Domenico Anzellotti writes:
I would inform you that Prof. Gian Marco Rinaldi, after a communication with Prof. Fanti, January 12 added a postscript to his article "Autogol a Tucson"
This postscript is very interesting so you could add a translation on your site: it seems that Arizona laboratory used only 27 mg. from the 53 received and that the laboratory retained 2 pieces! (bold emphasis mine)
Click on the read more for a Google/Chrome translation of the postscript. And click here for the translation before the addition of the postscript. The postscript is an important statement, so do read it.
POSTSCRIPT (12 Jan. 2011)
After the publication of this article, Giulio Fanti wrote me, referring to the Appendix above, information in response to a direct communication received by his professor. Jull, the laboratory of Arizona
not used for dating the smaller of the two parts into which the sample was divided he had received. Thank you
Professor Fanti for the clarification.
It appeared that on the one hand it is true, as I wrote, that the fragment of 12.39 mg, which was mentioned in the article,
does not coincide with the part comes from the small and large. On the other hand, according to the statement of Jull,
Fanti considers that the lab did not use even a small portion of about 14 mg. So I would like to point out that the argument falls that I expressed about the statistical study of Fanti and colleagues.
I had initially also considered the possibility that the lab I had not kept a
but two fragments, that are almost exact around the middle of the material he had received, but then remained only
a residue of 27 mg and it seemed too little for the four (not eight) dating, in addition to the measurement of delta-C13 that was done separately. In fact I find surprising (if the news is confirmed) that the laboratory has used only half of the tissue available. Add some comments.
1) The results of Arizona were such as to arouse concern about the wide dispersion of data, particularly for
the riddle, so far never made clear, the values of sigma declared. Having more material, the laboratory
could now proceed with new dates to remove any doubt.
2) At the time, was kept secret the fact of the material used. In his account of the Nature 1989,
said that the laboratory received the sample was divided into four parts and had all undergone
dating. Adding to the lack of information in other ways, we can not say that Tucson shine for transparency.
3) I wonder if the laboratory has informed the Curia of Turin in its possession of unused material.
Perhaps Turin would have required the equipment be returned?
4) Maybe the other two laboratories have set aside a bit ‘of fabric? Zurich had five dates
but it is possible that a fragment, albeit very small, it is advanced. Oxford had only three dates and
in theory it could save a significant amount. The results of the three laboratories showed a moderate but
not excellent agreement. If material remains available, you could proceed to another round of dates.
5) Who knows with what envy the Shroud Turning to Tucson! In all these years, he had to settle for work on microscopic fibers stripped with adhesive tape or tiny bits of wire recovered more or less clandestinely or remnants of dust. Jull if put to auction its two fragments,
very large compared to the size and coming from just inside the levy of 1988, it could
get a lot of money selling them to the Shroud.
And the next question is : in 1988 was it possible for Tucson to do measurements with only 3 mg (27/8=3.375) ?
Comments are closed.