The Rogers Article in Acta was a joke. It was destroyed. That’s why the STURP boys came out saying they had verified his results.
Rogers’ vamnillin theory of dating has beed discredited. He states that it was highly temperature sensitive. In fact ALL vanillins would disappear in SECONDS at temperatures above 200 degrees centigrade. The shroud had been exposed to temperatures high enough to melt silver! He claimed that the thermal resistance of linen (this is one part stolen from McCrone) would have meant that some vanillin would have been found somewhere on the shroud, but he claims that there was NO vanillin ANYWHERE on the shroud! How can he know this? All of the samples ever taken comprise less than one percent of the shroud’s surface area. He only had two threads and a piece of the Raes sample to work on. The threads were supposedly from the center of the samples actually tested. No such threads are known to exist AND photomicrographs of the samples show no threads missing. Gonella DID NOT have authority to release samples to Rogers as I have already posted.
Please provide the articles published by scientists in either Thermochemica Acta or in any other peer-reviewed journals that refuted Rogers findings and "destroyed" his research and article. PLEASE.
Incidentally, neither Brown nor Villareal—scientists who, working within their fields of expertise, have replicated Rogers findings using different approaches—are or were members of STURP. So how can they be "STURP boys?" I know you think that "STURP boys" is a term of denigration... it is not.
These are men and women that I have met and talked to. I know far more about them than do you. Your ad homenem libel and slander about them is merely presented in hopes that someone will believe you. As I have stated before, you are reprehensible.
In fact ALL vanillins would disappear in SECONDS at temperatures above 200 degrees centigrade.
And you know this HOW? Where are your citations proving this? This was Raymond Rogers field of expertise.
He claimed that the thermal resistance of linen (this is one part stolen from McCrone)
BS, Soliton. The thermal resistance of Linen is a function that has been tested by many people who work with textiles. McCrone merely looked it up in a reference text. He did not do any research on such thermal resistance nor, as a microscopist, was he qualified to do such research. Ironically, as a chemical pyrologist, Raymond Rogers IS qualified to do such research. He is also qualified to do such research on Vanilan.
No such threads are known to exist AND photomicrographs of the samples show no threads missing. Gonella DID NOT have authority to release samples to Rogers as I have already posted.
There are thousands of thread and fiber samples that were taken from every area of the Shroud during STURP's 1978 examination. They still exist. They have not been destroyed. They have been examined six-ways from Sunday. Your claim there are none is contrary to the facts as reported in numerous scientific and scholarly reports.
How could Gonella NOT have authority when he was the highest authority other than the Pope on this particular issue. He is the Custodian of the Shroud of Turin. He is the authority to which scientists submit requests for samples in his possession. You write a letter to the Custodian of the Shroud outlining your proposed study and/or experiments, and if he agrees, you sign an agreement about your research and the Custodian sends you the requested samples. Under his official duties—by the Authority of the owner of the Shroud, and not to mention, Christ's Vicar on Earth, the Pope. How hard is this to understand. You keep claiming this "lack of authority" but you have never, ever backed up your claims except from skeptical sites that also lack proof of their assertions. You have offered absolutely NO PROOF of that claim. Provide your proof. SOLITON, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.