Site icon Shroud of Turin Blog

So is Ray Rogers’ Hypothesis Out the Window by Consensus?

imageDavid Rolfe has provided a new page on this website entitled Consensus at Valencia. Strong opinions have been voiced on this blog and it looks as though our voices were heard (or we are also geniuses). Take the time to read the full report. Here is a part of that page:

The Valencia Shroud Enigma Challenge
The International Congress of the Shroud of Turin In Spain.

This 2012 conference celebrates 25 years of activity of the C.E.S. To mark this event, and in the light of the evidence accumulated over that period, the Congress issues the following challenge:

The Shroud and its image must be regarded as a unique enigma that has to date defied a scientific explanation despite the C14 test carried out in 1988.

Anyone asserting that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval artefact and who also wishes to claim scientific credentials must first show how it can bear an image with the following characteristics:

1 The body image is created by molecular change of linen fibres. There are also bloodstains. There is no body image beneath the bloodstains.

2 The body image does not penetrate below the surface fibres. The body image is not visible when illuminated by transmitted light. The bloodstains are.

3 The body image varies in intensity that correlates to expected cloth-body distances had the cloth covered a body.

4 The sides of the body are not represented even where blood has transferred to the cloth and between the head images.

5 The resolution of the image is sufficient to resolve body features of a few millimetres.

6 There are no outlines or directionality to the body image within the plane of the cloth.

7 The body image has the visual characteristics of a photographic negative. That is, normal light and dark areas are reversed.

The above consensus was reached under the auspices of the conference chairman D. Jorge Manuel Rodriguez (left). Those contributing to and reaching the consensus on the basis of their special interest in the nature of the image include: Dr. John Jackson (USA), Paulo di Lazzaro (Italy), Cesar Barta, (Spain); Alfonso Munoz-Cobo y Bengoa, (Spain); Prof. Giulio Fanti, (in absentia) (Italy); D. Bruno Barberis, (Italy).

Contributing to the discussions and also concurring with the consensus were: Barrie Schwortz, (USA); Dr Andrew Silverman, (UK); Ian Wilson, (Australia) and Mark Guscin (Spain).

Why have such a list?  . . .


Gut reactions so far:

  1. “molecular change of linen fibres” Is that an established fact? Rogers hypothesis is out?
  2. “The body image does not penetrate below the surface fibres.” What does that mean? Or is it the surface of the fibres? Is this the limit of superficiality statements?
  3. the image does not fluoresce under UV light is unmentioned. Why?
  4. I’m moderately happy with the way the body issue is addressed with “expected cloth-body distances.” Expected is better than nothing.
  5. Thoughts?

    There is more, so read: Image specialists agree on a basic set of image characteristics on the Shoud of Turin.
Exit mobile version