Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Alex Cured]

- I’ll try again.
- I’m trying to be a CANDID advocate/representative/lawyer for the other side – the other side being the side that claims that the Shroud of Turin was the true burial cloth for Jesus of Nazareth. I’m trying to do the best job of presenting the case for authenticity that I can – but, at the same time, I’m trying to be as candid as possible about the weaknesses I perceive on the authenticity side… I know you guys don’t believe that for a minute, but I will now try to show that it’s true.

This is quite an unusual position, and it's also unusual to find someone who is polite about it. I'm willing to accept that you think you're being equivocal, but it's also pretty clear by now that you are deluding yourself about this too. The arguments against the shroud being genuine are extensive and rigorous, and the arguments for amount to unsubstantiated claims of error and hearsay. These will never be equal arguments to someone with an open mind.

Taken from the first page of my first website -- http://messiahornot.com/
13. But do note that I am not here to judge Christianity per se -- I am here only to judge the possibility that Jesus was, in fact, the long prophesied Messiah of ancient Israel…

6. But then, I must also accept that I am not now (nor have I ever been) impartial in regard to this issue -- and that consequently, I cannot fully trust my own conclusions and suspicions...
17. And now, being as old as I am, I suspect that this issue could really be important…
18. And then, can I really “entrust my life to Jesus” (a real neurological event) – which is surely what Jesus wanted us to do, and what would probably do me all sorts of good – if I’m not pretty darn sure that he was who he said he was? I doubt it.

But how is it an act of faith if you need to find evidence first? I genuinely find this position (which is all too common) very puzzling.
Apart from that (if this really is your honest position) it is futile.
Do you understand that even, in the very unlikely scenario that this cloth really does date from the first century and even more unlikely scenario that it was the burial cloth of JC, that still wouldn't prove a thing about the supernatural claims of Christianity, so I can't see how you will be substantially any nearer your apparent goal.

Consider this too:
In the end the only real "evidence" in a religious belief is trust in the honestly of those that have delivered the message to you.
But what about all the other "holy" relics, say pieces of the "true cross", enough of them to assemble a dozen of the bloody things! All those saint's shin bones. Those guys must have been centipedes! Even the shroud has a competing claim from the Oviedo relic. It ought to be clear that both these claims cannot be simultaneously true; so to labour the point, at least one must be false. Therefore at least one was produced fraudulently by someone in the past for whatever reason. At least one must be a fake ... but then how can you possess confidence in the other? If dishonesty has been used to promote Christianity, doesn't it mean that faith in the honesty of the people that have conveyed the message is thrown into doubt, and as I said at the beginning, their honesty is the only thing you really have as the foundation. Even if only the first person in the chain was dishonest and everyone else that followed where paragons of virtue with the message, the message can't be trusted.

So if you haven't got faith now, I don't see how this can ever deliver ehat you claim to seek, and that's even if you can overturn the colossal weight of evidence that the shroud is a fraud.

If you're looking for some evidence to bolster your faith (and as I say to me the result anyway can't be an act of faith) then I'm afraid you'll never escape your doubts

19. What I need, therefore, is access to an effective presentation of both sides of this story.
20. Will my current suspicions and conclusions hold up in face of the logic and evidence of dedicated skeptics?

A scientifically based case has be made here that they don't, and you have yet to present anything more than hearsay for your side (and promises of something more substantial to follow). If this were actually a court, I think a judge would be making a summary judgement against you at this point I'm afraid.

21. That's the question.

- You probably don’t believe that either, but it really was the whole idea. As noted earlier, I do believe that reality is not the deterministic/probabilistic machine that current science would have us believe -- reality must include something we call "transcendence" (the belief in which I see as the ultimate criterion for a philosophy being religious).

This makes no sense to me at all.

But thereby assuming that “transcendence” is actually real, and not just a product of our imagination, I still didn’t know how well any particular “religion” represents that transcendent reality. And, during my college years, Christianity (unfortunately, I felt…) seemed absolutely out of the question. For whatever reasons, Eastern religions/philosophies seemed much more “reasonable.”

