Yannick Clément sends along a new collection of Ray Rogers quotations:
I give you in attach file a PDF document that contains 131 different quotes from Ray Rogers that were taken from 6 different papers (5 of them were written by Rogers himself) and also from his book!
I don’t think I have forgotten too many relevant quotes concerning this most important topic regarding the Shroud and I truly believe that all your readers (as well as all the Shroud researchers, from the SSG or not) should take the time to read all those quotes in order to have a better view of the real situation regarding the Shroud’s image. I also believe that this new paper should be used along with the one published by Thibault Heimburger in last August. I really think that if someone takes the time to read these two papers one after the other, he will definitely have a great view of what an expert like Ray Rogers thought about the body image that is on the Shroud.
You can go read the quotes or click on “More” to read the rest of Yannick’s transmittal email.
Also, I cannot imagine that an honest and unbiased person can read all these quotes of Rogers and still believe that the image on the Shroud could be the product of any kind of energetic radiation related to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ… In fact, if there are some persons who will still believe such a supernatural hypothesis after reading my paper, that will be a very good sign that these persons only see what they want to see instead of only relying on what true and honest science has to say. Effectively, I think this paper is clear about the fact that any hypothesis that involves any kind of energetic radiation should be completely discarded regarding the Shroud’s image. I don’t say this because that’s what I believe personally but because that’s what science told me!
And in my mind, the key observation from Rogers that must be considered as a sure proof of that is this one (#69 in my paper): “I studied the chemical kinetics of the impurity materials and conclude that it was improbable that the impurities had been scorched by heat or any radiation source : the crystal structure of the flax image fibers was no more defective than non-image fibers. It would take very good temperature control specifically to scorch impurities without producing some defects in the cellulose.” And this quote should be put in link with this one (#77 in my paper): “Energetic radiation of all kinds causes defects in the cellulose crystals of the flax fibers. The defects are visible between crossed polarizers in a petrographic microscope. Shroud fibers show only normal aging.” And also put in link with this one too (#80 in my paper): “There is absolutely no evidence for destruction (damage) in any of the image fibers: other than possessing a colored coating, they are identical to non-image fibers. If the image were produced by radiation, image and non-image fibers should be much different.” And also put in link with this one too (#86 in my paper): “Image fibers and non-image fibers show exactly the same kinds of defects and defect populations. The image was not caused by energetic radiation.”
I have often post the first quote on the blog during this year because I consider it as being the most important observation we can find in all the writings of Rogers in order to understand correctly the real nature of the body image on the Shroud. And the other three important quotes only emphasize what is said in the first quote. While reading Rogers writings, it’s evident that this kind of observation was crucial and finally allowed him to reject completely the possibility that an energetic radiation of some kind could be the cause of the image. Here, we must remember that in 1978, Rogers’ first impression was that the image had been caused by light! But after having analyzed the Shroud’s image in deep, he completely changed his mind about that.
So, taking acount of all these particular quotes of Rogers, let me ask you (with him) one essential question: What kind of energetic radiation can color just a thin layer of impurity on-top of a linen fiber without affecting and/or damaging at all the crystal structure of this fiber (whether it be the structure of the primary cell wall or the more deeper structure of the fiber)? A great question don’t you think? In fact, that particular question is so good that no one from the supernatural fan club has not been able to answer it yet! And that includes Di Lazzaro with his UV laser, Rinaudo with his bombardment of protons and neutrons, De Liso with his electrostatic discharge and Fanti with his corona discharge… Effectively, no one has ever show us a scientific proof that he could only color a thin layer of impurities with one kind of energetic radiation and I truly don’t think we will see a result of that nature in our lifetime because theoretically, it look like a mission impossible.
Because of this (and because of many other observations coming from the Shroud), it is crystal clear (well said!) for me that this particular observation described by Rogers strongly suggests that the image on the cloth has been produced by some kind of natural process (that includes Maillard reactions and/or some other kind of natural process) that was very mild. Unfortunately, this scientific conclusion regarding the Shroud is not as spectacular as some supernatural “proof” of the Resurrection, but that’s where science is leading us! But at the same time, I should say that the idea that nature created by God can produce such a remarkable body image should really be seen as a very awesome feat and that such a conclusion cannot be seen as something problematic that could deny the reality of the Resurrection of Christ!!! Effectively, it’s truly possible that the dematerialization (or spiritualization) of Christ’s body has occurred only after this still undefined natural image-formation process had been active, which would account for the undisturbed aspect of the bloodstains and the undamaged aspect of the fibers underneath them, as well as for the fact that the dead body left the cloth before the appearance of the first liquids of putrefaction and last but not least, it would also account for the fact that such a gruesome and blood stained burial cloth would have been kept and well-preserved to this day! That’s why I don’t understand the Christians who are afraid that the body image could really have been caused by a natural process. In reality, they should not be afraid at all by this probable fact!!! Effectively, all they have to do is reflecting seriously and honestly on what I just described as a truly possible scenario concerning Jesus burial and Resurrection and they will see that there is no contradiction between a body image that would have been formed naturally and the cornerstone event of Christian faith…
And you know what? Since my paper is essentially a regrouping of many Rogers’ sayings, it reminds me of the Gospel of Thomas, which is a book that only contains a bunch of short sayings of Jesus! Who knows? Maybe this paper will later be known as “The Gospel of Ray Rogers”??? HA HA HA!!!
By the way, I also want you to take very good note of another quote of Rogers. It is the quote #62 in my paper and it says:“All parts of the Shroud are the same age, and all parts have been stored in the same location through the centuries. Therefore, all parts should have been exposed to the same kinds and amount of (natural) radiation. Any additional radiation effects found in image areas would indicate excess radiation in that location. Direct comparison between image and non-image parts of the Shroud shows exactly the same amounts and types of radiation damage in the two types of areas.”
What a magnificent collection. Thank you, Yannick.
However.
Isn’t there always a however? Fanti, Botella et al.’s paper ‘Superficiaity,’ quoting Jumper, specifically mentions: “the linen fibers seen on the body-image tapes are shorter and more fractured than those from nonimage areas.” This suggests that the material of the cloth itself, not just the ‘impurity layer’ was affected by the image forming mechanism.
Concerning the fractured aspect of the image fibers, Rogers had a different interpretation… Here’s the relevant quote (found in my paper) in which he explain his point of view about that: “Quote #61- Dehydration causes shrinkage; therefore, any coating of carbohydrate impurities would “craze” during dehydration. Such a crazed coating would be easy to pull off with adhesive, explaining the easy removal of tapes from image areas.”
As you can see (and as I realized more and more following what goes on in the Shroud world), in science, what is the most important thing is not necessarily the data itself but, very often, it is much more the INTERPRETATION you do of that particular data!!!! And on this question, many different point of views can exist for one single data. That’s why I often prefer to put my trust in Rogers’ judgment because I know how good, unbiased and profesionnal a scientist he was. Don’t forget that, since the STURP days, he changed his mind a lot of time when some new data or observation came in his way. For me, that’s a very good sign of integrity. That proved that Rogers was really following the scientific method properly while only going in the direction indicated by all the facts taken as a whole and not in the direction he first thought.
This is an interesting point.
The aging and mechanical properties of the flax fibers may be directly influenced by the integrity of the pcw.
The reacting/impurity layer may be thicker/deeper at dislocations.
Well done, Yannick! An impressive work of dedication, an extremely useful and readily accessible collection. My congratulations. I’ll look forward to reading through it.
Thanks to Hugh and Daveb for the positive comment.
Here’s an important comment for all of you: This morning, I found out one more interesting quote from Ray Rogers and decided to add it in my paper and I just sent this updated version of my paper to Dan a few hours ago. So, I hope Dan can do the switch rapidly with my new version.
While we wait for that, here’s this new quote that speak loud versus the fact that, for Rogers, the primary cell wall of the linen fiber on the Shroud was not a relevant option for the chromophore: “An average flax fiber is 10-20 um in diameter, and some lower fibers are colored in image areas. Any radiation that colored the circumference of two, superimposed fibers would have to penetrate at least 20 40 um of cellulose. Radiation that penetrated the entire 10-20-um-diameter of a fiber would certainly affect the entire volume of the fiber, including the walls of the medulla (the cylindrical void in the center of the fiber). All image fibers (from the Shroud) show color on their outer surfaces, but the body of the fiber and the walls of the medulla are not colored.”
The last phrase is truly important. It is one of the most precise description of Rogers’ opinion concerning the chromophore of the image. I’m sorry for all the defenders of the primary cell wall hypothesis (Fanti, Di Lazzaro, etc.) but this new quote of Rogers made it clear that, in his mind, the whole body of the fiber (that certainly includes the primary cell wall!) never was affected and colored during the image-formation process. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily means that Rogers was right about that, but you know what? I don’t see any good reason right now to doubt his professional opinion on that question. Until new data could prove he was wrong, I think it’s fair to consider the chromophore of the image as being most probably a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities.
Rogers’ arguments are very strong because he considered all the data and observations available without lefting one aside. Also, we have to consider that, unlike almost every modern Shroud researchers, Rogers was able to see and analyzed the image directly in Turin in 1978. This is not banal…
So try to duplicate it. Lets see you make a duplicate. Come on man your a man of science. So duplicate one?