image A year ago Heather Pringle wrote in her blog:

Critics of the dating tests charge that the researchers mistakenly took snippets from medieval repairs to the shroud.  But new fiber studies conducted on the University of Arizona sample reveal that its overall weave structure is  identical to that of the rest of the textile.

We certainly haven’t heard the end of the controversy over the famous shroud yet.  But right now,  I think the odds are stacked strongly  in favor of a medieval origin.

Nothing seems to have come of the new studies conducted on the University of Arizona sample. And where is all the Arizona data? Can I see these studies? Read on.

Way down the page – there are nineteen comments on this blog posting, the latest being eleven months later – Michael A. Iacono writes:

It’s comforting to know that there are many others who are interested in Sindonology, a scientific field which, in my view, will eventually allow the Shroud to recover from the carbon-14 fiasco of 1988. . . . 

That said, this blog began with Heather’s article on Dr. Barbara Frale’s book entitled “La Sindone di Gesu Nazareno”. So those interested in exploring this matter a bit further can see an interview of Dr. Frale entitled “Vatican researcher discovers Jesus death certificate on Holy Shroud” at:

In addition, those wishing to learn about the almost incontrovertible botanical evidence linking Jesus, the Shroud, and first century Jerusalem are invited to view Prof. Avinoam Danim’s interview at:

In the latter video, one can also see Prof. Giulio Fanti presenting irrefutable scientific evidence regarding the double image on the Shroud.

I don’t buy much of what is being claimed in the comments even though they make for interesting reading. I don’t buy into the belief that there are images of coins. Tell me as often as you want about computer enhancements and points of congruence but until you can show me something I can see or prove to me that the enhancements are not mere amplification of noise and the points of congruence is science I’m not going to believe it. And “almost incontrovertible botanical evidence .” Again, show me. Observations that are not shared eyeball to eyeball with others are meaningless.

Yes the carbon dating is meaningless. Ray Rogers, Joe Marino, Sue Benford, John L. Brown, Bob Villarreal and many others have shown that. That has been proven. Heather seems aware but ducks falling back on some apparent new Arizona claims. They are what, really? Real science? Or mere observations like coin images, etc.? Let me see the eyeball to eyeball evidence.

BTW: I don’t see the lettering claimed by Barbara Frale. But I do see Fanti’s double image detection on the Shroud of Turin. Way too much argumentation is based on what Ray Rogers used to call, “I think I see” evidence, on both sides of the controversy.

See the blog posting and comments: Angels, Demons, and the Shroud of Turin « Time Machine by Heather Pringle