I'm afraid, to me, this is just plain gibberish too

- But anyway, the CANDID part of what I want to do is the most difficult, and I guess I’ve been putting that off. So for now, I’m going to try to be as candid as possible FIRST – see how that works.

- From Ian, in 1245: In that paper, I think Rogers only shows one micro photo of what he says is a darkened colouring in some of the few fibres he got from Gonella. To me, as someone who has looked at thousands of crystal samples through high power univ. microscopes, my first reaction to Rogers photo is that it’s really far too vague to say anything much about the image at all…
- I need to go back and study Rogers’ paper – and, I have very little experience with microscopes.

Sigh

- Also from Ian, in 1245: … when you look through a microscope at minute samples like that, what you see in terms of colours is highly dependent on the angle, strength and type of lighting that you are using (without the lighting you would not see anything!). I suspect that on just a few tiny fibres like that, Rogers could have easily taken a dozen very different looking photos merely by moving the slide around … so if I had to guess then I think it’s a very strong bet that what Rogers actually did was to shift the slide around and re-angle the light until he saw an image which was roughly what he hoped to see in terms of a very vague darkening on some of the strands … and then he took a photo of that, whilst ignoring the views that he got when the slide and lighting were in other positions.
- Though I can’t remember what that reminds me of, I have noticed that sort of thing in my own non-microscopic life, and Ian makes an interesting (though, unfortunate for me) point.

- Also from Ian in 1245: So in summary - the first problem with those fibres and with Rogers microscope image, is that Rogers does not actually know where those few fibres came from, and for all that Rogers knows those fibres may have absolutely nothing at all to do with the shroud. That’s really part of what I think Dinwar was pointing out to you about “Chain of Custody” … ie Rogers really has no idea where the fibres came from. Also on that point, afaik Gonella himself has never explained or said anything about where he got those fibres from.
- Again, Ian has a point. I cannot prove the chain of custody – and, Gonella or Rogers could be bending the truth, if not just flat out lying…

- So above, all I did was take the first three, of numerous claims, in Ian's previous posting, and admit my own recognition of their validity (that they are reasonable reservations to my own claims). I can do the same for almost every anti-authentic claim in this thread…
- Just that so far, to the extent that I can read my own mind, I think that I do have reasonable reservations to MOST of your reasonable reservations. It’s just difficult to admit my own doubts as I go along.

- And note that I have a certain advantage in our "race" here for candidness – I have TWO horses in it. And though my “A” horse is “the preponderance of evidence favors authenticity,” my “B” horse is “I have a way to ensure actually effective debate.” So, if I eventually have to concede to you guys, my “B” horse finishes in the money.
- In other words, I have a unique lean towards actually being candid.
- And, my “B” horse is at a decided disadvantage, cause parts of him are not allowed on your track.

- I’ll be back
--- Jabba

And so to summarise it remains the case that you discount the work of three teams of professionals in favour of a hearsay argument.

 

[Ladewig]

Rogers claims to have found starch, and encrustations from madder root dye, on threads from the Raes, and carbon dating samples, that he couldn’t find on the main part of the Shroud. Maybe, that's what we're looking at.

Rogers's claims:

-there is madder root dye on the thread.
-the thread came from the C14 sample.
-the thread was carefully transported before Rogers obtained custody and strict contamination protocols were followed to ensure that no chemicals or materials were accidentally added to the sample.
-even though there is no documentation for adherence to these protocols, everyone should just trust him on this point.
-there was a patch on that corner.
-the patch consists of cotton fibers being spliced onto the linen fibers of the Shroud.
-the cotton fibers were dyed before being spliced into the Shroud,
-before the cutting, no one - not STURP, not Flury-Lemberg (an expert on weaves and fabrics) Franco Testore, (an expert on weaves and fabrics), not anyone looking at both sides of the area with powerful microscopes - no one considered even the possibility that this area was a patch. Every expert went on record as saying that this area was integral to the Shroud.
-no one examining the area with microscopes saw madder root dye before the cutting.
-this patch or reweaving involved skills which are not available even today with 21st century technology.
-this patch or reweaving was done on a piece of the Shroud that was farthest away from the image, even though there were larger and more serious damaged in several places closer to the image.
-these patchers or reweavers used dyes to match cotton threads to linen threads so perfectly that experts with powerful microscopes could not detect the differences in twist, thickness, weight, or any other characteristic.
-these patchers or reweavers performed this feat hundreds of time without a single error.

