Drawing of Clint Eastwood by Giacomo Burattini Nothing like a square and barely extending beyond the eyebrows!

Aristotle Ditto as per Clint Eastwood.

Plato Not a square but extending further up than the others.

Unknown Russian Peasant Ditto as per Clint Eastwood and Aristotle.

Nor do any of the above photos posted by Porter have any of the 14 other Vignon markings. It is an example of the Fallacy of Composition, `what is true of a part is necessarily true of the whole':

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)." ("Fallacy of composition," Wikipedia, 21 March 2014)
for Porter to claim that because one Vignon marking might be able to be explained away (which hasn't happened in this case), therefore all fifteen Vignon markings have been explained away. The Vignon markings are a whole package, and must be understood and/or explained away as a whole package.

And again if Porter offers 15 different ad hoc explanations for the 15 diferent Vignon markings, then Ockham's Razor applies, and the single explanation by Vignon, that the 6th-11th century Byzantine artists based their portraits of Christ on the Shroud, is to be preferred.

Posted: 27 April 2014. Updated: 1 May 2014

7 comments:

bippy123 said...

Hello stephen I k is this is off topic here but I have been having a debate with a another Christianon a forum who won't accept anything on the side of authenticity with for the
Shroud because he is afraid it can be used later against believers.

We are on ray rogers thermodynamics a cat paper. Is there anything documenting that the 2 pieces rogers received were from the corner area tested in 1988.

This guy irritatesme even more then most of atheistic skeptics of the shroud.
Again sorry for the off topic stephen
Good bless
Bob

The Deuce said...

I don't get Porter's point. *Obviously* the square isn't strong evidence for the Shroud's authenticity all by itself, and could be discounted as a strange but not too extraordinary coincidence in isolation, but nobody has ever suggested taking it in isolation in the first place. Obviously the point of the Vignon markings argument is that lots of odd little coincidences, which wouldn't be all that significant in the absence of the others, add up together and reinforce each other, in combination with all the other evidence for the Shroud's authenticity.

Particularly for someone who already believes the Shroud's authenticity on other grounds, or even strongly suspects it, the neatest explanation for these coincidences would be that they're based on the Shroud itself.

Stephen E. Jones said...

The Deuce

>I don't get Porter's point. *Obviously* the square isn't strong evidence for the Shroud's authenticity all by itself, and could be discounted as a strange but not too extraordinary coincidence in isolation, but nobody has ever suggested taking it in isolation in the first place.

Exactly. Anti-authenticists make the fundamental mistake of thinking that if they can find an apparent problem with ONE part of the Shroud then they have disproved ALL of it. But as I pointed out in a recent comment:

---------------------------------
It is a fallacy to think that the authenticity of the Shroud stands or falls on ONE feature alone. Shroud sceptics (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's NON-authenticity) typically take pot-shots at individual features of the Shroud, and if they THINK that they have won on ONE individual point, they can declare victory for the forgery theory.

But what the Shroud sceptics need to do is propose a COMPREHENSIVE AND INTERNALLY CONSISTENT forgery theory, which:

1) POSITIVELY explains plausibly how the image on the Shroud was formed in a way that is inconsistent with the Shroud's authenticity, including not only HOW the image was formed, but WHEN it was formed, and WHO formed it;

and

2) NEGATIVELY plausibly explains away ALL the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity.

That there is NO such comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, is itself evidence that the Shroud is NOT a forgery. In my "The Shroud of Turin" series, I am collecting problems of the forgery theory which I will eventually post as "Problems of the forgery theory." Then it will be seen that the problems of the Shroud authenticity theory are NOTHING compared to the problems of the forgery theory.
---------------------------------

What the anti-authenticists need to do is compare the TOTAL pro-authenticist general theory/model against a TOTAL anti-authenticist general theory/model. Then they would see that the pro-authenticist general theory/model has FAR less problems than the anti-authenticist general theory/model.

A comprehensive and internally consistent pro-authenticists general theory/model could be collated from Ian Wilson's writings. But its counterpart could not be collated from any anti-authentists writings.

