absolute crap. Rodgers is a shroud apologist going way back.
This was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 Issue 1-2, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) - The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site.
The science is sound. His conclusions have passed the review process.
The C14 test samples were flawed and that invalidates the test. While the test was accurate, it dated material that was added to the Shroud in about 1560 mixed with original shroud material. The resulting test reports ranged OUTSIDE the degree of confidence... and those aberant results are explicable when 16th Century linen is mixed with original linen in the OBSERVED ratio ONLY if the original is of 1st Century Provenance. The dates reported by the three C14 labs are an examples of unknown Garbage In, accurate Garbage out.
The lignin derivative vanillin tests are also sound... It is based on observed vanllin content in fabrics of known provenances and is quite accurate in dating linen and cotten fabrics up to 1300 years old. Medieval linen (c 600 years old) tests positive for vanillin as do all other plant based fabrics of similar age... but fabrics that are older than 1300 years do not. The ORIGINAL Shroud threads test negative for vanillin... ergo, they are older than 1300 years.
"absolute"
I guess we not talking about evolution then are we... Doesn't matter if the guy is pro or con on the Shroud. What matters is, if the science stinks and a fraud or even a hoax was committed.
Why was not two tests run on the two different materials. By the way whether the Shroud is the real thing or not does not change who Christ was, is and will be.
Bump to that. Who cares, anyway? What's the point? Ooooh, it's Christ's sweat, it's holy! Not.
Whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life. NOT whoever checks out his hanky.
>> absolute crap. Rodgers is a shroud apologist going way back. <<
It's one thing to spin the evidence that supports your view; it's quite another to just make stuff up out of, er, whole cloth. Do you care to support your cussing, or shall we just presume all researchers who find support for positions they've previously held are bald-faced liars
Brilliant comment! What points of fact do you disagree with; that published in the a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Ray Rogers is a friend. We exchange emails frequently. He actually stopped working on the Shroud several years ago because he refused to be an apologist. He resumed work after retirement from the Los Alamos Labs.
He is not popular with some of the apologists because he has challenged the notion of coin images over the eyes, disputes some of the pollen evidence, argues against miraculous causation of the images (he has demonstrated how an amino/carbonyl reaction might have created the images). Mostly he is open minded.
He set out to disprove the hypothesis of a reweaving, a patch. He set out to prove that Benford and Marino were wrong. To his surprise he found evidence that they were right. That was in 2002. In December of 2004 he obtained some of the original carbon 14 sample -- only about half of it was distributed to the labs. He subjected it to numerous tests. He found Madder root dye, alum and gum mordant. He wrote an article for peer review. The review alone took six months. He also sent some of his sample to John Brown at Georgia Tech (no apologist either) for confirmation. Brown is a leading materials forensics expert. Brown used other approaches including SEM. He found clear evidence that the sample was patched and dyed.
Rogers and I disagree on some things. But his integrity as a scientist is above reproach. I trust him. So does the rest of the Shroud research community. Some folks don't like is very pragmatic approach and his refusal to discuss anything religious about the Shroud. Some of the Turin authorities don't like the way he refuses to accept their guidance or approaches. I like that about him.
His science on the Shroud is solid.
Dan
The Shroud Of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, and the head cloth is somewhere else...Spain I believe.
Studies a couple years ago also showed the original carbon dating to be wrong.
It seems you have a bias here for some reason against the Shroud.
And FYI, I am a Calvinist Prot. I don't care if the Shroud is legit.
But, I do care when scientists say it is fake when the evidence actually shows it was at least possibly contemporary with Christ.