- So, I just provided “evidence” favoring a difference between the carbon dating area and the main part of the Shroud. How good this evidence is depends upon whether the darkening can be explained otherwise.

--- Jabba

No you have not provided evidence. You have described a fantasy so astounding that only a true believer could decide that Rogers was right and every other person who examined the Shroud was wrong.

Your "evidence" would not hold up in a U.S. criminal court¹, in a U.S. civil court², or in a scientific investigation.



'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
(1) burden of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt
(2) burden of proof must be preponderance of evidence

 

[Ladewig]

From the link:




So the whole thread is a plan by Jabba to save souls, the "just lookin' 'n askn' " was just an act.

I know this will be hard for you to understand, but I'll state it anyway.

Even if you did prove the Shroud was Jesus's burial cloth AND you proved that Jesus was the Son of God AND that the Gospels are a true and accurate account of Jesus's life, I (and many other posters) would not worship your God because He is a misogynistic, bigoted monster without even the simplest sense of justice or fairness.

 

[realpaladin]

Paladin,
- I'm not sure that I get your point. What advice in particular do you see me as following?
--- jabba

Jabba... I have looked at shrouddebate and the comments.

I see you are locked in, and probably 'we' are locked in.

Now, the only real way to convince anyone to switch sides is to re-do the C14 dating.

So that simply means all of your energy and efforts (together with all the people that do have faith) need to go into convincing the church to redo it.

Nothing else, no amount of discussion, will do.

There is no 'level of intelligence' involved or anything. It simply means the results have given either side too much of a handhold to doubt the outcome one way or another.

Discussing, debating, whatever you call it, is a waste of time. The amount of text you have written clearly indicates that you could easily have written more than one plea to the Holy See to explain the plight.

Now I would suggest to you that you do not continue this thread, but instead join forces with those who do believe and request a single 'once and for all' testing of the shroud.

Alternatively, you can also claim that no single 'science' result will budge your faith (as you have a right to have it not budged, it being faith) and that people just should believe.

But this twilight-zone of 'you are seeing it wrong' 'no you are seeing it wrong' will not sway anyone one way or the other.

 

[tsig]

I know this will be hard for you to understand, but I'll state it anyway.

Even if you did prove the Shroud was Jesus's burial cloth AND you proved that Jesus was the Son of God AND that the Gospels are a true and accurate account of Jesus's life, I (and many other posters) would not worship your God because He is a misogynistic, bigoted monster without even the simplest sense of justice or fairness.

I think you misdirected your post.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

From Ron, Jabba's advisor:

Richard, seeing as these athiests seem to attack you on all fronts, never really giving you a chance to direct yourself to one area (A typical strategy by the way). Here’s a tip; Attack them directly at their strongest points for inauthenticity and don’t waver from this strategy.They don’t have many points; C14, d’ Arcis, McCrone. But be specific and thorough.

This is very good advice. Why not stick to the C14 dating and provide evidence for us as to how it's wrong? It's been more than 30 pages and it's been your main topic so far, yet you've yet to manage to provide any such evidence. Why not start?

 

[IanS]

Seems to me Jabba is following the advise given to him by fellow shroudies at: http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/a-guest-posting-by-jabba-rich-savage/

Oh dear, oh dear ... what an interesting link that is! ... especially the list of “helpful” replies, all of which seem to contain obvious statements of religious faith (not exactly objective debate then).

Well Jabba … err, I mean Richard Savage … C’mon man, this is ridiculous … it’s obvious from your discussions in that link that you are simply trying to defend the Shroud for the religious sake of a defence, and not at all because of any notion of honest truth about authenticity.

Look, (last time I hope) - you must know by now that there is absolutely no truth in pro-shroud claims that the C14 was in any way statistically in error or anything of that sort at all (contrary to what your main “helper” in that link is telling you to claim ) …

… afaik, even the Vatican itself has publicly accepted that the C14 was accurately and correctly done. The Pope may not like the result, but officially at least he and his Vatican advisors have bowed to the inevitable and conceded that the C14 was properly and accurately conducted.

