Posted by:
[|]
(
)
Date: January 11, 2017 11:20PM
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf"Equally lacking any trace of evidence on the shroud is the hypothesis that a patch fixed
onto the same minute spot which had been removed as a sample has falsified the result of
the analysis. Where exactly had the patch been attached? How big was it? Was it so small
that it covered only the sample area? Answers to these questions are lacking in the
hypothesis of Benford/Marino and Rogers. They can only be given in a competent way
by textile experts. One of them, who was present when the sample was taken, the late
Gabriel Vial, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth!
This affirmation seems to be unacceptable to a natural scientist even if it comes from
such an excellent textile scholar as Gabriel Vial who moreover made this judgment in his
very own field of expertise.
In any case, neither on the front nor on the back of the whole cloth is the slightest hint of
a mending operation, a patch or some kind of reinforcing darning, to be found, fig.17 and
18."
Notice these 2 statements:
"One of them, who was present when the sample was taken, the late Gabriel Vial, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth!"
and:
"In any case, neither on the front nor on the back of the whole cloth is the slightest hint of a mending operation, a patch or some kind of reinforcing darning, to be found, fig.17 and
18"