As we discussed when first mentioning that article by Mark Antonacci - Antonacci is in fact a believer in the authenticity of the shroud, and it was also then known that he was in the process of writing a book explaining why he believed the shroud was genuine.
However, if you thereby conclude that reduces his credibility on the basis that he is promoting his own book, and wishes to discredit the idea of a patch which Rogers actually got from Benford and Marino who were also writing their own pro shroud book at that time, then just look at what Antonacci says in his first 3 pages of that link concerning how many people have actually examined that particular C14 area of the shroud, inc. taking microscopically detailed photos of that area.
What he says there in those first 3 pages is not a matter of any bias, is it? It appears to be a matter of undisputed fact that all of those people have examined that area of the shroud in the way he describes.
And it also appears to be a fact, that none of those many dozens of individuals, most of whom were life-long pro-shroud enthusiasts (inc Ray Rogers and Luigi Gonella) ever made any mention of thinking there was a patch, until after the C14 dates were published, did they? And that IS a question, ie - do you know of any objections about a patch in that area prior to the C14 testing?
Apart from Ray Rogers himself, who along with other members of STURP, examined the shroud and took tape samples of loose debris in the 1970’s, those people included all those present when the C14 sample was cut, as well as Flury-Lemberg, Prof Ghibirtia and others who restored the shroud in 2002, members of the C14 labs who then examined their samples in microscopic detail (inc. taking magnified photos), and all those involved in cutting and testing the sample for Gilbert Raes.
But apparently none of those people ever suggested any patch or repair, not even under numerous photos through high power microscopic photography. It seems that only after the C14 results did Ray Rogers echo the claims of Benford and Marino in thinking there must have been an invisible repair.
OK, without going any further into that, and without going into any discussion of any experiments with light banding or any other scientific testing - why do you think the above history of those who actually examined the C14 sample area of the shroud is a matter of Antonacci being biased due to him having a book in preparation? Is the above history of who actually examined the shroud not a matter of fact rather than any claimed “bias”?
And, given the above history of who actually examined the shroud, and how, why and when they did that, why do you think that is less convincing to you than some claimed experiment with something called “light banding” which afaik was never actually published in any real science journal? IOW - even before we get to examining any claimed scientific tests, why do you think the above history may be less convincing than the claim by Ray Rogers who examined a few microscopically small fibres that he says were sent to him by Luigi Gonella?
Is it not a fact, that Rogers himself cannot possibly know what those few fibres actually were, or where they came from? What did Gonella himself ever say about how he is supposed to have obtained those few fibres? Do you know? What actually is the providence or “chain of custody” for the few fibres claimed by Rogers?
Last edited:
