From: user6340@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   JTEM  posted:   
   > On 12/28/25 5:31 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:   
   >   
   > > You mean I cited a study, which included a different   
   > > laboratory that was critical of the process that was   
   > > used to "date" the Shroud. Why do you keep ignoring   
   > > all of that?   
   >   
   > Know what I'm not seeing in the above? Any reference what so   
   > ever to an actual example where "The that was used" was used   
   > in some other case then later shown to be wrong.   
      
   Why don't you actually look at the study I provided,   
   and you'll see that the process was flawed due to   
   the piece of cloth that was cut from the Shroud.   
   There is no way to know how contaminated that small   
   piece of cloth cut from a corner, where it would   
   have been handled many times -- including during   
   the repair that took place after the fire.   
      
   It's all in that study, and your attempts at a   
   diversion or distraction is irrelevant to the points   
   made in the study you continue to ignore.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)