Do you accept my underlying claim that if bloodstains are more likely given authenticity than they are given inauthenticity, the finding of bloodstains would support authenticity rather than inauthenticity?
NO.
Which is to say, I can see you've spent some time trying to figure out how to phrase your circular reasoning so that it (a) hides the out-of-thin-air guess you're making, and (b) sounds like something you can misuse Bayes again to make seem plausible.
Everyone sees right through your circular argument, including your erstwhile ally, so stop trying to find a different way of saying it. As many times as you've tried and failed to get a circular claim past your critics, it's just insulting now for you to keep trying. You know we'll catch you every time, so I assume you're just now deliberately wasting people's attention on you.
As I've said several times: drop Bayesian analysis. It doesn't do what you insinuate it does, and you can't demonstrate a working understanding of it. At this point your continued allusion to it can only be a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.
Your Bayesesque word salad hides your unproven claim: You have said it's more likely that an authentic shroud would have blood on it than an artificial one. You have provided
zero argument in favor of that claim. You have instead tried to foist a burden of proof onto your critics, which they nevertheless undertook and satisfied, and which you now simply refuse to acknowledge. Without proof of your priors, Bayes cannot help you. So get to it.
And finally, quit trying to get your critics to agree with you just by virtue of you asking. You've raised question-begging to a high art form. Your tortured phrasing above is undoubtedly intended to get people to agree that, in the abstract Bayesian sense, one thing would follow from another. But then you will, as you have so many times before, equivocate that into a maxim shorn of its Bayesian roots -- that blood is probative of authenticity in an objective, unpredisposed sense. This is extremely shameful of you Jabba, because it's absolutely clear you know exactly what you're doing. I can't imagine how you think these very transparent rhetorical ploys constitute "effective debate." If you knew anything at all about Bayes, including what I've attempted to teach you, you would realize that any such conclusion would hold only insofar as the prior estimates of conditional likelihood -- which you admit you just make up. Seriously, it's disgraceful the way you are deliberately twisting and warping useful sciences to support your delusion.
If you don't, that's the issue I need to address first.
No. First you need to prove the stains are human blood. If you can't do that, none of what you're doing now matters even a little bit.
Is it clear now what your next step should be?
