Paper Chase: New Paper Challenges Rogers

imageAdrie van der Hoeven has published a lengthy article, Internal selvedge in starched and dyed temple mantle – No invisible repair in Turin Shroud – No Maillard reaction on the Holy Shroud Guild website. I have not read it but I picked out this concluding paragraph under Discussion on page 33:

The physical, chemical, and microscopical data of the radiocarbon sample area show no signs of a repair or inexplicable differences with the main Shroud, and even indicate that the sample area and main Shroud are one cloth and that this cloth most probably was a first-century Jewish temple garment. As an invisible 16th-century repair of the Shroud  seems to be precluded, another explanation of the reported medieval radiocarbon date of a first-century cloth might be found. Antonacci reported an experiment showing that ancient linen is radiocarbon-juvenized by neutron irradiation. Di Lazzaro reported experiments showing a Shroud-like coloration of linen can be created by VUV-irradiation.  Fanti reported experiments showing that a Corona Discharge (an electrical discharge naturally accompanied by particle- and VUV-irradiation) can create Shroudlike images, which fit the characteristics of the Shroud’s superficial body images better than (results of) all other proposed  image formation processes do. Di Lazzaro invited Ramsey, director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, to collaborate  in a team to study the Shroud’s radiocarbon dating results.  Such a collaboration could produce very interesting insights.

30 thoughts on “Paper Chase: New Paper Challenges Rogers”

  1. Eye on the Prize.

    Ray Rogers isn’t here to defend is work, and “frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn [about his inability to defend his work].” There are a number of subsidiary facts pointing to the invisible reweaving. That’s because as things now stand the creation of the image is subsidiary issue to the issue of authenticity of the Shroud. That, in my very humble opinion, has been demonstrated. The issue of its history in the lost years is also a subsidiary issue. The Shroud itself is proof of it’s authenticity. The fact that no one can replicate the image doesn’t detract from that and the fact that one theory or another about image creation is proven or dis-proven EXCEPT to the extent that failure to account for it by known science or artistry supports the uniqueness and supernatural aura of the Shroud.

    The DEMONSTRATED physical facts of the Shroud support one rational conclusion: that it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. No alternative has been proposed except that there might have been some other individual crowned with thorns and crucified, his body was removed from his burial cloth with three days of his death. The probability of that the facts apply to someone else is so remote I can not count the zeros.

    The reason that probability is so small is that we have four accounts of Christ’s death based on oral and written traditions that state the facts of his death and none of anyone else dying in a like manner. His death was important enough to be noted by the Roman historian Tacitus who was aghast that Pontius Pilate had failed to eradicate the Christus superstition. However, the letters of St. Paul pre-date Tacitus’ Annals of Ancient Rome.

    We now have three highly regarded scientists or academics trumpeting the need for no God and professing their belief that nothing preceded the Universe: Dawkins, Hawking and Krauss.

    Am I misquoting them? Sort of. Actually they do not so much as proclaim that “nothing” preceded the universe as proclaiming they don’t care about that “nothing.”

    Maybe I shouldn’t quote Martin Luther King but Bill Clinton: “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” It depends on what the meaning of “nothing” is. Defining “nothing” isn’t so simple and they don’t even try.

    1. Thank you, John.

      Another reason why the probability of a pseudo-Christ’s shroud is so small, is that the threads’ S-twist, the asymmetrically cut off corners, the image of a high priestly breastplate and perhaps seal indicate the Shroud was actually John Mark’s temple mantle, and noone elses.
      See my articles on John Mark and the Shroud on http://www.JesusKing.info :
      http://jesusking.info/John%20Mark.pdf and

      Click to access The%20seam%20and%20corners.pdf

      And who else than Christ would produce an irreproducible image, with no signs of putrefaction, but with blood stains that show no signs of removal of the corpse either: they are unaltered (without smears, and unbroken) and were in the right places before the image was.

