Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ray Rogers Shroud of Turin Fraud on Tonight (Discovery)
12/14/2008 | Soliton

Posted on 12/14/2008 5:51:26 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Religion; Science; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: shroud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: ChetNavVet

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


21 posted on 12/14/2008 6:29:49 PM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe

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


22 posted on 12/14/2008 6:30:04 PM PST by Walmartian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ChetNavVet
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?

23 posted on 12/14/2008 6:33:32 PM PST by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

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.


24 posted on 12/14/2008 6:34:35 PM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ChetNavVet

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.


25 posted on 12/14/2008 6:36:13 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth ($750 billion is nothing - surrender your children, wealth and gold fillings now to avoid the rush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

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


26 posted on 12/14/2008 6:56:57 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
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.

27 posted on 12/14/2008 7:00:17 PM PST by Petronski (For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
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.

28 posted on 12/14/2008 7:03:44 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

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


29 posted on 12/14/2008 7:09:37 PM PST by SalukiLawyer (Sitting on the oogedy-boogety branch since 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"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.

30 posted on 12/14/2008 7:16:21 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"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.

31 posted on 12/14/2008 7:16:25 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

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.


32 posted on 12/14/2008 7:22:22 PM PST by CaptRon (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
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.
33 posted on 12/14/2008 7:33:14 PM PST by SalukiLawyer (Sitting on the oogedy-boogety branch since 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
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.
34 posted on 12/14/2008 7:34:48 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

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


35 posted on 12/14/2008 7:38:52 PM PST by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

The Discovery channel presentation has deliberate lies in it.


36 posted on 12/14/2008 7:51:43 PM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
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

37 posted on 12/14/2008 7:53:00 PM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
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.

38 posted on 12/14/2008 8:00:09 PM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SalukiLawyer

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


39 posted on 12/14/2008 8:03:04 PM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SalukiLawyer
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.
40 posted on 12/14/2008 8:28:17 PM PST by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson