Ideas for conferences

imageCharles Freeman, by way of a comment, asks:

Can anyone enlighten me on these conferences? When I read papers from those held in the past they only seem to include papers from those who believe the Shroud is authentic,in fact they even seem to be used primarily as a meeting place for old friends (nothing wrong in that). So if someone sends in a paper arguing in favour of the radiocarbon dating or a haematologist sends in a paper disputing that there are bloodstains on the cloth , do they get rejected or accepted on scientific merit? It is a pity that there never seem to be actual debates -perhaps I am wrong but it seems to be largely papers read out .

I would certainly like to see a DEBATE on the alternative routes from Jerusalem that a burial cloth might have reached northern France in view of the fact that we have early relics close to Lirey that were said to have come from ‘the Lord’s tomb’ as well as all the crusader evidence of cloths being brought back to France from crusades earlier than the 1350s. These seem to have been relevant but completely neglected in favour of the Edessa route (that as a historian, I can find no merit in but could be included as one of the alternatives by someone who believes in it).

Should conferences be open to opposing views on authenticity? I think so.

Are debates a good idea?  Formal debates?  Roundtables (similar to cable news discussions)? I prefer the latter and think it is a good idea.

34 thoughts on “Ideas for conferences”

  1. Brace your self Mr. Freeman, I agree with much of what you have written. However, I don’t think an Oxford style debate is appropriate, I think a lively two or three sided panel discussion with contrasting views would be. However, I am not planning the St. Louis Conference.

    I think you haven’t been acquainted withe the “debates” that have occurred and whose evidence is on Shroud.com. I believe that Dan Porter could point out the number of posts from individuals who reject the early Edessa scenario espoused by Ian Wilson and supported by many.and dismissed by some. As far as the Knights Templar are concerned, I am uneasy that hey have the “usual suspects” of history.

    I think Wilson deserves an immense amount of honor for the pioneering work he has done on the Shroud. Have you seen the 1978 award winning documentary by David Rolfe. It originated with an concept submitted by Wilson to Rolfe in circa 1975. .

    As an historian, you could have much to contribute and I think in explaining your proposal you have already made a contribution. I can assure you that are ideas which will be presented at this conference that are in fact controversial among Shroud advocates and some of them can be very dogmatic and/or heated in making their arguments.

    I’ll go you one further in the science field. If a participant in the C14 carbon dating would make an appearance for a free wheeling discussion of the findings of Rogers et al, that would be really a plus. I don’t think any would accept the challenge to participate in an open forum although Charles Ramsey of Oxford has been the most open. I would love to see Richard Dawkins participate in a conference. He might learn something. Maybe that the C14 dating isn’t “rock solid.”

    John Klotz
    klotzlaw@gmail.com
    http://johnklotz.blogpsot.com
    http://quantumchrist-jck.blogspot.com/

    1. Why should it come down to Raymond Rogers, and what he learned from one or two threads of dubious provenance? Why was he resorting anyway to stray threads, when there is/was a retained strip of intact fabric available for precisely this purpose?

      As for his chemical re-dating via lignin degradation and vanillin, which we’re asked to believe trumps radiocarbon dating, here’s a comment that has just appeared on the Randi site:

      “I’m a chemist. Five or 6 days a week for 30 years. Ive been called as an expert witness in court cases several times. Tell me about these other tests and instruments. That vanillin test of Roger’s is worthless, in my expert opinion.”

      I for one would not waste a second of my time in constantly debating that 1988 testing, one that I see as a ranging shot exercise. Repeat the testing. Or are some of us happy with a messy status quo that is happy to trash the existing data, but does not admit the need for experimental repetition – the hallmark of good science – whether or not it confirms the medieval date?

      No more sterile and futile debate please. It’s more data we need.

      1. Colin,

        Rae Rogers was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal before he died. Also, a book he wrote with the assistance of Barrie Schwortz was published two years post-mortem.

        It come down to Ray Rogers because he’s right and often misunderstood (as I ini tially misunderstood). The issue isn’t that the cotton skewered the date, it’s that linen in the patch was of medieval origin and substantial different than the lined in the other parts of the Shroud.

        But enough of this. The topic is Freeman’s inquiry about he nature of conferences and I merely applaud both his question and the concept of his question. I think from his question, if he is sincere, he might have much to add as an art historian.

