Later, the shroud was passed to the House of Savoy, first in Chambery [4], then in Turin, where it found more lenient judges on its origins. This late acquiescence of a relic became a big dynastic interest, a kind of Royal fetish, have no serious weight in the balance of history. The inauthenticity, even better, the apocryphal and fraudulent nature of the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin is established by evidence that we have not tried to question the value, but that conscientious authors such as M. Arthur Loth, believed to be excluded from the debate on the grounds that the recent photographs, which were recognized in a portrait prints negative, may have originated as a supernatural intervention. That is a point of faith or belief opposed to scientific demonstration. The authors of the Note said, for their part, to place themselve onto the field of natural facts, the objection based on the documents mentioned above are enough to ruin their case. I cannot, secondly, understand on what they rely to assert that the Shroud of Turin is "the same as the shroud attributed to Christ and kept in Byzantium in the chapel of the Emperors, where the shroud features Christ were also reproduced"; this , according to these gentlemen, was previously a possibility, but, following the research undertaken by them, it "has become almost a certainty." This would mean that the shroud of Constantinople is considered authentic, must be held identical to that of Turin, which itself is genuine. This identification would, in effect, as Loth says, a way to partially fill the interval between the frightening advent of our Shroud of events which it owes its origin. But this is merely a hypothesis, for which we have not sought to produce any evidence. The claim must therefore be held totally foreign to this debate. We now know why a master in regard to matters of the Middle Ages, Mr. Leopold Delisle, whose religious sentiments are well known, said at the meeting on April 25 of the Academy of inscriptions, that the note submitted at the Academy of Sciences did not alter its decision regarding the apocryphal nature of the Shroud of Turin, the arguments presented earlier by Mr. Abbot U. Chevalier against the authenticity "seemed to have retained their value so far."