David Rolfe writes in his blog:
Dan, thanks for this thoughtful piece which I think highlights the dilemmas we face. The consensus I was seeking was for a particular purpose and agenda. Namely, to challenge those that dismiss the Shroud solely on the basis of the C14 with out any obligation to explain how the image might have been created. For that is our only scientific way of counteracting such a claim. It seemed logical to me to ensure that any such dismissal was confronted with scientific facts about the Shroud.
When I applied Prof. Giulio Fanti’s criteria for this purpose we all discovered that his extended list, as published by JIST, was controversial. You, Dan, among others, weighed in with protests. What was I to do? I am not a scientist.
Providentially, for me, the Valencia Congress was looming. Attending it, with very few exceptions, would be all those best qualified to provide a definitive list. Apart from wanting to distance itself from any particular challenge – especially the one to Dawkins – the Conference decided to grant my request and the participants were encouraged to assist which they did. Was it done in optimum conditions? No. The list was put together by me in snatched moments with individuals between papers and then slowly assembled for a final draft for approval on the last day of the conference.
What we have can by no means be described as fully considered and comprehensive. So what is it? It is the “base-level” of scientific observations that are not disputed by those most qualified to judge. Is it of any use? For my specific purpose it is a definite result. If anyone can show how an image which conforms to all the listed criteria could have been a medieval product we can all concentrate on looking for the forger and marvel at his genius. There is more than enough in the list as it is to make that a very real challenge. Berry and Garlaschelli have a long way to go yet.
It would certainly be preferable to supply some numbers to things like the thickness and the resolution and that may indeed still be agreed and included. However, processes that suffuse into the cloth or involve an application of any sort are already excluded as it is as is any mechanism that is incapable of resolving, say, the lips. (This happens to be about 4mm.). The absence of some proposed characteristics like the ones you mention does not mean that they are not valid but simply that there is not unqualified acceptance and it is not necessary for this particular purpose to hammer out the issues that divide.
Dawkins featured last week on a BBC documentary series called “Beautiful Minds”. In it he repeats his conviction that objective “evidence” is the only basis for belief of any kind. The Shroud reveals this type of evidence and I submit that the list as it exists, and for all its limitation, will serve as a basis for Dawkins (and others) to pit themselves against. Of course, if those qualified to do so agree that the list should be amended it can and will be.
For the time being, and solely for the purpose I have described, I would ask Shroud “supporters” to rally round and see this as an opportunity to press home the amazing advantage we have. The Shroud image is a unique enigma and the onus must be on those who reject that to explain otherwise.
Rally round? Yes. But I still think we need to somewhat crisp up the list as I stated in Colin Berry and Luigi Garlaschelli may have already won the prize with different solutions.
Quote : “When I applied Prof. Giulio Fanti’s criteria for this purpose we all discovered that his extended list, as published by JIST, was controversial.”
My comment : You bet that it is controversial since Fanti took the list of facts published in Dallas in 2005 and change it THE WAY HE WANTED (including his own non proven hypothesis of the primary cell wall as the chromophore of the body image !!!) in order to support better his hypothesis of the Corona discharge !!! A hypothesis, I should remind all of you, that have been completely discarded by Ray Rogers long time ago. Question to all of you : Do you really think this kind of acting by Fanti is worth of a real professional scientist ? I think asking the question is answering it ! As I said yesterday, instead of this non exhaustive list published in Valencia, M. Rolfe and all the others should have take the list published in Dallas in 2005 and reduce it to the max in order to keep ONLY the real scientific facts regarding the Shroud that have been fully analyzed and confirmed. And that process should have been done slowly (and not on a corner table as it was done during the conference). Also, that process should have involved a well-define panel of Shroud experts that would have come from every spectrum of the scientific fields, in order to write the best possible list. In other words, the process should have taken a well-respected chemist, a well-respected physicist, a well-respected in ancient tissues, a well-respected archaeologist, a well-respected forensic expert, etc. All of them should have known the Shroud real well. I’m sure the outcome of this would have been much better and complete than the actual list. But at least, as M. Rolfe point out, there is always place for improvement !
A last comment : I still don’t understand the point #1 of the list and I would be interested to hear M. Rolfe about that ! Why writing “The body image is created by molecular change of linen fibres” ??? The way it is written, it’s almost like a complete and definitive approval of Fanti, Di Lazarro and cie. hypothesis regarding the primary cell wall of the linen fiber as the real chromophore of the body image and, at the same time, it sounds like a complete disapproval of Ray Rogers hypothesis regarding a thin layer of impurities on the surface of the fibers. Since I’m completely sure about the FACT that this question of the chromophore of the body image has not been scientifically proven yet, I must admit that the fact there was a consensus that include this point #1 (in that state) makes me wonder about the people who signed that list…