    1. No doubting my sincerity, John. Have been around as an academic historian for many years and get employed as such by respectable people!

      1. Please do not take offense Mr. Freeman. It’s just that one worries about a Trojan Horse. Your introductory comment was very pointed and helpful taking to account its necessary brevity. I am all for pushing it through the gates.

      2. Trying to think where John’s Trojan Horse might be relevant here. I suppose if someone submits a paper to the conference, gets it accepted, and then produces something explosive instead,that would fit the bill. What other kinds of Troy might there be?
        Anyway the discussion has gone back to Rogers and his threads so we have lost THIS thread. I would like to see a formal statement on what grounds papers are accepted or rejected, how the choice is made,etc, simply for transparency as these papers do get published and are often cited as authoritative. We need this for both conferences if they are to have any kind of credibility. If they are primarily get-togethers for people who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud then this should be made clear.

  2. John Klotz :
    Colin,
    Rae Rogers was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal before he died. Also, a book he wrote with the assistance of Barrie Schwortz was published two years post-mortem.
    It come down to Ray Rogers because he’s right and often misunderstood (as I ini tially misunderstood). The issue isn’t that the cotton skewered the date, it’s that linen in the patch was of medieval origin and substantial different than the lined in the other parts of the Shroud.
    But enough of this. The topic is Freeman’s inquiry about he nature of conferences and I merely applaud both his question and the concept of his question. I think from his question, if he is sincere, he might have much to add as an art historian.

    It comes down to the fact that the radiocarbon sample was not selected at random, and even it had been, more such randomly selected sites would have been needed to get a precise and accurate dating. So why are we being told about faulty chi-square tests etc? Why are we bothered about any stat’s at all, except those in the Nature paper that refer (or should refer) only to variance within and between the three labs (and even then the sampling was not randomised, given the labs were given contiguous specimens). It’s not about Raymond Rogers, far less about cotton (who said anything today about cotton?). It’s about data that derives from a single site that has been challenged on the grounds of being unrepresentative. The answer should be self-evident. One does not need another conference to discuss the radiocarbon dating. One needs more radiocarbon data!

    Let’s discuss the sampling frame, shall we? Which areas of the frontal and dorsal sides are to be considered in-and -off limits (accepting one cannot cut a strip out of the face, merely because its xy coordinates have been drawn from a hat).

    1. How much would be required? A centimetre of thread or so? I suggest finding a place where the end of one weft hank, and the beginning of another one overlap. Removal of a bit there would have no detrimental effect to the appearance or integrity of the cloth.

      1. That sounds OK on statistical grounds, Hugh. But I seem to recall reading that the radiocarbon labs prefer a patch to a thread for clean-up purposes. Don’t ask me why. Or maybe it was a patch to a mass of small threads which would be understandable on grounds of ‘hoikability’. Maybe one longish thread would be acceptable (mutter, mutter).

      2. Colin,

        I agree with the thrust of your comment. So, in fact did Ray Rogers and others on the authenticity side. However, it’s not within your or my control. Maybe a thrust of the conference ought to be a discussion of the requirements for new C14 testing more in line with STURP’s original recommendations 30 years ago. Gove and the C14 labs were so intent on denying STURP involvement that metaphorically shot themselves in the foot by spurning advice on site selection.

        “The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves”

        Unlike Brutus the fault does lie in our stars, but at events that STURP couldn’t control.

  3. John Klotz :
    Colin,
    I agree with the thrust of your comment. So, in fact did Ray Rogers and others on the authenticity side. However, it’s not within your or my control. Maybe a thrust of the conference ought to be a discussion of the requirements for new C14 testing more in line with STURP’s original recommendations 30 years ago. Gove and the C14 labs were so intent on denying STURP involvement that metaphorically shot themselves in the foot by spurning advice on site selection.
    “The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves”
    Unlike Brutus the fault does lie in our stars, but at events that STURP couldn’t control.

    I find it hard to believe that it was the radiocarbon labs’ decision, far less preference, to work with a single rectangle, cut from a corner, so close to the previous Raes sample and that mysterious side strip. What I can believe is that a presumption of innocence aka authenticity prevailed, allowing the “minimal defacement” mantra to rule the day. But that’s all water under the bridge, or should be. Given the charges not just of incompetence and/or lack of statistical or scientific rigour, but of conspiracy and fraud, the Turin custodians should now do the decent thing, and allow the radiocarbon daters back – but with a sampling frame that has been approved by the entire community of those with an interest (or stake) in the answer. You see (and you as a lawyer must surely understand this) that initial presumption of innocence re authenticity has now turned into a presumption of guilt re the returned answer of non-authenticity.

