Replies

Good. I like an open, well informed mind. I don't find evidence that Henri knew any such thing. Pierre is the only testament to this. Henri was dead. And there is no record of an inquest as would be expected. The criticism of the profit motives of the Geoffrey's family is non-evidentiary to my way of thinking. And I find Margaret's "representation"s and Clement's caveat political. So we disagree.

There is significant new evidence that the Shroud was a Besancon possession ca 1207 to 135?. This must be discussed at a later time. Publishers (not mine) and peer review and all that sort of stuff for now. That should be an important development. I never bought into the Templar theory all that much.

I do find, as I suspect you do, that the historical conspectus of the era presents us with a fuzzy picture. That is why we must turn to science. The simple fact of the matter is that science has irrefutable proven that it is not a painting. This is verified by spectrophotometry, fluorescence photography, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, microscopy, microchemistry, laser microprobe Raman spectrometry, and pyrolysis mass spectrometry. While non-image contaminants of pigments used in paint and dye are found on the surface of the Shroud (as there are many other particles), nowhere on the Shroud is there a sufficient concentration of this material to form a visible image.

The backside image, which is what this thread of discussion is about, is simply further proof.

With all due respect for your precision and scholarly content . . . I love a good debate . . . and I am convinced.

Shroudie

It's o.k. that we disagree. I think this is precisely one of those issues "where reasonable minds can differ."

Although I don't see how Clement's bulls in support of exposition can be apolitical while his caveat can be dismissed as 'political' . . . my impression of Clement VII is that he was WHOLLY political! He was in a precarious position in Avignon. The convolution of the church with the nobility and the infighting amongst the various factions of the nobility certainly makes for interesting reading . . . but it also most certainly obscures the truth.