  2. Here is where the materialists like Dawkins, Hawking and Krauss get it wrong. They fail to understand that theology is a continuum of science…it picks up where science leave off. For instance, Hebrews 11:3 says, ” By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” That is a big clue: “WHAT IS SEEN WAS NOT MADE OUT OF WHAT WAS VISIBLE.” But if all you are looking for is what is visible, you will totally miss it. I don’t know where the realm of the spirit is, it is probably parallel to our own physical world. Yet the scripture tells us that the spirit is eternal and the physical world is temporal. Ironically, the atheists of our day are consumed with what is temporary while denying that which is eternal. Scripture declares that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). He came from the spirit realm, became physical for 33 years and returned to the spirit realm. Did the Shroud capture that split second in time when the physical body of Jesus returned to spirit (light)?

  3. Why in the world a return to the spiritual realm would have to be accompanied with some kind of energy release like light, nuclear energy, electric discharge, thunder, drumbeat, sounds, angels signing, etc. ???

    Have you ever thought about the real simple possibility (like the God I know is simple) of just a disappearing of the physical body of Jesus from this material world ? Just that. A disappearing of his body from this material world… Without sound, without light, without energy released (why energy should be released anyway ???).

    Beside Hollywood movies and our imagination, there’s absolutely no indication that there was anything spectacular that was going on at the exact moment of the resurrection of Christ. And if there was nothing more than a Shroud who became empty and nothing else ??? Would you be disappointed ?

    I think this deserve some thoughts…

    1. Ever think Yannick that the use of light was the way God chose to do it? Are you against this notion because you subscribe to the vapour/combo theory?. The term and use of light when it comes to God is not new, even God states he is the light! So why not some type of glorious light to imprint his earth-bound figure on a Shroud?

      As to John’s & Russ’s comments; and too the ‘nothingness’ argument, I believe before there was anything there was God….Lest anyone prove me wrong.

      _3

  4. There are too many references to light in Scripture for it to be ignored. Especially when you consider that the bible says that “God is spirit” and it also says “God is light”. It is therefore not unreasonable to postulate that when Jesus returned to pure spirit, light was involved. The Mount of Transfiguration was a major clue: “His face shone like the sun and his clothing became white as the light.” You can believe that he just vanished without a trace. But I believe like a rock thrown into a pond…the ripple effect of his departure was light.

    1. Pure imagination… I understand what you say about reference to light versus God, but I don’t think there’s any proof of that on the Shroud. If Ray Rogers was still alive, he would agree with me about that.

      1. Thats your view, I along with many others would agree there is plenty of evidence. Even Rogers admitted his Milliard reaction would not account completely for the image ‘something else’ was needed and I am in the boat that a Milliard reaction could not account for the image at all, considering several clues including the fine detail of the image.

        R

      2. Yes, that’s my opinion Ron. Unless someone can PROVE me that the Shroud come from some unnatural event, I will keep my feet on the ground and look for some chemical natural phenomenon(s) to explain the images. It’s not because I believe in the resurrection of Christ that I have to believe the image on his Shroud come directly from it. Read again all the STURP papers and you’ll see that possibility that the image could come from a supernatural event was almost absent of them (except maybe the paper of Jackson who tested many image formation hypothesis including radiation). And the argument that the hypothesis of Rogers cannot explain all the characteristics of the image cannot ruled out every possibilities that the image could have been formed naturally (involving some chemical phenomenon). I’m not sure that Rogers was reading to really discard his hypothesis on the basis you mention. The fact is that he didn’t had enough time to fully test his hypothesis… Also, did you ever thought that his hypothesis could only be PART of the solution and other chemical processes could have been present also ? There’s still many natural possibilities that have not been fully tested yet. Until that day come, I will still push in that direction… like almost every STURP member and as any good scientist should.

  5. Ron :WHAT? Is there something missing here? Z-twist?
    R

    yes, my previous comment that is still awaiting moderation, but which I repeat here:

    Thank you, John.

    Another reason why the probability of a pseudo-Christ’s shroud is so small, is that the threads’ S-twist, the asymmetrically cut off corners, the image of a high priestly breastplate and perhaps seal indicate the Shroud was actually John Mark’s temple mantle, and noone elses.
    See my articles on John Mark and the Shroud on http://www.JesusKing.info :
    http://jesusking.info/John%20Mark.pdf and

    Click to access The%20seam%20and%20corners.pdf

    And who else than Christ would produce an irreproducible image, with no signs of putrefaction, but with blood stains that show no signs of removal of the corpse either: they are unaltered (without smears, and unbroken) and were in the right places before the image was.

