Replies

Proven... or suspected? And what proof is there that they are a day newer than the shroud itself?

Proven.

Proven visually; proven microscopically; proven physically; proven chemically; proven in spinning technique; proven in composition; proven in retting differing processes; proven in all of these ways that DEMONSTRATE to any scientist that the test area is DIFFERENT than the main body of the item to be tested.

It has been proven everywhich way except a way that would be acceptable to Orionblamblam who unreasonably demands that we have to prove to him that although A DOES NOT EQUAL B, that somehow the facts of B ARE THE ALSO NOT THE SAME AS B.

Absurd... The one organization with the greatest interest in seeing the shroud shown to be 1st century doesn;t want to see it so shown. huh.

The Catholic Church also has a duty to preserve the Shroud. Carbon14 testing is, by its very nature, destructive. When scientists first requested a Carbon 14 test, the amount of material required would have necessitated burnng 10% of the shroud as a sample! It took years of effort and many technical advances in reducing the amount of material required before the Church finally, reluctantly acquiesced to the Carbon 14 test.

> So what can we expect your reply to be regarding the vanillin.

I dunno. What DO you expect?

I don't know what shroudie expects of you, but I expect you to ignore it. It doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

It would be interesting to see if a new dating technique can be developed out of the Vanillin presence. However, I can see too many variables for it to be of much use. Amount of lignen at start, temperatures the item has been subjected to over the years and for how long, since it is a chemical reaction (Which, Orion, could raise problems about using the lack of Vanillin on the Shroud as any proof, because we know the shroud was subjected to temperatures high enough to melt the silver reliquary, and burn and singe parts of the Shroud), what control period would we need to explore, etc.

>>Proven... or suspected? And what proof is there that they are a day newer than the shroud itself?

> Proven visually; proven microscopically; proven physically; proven chemically; proven in spinning technique; proven in composition; proven in retting differing processes; proven in all of these ways that DEMONSTRATE to any scientist that the test area is DIFFERENT than the main body of the item to be tested.

That's nice. What proof is there that those areas which you claim are proven differnt are one second younger than the rest?

> It doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

Hogwah. I have no preconcieved notions about vanillin except that it's probably not vanilla.

I am told that vanillin would not be accurate enough for calibration without knowing the average temperature and humidity. But the fire, while intense, did not last long enough to eliminate vanillin from a ca1300-ca1400 cloth. Most of the cellulose was unaffected except in the areas where molton silver actually burned the cloth. There are no byproducts from scorching on most of the cloth. About all that vanillin can do is argue strongly that the cloth is not medieval. It is but one of many indicators that argue that the cloth is older than medieval.

Of course, the most significant factor regarding the vanillin is that what was tested by carbon 14 testing (which did contain vanillin) was not representative of the cloth (which does not contain vanillin).

The point is that OBB continues only to deal with evidence that suits him combined with his own illogical system of logic.