A reader writes:
I am very glad that David Rolfe’s newest list of image characteristics is to be publically debated on the internet. This adds to its creditability.
Permit me to add my two-cents worth. The last time I checked, a Maillard reaction between reducing saccharides and a gaseous diffusion of amino groups was considered one of the most viable image forming hypotheses. I’m not here to defend it. I can’t do so. I don’t like it. But that is not why I’m here. I’m here to defend proper science.
The most recent public evidence against the diffusion hypothesis was contained in Prof. Giulio Fanti’s most recent paper in JIST. Based on Prof. Fanti’s scoring system of X’s and ?’s he concluded, “the hypotheses based on radiation are the best (with only seven ‘X’), followed, respectively, by ‘gas diffusion’ (with eight ‘X’ and one ‘?’), ‘contact’ (with ten ‘X’ and two ‘?’), and ‘artist’ (with 12 ‘X’ and five ‘?’).” Shortly, thereafter, scientists at Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development, ENEA, argued that the image on the shroud, in their opinion, could only have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy" such as UV light. This added to the list of possible hypotheses. We must wonder if there will be other hypotheses just as there have been many in the past.
Until I saw the newest list I thought we had multiple hypotheses that required different image characteristics. The diffusion hypothesis is impossible if the image is a molecular change to the fiber as the newest list states in its very first sentence.
The list needs work. That is good.
Rogers was defending his own hypothesis. Fanti do the same right now. Would be nice if there would be a real independent confirmation of one or the other. I have to say that, from my own perspective (just a personal opinion), I think Rogers has made up some very strong arguments in favor of his hypothesis that the image reside on a thin layer of impurity that is not an integrant part of the linen fiber. Here’s just 2 of them : 1- The ghosts of coloration stuck in the sticky tapes leaving a clean and UNDAMAGED linen fiber behind. 2- There’s a direct correlation between the intensity of the coloration and the intensity of the different bands we see on the Shroud, meaning that when there’s a darker band, the intensity of the coloration tend to be stronger. This is in total agreement with the hypothesis of Rogers that there’s more impurity that have been left on the darker bands of linen after the bleeching, washing and drying of the cloth. And when there was less impurities that have been left, the consequence was a lighter band of linen and a lighter intensity in the coloration.
I think those 2 arguments make that the hypothesis of Rogers is particularly tough to reject right now (in the present state of our knowledge about the Shroud)…
David repeated this posting on his site, which I applaud. I did not like his response. I don’t think he understood at all. Dan didn’t like his response either. David’s response read: “”The list needs work” would imply that we should open up the Shroud and just check things out again. Well, having listened to Bruno Barberis’ paper in Valencia that is unlikely to be an option for a very long time. The fact is that the work has been done. If you have a particular pet theory and it is excluded by the list then, I’m sorry, unless you also have some new overriding evidence to the contrary, you will have to accept that those who are in a position to know have ruled it out. Wanting something to be true does not make it so.”
Dan’s retort read: “I don’t think he/she implied opening the shroud and examining it again, David. But the poster is asking why Rogers’ hypothesis is being excluded. I think that is a fair question. Simply saying “those who are in a position to know have ruled it out” is unwarranted. I thought you were welcoming debate.”
The cabal has spoken: “those who are in a position to know have ruled it out” !!!!!
I think we will be witnessing,for the first time in history,not only the engagement of science and faith …but the soon to be marriage.
There are many mysteries here in the cosmos that have not and cannot be presently explained…this is not one of them.T
I believe that this particular universe is unfolding as it should…and is proving to be the “spiritual time bomb” it was projected to be.
The amount of research conducted on the Shroud is truly staggering. I would suggest a few simple conclusions that in my opinion are supported by a preponderance of the scientific evidence:
(1) it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and (2) within 48 hours of his death, the body left the Shroud.
Perhaps I should add a (3) but it’s not necessary: (3) no one has been able to determine, much less demonstrate, how the image was created within 48 hours of Christ’s death.
As to (3), so what? The first two propositions create an extraordinary problem which in the agnostic’s world would demand an extraordinary answer. On the other hand, Occam’s razor suggest the simplest solution is the best solution. I propose an answer that is both extraordinary and simple (and unoriginal): Jesus Christ has risen.
To me, the most striking thing about the Shroud is that for two millenia it has been with us and only now has science begun to unlock its mysteries and, oh boy, do we need that now.
Of course, solving the mystery of image creation is important. It is just not necessarily essential.
This is David Rolfe quoted by Paulette. Clearly, Paulette expressed concerns about Maillard reaction being excluded, David Rolfe was categorical.
That said, I can see on David’s blog that the scientist at the next BSTS meeting (October 21st 2012 at 14:00 – 18:00 in Beaconsfield, Bucks) will be a chemist, Denis Mannix, revisiting the material published on the Maillard reaction theory.
Is this ironical ? Did I miss something ? Or will Dennis Mannix definitely discard Rogers theory ?