Comment Promoted: Travertine Aragonite Limestone

imageDaveb of Wellington NZ writes:

Re Travertine Aragonite Limestone residues reported by Kohlbeck etc: I obtained a very prompt response from Barrie, but sadly unless the original samples can be found in the Ray Roger’s files or samples held by STERA and as yet uncatalogued, it may very well be a lost cause.  The 2002 "Restoration" looks like it spelt Doom for any further new sampling.

Part extract from Barrie’s response:

There has been much discussion of this issue on the SSG as well as Dan’s blog. I don’t recall seeing anything solid that indicates this was ever submitted to a peer reviewed journal, although there are a number of references to it in the literature. In checking Ray Roger’s computer, I could not find specifically which of his tape samples he sent Nitowski or whether they were ever returned. He did send her a Raes sample which she did not return.  However, all that took place before most people used computers, so the information might be in the 8 large, unopened boxes of Roger’s files that STERA, Inc. has in their possession.

Our goal is to scan, OCR and archive each document online, and we are searching for funding to allow that to happen. Rogers’ collection will be the first of many we plan to archive, including the collections of several other STURP team members (Robert Dinegar, William Mottern, etc.) and other Shroud scholars like Fr. Albert "Kim" Dreisbach, Jr. There is a lot of important Shroud information in those documents. Our goal is to develop and write a grant that could make the funding for the project possible, but that is a long, slow process.  We are also hoping to find a benefactor who might be willing to fund the archiving project in its entirety.

I am not sure how this type of research could be taken further, in light of the restoration of the Shroud in 2002, when many parts of the cloth were vacuumed.  This could easily have removed the data that could have been studied in the future to answer the Aragonite Limestone question.  I usually don’t make mention of it in my lectures unless someone asks, and I tell them it was reported by reputable scientists but was never peer reviewed. Sadly, the restoration itself may be the biggest obstacle to answering this question.

I have observed the SSG discussions and thought long and hard about them. It would be wonderful if the matte of Travertine Aragonite could be verified. I don’t hold out much hope. That doesn’t mean that it cannot be cited as part of a cumulative evidence picture. But the lack of confirmation should always be acknowledged. 

And read, More on the Dirt of the Shroud of Turin, a posting from September 16, 2011.

4 thoughts on “Comment Promoted: Travertine Aragonite Limestone”

  1. The other paper, appart from the one by Kohlbeck in Biblical Archaoelogy Review largely quoted everywhere as supporting the issue of the aragonite is the one by Levi-setti

    LEVI-SETTI R.,CROW C., WANG Y. L.: Progress in high resolution scanning ion microscopy and secondary ion mass spectrometry imaging microanalysis. (PMID:3931206)
    ”, Scanning Electron Microscopy 2, 1985; 535-552

    As I mentioned in a previous comment, this journal does not belong to the JCR system but, surprisingly enough, at least in its abstract, the authors do not even get any close to the aragonite or Shroud issue. Their work seems to focus on the skull bone of neonatal mice!!

    I hope that Ray Rogers 8 remaining boxes could give some clues on this fascinating issue

  2. I didn’t know anything about a 2002 restoration…and the use of a vacum cleaner doesn’t register in my mind.I hope there was sufficient data saved beforehand.I’m sure there is a logical explanation for this…the type of vacuming process perhaps could be one…but I am simply in disbelief and shock that such a thing could or would be allowed to happen.

Comments are closed.