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.
Okay. Thanks.
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.
if it is a hoax the person who did it knew more about photography than Eastman-Kodak
At least #7 seems true.
Is this what you were referring to?
“Turin’s Monsignor Giuseppe Ghiberti pronounced a summary judgment on Rogers’ findings. He said, “I am astonished that an expert like Rogers could fall into so many inaccuracies in his article. I can only hope, indeed, also think that the C14 dating is rectifiable (the method, in fact, has its own uncertainties), but not on the basis of the ‘darn’ [sic, darning is altogether a different method of repair] theory.”
How can Ghiberti possibly know this? He offered no evidence or explanation. So, now, people at the conference wanted to ask him about it. It wasn’t that questions were not allowed at the conclusion of the interview with Rogers. Neither the conference moderator nor the conference sheriff were about for the evening presentation. And Ghiberti, representing Turin’s Cardinal Poletto, could have invited questions and no one would have objected.
Ghiberti walked out.
The ranking representative for of the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin got up and walked out of the room. It was the wrong thing to do. Some felt he should have stayed to defend his archbishop, the diocesan staff, its advisors and ultimately the decision that later he defensively characterized as a decision by the Holy See.”
http://www.shroudstory.com/dallas2005.htm
Suuuuuure.
Indeed. I don’tpretend to know where the shroud came from, but it seems to me that it is up to the doubters who put all their faith in science to put up or shut up. Don’t just talk, talk, talk. Just duplicate it!
Do tell!? What research, I’m intrigued!
That argument is what really made me fairly sure it’s not His shroud. I don’t know what it is (I’m not convinced it was painted, seems like it would have been difficult to paint, especially way back). But it doesn’t fit the description in the Bible, or apparently, the practices of 1st century Jews.
I have no idea who made the shroud but I can’t see reading into the Gospel’s what isn’t there in order to make a foundation for the Shroud.
Thanks for the ping back, but honestly, the C14 dating is inconclusive when one considers the fact that the test was run by any person that supposedly did not have an official peice of the shroud.
I stick by what I said, “Who Cares”. I don’t, and I belive the whole thing about this peice of cloth has been more negative than positive.
1. Unsupported Date Range Estimate.
The date of harvest of the flax used to make the linen in the Shroud, “dH”, would be the date of maximum vanillin content in the lignin and the date vanillin depletion began.
The date that the vanillin was exhausted in the linen fibers, “dE”, could be determined by using Rogers’ depletion rate calculations based on average maximum diurnal storage temperature.
dE - dH = 1319 years (25 °C)
dE - dH = 3095 years (20 °C)
Rogers used these calculations to assert that:
“A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old.”
Rogers states in the article that:
“The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old.”
And:
“No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test.”
And:
“Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the cloth must be quite old.”
Rogers repeatedly indicates that the vanillin was exhausted at some unknown time prior to his testing. This presents a problem. His date range of 1300 to 3000 “years ago” is dependent on a flawed, possibly unconscious, assumption that dE equaled the date that the tests were conducted. The fact, however, is that the date of exhaustion is unknown and no date range can therefore be determined. Without knowing the value of dE it is impossible to determine the value of dH. The proper scientific conclusion would have been that the date range was 1300 to 3000 years before the date of vanillin exhaustion.
Yes. The Vatican has had experts review the "patch" area under a microscope and know that there is no patch there. They know that if another examination is ever allowed, Rogers will look like a fool
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.