If that were not the case, then you would have hundreds of genuine scientists and C14 research specialists writing to Nature publishing papers pointing out the errors. And that would have happened within days of the paper first appearing. In case you unaware of it, that sort of immediate and merciless corrective response always happens when papers contain serious errors.

But in this case there is no such complaint from any genuine independent scientist. Not a single one.

The only dissenting voice (in the research literature) is that single paper of Ray Rogers. But as we all know, Rogers was not an independent objective participator. On the contrary, he was writing as a member of the pro-shroud group STURP (and he also had a pro-shroud book coming out).

The really sad part here is reading the sort of advice you are getting from people in that link who you, apparently, think are your friends. With friends like that you don’t need to look for any enemies (though just for the record, I doubt if you actually have any enemies here … here the only serious criticism is that people have become fed up trying to get a straight reply from you … but I’m pretty sure we can get over that).


My thanks to Paladin for the link

 

[IanS]

- But, I do have evidence (to some extent) countering Ian's evidence here.
- The following -- http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm -- is the best photograph of the carbon dating/Raes sample area of the Shroud to which I currently have access. If you look at the bottom right corner, you see that area. This photograph was taken after the Raes sampling, but before the carbon dating. The Raes sample has been replaced with a small whitish patch. The carbon dating area will be taken from (or will at least include) the darkened area immediately above and to the immediate left of the patch. I do have a close-up of that corner on DVD, but I don’t know how to extract a still shot to attach here.
- Anyway, for one reason or another, the carbon dating area at least includes a darkened area that doesn’t appear (from my search) to be explained by scorching. Rogers claims to have found starch, and encrustations from madder root dye, on threads from the Raes, and carbon dating samples, that he couldn’t find on the main part of the Shroud. Maybe, that's what we're looking at.

- So, I just provided “evidence” favoring a difference between the carbon dating area and the main part of the Shroud. How good this evidence is depends upon whether the darkening can be explained otherwise.

--- Jabba

Jesus H. Christ ... that photo is absolutely useless, even in it's supposedly "close-up" version (which is not close-up at all lol).

What on earth do you think you can see in a photo like that. OK don't waste time answering that (it was rhetorical), instead just look at all other small areas of the shroud (corners or folds or anywhere really) - you can see all sorts of similar darker lines and smudges etc …. the shroud is absolutely covered with marks like that .

If you want to see a decent close-up photo of part of the shroud thread/weave, then look at the figure in the link I gave before to the website BadArchelogy.com, where their close-up photo compares the weave of the shroud to the weave from a genuine 1st century cloth … Ok here's that link again - just click the following link and scroll down the page to see first the shroud weave, and then further down the page a genuine 1st century sample.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=322

 

[Marduk]

 

[Alex Cured]

Perhaps Jabba should encourage his friends on that site to join this forum? He seems overwhelmed by the reception he's received here (though I wonder what on earth he was expecting?) and complains about being outnumbered. Fair enough. And I'm sure we'd all appreciate an injection of fresh blood (sorry) into this debate.

 

[Alex Cured]

One of the things that gets me about that site is the repetition of the idea that you must be an atheist to think the shroud a forgery. This would come as news to Pope John Paul II, well, if he were still around.

(The incumbent I'm not so sure about though... well, I'm sure he isn't an atheist but apart from that...)

 

[Alex Cured]

... and the repeated accusation of dishonesty. Take a look at the column on the right, the one that starts "Is the Shroud real? Probably."

why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Ladewig]

I think you misdirected your post.

I have.
My apologies to you.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Perhaps Jabba should encourage his friends on that site to join this forum? He seems overwhelmed by the reception he's received here (though I wonder what on earth he was expecting?) and complains about being outnumbered. Fair enough. And I'm sure we'd all appreciate an injection of fresh blood (sorry) into this debate.

