Pierson5 wrote:I'm still looking through the pdf you linked in the previous post, but did you happen to have the citation for this?
bippy123 wrote:Using antonacci's work which was debunked easily through his email correspondences with rogers shows that Antonacci isnt qualified as a chemist or textile expert. As far as Mechthild she is totally wrong about the reweave (as stated in my top quoted response).
You mean the email correspondence between antonacci and rogers?
I might still have the link somewhere pierson, as its a very old bookmark and I do clean my bookmarks out every 3 to 6 months for personal reasons.Id have to go back and check it out .meanwhile here is a good critique of antonaccis critique of Rogers. It also has a some good info on why Mechthild was wrong on her assertions on the reweave being impossible. I didnt know it was mechthild who picked out that one area which was taken for the testing, which sturp and many others said was the worst area of the shroud to be taken for testing. Mechthild was brought in most probably after teh sturp team was taken out of the c14 testing by the people in charge of it, and as I posted earlier that if they had taken the 26 point advice that sturp gave to them there would have been much less problems with the c14 testing.
Dont get me wrong, the fact that antonacci agrees with Professor Jackson on the neutrinos theory depositing extra carbon 14 into the shroud, (which is a very good theory and one that could end up being the right one), that still doesnt invalidate Rogers peer reviewed work. In other words even though neutrinos could have added carbon 14 onto the shroud, it still doesnt change the fact that the c14 sample was not only chemically different then the other areas of the shroud, but that it also tested positive for vanillin while no other area of the shroud tested positive for vanillin. Antonacci fails to answer this question and instead ignores it completely. The neutrino theory could very well be right without negating the french invisible weave theory which rogers gives very strong evidence for in his peer reviewed paper. So far no one has scientifically refutted his work.
By the way UCSD has a great medical program, plus la jolla is a great place to be, right next to the ocean. What more could someone ask for:)
I was a dietetic major back in the late 80's early 90's but a paraistic illness kept me bedridden for 2 years and my memory wasnt the same after that, plus I was way too sensitive. I felt like i wanted to be there for every person that was sick but my problem is that I cared too much and it hurt seeing these people sick. I guess I didnt have the nerves of steel that is needed by most medical and dietetic students.
Hope all is well
God bless
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf
Their first choice was Madam Flury-Lemburg of Belgium, whom neither
Tite nor Gove had met at the time. Her status as a textile expert was merely one criterion that
should have been considered. The most important criterion for this task would have been her
knowledge and understanding of the Shroud itself. Unfortunately, she had never seen the Shroud,
and she indicated her complete lack of understanding of the complicating factors and history
associated with the Shroud when she stated at the workshop that the Shroud `is the same from
one end to the other.
There is no need to take samples from various places. (...)
(...) A sample was taken from the edge of the main cloth as suggested by Flury-Lemburg, but this
resulted in removing a single sample from the most controversial location on the cloth" (p.196).
Antonacci, in the quoted chapters, does not affirm the repair but shows at least, before the
discoveries of Rogers, its possibility. He also confirms that the location chosen for the dating
was the worst possible one for the same reasons as Rogers.
Of course, everyone has the right to change his opinion. But it should be explained how,
according to Antonacci, the textile experts who had no knowledge of the shroud became
suddenly qualified, why Mrs. Flury-Lemberg who seems to be at the origin of the error of the
single sample and did not seem to understand the complexity of the fabric must be believed
without discussion in 2002, why the different experts who stated the possibility of invisible
repair in the Middle Ages do not count any more, why Antonacci seems suddenly not to know
anything about cotton, etc.
It is extremely illogical, that Antonacci seems to forget in 2005 his own previous arguments,
while, at the same time, the discoveries of Rogers confirm the highly abnormal characteristics of
this sample, directly on threads coming from the suspect Raes/radiocarbon zone.
Incidentally, although the preliminary studies of Rogers in Thermochimica Acta about the
datation of the Shroud by the mean of vanillin decay are questionable, it seems to me that
Antonacci himself provides the best argument to support the conclusions of Rogers:
1) Vanillin is easily found on Raes/radiocarbon samples (and the Holland cloth and other
medieval linen) and absolutely not on the Shroud (Rogers)
2) The rate of vanillin loss depends on time and/or heat (Rogers)
3) Radiocarbon area threads were part of the Shroud at the time of the 1532 fire(Adler,
Antonacci)
Conclusion : if heating was the reason of the lack of vanillin on the Shroud, no vanillin could be
found on Raes/radiocarbon threads too. It is found on it. Thus, time is the main reason of lack of
vanillin on the Shroud and Rogers is right : the Shroud is much older than the Raes/radiocarbon
sample and the Holland cloth and probably much older than the radiocarbon dating.
It would remain many things to say, but to conclude, for what relates to me, this discussion, I
will say that: I do not know (and nobody knows it) if Raes/radiocarbon area is a repair (although the data of
Rogers strongly suggest it). I only know that this sample is different. Rogers well showed what
he wanted to show. Thus, for the first time, the radiocarbon dating is really invalidated by the
only means that scientists and radiocarbon experts could accept. Incidentally, the "fanatic
skeptics" have seen the danger (see, for example, their current fallacious press campaign in
France). This is, to me, one of the best arguments in favor of Rogers.
. Sorry to hear about your illness. Life happens, we just have to work with the cards we're dealt sometimes.
.