Ray Rogers Shroud of Turin Fraud on Tonight (Discovery)

12/14/2008 | Soliton

[SalukiLawyer]

Okay. Thanks.

[screaming eagle2]

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

[screaming eagle2]

if it is a hoax the person who did it knew more about photography than Eastman-Kodak

[PasorBob]

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

[Petronski]

I have done original research.

Suuuuuure.

[RobbyS]

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!

[brytlea]

Do tell!? What research, I’m intrigued!

[brytlea]

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.

[count-your-change]

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.

[ChetNavVet]

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.

[Soliton]

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.

[Soliton]

Is this what you were referring to?

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