Slashdot Mirror
Domain: shroudstory.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to shroudstory.com.
Comments · 24
-
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Ray Rogers' Honest ScienceBefore jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Dan -
Re:Religious "Proof"
The image is of a man with his knees bent. Lay on a long sheet. Drape it over you so it follows the contours of the body. Mark the end of your foot and the top of your head on the bottom section of the sheet and on the top layer. Flatten it out. The distance from head to toe on what was the top layer will be longer because it was draped. History is filled with gaps in the records. But there are records from 1207, 1203 and 944. See Historical Record.
-
Re:Geometry doesn't work out
The only problem with this argument is that I don't think anyone, on either side of the authenticity debate, thinks that the image was imprinted in the sense you mean. The distortions problem is obvious. The images seem almost collimated except that there are apparent distortions of elongation in the face and the hands. To some extent this is caused by background hues. These hues are caused by the fact that the linen was hank bleached as opposed to field bleached. But this hue does not explain all of the distortions. There is evidence that some of the image was formed over distance, perhaps as much as 4 cm in places. Read: Why No One Can Fully Explain the Images on the Shroud.
-
Re:Leonardo Da Vinci Created the ShroudLeonardo was born 100 years after the first appearance of the Shroud in Lirey, France in 1356. It takes quite a conspiracy theory to have him doing this thing.
Funny, too, National Geographic leaked the Rogers debunking of the carbon 14 dating last April and is reporting the story on their website. There are other stories including a commentary from Nature. Check out the links at http://www.shroudstory.com/breaking02.htm
-
Carbon 14 Fiasco
For some more accurate perspective on the carbon 14 dating fiasco check out Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud.
-
Religious View vs. Scientific ViewFor the religiously inclined, click on this link to go to a relatively good (i.e. moderate) viewpoint on the Shroud, by an Epicopalian who thinks like John Shelby Spong (one of the very few Christians whom I respect).
For those (like myself) who are secular, I wish to point out the single greatest problem in the religious view of the Shroud. The clerics simply assume that the shroud belongs to Jesus (assuming that he existed at all) and then direct their scientists to prove that the shroud belonged to Jesus. This type of reasoning is "Assume the conclusion to be true. Then prove the conclusion." I thought that scientific inquiry is "We don't know what to expect. Let's probe and collect the scientifically provable facts. Then, we draw a conclusion from the facts."