Okay, say Rogers' method does result in the same chemistry as on the Shroud. But does it/will it result in the same image features seen on the Shroud? For instance, will the image be vivid? Photo negative like? Encode three dimensional/mathmatical information? And what of the flower images (reliably) reported to be seen on the Shroud? Does Rogers' method account for these too? Please tell Bertha. Thanx.
Bertha, I think the answer is partly yes and partly no. Does Ray Rogers’ method produce identical results?
In the laboratory, with cloth manufactured from hand-combed, untreated flax, woven with crude starch, washed in Soapwort suds and dried flat, Rogers has been able to create a rough image. Vivid? Yes! Acting in the manner of a negative? Yes! With the rough characteristics of terrain mapping (3D)? Yes! But the image is not focused and it is distorted. Rogers acknowledges that this is a problem and several other researchers working with Rogers agree. In the skunkworks of Shroud research it is sometimes referred to as a “profusion of confusion about diffusion and resolution, all without a solution.”
As for the flower images, that is an open question? Under the right circumstance, there may be enough surface tension on plants to increase the concentration of amine reactants (in the space between the body and the cloth) long enough for imaging to take place. Keep in mind that whatever images of flowers, leaves and stems are there, they are fainter and less distinct than the body images.
Rogers has suggested that the surface tension from hair, the mustache and the beard works the same way. In fact, this may explain why these the hair, mustache and beard of the head appear so light in a photograph (dark on the Shroud, itself). It creates the illusion that Jesus had white or blond hair. In fact, this suggests that what we have is not really a negative, in the true sense of the word, but something that functions like one. Terrain mapping may also be a misunderstanding as it would really not be a representation of distance but instead chemical concentrations.
Believe me when I say that the chemistry seems right on but the physics is completely wrong. There is something going on that we simply don’t grasp. The natural phenomenon disassociates the images from a resurrection event which is a matter of faith. And I don’t think faith would want it otherwise. But, if this is all correct, it may well be empirical evidence of the hand of God in ways we never imagined. There is more in these images, I believe, than science will answer.
No, what he is explaining is how you get a vague yellowish stain on a burial shroud. That a dead body stains a shroud doesn't surprise me. What he says there is noexplanation for is how you get not a stain, but a photographic likeness.