|
|
|
|
|
Facts are facts. Other than perhaps some trace
contaminates, there is no paint on the Shroud; at least nothing that would form
a visible image.
In a letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer, regarding an
article by Joe Nickell, chemist Ray Rogers wrote the following. This letter is
very telling on this subject:
Dear Editor:
Joe Nickell has attacked my scientific competence and honesty in his latest
publication on the Shroud of Turin. Everything I have done investigating the
shroud had the goal of testing some hypothesis [Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N.,
"Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978
Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3 (1982); Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A.,
"The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain
the image formation," in Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp. 106-113].
My latest paper [Rogers, R. N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the
Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta 425/1-2, 189-194 (2005)] is no exception. I
accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave"
claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest
embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe.
So, Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the results
from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?
Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared explosives data
with him. I was the one who "commissioned" him to look at the samples that I
took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system
and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could
hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto
would not allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would
handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests.
Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the
cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with
his people at a Gordon Conference. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs
of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra.
Now Joe thinks I am a "Shroud of Turin devotee," a "pro-authenticity
researcher," and incompetent at microanalysis. If he ever read any of my
professional publications, he would know that I have international recognition
as an expert on chemical kinetics. I have a medal for Exceptional Civilian
Service from the US Air Force, and I have developed many microanalytical
methods. I was elected to be a Fellow of a national laboratory. A cloud still
hangs over Walter with regard to the Vinland map. Joe does not take his job as
"Research Director" very seriously. If he thinks I am a "true believer," I will
put him solidly on the "far-right" lunatic fringe.
Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the
pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the
fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or
fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to
argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and
facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to
the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others."
Sincerely,
|
The
scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the
scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than
settle it.”
It is
simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was
made.”
Scientist-Journalist Philip Ball Nature, that most prestigious of scientific journals, that once had bragging rights to claim that the Shroud was fake, responding to new, peer-reviewed studies that discredit the carbon 14 dating and show that the Shroud could be authentic. WHAT WE KNOW IN 2005
|