A complete scan of the Papers from 1991 Shroud Conference are available at Academia.edu. If you are interested in reading them, I recommend downloading a copy soon. I suspect that these will be removed as they are in clear violation of Academia’s terms and conditions.
For instance, just last week, the same person who uploaded the ‘91 papers, uploaded a copy of an "Article about STURP in National Geographic Magazine – June 1980." That article has already been taken down as it was a clear violation of copyright law and a clear abuse of Academia policies; the site is not a public archive.
Many prominent shroud scholars use Academia.edu, to name just a few: Andrea Nicolotti, Emanuela Marinelli, Paolo Di Lazzaro, Adrie Vd Hoeven, Alessandro Piana, Mark Antonacci, Andy Weiss. For them and for us It is a great facility, so long as it is not abused. I would hate to see shroud scholars get a bad reputation among Academia’s editors and users by one eccentric shroud evangelist who is saturating the site with papers written by others and scans of brochures, catalogues and newspaper clippings.
In the pdf of the “Papers from 1991 Shroud Conference” are not present the pages 130-154, 226-255, 325-345, 351 ff.
That’s why we have a variety of Shroud sites because not every sites is a place to post everything.
Dan, there is something that has to be said and I think you know what I am talking about and will probably receive e-mail messages after what I have posted since what exactly people feel in the realm of Shroud studies is said behind the scenes and not on a blog like this one, where there is a lot of public relations. Public relations that are barely able to hide the tension lurking behind, a tension that is revealed when it explodes openly — when public relations is not possible.
Posting Shroud papers on Academia.edu will not attract academics to the field because if they want to delve deeper they will inevitably be led to Shroud sites and publications, where they will see that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing in some places and get the impression that confusion abounds.They will either lose interest or read what is being said just to keep in touch with what is going on, but unwilling to enter a minefield.
To get something published in the “top” sites and publications you have to be a chummy, no matter whether what you have written is a useful contribution or just plain rubbish. I regret having to tell you that you yourself have succumbed to this policy, but can understand it on account of the pressure you must be facing from those behind the scenes who decide who is and is not a chummy and to whom a door should be opened, albeit indirectly. One clear example? There are people who are not exactly prominent Shroud scholars who have received mention in your last paragraph and others who are, that is, who have contributed with useful papers based on important discoveries, have been ignored. Of course, they are no longer chummies and have been unjustly driven out of the Shroud scenario.
Curiously, some time ago one prominent Shroud scholar was the object of scorn simply because he was writing papers beyond his field of expertise and although his contributions were noteworthy. At the same time another scholar, who was not at all prominent, began writing absolute nonsense — I received correspondence from prominent Shroud scholars backing my position — and was mentioned 4(four) times.
Something must change drastically if academics are to enter the scene and if Shroudies wish to gain the confidence of the authorities, both in Turin and Rome. You can do something to make this a reality, given that the blog is very useful, but it will depend on you to resist the pressure.