  6. This is picking a debate with a dead man. It’s a little hard to swallow too especially since Rogers’ observations have been corroborated to some degree.

  7. Yannick Clément :Yes, that’s my opinion Ron. Unless someone can PROVE me that the Shroud come from some unnatural event, I will keep my feet on the ground and look for some chemical natural phenomenon(s) to explain the images. It’s not because I believe in the resurrection of Christ that I have to believe the image on his Shroud come directly from it. Read again all the STURP papers and you’ll see that possibility that the image could come from a supernatural event was almost absent of them (except maybe the paper of Jackson who tested many image formation hypothesis including radiation). And the argument that the hypothesis of Rogers cannot explain all the characteristics of the image cannot ruled out every possibilities that the image could have been formed naturally (involving some chemical phenomenon). I’m not sure that Rogers was reading to really discard his hypothesis on the basis you mention. The fact is that he didn’t had enough time to fully test his hypothesis… Also, did you ever thought that his hypothesis could only be PART of the solution and other chemical processes could have been present also ? There’s still many natural possibilities that have not been fully tested yet. Until that day come, I will still push in that direction… like almost every STURP member and as any good scientist should.

    I don’t believe any of the STURP papers touched on the topic directly and there is lots of evidence in many of those papers pointing indirectly to some sort of light phenomena. Lets hear some possible ‘natural’ causations for the image, if your so sure it was that….Problem is there is none, reason being, is that none have been thought up or if they have they have been dropped because early in their ‘process’ they would be found wanting and not worth pursuing. So lets hear it Yannick, keep your feet on the ground and let’s hear this extremely rare ‘natural phenomena’ which created the Shroud image without ‘direct contact’ thru the space of 4cm in parts and left no chemical trace.

    I tend to believe the clue to the image is the image fibrels and simply put; “as if the image fibrels just aged at an exponential rate” …what on earth could cause flax fibrels to ‘age’ exponentially? I wonder.

    R

  8. An alternative hypothesis was presented at ENEA Frascati Conference May 2010: “Shroud-like experimental Image formation during Seismic Activity” by Giovanna de Liso. Giovanna lives in the West Piedmont area, which is actively seismic and she conducted a wide battery of experiments over 12 years. From reading the paper, she seems to be a competent experimental physicist.

    She claims some success at image formation under particular conditions of seismic activity, which seem to involve proximity to gneiss, the typical release of radon (a radioactive inert gas) that occurs during fault-plane activity, and seismic variations in the magnetic field. The gospels of course record that earthquakes occurred following the crucifixion, and were probably more than just a dramatic literary device. But I’m not sure whether gneiss is present in the Jerusalem geology, I thought it was mostly limestone. There may be some gneiss in the general proximity of Jerusalem but I was unable to get a good fix on detailed Jerusalem geology. Alternatively there may be some other suitable metamorphic rock there conducive to image formation.

    I have no idea about the status of this paper, whether it was peer-reviewed,or had any support. But it seems to open up other possibilities for image formation.

    Paper is at: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/DeLisoWeb.pdf

    1. Daveb, this point is really fascinating and in my opinion, deserves further scientific research. Last December I wrote on this blog:
      **********************
      In Israel, on the average, about every 100 years, there is an important earthquake http://www-e.openu.ac.il/geninfor/openletter/ol18/pages4-10.pdf and in Matthew 27:51 we can read “And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split”
      Several very serious scientific papers (*) indicate that strong magnetic, electric fields and corona discharge effects do take place in the frame of earthquakes. The local geomagnetic field seems to play an important role.
      If we have a look at the geomagnetic field near Jerusalem (http://models.geomag.us/wdmam.html, either the pdf or the KMZ file for visualization in GoogleEarth can be downloaded) we can see that in a very small distance the polarity changes abruptly from high positive to negative anomalies.

      The conclusion could be that in the frame of an earthquake, with a natural strong local geomagnetic field, the corona discharge could be responsible for the formation of the image, BUT the source of that energy would not be supernatural, but a perfectly natural mechanism.

