- Anyway, my target right now is to be more specific about the link to which I told you I’d be referring (Note that this is the same link that Ian had suggested a while back), and to explain (by presenting evidence and argument) my opinions about “invisible weaving,” and the piece carbon dated not being representative of the larger cloth. In that explanation, I will address the claims of Professor Guiseppe Ghibirti and Dr. Flury-Lemberg.
--- Jabba
I don’t think you should spend much, if any, time on what Dr Heimberger says in that link.
Because there are several very obvious reasons why people here are not going to treat what Heimberger says as reliable or authoritative. And that lack of reliability and accuracy will only be reduced even further if you try to cut-&-paste parts of his argument into your replies.
Why? Why is it unlikely that anyone here will be impressed by Heimberger’s comments? OK, here are some of the very obvious reasons -
1. Heimberger himself told us that he has been interested in the shroud for over 20 years, and even has his own website of the shroud. That immediately puts him in the same bracket as members of STURP (such as Ray Rogers, and Barrie Schwortz), all of whom are overwhelmingly likely to be Christian shroud fanatics ... and that is about as far from being independent and unbiased in their views as it's possible to get.
2. Heimberger is not a scientist. He is, so he tells us, a medical doctor. That, however, does not necessarily imply any particular scientific expertise in the sense of relevant research.
3. Although you already said that in that link you believe Heimberger "won" an argument with Antonnacii and as you said "he had the last word", it is very clear that in his first reply Antonacci was able to conclusively refute every objection raised by Heimberger, and he did that in detail and at length.
The fact that Antonacci decided not to reply further to Heimbergers second email, was entirely consistent with the fact that Heimberger’s second email was merely repeating what he'd just said in his first email, except in even more vague and generalised language - so there was no need for Antonaacci to continue that conversation with further replies, because he had already explained in detail to Heimberger why Heimberger was decidedly mistaken on every single point.
4. Most of Heimberger’s complaints amount to vague generalisations of saying that he actually agrees with Antonacci’s criticisms, but he nevertheless believes that all sorts of things might be possible - such as, believing that it might have been possible to make an invisible weave, and believing that Rogers might have detected some evidence of that which had been missed by everyone else, and believing that although the crucial temperatures had been omitted from Rogers Mass Spec. plots (all of which were old unused results of much earlier STURP experiments), that Rogers had explained that by … wait for it … admitting on page 5 of his paper that he could not find the crucial temperatures from those old plots!
5. Heimberger also admitted that Antonnacci was right to criticise Rogers vanillin tests as invalid. And those vanillin tests were actually the central issue in Rogers paper! Heimberger then further agreed with Antonacci that it was absurd for Rogers to have assumed that during the fire of 1532 the temperature of the shroud would not have risen above 20C to 25C. And further, that if the temperature in that fire had been greater than 20-25C then Rogers estimated vanillin dates would have been totally different!
On so it goes on … with Heimberger’s supposed “objections” turning out to be a mixture of vague claims of supporting Rogers by saying he “might” have been right about some of his home chemistry tests. Well anybody “might” be right about anything … but that is not science!
Frankly I am growing weary of continually going to the time and trouble of checking these things and writing detailed replies for you (Jabba) when it’s crystal clear that you never bother to read anything except your own links to fanatical Christian shroud websites, from which you merely take 30 seconds to cut-&-paste a link suggesting we read their barking mad and blatantly dishonest shroud propaganda.
