The Shroud timecross probing was somewhat disappointing as it simply confirmed some of the conclusions of the crucifixion project - Simon of Cyrenaica being the substitute of Jesus on the cross - but it did not speak much about the shroud itself - where it came from, how it was imprinted with the face and body of the ‘man of the shroud’ (this is the official labeling of the phenomenon by the Catholic Church : uomo del sudario), how it appeared in 14th century Champagne in Troyes - competing with another three or four similar relics), forgery or not (if so of which period), ... that is what I thought you would deal with from the title given to the exercise. I happened to live for seven years in Bologna where the Pope has allowed a bronze statue of the man of the shroud (created from the laser analysis of the marks on the textile) to be exposed in the complex of the Sette Chiese, Piazza Santo Stefano, constructed on an old Roman cemetery of the 3rd and 4th century, a center dedicated since the 5th century to the Holy Sepulchre ... This bronze statue is the only one allowed for, the plaster original being kept in Turin at the Museum of the Shroud - where you can see a facsimile of the 8 meter long textile (the original being kept in museum conditions to be ‘monstrated’ on holy years). I did not react at the time to indicate my frustration as a historian fascinated by the medieval period who, knowing about the ongoing controversies about the Shroud was expecting some new lights from Farsight. If I write today, it is because I found much more to the point the probing of the four popes just released. What I call the ’Atlanta quartet’ was very persuasive considering the convergence of their testimonies. Thank you. A propos, it would be nice to hear about your older ‘most experienced’ remote viewers, in Britain, Hawaï or even in the US (Aziz Brown) : have all male reviewers gone down the drain ?
With my best regards.
Jousch Andris Barblan, Geneva
