The following is a carefully researched, well thought out guest posting by Yannick Clément. I have been arguing that the first sentence in the list of image criteria in the Challenge to Richard Dawkins is erroneous and misleading. This is something that Dawkins or anyone else will quickly realize if they research the topic. It completely destroys the scientific credibility of the challenge and as a consequence, I believe, it will be ignored.
Yannick initially wrote the following as a comment for the posting, Where’s the Beef? I felt is should be it’s own posting and with his kind permission I have made it so. I welcome other guest posting from anyone in SSG, particularly anyone mentioned in this posting. (English is a second language for Yannick, as it is for many shroud researchers and students of the shroud. Kindly keep this in mind. I have not edited to improve word usage). (Revised at 9:12 A.M.)
An analysis of many quotes from Raymond N. Rogers
regarding the chromophore of the body image on the Shroud of Turin
By Yannick Clément
In the present state of our knowledge about the Shroud, it is impossible to be 100% sure about the chromophore of the body image (i.e. what exactly was affected by the image formation process, whether it be the primary cell wall of the linen fiber or a thin layer of impurities present only on top of the fiber). As we can see, there’s 2 different hypothesis that are proposed and, scientifically speaking, no one can say for sure which one is correct.
In order to have a better understanding of the thinking of Ray Rogers about the chromophore of the image on the Shroud, I started to look in every papers written by Rogers for the exact comments he made on the (still debated) question of the chromophore of the body image.
First, here’s what we can read in page 29 of the paper “Scientific method applied to the Shroud of Turin” : “The color of image fibers was often stripped off of their surfaces, leaving COLORLESS CELLULOSE FIBERS. The color reside ONLY ON THE SURFACE OF THE FIBERS.” Maybe Rogers didn’t say EXPLICITELY that the linen fibers were UNDAMMAGED after the colored layer had been pulled off, but nevertheless, he used the word “COLORLESS” which really is a synonimous in this context. And in his answer to question #12 of his paper “Shroud of Turin FAQ”, Rogers said that those “ghosts” of coloration were a CONFIRMATION of the fact that the diimide would reduce the color on the fibers, leaving undammaged fibers behind.
Those 2 observations made by Adler (i.e., the diimide reduction and the ghosts) were so important for Rogers that he started to realize that the conclusion he made with STURP about the chromophore of the image (he thought that the dehydration-oxydation process affected directly the linen fiber), was probably wrong. In fact, that’s when he started to change his mind on the subject (leading him to change the conclusion he wrote in his STURP paper) and that’s when he started to look for a better explanation in regard of the new facts he learned from Adler.
And more than that, for Rogers, the reduction of the coloration with diimide and the presence of “ghosts” of coloration in the sticky tapes were part of a larger spectrum of observations that lead him to conclude that the linen fibers themselves (including the primary cell wall) were NOT affected directly by the image formation process, but, instead, it was most probably a very thin layer of impurities ON the surface of the fibers that were colored.
Here’s some of the most important quotes from Rogers about this important question :
1- The medullas of colored image fibers are not colored. The cellulose WAS NOT INVOLVED in color production. The cellulose of the image HAD NOT CHANGED as a result of image formation.
2- Heller and Adler found that the image fibers could be decolorized with diimide. Reduction left COLORLESS, UNDAMAGED CELLULOSE FIBERS BEHIND.
3- Heller and Alder also reported that “ghosts” of color were stripped off of fibers by the adhesive of sampling tapes when they were pulled out of the adhesive and that the insides of the fibers were colorless.
4- The “ghosts” had the SAME CHEMICAL COMPOSITION as expected from DEHYDRATED CARBOHYDRATES.
5- Because chemical rates are exponential with temperature, cellulose would react MUCH MORE SLOWLY than other carbohydrates.
6- At high optical magnifications, up to 1000X, no coatings could be resolve on the surfaces of image fibers; however, the surfaces appeared to be “CORRODED”. That observation suggests that a VERY THIN COATING OF CARBOHYDRATE had been significantly dehydrated on the OUTER SURFACES of the fibers.
7- The color is ONLY ON THE OUTER SURFACES of the image fibers. This suggest that the impurities were the result of cloth-production methods and they should appear on all parts of the cloth. Until this time, we had assumed that the image color was a result of chemical changes in the cellulose of the fiber.
8- The spectra STRONGLY SUGGEST that the impurities were CARBOHYDRATES that DEHYDRATED as a result of IMAGE-FORMATION PROCESS.
9- The EVIDENCE IS STRONG that the image IS NOT a result of dehydration of the cellulose by any mechanism.
10- Since the cellulose was not colored, the impurities had to be SIGNIFICANTLY less stable than cellulose.
11- If preexisting impurities enabled image formation, some should have still been on the Shroud at the time of the 1532 fire. A search of tape samples from lightly-scorched areas revealed GHOSTS that appeared to be IDENTICAL to those from image areas. Thin layers of colored impurities had stripped off from scorched fibers that were COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM IMAGE AREAS.
12- During the tape sampling on the Shroud done by Rogers, much less force was required to remove tapes from image areas than from non-image areas.
13- The image spectra were essentialy IDENTICAL to those of AGED LINEN and LIGHT SCORCHED. The structures of ALL FORMS OF DEHYDRATED CARBOHYDRATES would be VERY SIMILAR, containing complex systems of conjugated double carbon bonds. CELLULOSE IS NOT UNIQUE. Sugars and starches give the SAME TYPES of dehydration/conjugation chemical structures. Identical colored structures are produced by low-temperature reactions between reducing carbohydrates and amines, i.e., Maillard reactions.