    Everyone here should be demanding a recount. The truth will out, and no doubt will one day, but speaking personally I’d prefer it to be in my own lifetime given I’m having to slop strong alkali round the kitchen and bathroom right now in pursuit of one small facet of that truth.

    1. It was their decision to proceed with a flawed protocol. But the elimination of STURP was a determined campaign by the labs orchestrated by Gove. Have you read his book?

      1. Can I use minitab to determine confidence coefficient of two threads? Just pondering.

        John, we can’t just throw Gove to the wolves. It was the internal fighting amongst the US scientist and the insistence by STURP to expedite the testing without consideration for the British and AMSTAR who have yet submitted their proposals that prompted this action. There was another player who was very instrumental getting STURP out of the way, and it wasn’t Gove. Besides, what did Gove had to gain? The U&R didn’t do the testing either.

  4. I’d like to see discussion on alternative non-intrusive technologies for obtaining new data on the Shroud. Apparently they exist so why not discuss which might be appropriate? C-14 had its shot, it proved contentious. Let’s use something less prone to human incompetence.

  5. Here few words about the “alternative non-intrusive technologies” …
    In my opinion we can see the truth working with the SPMs (Scanning Probe Microscopies) : quantitative and qualitative analyses (on samples already taken from the Shroud in the past).
    In my idea no positive roundtable (with scientists !) will be possible if we don’t work in that field …
    — —
    For example, under :
    http://www.asylumresearch.com/Events/Classes/
    we can read that :
    >The AFM in Biology Class is a world renowned class that covers a variety of topics in AFM life science applications from basic AFM operation and force measurements, to sample prep and simultaneous AFM and optical microscopy.
    >It is ideal for the beginner-to-intermediate AFM scientist.
    >Topics and experiments are tailored to the skill level of the participants …
    — —
    This is the way to follow …
    I hope to read the words from the yourg scientists …
    — —
    What is your idea about the useful experiments ?

  6. – Thanks Charles. I think that’s my cue!

    – How about an ONGOING, well controlled Internet debate?
    – That’s what I propose, and try to explain, on my blog at http://shrouddebates.com and my website at http://messiahornot.com/Treatise.php. Though, I haven’t worked on either of those sites for a long time, as I’ve been seduced into debate (as “Jabba”) on the James Randi forum at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226761 and http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=248163. The first URL refers to the Shroud. I haven’t done very well in the Shroud debate, but have a lot of excuses…

    – Anyway, I’m suggesting some sort of team, with one spokesperson per narrow “sub-issue.” (For instance re “narrow sub-issue,” on the Randi forum, most recently, we’ve been debating Carbon Dating/Reweave/Percent Needed/Getting Past the Experts.)
    – Through Dan’s website — if I could somehow develop some real interest (I’ve been trying for awhile) — we could probably suit up a very serious team. In fact, we could probably suit up multiple serious teams and deal with multiple narrow sub-issues at the same time. While, just one narrow sub-issue at a time would be extremely tedious, but then, one spokesperson per sub-issue would seem like a necessity — at least, in the beginning, in order to “get anywhere.”
    .
    – Mostly, I think that
    1) We humans need to develop a way for adversaries to effectively “negotiate” with each other (before it’s too late).
    2) Contrary to popular opinion, ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE public debate is a real possibility — though, it would probably need to be WRITTEN, at least at the beginning.
    3) But then, actually effective public debate could prove revolutionary and could be the beginning of actually effective “negotiating” between serious adversaries.
    4) What we desperately need are some recognized scholars of the subject at hand to begin working on and promoting such a thing, and
    5) Authenticity of the Shroud is an excellent subject for the beta model….

  7. Georgio,

    AMSTAR was founded in 1996. Its President was Tonm D’Malaha, the last president of STURP. The carbon dating occurred in 1988, 8 years before AMSTAR came into existence. There was a lead-up to the Carbon dating of nearly six years. Other than STURP, the only other American involved was Bill Meacham and he attended all the principal conferences. Gove in his memoir stated while he was disappointed, who took satisfaction from having eliminated STURP from the process.

