This experiment does not PROVE the Shroud of Turin is a fake. It merely demonstrates that it could have been faked. The distinction is very important, and anyone who jumps to this conclusion is not thinking scientifically. Roger´s analysis, if confirmed, proves that the Shroud is old enough to be the burial cloth of Jesus. But it does not prove it be so. A hoaxer could have bought the linen in the 12th century from someone who had brought it back from the Middle East, when it was already hundreds of yeard old. This would explain why pollen from flowers growing around Jerusalem have been found in the material. The paint/dabbing theory cannot explain the discovery a year or two ago by an Italian physicist that the discoloration of fibres is confined to the surface of the shroud. If the image had been dabbed onto a sheet stuck to a sculpture or cadaver and the sheet then turned inside-out, the ferric oxide-gelatin mixture would have had to seep through the cloth in order to create the negative image. But the Italian scientist found no evidence of discoloration of fibres between the two surfaces of the sheet. Hence,Jacques di Costanzo´s conclusions are inconsistent with this research. Perhaps someone should tell him. Evidently, he has not heard about this earlier research, which discredits his theory.