DBowling wrote:Nonsense. No I have never read the pamphlet you refer to, and I have never tried French reweaving myself.
Then can you possibly think you know anything about it?
However, the unique feature of French reweaving (in contrast to other reweaving techniques) is specifically that it is 'invisible' from both front and back.
Really? Have you any evidence at all to suggest that this statement is true? Try looking up French Reweaving in Google. There's a US company called Withoutatrace, and a UK one called the British Invisible Mending Service.
And French reweaving was a technique that was known to be used in 16th century France.
I dare say. It was used to mend tapestries in particular. But it is still easily visible from the back. Have you read what Mechthilde Flury-Lemberg has to say about French Reweaving?
The evidence which Ray Rogers lays out in his article directly contradicts your assertion about the patch composition.
Which evidence is that? I wish you'd be a bit more specific instead of just hurling great lumps of paper at me!
Ray Rogers is the technical expert, so I'll defer to Roger's technical analysis in the paper that I posted the link for.
If you wish to point out technical errors in Ray Rogers' analysis, go for it.
You can't find any evidence in Rogers's paper that contradicts my assertion about the patch composition, can you? Well, fair enough. Neither can I.
Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
Ah, well, that's what I mean about Rogers's desperate wish to believe the shroud authentic. He would never have used a word like 'prove' when he was younger. However, quoting the abstract of a paper is not the same as quoting the evidence. I agree that Rogers thought that his experiments demonstrated that the radiocarbon corner was a reweave, but I don't think that his results justify his conclusion. Some are contradictory of earlier work, and some are simply insufficient.
Are you asserting that the segments of the sample with the greater percentage of 16th century cloth gave the younger radiocarbon dates? I'd like to see the 'evidence' for that assertion.
No, I don't think there is any 16th century cloth. However, those who would like to demonstrate that there is some usually use an illustration such as this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pKnop7FLHKo/V ... Sample.jpg
). Note that the dark green area is supposed to represent "16th century" and the yellow area is supposed to represent "1st century". Superimposing the two images shows that on the sample, there is more dark green at the bottom, and less on the top. This implies that there is more 16th century material at the bottom, and less at the top. However, Riani and Atkinson's paper (http://www.lse.ac.uk/statistics/researc ... ay2010.pdf
), demonstrating a chronological gradient across the 12 different samples, shows that the older dates came from the bottom samples, and the younger ones from the top.
Now, your answers to my questions:
1) "Yes, the shroud itself was made of flax not cotton." You insist on this in site of my evidence to the contrary, and without any evidence in favour. That's OK, but it's not science.
2) "Yes, I disagree with your 'suggestion'. As I stated I believe the pigmentation was used to make the color of the patch blend in with the color of the Shroud." Fair enough, although if the dye matches the patch, then the patch makes the Shroud appear older, not younger than it really is. See my explanation above.
3) "Yes, the progressive dates indicate a difference in percentage of 16th century cloth to original Shroud material across the radiocarbon sample." They do, but they show that any contamination makes the Shroud appear older, not younger than it really is. See my explanation above.
4) "Yes, you are factually incorrect in your assertion that French reweaving is not 'invisible' from both sides." You insist on this in site of my evidence to the contrary, and without any evidence in favour. That's OK, but it's not science.
5) "See my quote from Rogers' abstract in my previous post." You quoted his abstract, not his evidence.
6) "I'm waiting to see your 'evidence' for that particular assertion." As above.