    1. Forget STURP no disrespect intended. STURP merely provided a ranging shot, but was superficial in its approach, literally, and some might say over-respectful with those pussy-footing sticky tape samplings .

      Forget AMSTAR (if you’ve ever heard of it – I haven’t).

      Look to the present. Why has there been no scientific access to the Shroud these last 25 years for scientific analysis?

      Christianity does not need fantasies and obscurantism to survive. It’s what sets it apart from other religions…

      1. Colin,

        I was replying to a message that Georgio had posted to correct the record. I would agree that the time is long past for further non-intrusive scientific examination of the Shroud. The problem is that neither you nor I, nor apparently anybody else, can get Turin to budge. I believe there may be an element in the Church that prefers the Shroud remain a mystery.

        If the Shroud’s authenticity is established then it becomes no less than a Revelation with a capital R. We will know more about the real Jesus that at any time in history. Also, it will be an accessible revelation. There may be some in the Church who would prefer that not happen. Holy icon, yes. New Revelation, No.

        I am not sure about how Pope Francis would feel if he addressed the problem. He seems somewhat obsessed with serving the poor and downcast. I don’t know where he got that from. (I’m kidding, of course I know where as does any other Christian). In some circles, I am regarded as a liberal or worse. I like to say that I am slightly to the right of JC.

        The only person on this blog who is directly involved in organizing the St. Louis conference is Joe Marino. I expect he is reading this thread.

        Actually, I am some what excited by what people are writing. I think we owe a debt to Charles Freeman for kicking this off. Maybe a theme for the conference should be “What next?”

        Excuse me for mentioning STURP again, but it gained unprecedented access to the Shroud. It was a unique confluence of energy that caused that to happen. First and foremost, perhaps, was Father Peter Rinaldi who was an Turin born priest serving in the United States who in a figurative sense was the one who brought the shroud to America. Then there were was Silent Witness, the David Rolfe film based upon an concept by Ian Wilson. Then there was Ian’s first book. And, although it rubs my populist grain the wrong way, there was the exiled King of Italy, Umberto. And there was of course, John Jackson, who caught fire (almost literally) and with the help of Eric Jumper organized STURP. When you appreciate this confluence, you might add another factor and please don’t groan: the Holy Spirit. It’s enough to make one believe in the Trinity.

        It was and is a fantastic story. The challenge is to repeat it. Maybe the first stop is St. Louis although it must be a truly international effort. However, I believe the Shroud doesn’t belong to Turin, or the Church but to humanity.

      2. Colin,that reminds me of Bertrand Russell, who said that since religions contradict each other only one can be true.

    2. Correction Assist, Paul Maloney’s group.

      Yes Gove was disappointed but he was not the main reason why they got dismissed. He was part of the infighting that the Turin Authorities wanted to be no part of. Many other factors contributed to the fall of STURP.

  8. John Klotz :
    Colin,
    I was replying to a message that Georgio had posted to correct the record. I would agree that the time is long past for further non-intrusive scientific examination of the Shroud. The problem is that neither you nor I, nor apparently anybody else, can get Turin to budge. I believe there may be an element in the Church that prefers the Shroud remain a mystery.
    If the Shroud’s authenticity is established then it becomes no less than a Revelation with a capital R. We will know more about the real Jesus that at any time in history. Also, it will be an accessible revelation. There may be some in the Church who would prefer that not happen. Holy icon, yes. New Revelation, No.
    I am not sure about how Pope Francis would feel if he addressed the problem. He seems somewhat obsessed with serving the poor and downcast. I don’t know where he got that from. (I’m kidding, of course I know where as does any other Christian). In some circles, I am regarded as a liberal or worse. I like to say that I am slightly to the right of JC.
    The only person on this blog who is directly involved in organizing the St. Louis conference is Joe Marino. I expect he is reading this thread.
    Actually, I am some what excited by what people are writing. I think we owe a debt to Charles Freeman for kicking this off. Maybe a theme for the conference should be “What next?”
    Excuse me for mentioning STURP again, but it gained unprecedented access to the Shroud. It was a unique confluence of energy that caused that to happen. First and foremost, perhaps, was Father Peter Rinaldi who was an Turin born priest serving in the United States who in a figurative sense was the one who brought the shroud to America. Then there were was Silent Witness, the David Rolfe film based upon an concept by Ian Wilson. Then there was Ian’s first book. And, although it rubs my populist grain the wrong way, there was the exiled King of Italy, Umberto. And there was of course, John Jackson, who caught fire (almost literally) and with the help of Eric Jumper organized STURP. When you appreciate this confluence, you might add another factor and please don’t groan: the Holy Spirit. It’s enough to make one believe in the Trinity.
    It was and is a fantastic story. The challenge is to repeat it. Maybe the first stop is St. Louis although it must be a truly international effort. However, I believe the Shroud doesn’t belong to Turin, or the Church but to humanity.