I suggested this exact thing back in post 828. This was Jabba's response:

"- I HAD pulled together a small "authenticity team" for a debate on my website, but they found more pressing (better?) things to do before I could get things moving. One of their reasons for pulling out could easily have been my poor leadership -- but, they did have some "good" reasons also.
- I've started looking for more help, but so far I haven't been able to lure anyone over here. I'm working on a way to get a bunch of "advisers," but everything takes time...
- Thanks for the suggestion."

So, to Jabba, it seems like you have any number of friends who are willing to goad you into continuing to argue here, but they are unwilling to actually engage on the topic themselves. Nice friends.

Ward

 

[George]

- But, I do have evidence (to some extent) countering Ian's evidence here.
- The following -- http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm -- is the best photograph of the carbon dating/Raes sample area of the Shroud to which I currently have access. If you look at the bottom right corner, you see that area. This photograph was taken after the Raes sampling, but before the carbon dating. The Raes sample has been replaced with a small whitish patch. The carbon dating area will be taken from (or will at least include) the darkened area immediately above and to the immediate left of the patch. I do have a close-up of that corner on DVD, but I don’t know how to extract a still shot to attach here.


--- Jabba

Jabba.
A few years ago the HAL9000 company produced 12.8 billion-pixel image of the shroud. Why can't we see it? The fact that the project was commissioned by the Vatican may go some way to explaining it. Why would the Vatican ask these people to do this? What were they looking for. I'm guessing they were looking for a 'patch' and finding no evidence of such they binned the photo. Any ideas Jabba?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin.html

 

[Marduk]

Jabba.
A few years ago the HAL9000 company produced 12.8 billion-pixel image of the shroud. Why can't we see it? The fact that the project was commissioned by the Vatican may go some way to explaining it. Why would the Vatican ask these people to do this? What were they looking for. I'm guessing they were looking for a 'patch' and finding no evidence of such they binned the photo. Any ideas Jabba?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin.html

thats highly irregular.......Dave

 

[George]

Daisy d a i s y.....

 

[pakeha]

...
At this point Jabba, for a self proclaimed shroud expert, shouldn't you be asking yourself why would you need advice from fundamentalists ? ...

I'm only surprised the fellow hasn't trotted out that fabulous argument which affirms teh Flud skewed the ¹⁴C dating.

...http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin.html

Thanks for the link, George!
I went around and read the article, noticed Prof. Christopher Ramsey's being mentioned as doing further research on the TS and tried Googling for his results.
All I came up with was this:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/080325.html
",,,Dr John Jackson, of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado in the United States, put the new hypothesis forward. Dr Jackson suggests that the shroud might over time have been contaminated with carbon monoxide, which is naturally enriched in radiocarbon. ..."

"Though Ramsey, of Oxford, agreed to collaborate, he has said that he doesn't believe contamination would have had much effect. "
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/17/nation/na-turin17/2

Found.


http://www.huliq.com/54918/international-radiocarbon-dating-experts-revisit-turin-shroud

...”However, initial tests show that in normal conditions there is no contamination at the level needed to alter radiocarbon dates at all. The researchers at Oxford conclude the original medieval date is still most likely to be correct, based on current evidence, but they have yet to test whether there is anything in the specific storage conditions of the shroud that might affect this conclusion.
Dr Jackson was the leader of a 30-person scientific team from the United States that conducted a five-day scientific study of the Shroud in 1978. In this collaboration, the Colorado team was responsible for preparing test samples of modern linen exposed to carbon monoxide. The Oxford laboratory was responsible for determining if contamination actually occurred in the samples using mass spectrometry.
The research was carried out for an hour-long documentary, Shroud of Turin, shown by BBC2 over Easter 2008. It marked the 20th anniversary of the original carbon dating completed by the Zurich, Arizona and Oxford radiocarbon laboratories when all three labs gave a consistent, medieval date for the Shroud.
Professor Christopher Ramsey said: ‘Further research on the Turin Shroud is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to investigate anything that might have affected the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests. It is equally important that other experts critically assess and reinterpret all the evidence, which may point to an earlier date. Only by doing this will we be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud, which takes into account and explains all the available information.’
”