      ********************************

      I don’t know what the image formation mechanism is -nobody does 100% for sure- but these are the kind of preliminary works (like other ways of determining the origin and datation of the Shroud beyond C14) that in my opinion deserve further research

      (*)
      Giovanni P. Gregori. Geoelectromagnetism and geodynamics: ‘Corona discharge ’ from volcanic and geothermal areas. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. Volume 77, Issues 1-2, April 1993, Pages 39-63

      Electromagnetic Field Anomaly Associated with the 1998 Seismic Swarm in Central Japan. Y. Fujinawa, K. Takahashi, T. Matsumoto, H. Iitaka, S. Yamane, T. Nakayama, T. Sawada and H. Sakai. Physics and. Chemistry of the. Earth ( Vol. 25. No. 3, pp. 247-253, 2000)

      France St-Laurent , John S. Derr , Friedemann T. Freund. Earthquake lights and the stress-activation of positive hole charge carriers in rocks.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 31 (2006) 305–312

      K. Tennakone .Stable spherically symmetric static charge separated configurations in the atmosphere: Implications on ball lightning and earthquake lights. Journal of Electrostatics 69 (2011) 638-640

    2. Daveb, this point is really fascinating and in my opinion, deserves further scientific research. Last December I wrote in this blog:

      **********************
      In Israel, on the average, about every 100 years, there is an important earthquake http://www-e.openu.ac.il/geninfor/openletter/ol18/pages4-10.pdf and in Matthew 27:51 we can read “And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split”

      Several very serious scientific papers (*) indicate that strong magnetic, electric fields and corona discharge effects do take place in the frame of earthquakes. The local geomagnetic field seems to play an important role.

      If we have a look at the geomagnetic field near Jerusalem
      (http://models.geomag.us/wdmam.html, either the pdf or the KMZ file for visualization in GoogleEarth can be downloaded) we can see that in a very small distance the polarity changes abruptly from high positive to negative anomalies.

      The conclusion could be that in the frame of an earthquake, with a natural strong local geomagnetic field, the corona discharge could be responsible for the formation of the image, BUT the source of that energy would not be supernatural, but a perfectly natural mechanism.
      ********************************

      I don’t know what the image formation mechanism is -nobody does 100% for sure- but these are the kind of preliminary works (like other ways of determining the origin and datation of the Shroud beyond C14) that in my opinion deserve further research

      (*)
      Giovanni P. Gregori. Geoelectromagnetism and geodynamics: ‘Corona discharge ’ from volcanic and geothermal areas. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. Volume 77, Issues 1-2, April 1993, Pages 39-63
      Electromagnetic Field Anomaly Associated with the 1998 Seismic Swarm in Central Japan. Y. Fujinawa, K. Takahashi, T. Matsumoto, H. Iitaka, S. Yamane, T. Nakayama, T. Sawada and H. Sakai. Physics and. Chemistry of the. Earth ( Vol. 25. No. 3, pp. 247-253, 2000)
      France St-Laurent , John S. Derr , Friedemann T. Freund. Earthquake lights and the stress-activation of positive hole charge carriers in rocks.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 31 (2006) 305–312
      K. Tennakone .Stable spherically symmetric static charge separated configurations in the atmosphere: Implications on ball lightning and earthquake lights. Journal of Electrostatics 69 (2011) 638-640

  9. Of course, this possibility should be examine more closely but I seriously doubt that some kind of Seismic Activity could form an image on a piece of linen that would be found ONLY on the topmost fibers of the cloth !!! Somebody will have to have to show me some samples made in laboratory that can be compared to the Shroud… Personally, I don’t think this hypothesis have any chance whatsoever to be the answer to the mystery of the Shroud… I just don’t see why, for example, the body image created on a contact point between the cloth and the body would not be found more deeply into the cloth than another body image of a body part that was not in direct contact with the cloth. I’m sure you understand what I mean ! And how in the world an event like that would created a body image with the same degree of intensity over AND under the body ? Do you really think the body weight would have absolutely no effect on that kind of image formation mechanism ?

    To me, this whole hypothesis seems highly unlikely… But, as I say, since it is a “natural” hypothesis, I think science should analyze it properly to see if there’s any chance that this could help to answer some questions about the Shroud.

    Gabriel said : “I don’t know what the image formation mechanism is -nobody does 100% for sure- but these are the kind of preliminary works (like other ways of determining the origin and datation of the Shroud beyond C14) that in my opinion deserve further research.”