    Or there again, your own and other like-minded people’s reaction against the supposedly amoral modern world has caused you to seek refuge in an imaginary earlier age with a presumably imposed theocratic order, one with moral certitude. Has it ever occurred to you that even in those times, there was a ferment of uncertainty, of “secularism”, of a reaction against those who claimed to have all the answers, of an urge to declare “It ain’t necessarily so”?

    Living with uncertainty is not to everyone’s taste I grant you, and is not likely to “win friends and influence people”, but it has one small thing going for it. It keeps an open door in one’s head for tomorrow’s new ideas. Aren’t we all hoping for 21st century enlightenment.? I am, despite having no idea as to what shape or form it will take..

  9. It is true that most Shroud conferences have papers or presentations by those who believe in the Shroud’s authenticity and that most papers are simply read out. There was a conference in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania in 1986 that had 5 speakers that were pro-authenticity and 2 that were skeptics (Walter McCrone & Joe Nickell). At the Columbus, Ohio conference in 2008, organized by myself and my late wife, a paper was presented by a Spanish doctor who believed the Shroud image shows that the man in the Shroud was not dead. No other skeptic submitted a paper. When I produced a print Shroud newsletter and then later a Shroud email bulletin, I used to get a lot of grief from people for publishing views of various skeptics as well as theories outside the mainstream. I personally welcome and I welcome as spokesman for the committee putting together the St. Louis conference any submissions for papers with opposing views of authenticity. You have my word that those papers would not be discriminated against because it opposes authenticity. We would also welcome a debate and/or roundtable. In 2008, we had an open discussion about the C-14 that included all of the attendees, not just those who had presented papers. We also had question and answer sessions that did not require, like a certain conference in 2005, that the questions be written down beforehand so that they could be screened. Charles and Colin, we would very much like to see you in St. Louis.

    1. Thanks Joe but autumn is my lecturing time in the Mediterranean and I already have tours booked in for 2014- including Istanbul aka Constantinople!
      As I have said here before, Shroud studies seem stuck until the Shroud is given a couple of weeks or more in a top conservation laboratory where they have the latest equipment. There are, meanwhile, areas, such as the other routes to Europe from Jerusalem that seem unfairly neglected.
      In recent years new developments in technology have sorted long-standing problems such as the Horses of St. Mark’s -now dated firmly to the second century AD- and the Antikythera mechanism (first century BC astronomical device) is now revealing more of its secrets thanks to new developments in imaging. So it is really more of a matter of persuading the Vatican to get in touch with one of these labs ( especially ones who specialise in textiles) and finding the funding. There has been little work down on the Shroud since 1988 so there would be a lot to reveal. Too much looking backwards, too little looking forwards!

      1. P.S. When people say that if the Shroud is not authentic, it must have been the creation of an exceptional mind, I put them on to the Antikythera mechanism to show that we often underestimate the ingenuity of earlier generations. Truth will out at some point.

      2. Charles,

        I really regret that neither of these conferences fits into you schedule. I do not believe that your concept of a single lab no matter how well qualified taking possession of the Shroud for testing would fly. Although the sample selection for the carbon testing was flawed, the fact is that the three labs were supposed to test there samples and not consult about their results.

        That simplest part of the protocol was not honored, but the concept having three independent tests as a check on each other was a valid one.

        A single commercial investigator isn’t likely, particularly when the advocate of that approach can’t fit the conferences into his schedule. We all have choices to make. This summer, I put aside most of the time I intended to spend on Shroud because I had an eight year defamation case to try. My obligation to my client had to come first. (Incidentally, we won).

        To study the issues raised by the Shroud is a time consuming process. Maybe a book at the end of the trail may pay some compensation but that can be a long shot gamble. Very long.

