Ray Rogers Shroud of Turin Fraud on Tonight (Discovery)

12/14/2008 | Soliton

[Soliton]

Tonight, the Discovery Channel will have a special on the Shroud of Turin featuring the late Raymond N. Rogers. Rogers published a paper in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta. that is generally viewed as undermining the carbon 14 dating of the shroud in 1988 that proved the Shroud was a fake.

1. Rogers was not authorized to conduct the tests by the Church.

2. The Church said they could not authenticate that the samples he used came from the Shroud.

3. If the Samples were really from the Raes sample and the Riggi Sample, they were taken and distributed illegally.

4. Rogers’ calculations did not meet the usual scientific rigor required of Thermochimica Acta.

5. Rogers’ subject didn’t meet the criteria for submission to Thermochimica Acta.

6. Rogers’ conclusion that the main part of the cloth is between 1300 and 3000 years old is unsupported by any of his research.

7. The science representative of the Arch Bishop of Turin, Fr. Ghiberti, walked out on the original of the presentation “Ray Rogers” in His Own Words” claiming that he couldn’t believe something could be so full of errors, and that there was no mending or patch at the site.

8. Madame Flury-Lemburg, the foremost textile expert on the shroud, and a believer in the authenticity of the Shroud, says there is no patch at the test site. She was able to examine the test site under a microscope AFTER the C14 testing and found no patch.

9. Ray Rogers was published in a journal that he helped to create. He published an article in the first Issue and was an editor until he retired after 18 years.

10. Ray Rogers was tossed a bone and published by old friends that knew he was dying. It is probable that no real peer review ever took place.

[utahagen]

I agree. I don’t care about the Shroud of Turin.

[Walmartian]

You’ve got it right. It doesn’t matter if it’s fake or not it doesn’t change my belief.

[Fiji Hill]

When I hear about the image of Jesus on toast...

How would one know that the image is of Jesus, since the Bible provides no description whatsoever as to his appearance?

[Soliton]

Each time it has been examined, scientisits and art experts claimed it was painted. The small group in Turin, however, persisted in perpetuating the myth that it was a miraculous photographic negative. It isn’t.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Anyone that puts their faith in any thing, institution or person other than Christ probably ain’t a member of the Body of Christ. Knick-knacks are fer old ladies and museums.

[count-your-change]

O.k. so it’s a joke, I’m a bit slow at catching on. And that ain’t no joke.

[Petronski]

There are millions, however, who need proof...

Believing in the authenticity of the Shroud is not necessarily about "needing proof."

Making a fetish out of discrediting it is, however, psychologically revealing.

[Swordmaker]

Shroud ping

No. It's not.

This article is YOUR opinion. It is a vanity. Rogers finding have been corroborated by other peer-reviewed researchers. Most of your points are false and/or misrepresentations. I will not ping the list nor will I respond further to you on this thread. Have fun.

[SalukiLawyer]

Is this a summary of the Discovery program, or are these your comments based on something else?

[Joe 6-pack]

"Making a fetish out of discrediting it is, however, psychologically revealing."

My faith in Christ is by no means contingent on the authenticity of the shroud. My belief in the skeptics is contingent on their inability thus far to replicate it.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Making a fetish out of discrediting it is, however, psychologically revealing."

My faith in Christ is by no means contingent on the authenticity of the shroud. My doubts in the assertions of the skeptics is contingent on their inability thus far to replicate it.

[CaptRon]

Dr. Zugibe was the Medical Examiner in my county. Heis family is very prominent in the town in which i live. His son (the one you see in this film) is now the DA. Unfortunately he’s a Dem.

[SalukiLawyer]

If it is a hoax it is a very strange hoax. I don't know whether it is or not. I can see why some Christians might be invested in the issue. I am less clear on why skeptics would be so interested in debating it.

My initial web research yielded a seemingly irreconcilable jumble of findings. McCrone says that microscopy proves the image is made of red ochre, not blood. (In a trial, I would not use a microscopist to provide that sort of evidence as to bodily fluids, but a serologist, or, perhaps someone with a GCMS, which ought to resolve the paint issue.) There's either evidence of bodily fluids or not.

This rebuttal would be more valuable if we knew the provenance of the enumerated claims.

If it is a hoax, its replication would be a fascinating experiment, and ought to be an easy matter with modern technology.

[count-your-change]

The most telling argument against the shroud being associated with Jesus’ burial is the way Jesus’ burial with a face cloth and linen clothes being wound around Jesus’ body with a large quantity of spices and ointments being applied. (John, chapter 20)
Whatever the shroud is and where it came from it is not what the Bible describes as the clothes that covered Jesus.

[Grizzled Bear]

I have found many atheists to be decent, intelligent people. I’ve never met an Anti-theist who was not a complete jerk.

[Soliton]

The Discovery channel presentation has deliberate lies in it.

[Soliton]

This article is YOUR opinion. It is a vanity. Rogers finding have been corroborated by other peer-reviewed researchers. Most of your points are false and/or misrepresentations. I will not ping the list nor will I respond further to you on this thread. Have fun.

I can prove EVERY contention

[Soliton]

Making a fetish out of discrediting it is, however, psychologically revealing.

I have done original research. Rogers was a fraud that leveraged his relationship with Thermochimica Acta to publish a feeble paper.

[Soliton]

I have done original research on Rogers’ paper and he is a fraud.

[RobbyS]

If it is a hoax, its replication would be a fascinating experiment, and ought to be an easy matter with modern technology. To be convincing, the demonstration it would have to be done with medieval technology. So far as I know, the image is unique.