A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses
by Bob Siefker, Keith Propp, Dave Fornof, Ares Koumis, Rebecca Jackson
and John Jackson.
… to download a copy. This is big and may be slow so I suggest saving the PDF on your own computer’s drive or to a cloud server.
Pictured: Version 3.o in my iPad on a coffee table
downloaded from Google Drive.
You can print the 118 pages.
You can search this document using Chrome, Microsoft’s New Edge browser, etc.
I was not able to put the document into Kindle because of its size. Amazon will only load PDF files that are smaller than 50 MB and Critical Summary clocks in at 106 MB. What you can do is print the first 40 pages as a PDF, the second 40, and then the rest of the document. Give different names to each segment and then send them off to Kindle services at Amazon. Think of it as a book in three volumes.
I was, however, able to upload Critical Summary to Google Drive. This means I can read it on an iPad at Starbucks. Google Drive is pretty fast. I was able to upload the whole document in less than three minutes and subsequently open the document on my iPad in less than a minute.
One thing you cannot do (by authors’ choice) is copy and paste. This is just plain silly. I use Microsoft Notebook to get around this taboo-like limitation against fair use quoting: how not to win friends and not influence people.
Here is the preface copied and pasted via Microsoft Notebook:
The purpose of the Critical Summary is to provide a synthesis of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado ([SC) thinking about the Shroud of Turin and to make that synthesis available to the serious inquirer. Our evaluation of scientific, medical forensic and historical hypotheses presented here is based on TSC’s internal research, Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) data, and other published research.
The Critical Summary synthesis is not intended to present new research findings. With the exception of our comments all information presented has been published elsewhere, and we have endeavored to provide references for all included data. The ratings given to data items presented in the empirical data sections of the Critical Summary are based on TSC’s judgment of what constitutes class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 evidence, as explained in the Introduction.
We wish to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of several persons and organizations. First, we would like to acknowledge Dan Spicer, PhD in Physics, and Dave Fornof for their contributions in the construction of Version 1.0 of the Critical Summary. We are grateful to Mary Ann Siefker and Mary Snapp for proofreading efforts. We also are very grateful to Barrie Schwortz (Shroud.com) and the STERA organization for their permission to include photographs from their database of STURP Shroud photographs. Barrie served as a lead photographer during the STURP expedition to Turin to study the Shroud and today is recognized worldwide as the founder and administrator of the important Shroud research repository site http://www.shroud.com.
We welcome comments, but we can only consider those that are substantive and that are emailed directly to our website (via the Shroud Data tab).
Oh, and yes. The punch card chart aiming to be scientific analysis showing that John Jackson’s fall through hypothesis is the only workable hypothesis is still in Version 3.0 (on page 73). Ridiculous. More on that later.
The authors want comments but only those “that are substantive and that are emailed directly to [their] website.” I, on the other hand, think that open no-holds-barred discussion is the only way to go. We’ll do that.