        But I believe the mystery of the Shroud is worth the extraordinary time and effort it takes. I am reminded of the parable of the wealthy young man who approached Christ and said that he had been faithful to the commandments all his life. What more should he do to obtain salvation? Christ replied, “If you would be perfect, sell every thing you have, give the money to the poor and come and follow me.” The young man turned away, for he was very wealthy. [Quoted from memory.]

        I believe that the scientific study of the Shroud has been a revelation and the challenge of the Shroud compels something more than tea-kettle experiments. The dialogue on this blog can be pretty contentious but I have to credit Colin Berry bringing something to my attention that I had over-looked. That forensic pathologist Zugibe concluded among very many other things that the image showed sign that Christ may have suffered from Marfen’s syndrome.

        Actually, that was in an earlier work by Zugibe published in 1981 and his last work that I had did not discuss Marfan but cited two books that did in the bibliography. However, I now think it may be worth a deeper analysis. As noted by some, it might explain the fact that Christ’s relative quick expiration on the cross surprised Pilate. [The husband of my wife’s cousin died unexpectedly and it was suspected that he may have suffered from Marfan’s.] There is a comment in Martin Kemp’s “Christ to Coke” book on icons that comes to mind.

        I have to travel out the Mineola courthouse today, and I am, of course way behind on my manuscript, but I felt this digression is necessary.

        I wish you well, but a single commercial provider taking possession of the Shroud for tests isn’t going to happen. Right or wrong, that is a fact of life and history.

      3. John, I agree that this testing is not likely to happen but , while labs such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, would presumably charge for their experts to fully examine the Shroud, they are not primarily commercial. The simply point remains is that we have the Shroud and we have technology that is vastly more sophisticated than anything yet used to assess the Shroud and I shall be interested to see the results if the two get together as there will be a wealth of new data for everyone to work on. At present, there is a tedious reworking of old material and old debates based on out-dated technology. I hope the conference organisers make a real effort to get some new ideas in while we are waiting for further testing on the Shroud by the relevant experts- if that does ever take place!
        Interestingly when i was leading a tour of Tuscany that included several relic shrines two years ago, my local Italian guide told me of several examples where the Vatican or local bishops had allowed a full scientific, no strings attached analysis of certain relics.

        1. Charles,

          I wish you well. The Shroud is unlike any other relic because if it is authentic it is both an artifact of Christ himself and a possible witness to the Resurrection. Unlike many people of a religious bent, I do not believe there is a distinct line between faith and religion. I take my guidance from Teillhard in that regard who wrote that there is an inevitable conjunction of the two. Science has explained so much of what was once considered the province religion. It has now come to the edge of some intrinsically, cosmic, religious questions. I believe that science attempting to define human consciousness is science defining the soul. I do not think that it a bad thing.

          By the way, the working title of my work in progress (about 75% complete is: The Coming of the Quantum Christ: the Shroud of Turin and the future of Science and Humanity. It’s a “take” on something Isabel Pizcek said at a Shroud conference: the Shroud reveals the future of science.

  10. I only wish that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it were true. Therefore, those who want to get forget STURP and its accomplishment might repeat them. Unfortunately, forgetting STURP which was successful is not a productive pathway to the future. I do not know what I wrote that would engender a snide remark from you. But dare I say it’s tiring. I know this may seem like nonsense to you, but maybe if you put away the snide and the quick retort you might learn something, even from me.

    Would you like to take dueling IQ tests? Once when I was a little discouraged and wondered if I had “lost” it, I took the MENSA test. I passed it. I assume you would too. Point is you should open your mind to the experiences of the past that worked. Whatever you may think, as a scientific collaborative studying the Shroud, STURP was a singular accomplishment. John Heller, who did the later blood work was advised as an undergraduate at Yale by Einstein. If you want to know how a student at Yale was advised by Einstein at Princeton? Buy his book on Amazon and read it. In the past two years I have obtained about eighty or so related books because I had a lot to learn. How many books on the Shroud have you read? Are you too proud to learn? Are you just faking it? Anyone in your past equal to Einstein?

    Show some respect for everybody on this blog, not just me. You want to slam the door on my ideas, go ahead. But you may just be missing a chance for some sage consultation. As Lee said after Pickett’s charge failed: “Oh too bad, too bad.”

Comments are closed.