If the shoes matched Babes documented shoe size and custom cleat pattern that would be a start. If there was trace blood on the cleats that matched trace blood on a cap that was a Yankee hat and matched Babes documented head size and both had the same rare blood type then I suspect most would take this evidence as evidence that they were indeed Babes shoes.
BTW I agree Babe was a unique talent and in the discussion as the GOAT.
I disagree. There would be too many people with the same shoe and hat size, and a blood type shared by 2% of the population is not so rare to make coincidence so unlikely that they must belong to the same person. That evidence would be even weaker if we didnât know Ruthâs blood type, which is the case for Jesus. Iâm pretty sure no museum would spend money on an artifact supported by such flimsy evidence. The most important factor, I believe, would be documentation of the chain of possession leading back to Ruth. If the shoes just turned up out of nowhere in 2024 and no one had a clue where they had been in the interim, I doubt they would be deemed authentic.
BTW, what is the probability that two random individuals will have the same blood type? Google, what say you?
The total probability is obtained by adding the probabilities for each blood type, resulting in approximately 37.62%.
The subject at hand is probability, a subtopic of Mathematics. We are trying to find the probability that two randomly selected people in the United States have the same blood type. The given probabilities of blood types A, B, AB, and O are 0.40, 0.11, 0.04, and 0.45 respectively.
An important concept here is the rule that the probability of two independent events happening is calculated by multiplying the probabilities of each event. Here, the two events are the blood type of person 1 and the blood type of person 2.
So, to get the total probability that two randomly selected people have the same blood type, we need to add the probabilities for each blood type: P(A and A) + P(B and B) + P(AB and AB) + P(O and O).
The calculation goes as follows: (0.400.40) + (0.110.11) + (0.040.04) + (0.450.45) = 0.16 + 0.0121 + 0.0016 + 0.2025 = 0.3762.
Conclusion
Therefore, the probability of two randomly selected individuals in the United States having the same blood type is 0.3762 or approximately 37.62%.
The question is what is the chance of two random people having AB blood type. This is .03 x.03 or about 1 chance in 1100 (Roys correction). If the The Tunic of Argenteuil (covered Jesus shoulders) has AB blood then the chance of this being 3 people is 1 chance in about 1 chance I 40000.
The problem for skeptical arugument is having to play wack-a mole with all the evidence.
It isnât. The question is the chance that the blood type of two samples is the same. If the shroud and the Sudarium both came up type A, you wouldnât reject the shroudâs authenticity on that basis.[1] Same for type B or type O.
That is actually true, since no matter how often the âevidenceâ is whacked, you and @Giltil insist in bringing it up again as if the whacking hadnât happened. Itâs not actually a point in your favour.
P.S. 0.03*0.03 gives a chance of about 1/1100, not 1/900. You really must learn how to calculate probabilities.
I doubt youâd reject the shroudâs authenticity if the Sudarium showed type O and the shroud showed up as Dulux Gloss, but thatâs another question. âŠď¸
I doubt you would think the shroud is real even if 4 other relics attributed to Jesus crucification showed AB blood type with odds of 1 chance in 1 million of being from different people.
The blood evidence is only one piece of evidence as are the dating methods.
Show your work.
Come on Roy you did the calculation with 2 people and corrected my work. Stop nitpicking.
I would have bet my bottom dollar this would be your response. And guess what.
I was only slightly less certain that you would fail to understand why this is an error even after it was pointed out. But I would have been correct there, as well.
The levels of wrong here are meta over meta over meta.
Is this what psychiatrists do when their argument is failing 
All being type AB is not the same probability as all being from different people.
And my reasons for rejecting the shroud as a genuine article have nothing to do with blood typing. Even if that 1-in-a-million chance (which is actually about 1-in-8) happened, it wouldnât make the shrould older.
Set up the probability from the stand point the two relics are separate forgeries at a time well before blood type could be identified. What then is the chance that both forgeries would have AB blood.
If you can make the case that the forgeries were done at the same time by the same person then you have a case. Other evidence however does not support this case.
Iâm curious as to why you included the bit about blood type not being known about back then. Why do you think that is relevant?
If this was modern times and the forger was making the shroud to match the blood type of the sudarium he could identify the type of the shroud blood and then find AB blood for the sudarium. He could also match the blood patterns which some are claiming match well.
Are you saying that, if two objects (that are likely to have blood on them in the first place) both have blood stains of the same type, then the most likely explanation is either a) the blood belonged to the same person or, b) someone deliberately stained the objects with blood of the same type, with the intention of deceiving?
Irrelevant. First, because nothing about the blood type changes the fact that the Shroud is more than a millennium too young as far as the best measurement so far performed yields. But also irrelevant, because there is zero indication that AB is a required or desirable blood type to âforgeâ. The probability that one of the relics would have had the blood type O, and the other had the blood type AB is smaller than the probability that both should have O, but you would not be impressed if there was a mismatch like that[1]. So what we are looking for, if anything, is not the probability that both relics should have AB, but either the probability that they match in general, or the probability that they match given one of them is AB. The probability of blood types matching exactly, if modern blood type distributions are anything to go by, is something like 28.5%. The probability that one of them should be AB provided the other is, is 5%. This is of course uninteresting, again, because if the rhesus factor doesnât match, we are definitely looking still at blood from different individuals. If we want an actual match, then depending whether the given type was AB+ or AB-, the probability that the other relicâs blood should match it drops down to some 4% and 1%, respectively. All of this is assuming that (a) the probabilities for blood types are homogeneous and there is no distribution bias based on location/ethnicity, and (b) that these numbers and the homogeneity of the distributions held as they are now for the past two millennia.
Now, please, explain to us, how are these numbers too prohibitive to account for the match even just based on chance alone.
Then, please, explain how these numbers rectify the problem that the Shroud has been dated about a dozen centuries too young.
As always, it would seem Bill does not even understand his own argument⌠âŠď¸
The probability depends on the blood type. If the blood types were both O or A then having the same blood type would be much less compelling evidence as a much larger percentages of the population have this blood type.
It might be less compelling to people who donât understand probabilities and basic logic. I will give you that.
Everyone else will understand that the odds of two random blood samples being of the same type is 36%, and therefore it is not surprising at all when this happens just by pure chance.
Good one.
Probability that relic 1 has O and that relic 2 has O: 16.5%
Probability that relic 1 has O and that relic 2 has AB: 2.4%
Probability that relic 1 has AB and that relic 2 has AB: 0.25%
As you can see, the probability of the O vs AB mismatch is much less likely than the probability of an O-O match. Now, Bill, which of these two first scenarios would you find more compelling towards the conclusion that both relics are genuine? An O-O match, or an O-AB mismatch?
Now, if there is any hope for you to retain a shred of seriousness here, I should expect the match to be more convincing to you, and that shows how badly you are misunderstanding your own argument:
Yes, the probability depends on the blood type, but there is no monotonous mapping between the joint probability that the two relics should have any particular tuple of blood types and how compelling the argument is. Whatâs impressive (if anything is), therefore, is not that each happened to be AB. Rather it should be one of these: