Barrie Schwortz wrote to me:
. . . you [that is me] made a comment that is not really correct. You said:
BTW: In this email, Rogers stated, “Energetic radiation absolutely can not be used to explain the properties of the image.” That, at least, the ENEA team proved was wrong.
I totally disagree. All the ENEA team did was color the surface of a fiber. They did not create any image that could be compared with the Shroud. So their research only shows that they can discolor a surface fiber with their laser. It does not show that they can create an image with the Shroud’s properties using this method. They proved very little.
And Yannick Clément wrote:
M. Porter, I don’t know how can you say that. Read again my open letter please ! If Rogers hypothesis is correct about the fact that it is a thin layer of impurity that was colored on the surface of the Shroud, then the ENEA TEAM DIDN’T PROVED HE WAS WRONG ! What they showed (without an independent confirmation by the way) is that they could color superficially the primary cell wall of the cellulose of the linen fibers. THIS IS NOT THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY RAY ROGERS REGARDING THE BODY IMAGES ON THE SHROUD.
Until the ENEA team will be able to only color a thin layer of impurity WITHOUT affecting the primary cell wall of the cellulose of the linen fibers, then there’s good chances that their experiments and results are simply irrelevant regarding the Shroud ! In that regard, I don’t think anyone can claim that they proved that Rogers assumption was wrong regarding energetic radiation effects versus the Shroud’s body images !
And others wrote to say similar things. However, one reader wrote:
Rogers had argued that radiation sufficient to color a fiber destroyed the thing. Joan Rogers had blown samples to bits with lasers trying to color them. If that is the sense that you meant then you are correct. ENEA succeeded where Joan had failed. You could color a fiber and Ray was wrong. But is that the correct context for the letter you quoted from?
No. So, I stand corrected. Yes, I was thinking about Joan Rogers’ experiments. But that was the wrong context.
Quote from a writer : “ENEA succeeded where Joan had failed. You could color a fiber and Ray was wrong.”
I’m not sure Joan Rogers intention with his experiments was to test every possible wave lenght that exist (like ENEA did) to see if she could superficially colored a linen fiber…
Nevermind this, ENEA can superficially colored a linen fiber, maybe that’s true, ok. But the real question is this : IS IT REALLY THE REALITY REGARDING THE COLORATION WE FOUND ON THE SHROUD ??? IN OTHER WORDS, DID THE CHROMOPHORE FOR THE COLORATION ON THE SHROUD IS REALLY THE PRIMARY CELL WALL OF THE CELLULOSE OF THE LINEN FIBERS ??? If it’s not the case and the chromophore is really a thin layer of impurities that lies ON the primary cell wall, then sorry, Rogers wasn’t wrong…
More researches need to be done to know the truth with a great level of confidence. If someone can fully confirmed Rogers hypothesis for the chromophore, then that would prove that the ENEA’s results are irrelevant to the Shroud. We’re not there yet, but the fact that McCrone confirmed the starch finding of Rogers is something to consider with great care when we reflect on this question.
barry is right. you stepped in it. thanks for saying so