Descripción

Carta de UMMO N 488 recibida el 7 de Noviembre de 1988 por Ignacio Darnaude Rojas-Marcos, desde Suiza

57.- Carta Ummo 1988,N 488,de Suiza

!4OAELEOEE

Copias: 237

Nocionality t Switaerlend

Mea from OYAAGA

Let us to introduce ourselves: Sinos the doy 28, merch, 1950, date on wich ve took contact with’Tierre, near De La Jovis (Franca) we are emong you. We know with security thet this-introdution disqus­lify ua autometically. Forget it sud listen our complaint.

It vas commited e freud, thet we want to denounce to you, now thet we don::t have a juridic entity. A metter that la more regrettable seing that certein•membera of the apoetholic roznan jerarchy ead the totality of the believera of this denomination are innocent..

After th•e copy reportad by Secondo Pie ¡a W98, the academio Ivea Delego discovered that the blood steina of the SINDON reveal the sed trutb. The marks still bleed efter the cereful weshing to wich the body was subjected. Neither tbo lineo vea bendoged..(PRAKIAI) ea ít was prascribed~

It acorta aclaver falsification on wich it happens that somebody

takes a pisco of linen (tvil of 4 la ser) manufacturated bn 1220 (Ja4N) ~ ead of bigger dimensiona, cutted in 41371 . 1’116^M. The mark vea

falaified using e effigy in oeah ¡ron overheeted. (Piua X, Beaedict XV, Pius XI, John XXIII and John Paul 1 were unawere of the procesa. We don’t Know if Piue XII was reportad by A. Ottaviani). The_freudu­lent chango of the linen was cerned out in the year 1928. (Tsin)

In 1985 Eia Hoiinesa the Pope Karol Wojtyla :s discreetly reported by meona of e letter in codo by the Cardinal Edward Cosaidy from the amall group of Cardinal. and prelates that try desperately don’t let arrive tbe metter to the public light.

On a ewkward end hasty wey et a meeting, the Pope, Joseph Tomko, Joseph Retzinger end Anastasio Ballestrero decide to profit the

new apechtrometry technic A. of M. The nemed Ballestrero in gherged of send the semplea. They knew too mutch the resultat of the Medieval date of the erehaeologicla document so loved by ell the cbristian eomunitiea. there la not mistake on the report of the experta about tbe samples.

^che «Shroud of ‘7urin leseerch ?ro.ject» is, of course, innocent in spite of bis wrong reine. And with them,it’s alío innocent cae ;r3at ^;uentity of feithful3 sadly deceived by.»átate reasona».’