    I agree with this point of view and would add some other research area outside the one concerning the body image formation that could be great regarding the Shroud. One example of that : If I was a biochemist, a medical expert or a forensic expert, I would try to verify if it is possible to recreate perfectly in laboratory (using a linen cloth, a real human body and real blood clots) the physical aspect of the bloodstains we see on the Shroud, i.e. the “undisturbed” nature of those bloodstains and the linen fibrils under it. In other word, that would be great if some expert can confirm Pierre Barbet’s opinion that this undisturbed nature of the bloodstains and the linen fibrils under it is scientifically impossible to obtain in the context of the removal a dead body from a linen shroud when that body is covered with lots of dried blood clots that have stuck to the linen surface.

    I would love to know if there’s any possible condition in which the removal of a dead body from a linen shroud could leave bloodstains with the same physical nature than those on the Shroud. I don’t believe it is possible, but that would be great to get a scientific confirmation of this. I think that could be a very interesting forensic investigation… Don’t you think ? I’m sure this question has never been scientifically explored yet !!!

  10. Yannick, I suggest you read Giovanna’s paper first before subjectively dismissing it out of hand. I know something about physics myself, and I can’t dismiss it, but those more professionally qualified may be able to comment usefully about it.

  11. I just express what I think. It’s seem to me an idea more or less ridiculous. But I’ll promise you I’ll read the paper.

  12. One last thing about the hypothesis of the image being created by some Seismic Activity… The main reason I have so much doubts about that thing is the fact that, in Ray Rogers mind, those kind of hypothesis involving some form of electrical discharge (this hypothesis is close to the one defend by Fanti) CANNOT be considered as valid options to explain the body image on the Shroud. Sorry, but since Rogers knew the Shroud very well and also knew electrical discharges very well, I have a strong tendency to believe his judgement about those kind of hypothesis. Daveb, I just want you to read Rogers book and you’ll understand why I’m so skeptical about those hypothesis… But don’t worry, I’ll read the paper of De Liso anyway…

  13. Yannick: Nobody knows how the image was formed, neither Ray Rogers nor anybody else. Consequently, all credible options have to be on the table – SERIOUSLY considered, before being so curtly dismissed – you said “ridiculous” – you don’t know that!

  14. I prefer to listen to a top notch chemist who is maybe the person who knew the Shroud the better ever from a pure scientific point of view. Remember that this guy was the lead chemist of Los Alamos for 35 years and he spent 5 days and nights with the Shroud in Turin. When a guy like that say that the body image is not a result of some kind of electric discharge, you know what ? I have a tendency to listen ! If you never read Rogers book, I hope you will in a near future… As I’ll do with the paper of De Liso.

  15. Concerning my article “Internal selvedge in starched and dyed temple mantle – No invisible repair in Turin Shroud – No Maillard reaction”:
    I added the JIST paper of 2010 on the image superficiality (note 87 and 369), and a sentence on it on p. 9 at note 87. I had mixed it up with another JIST paper on image formation hypotheses. My apologies. The link to the article on my site is still the same: http://www.JesusKing.info/Internal%20selvedge.pdf

      1. This is Fanti’s opinion. Fanti is NOT a chemist and surely not as worthy of the term “scientist” as Rogers was… Of course, anyone can believe Fanti’s conclusions BUT I prefer to trust someone who spend 5 days and nights with the Shroud and who was a true expert in chemistry. That’s my opinion. But I know it isn’t the one of the Shroud clique…

  16. Yannick Clément :This is Fanti’s opinion. Fanti is NOT a chemist and surely not as worthy of the term “scientist” as Rogers was… Of course, anyone can believe Fanti’s conclusions BUT I prefer to trust someone who spend 5 days and nights with the Shroud and who was a true expert in chemistry. That’s my opinion. But I know it isn’t the one of the Shroud clique…

    Yannick thats not true, i.e; “Not being one the Shroud clique”. I think everyone respects R.Rogers work immensely, but his Milliard hypothesis doesn’t seem to work, but that is an hypothesis. Some or most of his other work/findings, such as finding a thin layer of impurities, whatever covering the fibrels or his lignin findings I think cannot be refuted. Thats my take on it anyways.

    R

Comments are closed.