There is NO anti- authenticist general theory/model and and anti-authenticist sub-theories contradict each other and no one sub-theory has won the majority support of most anti- authenticists.

Unscrupulous anti-authenticists like Joe Nickell argue for BOTH the painting theory:

"In fact, there is no mention of this particular `shroud' for some thirteen centuries; then a respected bishop reportedly uncovered an artist who confessed to having created it. In a letter of 1389 to Pope Clement VII, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis reported on an earlier investigation ... D'Arcis continued, speaking of the earlier bishop who conducted the investigation: Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed" (Nickell, J., 1993, "Looking for a Miracle," pp.25-26. Emphasis original).

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

AND the bas relief/statue theory:

"As an alternative to the painting hypothesis, some two years before McCrone published his findings, I reported the results of my own successful experiments in creating shroudlike `negative' images. The technique involved wet-molding cloth to a bas-relief (used instead of a fully [28] three-dimensional statue to minimize distortion), allowing it to dry, then rubbing on powdered pigment using a dauber-much as one would make a rubbing from a gravestone. This technique automatically yields 'negative' images (or rather, just like the shroud, quasi-negative images, since the hair and beard are the opposite of what would be expected). It also produces numerous other shroudlike features, including minimal depth of penetration into the threads, encoded `3-D' information, and other similarities, some of which specifically pointed to some form of imprinting technique. "
(Nickell, 1993, pp.27-28).

when they are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. The evidence FOR one is evidence AGAINST the other.

>Obviously the point of the Vignon markings argument is that lots of odd little coincidences, which wouldn't be all that significant in the absence of the others, add up together and reinforce each other, in combination with all the other evidence for the Shroud's authenticity.

That is precisely the point! Porter (who from memory) is just an ex-businessman with no relevant qualifications, and doesn't seem to have read many Shroud books, can't understand (or doesn't want to) this and other elementary points.

>Particularly for someone who already believes the Shroud's authenticity on other grounds, or even strongly suspects it, the neatest explanation for these coincidences would be that they're based on the Shroud itself.

Agreed. But Porter claims that he still believes in the Shroud's authenticity. But if he did, then he would presumably (unless he thinks the Shroud was hidden from the 1st century and next turned up in mid-14th century France) accept that Byzantine artists would have been able to see and copy the face on the Shroud for nearly seven centuries, in Edessa from the 6th-10th century and then in Constantinople from the 10th to early 13th century.

If so, then why does Porter reject the simplest explanation (as per Ockham's Razor) that the 15 oddities which are on the face of the Shroud, some of which are physical flaws and creases in the cloth - not part of the image itself, and are ALL 15 are found on various Byzantine depictions of Jesus' face (up to 13 on some of them) from the 6th to the 13th centuries?

The answer can only be, absent Porter stating what evidence DOES persuade him that the Shroud is authentic, is that Porter is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH (at least to himself), that he actually has become a Shroud ANTI-authenticist.

That is OK. Porter can be an anti-authenticist if that's how he sees (or wants to see) the evidence. But Porter should come clean and not hide behind his weasel words:

"Is the Shroud real? Probably. The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus" (my emphasis).

Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
"MY POLICIES ... After over a decade (1994-2005) debating creation/evolution/design on Internet discussion groups, I concluded that Internet debates were largely a waste of time, so I ceased debating and started blogging. So I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Stephen E. Jones said...

bippy123

>Hello stephen I k is this is off topic here

A while ago I made an exception for off-topic comments that are under the current post.

>but I have been having a debate with a another Christianon a forum who won't accept anything on the side of authenticity with for the Shroud because he is afraid it can be used later against believers.

If he "won't accept anything on the side of authenticity [of] the Shroud" then ignore him.

Or you could first ask him, "what evidence could I give you over the Internet that would persuade you that the Shroud is authentic?"

Then if he says "none" you can then say, "in that case I am going to ignore your requests for me to give you evidence of the Shroud's authenticity."

But if he states what evidence you could give him over the Internet that would persuade him that the Shroud is authentic, then give it to him.

If he ignores your request and keeps bothering you, then say, "First answer my question. What evidence ...?"

>We are on ray rogers thermodynamics a cat paper. Is there anything documenting that the 2 pieces rogers received were from the corner area tested in 1988.

