“By 2012 scientists will not have developed an explanation for how images on the Shroud of Turin came to be on the cloth -an explanation that satisfies all of the physical and chemical properties of the images and does not violate basic laws of physics.”
Created by gwern on 2010-07-30; known on 2012-01-01; judged wrong by gwern on 2012-08-28.
- gwern estimated 30% on 2010-07-30
- kallman estimated 0% and said “Some dude willing to invest a chunk of time made it a while backto catch a buck. Mystery solved. </snark>” on 2010-11-23
- Jayson Virissimo estimated 80% on 2011-10-10
- JoshuaZ said “What does this mean? At this point it seems like we have decent explanations. ” on 2011-10-11
- Jayson Virissimo said “According to Fanti’s December 2011 compendium “none of [the explanations] can completely explain the mysterious image”. Enough to call this a win?” on 2012-01-15
- Laurent Bossavit said “One look at the WP page is enough to see that there are in fact many explanations; despite a game of shifting the goalposts it seems clear enough that you can reproduce Shroud-like images at will, what’s left to explain?” on 2012-01-15
- Jayson Virissimo said “Okay, but weren’t those explanations on WP before this prediction was made? If so, that would indicate that the author of the quote had a stronger explanation in mind than those currently on WP.” on 2012-01-15
- Selector_3 said “who cares about the Shroud of Turin?” on 2012-04-28
- Leo said “There was an article in Science & Vie about researchers making a replica. Does this count as a falsification?” on 2012-05-05
- gwern said “I’d be fine with that unless Jayson wants to object.” on 2012-05-06
- Leo said “di Costanzo’s replica is mentioned on WP. Source is http://phys.org/news4652.html citing Science & Vie 1054 (july 2005) no longer legally available. Fanti complains about different contrast distribution. Counts as physical property.” on 2012-05-08
- gwern judged this prediction wrong on 2012-08-28.