- In the following, you probably won't need the sources, so please let me know if, and where, you do.
Everything you say needs support, you've shown yourself to be unreliable.
"Madam Flury-Lemburg had absolutely nothing to do with the sample location choice, two little known textile experts were brought in and it was argued over for two hours where the sample would be taken from (last minute) and not even by the experts.
Firstly your "source" can't even get the name correct; it's Flury-Lemberg.
Secondly the "little known textile experts" (a bit of a contradiction?) were Professor Testore (Department of Materials Science, Turin Polytechnic) and Dr. Vial (Musée des Tissues and Centre International d'Étude des Textiles Anciens at Lyon). Not exactly idiots grabbed from the streets as your "source" seems to want to imply.
Interestingly the change was made by Cardinal Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, acting on advice from Dr. Gonella, who was a believer in the authenticity of the shroud and a member of STURP.
So Jabba/Rick are you back to pathetic conspiracy theories? More attempts to smear those who disprove your beliefs like you tried with McCrone?
These textile experts, basically, had NO prior experience with the Shroud.
Why is this a bad thing?
Absolutely no prior technical information was actually consulted, as in STURP photographs etc.
Give the quality of STURP's work is this a bad thing?
It ‘seemed’ the choice was made blind.
No the location selected was adjacent to the one used in 1973 to remove a sample for examination by STURP. There was extensive prior discussion and consideration.
Prof Testore/Riggi cut a much larger sample from the cloth but kept more then half for personal use/study...
Citation required. The documented (and video recorded) record of the process does not show this. Perhaps (and I'm being charitable) your source is confusing the removing of the backing cloth?
The event was video taped, but as mentioned, not all of it! hy? is the big question here. Why would you video tape most of the proceedings then go to a seperate room, with only two individuals involved, one being Mr Tite and not tape ‘extremely important’ sample packaging?…the whole thing was problematic.
More pathetic conspiratorial ramblings. Actually the answer is quite simple, of your source had bothered to check; the samples were taken into an adjacent room for wrapping (in aluminium foil) and sealing in transport containers by Dr. Tite and Cardinal Ballestrero (the video camera being mounted in the main room). This was part of the blinding process, each laboratory received four samples, one from the shroud and three controls;
the laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample.
"As for Ms. Lemburg’s negating the patch theory; Funny how she wasn’t even aware of ‘French-Invisible-Reweaving’ methods, evidenced by her comments that all stitching would show signs on atleast one side or the other? Did she even look at the cloth through any instruments other then her own eyes? The patching or stitching was “independently observed” by atleast three independent sources, thru J.Marino and Sue Bedford’s investigations into the patching theory.
Again the woman's name is Flury-Lemberg.
I'd like to see your source's evidence for these claimed patches/stitches which seem to have escaped notice by experts and avoided being photographed (yes the sampled are was photographed before being cut) but appear to an ex-Benedictine and a wooster with no skills or experience.
We've dealt with the Marino/Benford nonsense before.
"Just to many unanswered questions, and very questionable dealings occurred during the whole process, if you ask me ;-)"
Worthless personal opinion. If your source had actually bothered to look s/he's have found the answers easily.
But that would require and open mind.