Rogers stated:

"I had archived samples from the sampling tapes, the Raes sample, and the Holland cloth and patches after STURP disbanded. These samples were available for testing the validity of the radiocarbon sample. Fortunately, the Holland cloth provides an authentic, documented sample of medieval linen. It should provide an example of the type, of linen available at the time suggested by the radiocarbon date. These samples could provide a rather convincing argument for the properties of the radiocarbon sample; however, a definitive statement could not be made until I received yarn segments from the authentic radiocarbon sample on 12 December 2003. Now we could talk dating with ample proof." (Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh NC, pp.63-64).

and

"On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that had been taken from the radiocarbon sample by Professor Luigi Gonella before it was distributed for dating. He reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample. A "chain of evidence" has been maintained on those threads, and it is certain that they were truly removed from the radiocarbon sample. These samples finally made it possible to confirm my conclusion that the radiocarbon sample was not valid." (Rogers, 2008, p.65).

>This guy irritatesme even more then most of atheistic skeptics of the shroud.

See above. Since the Shroud IS authentic, then it is His problem if he doesn't accept it.

>Again sorry for the off topic stephen

It wasn't off-topic. See above.

Stephen E. Jones

The Deuce said...

That there is NO such comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, is itself evidence that the Shroud is NOT a forgery.

Indeed. In fact, it's logically impossible for there to EVER be a theory on how the most prominent features, like the photo negativity and 200nm depth of the image, were formed, since those things were completely unknown at the time of the supposed forgery, and couldn't be detected or known until hundreds of years later.

So there can never be a Shroud forgery theory. At best there can be a "How some guy forged an elaborate image on a cloth, and ended up producing all these amazing puzzling features he couldn't see or know about completely by accident."

Of course, the anti-authenticists aren't even at the point of being able to produce on purpose what was supposedly produced by blind luck.

Stephen E. Jones said...

>>That there is NO such comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, is itself evidence that the Shroud is NOT a forgery.

>Indeed. In fact, it's logically impossible for there to EVER be a theory on how the most prominent features, like the photo negativity and 200nm depth of the image, were formed, since those things were completely unknown at the time of the supposed forgery, and couldn't be detected or known until hundreds of years later.

That's why if an anti-authenticist ever started a comprehensive and internally consistent forgery theory, he/she would have quietly given up.

>So there can never be a Shroud forgery theory. At best there can be a "How some guy forged an elaborate image on a cloth, and ended up producing all these amazing puzzling features he couldn't see or know about completely by accident."

That is actually the position of one of the commenters on Porter's blog, Hugh Farey, the new Editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud:

"Unlike my predecessors, whom I think are more or less committed to a pro-authenticity point of view, I myself currently incline more towards an accidental 14th century origin for the cloth now preserved in Turin." (Editorial - by Hugh Farey, BSTS Newsletter, No. 78, December 2013).

And Porter thinks MY hacking proposal is "ridiculous"!

That must have been SOME accident! Did some mad 14th century scientist experimenting with light-sensitive chemicals accidentally tip over his test tubes onto his workbench. And then he used his ~4.4 x 1.1 metre linen bench covering sheet to mop it up, lying on it naked front and back to apply maximum pressure, and hey-presto! There was the photo of his naked body, front and back, on the sheet???

Far-fetched? And what about the mountain of historical and artistic evidence that the Shroud existed all the way back to the first century? It doesn't matter. Modern science (i.e, Applied Naturalism) proceeds by starting with the least-worst naturalistic theory and waiting until a better naturalistic theory, irrespective of whether it fits the facts, is proposed.

>Of course, the anti-authenticists aren't even at the point of being able to produce on purpose what was supposedly produced by blind luck.

Great irony! But if you are a philosophical naturalist (including that contradiction in terms "`Christian' naturalist" rescued from self-contradiction by calling it "Methodological Naturalism"-i.e. Naturalism is false but the best way to proceed in science is by pretending that Naturalism is true!) then a naturalistic theory which doesn't explain the most facts always beats a supernaturalistic theory which does explain the most facts!

Stephen E. Jones