First of all, isn’t that image for the quote-unquote official site strange. Or is it just me?
Anyways, Joe Marino writes:
I just noticed that at the Turin archdiocese sindone.org site which bills itself as "Holy Shroud Official site," the page on "cloth dating" mentions the Garza-Valdes bioplastic coating study and the (disgraced) Kouznetsov fire-model study, but makes no mention of Rogers’ work. (Beware of many typos.) When Rogers was doing his studies, he wrote the Cardinal of Turin at the time 3 times and never got the courtesy of a reply. I’m just glad that Rome is supposed to be more involved with the Shroud and not just leave everything to the Turinese. I’ll also be anxious to hear what the new Pope’s take on the Shroud is.
Good grief! Well, official doesn’t mean right. I noticed that if you click on the strange image in the top banner of almost any English language page, the site takes you to a page that advises that “From Tuesday 18 May the visiting hours of the Holy Shroud Exhibition will be extended. On 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 May,” Wasn’t that three years ago? Maybe they are a bit behind the times. Kouznetsov? How many years ago was it that his made up science was exposed?
Sad!
They could remain factual, present the radiocarbon dating, and quote Pr Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, who claimed :
Let’s hope the next wave of articles surrounding the Shroud’s technological exposition will have this much needed critical look.
I find Ramsay’s attitude intriguing and promising particularly as a young assistant at Oxford his name was on the original carbon dating paper.