Read the article. I'm tired, so please excuse me if this sounds terse.
The evidence presented in the article, though, isn't actually much of evidence at all. Doubt about a test's validity isn't really evidence of something, so it can't be counted as part of a "mountain of evidence" toward any conclusion at all.
Also, I have seen a documentary about the shroud, and part of this was the work of an Italian scientist who had managed to find a reliable and repeatable way of reproducing images like that on the shroud using the bodies of dead animals. Unfortunately, this was at least four years ago, and I can't for the life of me recall the scientist's name or the university with which he was associated. I know this doesn't constitute evidence of anything to anyone but myself, but I'm quite certain that I saw the procedure done (it was purely chemical).
I don't know a thing about ancient stitching styles. Just off the cuff, I'd think that a stitching style used in the first century AD might still be around in the 14th. I'm sure that many of the possible methods one might currently use to stitch a seam have been around for centuries, even millenia. I'd be interested in finding out more about specifically why this particular stitching style is so unique. Ancient sewing must be the esoteric domain of a select few, no doubt!
As to the blood type, I didn't even know that typing had been done on the blood from the shroud. I'd thought that the only testing that had been allowed to date was the radioactive carbon testing done on the fabric and the rather non-invasive tests done in 1978 (and, oddly, neither of the two examinations mentioned in the article mentions blood typing as one of the tests performed). Did someone actually scrape some of the blood from the shroud? Also, AB is a rare blood type, but finding it in two individuals wouldn't give you the identity of either one of them, only the fact that they have the same blood type.
I hope I haven't misread the article, but it doesn't seem at first blush that anything in there points to a conlusion over and above the various theories that already exist. Again, it seems largely like speculation, based on my own very limited knowledge.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 11:03 pm (UTC)The evidence presented in the article, though, isn't actually much of evidence at all. Doubt about a test's validity isn't really evidence of something, so it can't be counted as part of a "mountain of evidence" toward any conclusion at all.
Also, I have seen a documentary about the shroud, and part of this was the work of an Italian scientist who had managed to find a reliable and repeatable way of reproducing images like that on the shroud using the bodies of dead animals. Unfortunately, this was at least four years ago, and I can't for the life of me recall the scientist's name or the university with which he was associated. I know this doesn't constitute evidence of anything to anyone but myself, but I'm quite certain that I saw the procedure done (it was purely chemical).
I don't know a thing about ancient stitching styles. Just off the cuff, I'd think that a stitching style used in the first century AD might still be around in the 14th. I'm sure that many of the possible methods one might currently use to stitch a seam have been around for centuries, even millenia. I'd be interested in finding out more about specifically why this particular stitching style is so unique. Ancient sewing must be the esoteric domain of a select few, no doubt!
As to the blood type, I didn't even know that typing had been done on the blood from the shroud. I'd thought that the only testing that had been allowed to date was the radioactive carbon testing done on the fabric and the rather non-invasive tests done in 1978 (and, oddly, neither of the two examinations mentioned in the article mentions blood typing as one of the tests performed). Did someone actually scrape some of the blood from the shroud? Also, AB is a rare blood type, but finding it in two individuals wouldn't give you the identity of either one of them, only the fact that they have the same blood type.
I hope I haven't misread the article, but it doesn't seem at first blush that anything in there points to a conlusion over and above the various theories that already exist. Again, it seems largely like speculation, based on my own very limited knowledge.