And from http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=shroud.html

“John Jackson (Turin Shroud Center of Colorado), while not doubting the validity of the original radiocarbon measurements, has developed a new hypothesis, which he believes may explain why the mediaeval date for the Shroud is incorrect.
The hypothesis put forward in the film is that the linen of the Shroud might have been contaminated by carbon monoxide. Unlike most contaminants, carbon monoxide is naturally enriched in radiocarbon when found in the environment and would therefore in principle be able to alter the radiocarbon age significantly. A relatively small amount of carbon monoxide (roughly 2% of the carbon in the linen) could alter the age of the sample by a thousand years. This is the only contamination hypothesis which could affect the radiocarbon age of the Shroud enough to allow it to be 2000 years old.
However there are also a number of reasons to think that carbon monoxide contamination is not likely to have had a significant effect:
Carbon monoxide is only present in very low concentrations in the atmosphere.
Carbon monoxide is not very reactive and would not be expected in normal circumstances to react with a long chain polymer like cellulose in linen.
No contamination like this has been detected before, even on very old samples (up to the 50,000 year limit of radiocarbon) which would be much more severely affected.
The only way to see if this sort of contamination is possible is to do experimental work on modern linen. The key question is whether carbon monoxide reacts to any significant extent with linen. The Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit has been collaborating with John Jackson's team to test the reaction rates.
So far the linen samples have been subjected to normal conditions (but with very high concentrations of carbon monoxide). These initial tests show no significant reaction - even though the sensitivity of the measurements is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the age by less than a single year. This is to be expected and essentially confirms why this sort of contamination has not been considered a serious issue before.
The research continues because the effect of the specific storage conditions of the Turin Shroud have yet to be reproduced by John Jackson's team. It remains possible, though not at all likely, that in these specific conditions there are reactions which provide significant contamination. There are also other possible types of contaminant, and it it could be that one, or some combination of these, might mean that the Shroud is somewhat older than the radiocarbon date suggests. It is important to realise, however, that only if some enriched contaminant can be identified does it become credible that the date is wrong by 1000 years. As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.
There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information.
Christopher Ramsey (March 2008)”

 

[Alex Cured]

Jabba.
A few years ago the HAL9000 company produced 12.8 billion-pixel image of the shroud. Why can't we see it? The fact that the project was commissioned by the Vatican may go some way to explaining it. Why would the Vatican ask these people to do this? What were they looking for. I'm guessing they were looking for a 'patch' and finding no evidence of such they binned the photo. Any ideas Jabba?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin.html

Find the invisible mend, Hal.
I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.

 

[Jabba]

12.8 Billion Pixels

Jabba.
A few years ago the HAL9000 company produced 12.8 billion-pixel image of the shroud. Why can't we see it? The fact that the project was commissioned by the Vatican may go some way to explaining it. Why would the Vatican ask these people to do this? What were they looking for. I'm guessing they were looking for a 'patch' and finding no evidence of such they binned the photo. Any ideas Jabba?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin.html

George,

- You could be right. I agree, it sounds suspicious.

- Coincidentally, Barrie Schwortz just sent me (yesterday) an amazing 300 dpi image ... that doesn't really help. It shows the discoloration of the sample area as up close as I want (it's enlargeable), but so far I'm not finding anything new. He doesn't want me to circulate it (I'm not sure why), but has offered a 72dpi image to circulate if I wish.
- I don't know how pixels and dots relate to each other, but 1 square inch of the 300 dpi image should contain 90 thousand dots, and the whole shroud should contain about 45 million dots...
- I'll ask for the 72dpi image, and post it here -- or maybe, I'll just put it on my site!

- The fact that I don't see anything new might let the Vatican off the hook -- not that they found something they didn't want to find, they just didn't find anything new either.
- One problem is that the dating sample is right up against a large, apparently unexplained, patch. Superficially at least, it could be that the original piece replaced by the patch had been burned, and the darkening is just a scorch. I hadn't thought it was scorched, cause I have a DVD that implies that it wasn't. I'll contact the author of the DVD and see what he says.
- The basic question for me, here, is whether or not this darkening is different than the other darkenings on the Shroud. I'll see if I can find out.

--- Rich