14- Dehydration causes shrinkage; therefore, any coating of carbohydrate impurities would “CRAZE” during dehydration. Such a crazed coating would be easy to pull off with adhesive, explaining the EASY REMOVAL of tapes from image areas. Question from me : Do you really think that the primary cell wall of the linen fiber would react that way and craze if it was dehydrated, making the coloration easily removable with a sticky tape ? One thing’s for sure, I’ve never read anything in Di Lazarro’s papers that would suggest something of that nature. I think this question is important and shrould be submit to a proper scientific examination. It would be nice if a real expert in chemistry and microscopy could submit some linen samples without any coating on the fibers (modern linen fibers) to some kind of dehydration-oxydation process and verify the reaction of the primary cell wall before and after. If the primary cell wall wouldn’t craze when it dehydrate and if the coloration obtained would’t be easily removable with a sticky tape, then it would be a pretty good indicator that the coloration on the Shroud didn’t involved the primary cell wall. And I think the first samples that should be verified like that by an expert in chemistry and microscopy are the ones produced by Di Lazarro with UV lasers. It would simply need to verify and compare the coloration area versus the non-coloration area of his samples and note the differences in the physical aspect. If the primary cell wall didn’t shrink and craze during the coloration process and if this coloration is not easily removable with a sticky tape, then we would have to think that the coloration he obtain is probably not exactly the same kind of coloration than what is on the Shroud, because, for Rogers, this was exactly the effect (shrinkage and crazing) produced by the image formation process on the surface of the linen fibers. Is there any scientist interested to verify that ?
15- NOTHING than dehydrated carbohydrate could be found in the image area.
16- Bands of different-colored yarn can be observed in the weave of the cloth. Where darker bands intersect image areas, the image is darker and where lighter bands intersect image areas, the image is lighter. THIS PROVES that the image color IS NOT SOLELY a result of reactions in the cellulose of the linen. Something ON THE SURFACE of the different batches of yarn produced color and/or accelerated color formation. This suggests that significant VARIATIONS in impurity concentrations existed among yarn batches. The observations of bands of color agree with historical reports on the methods used to produce ancient linen.
17- A search for carbohydrate impurities on the Shroud CONFIRMED McCrone’s detection of some starch fractions. Starch and low-molecular weight carbohydrates from crude startch would color MUCH MORE EASILY than would cellulose as a result of either thermal dehydration or chemical reactions. The hypothesis on carbohydrates impurities is SUPPORTED by observations of TRACES OF SOME STARCH FRACTIONS ON IMAGE FIBERS.
18- Evaporation concentration (of impurities) CAN EXPLAIN the superficial nature of the image and the identical properties of the front and back images.
19- When a cloth is dried on a line, impurities concentrate on both evaporating surfaces, however, more impurities will deposit on whichever surface dries faster. Any concentration of impurities can take part in the image-formation reactions. This CAN explain the “doubly-superficial” image (personal note : if this doubly-superficiality is really there).
20- Image formation proceeded at NORMAL TEMPERATURES in the absence of energetic radiation of any kind.
21- Any radiation that is energetic enough or suffisciently intense to to heat the cloth enough to cause the initial dehydration reactions of cellulose would penetrate into a fiber to a distance determined by its energy. Personal note : Some people said that Di Lazarro’s experiments proved that Rogers was wrong here because he was able to obtain a coloration that didn’t penetrate into the internal part of the fiber (made almost exclusively of cellulose). But I don’t think this reasonning is true ! In his writings, when Rogers talked about “cellulose”, I don’t think he was only thinking about the internal part of the linen fiber. On the contrary, I really think that he was refeering to the whole complete linen fiber instead (INCLUDING THE PRIMARY CELL WALL). If my point of view is correct, then I think that what he said is still completely true, even in the case of the results obtained by Di Lazarro. Effectively, the coloration he obtained with UV lasers DID penetrate the first layer of cellulose material of the fiber, i.e. the primary cell wall (composed essentialy of cellulose, hemicellulose and pectin). In other words, a penetration is still a penetration, even if it affect only the first layer of an object and leave untouched his more internal part ! In this case, I think Rogers would have describe it as “a very superficial penetration due to a very low level of energy coming from the UV lasers”. In fact, that’s exactly what Rogers claimed : “…any radiation would penetrate into a fiber to a distance determined by its energy.” And what is the MOST IMPORTANT thing to note is that, for Rogers, no matter what is the dept of the penetration into the fiber, if there is a penetration, even if this penetration only affect the primary cell wall, it’s NOT THE SAME KIND OF COLORATION than what he observe on the image fibers from the Shroud. In reality, I don’t think that what Rogers said about the penetration of energetic radiation (including UV lasers) into a fiber was incorrect at all ! I just think it was misinterpreted ! If you change the word “cellulose” for the expression “the whole linen fiber (including the primary cell wall)” in Rogers writings, everything become clear ! And, on this same topic of energetic radiation, Rogers continue by saying this : “Simple heating would change both the cellulose and the blood. Both protons and neutrons leave characteristic tracks in flax fibers. The image fibers COULD NOT have been colored by energetic radiation.”
That’s the principals observations reported by Rogers about the question of the chromophore of the image. For him, there was no doubt that this whole picture could only mean one thing : The linen fibers were not affected directly by the image formation process. Instead, this whole picture was pointing in another direction, i.e. that it was a very thin layer of impurities that was colored on top of the linen fibers. This is the interpretation of Rogers, after years and years of studying the evidences and observations regarding the Shroud : “Because the cellulose was NOT INVOLVED in image formation, the color must have formed in IMPURITIES ON THE SURFACES OF THE IMAGE FIBERS. INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION have PROVED that all of the image color resides in a VERY THIN LAYER ON THE OUTSIDE SURFACES OF THE COLORED FIBERS.” (Rogers, Shroud of Turin FAQ, Question #9).
In 2010, Fanti, Di Lazarro and al. published a paper in which they claim that the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the chromophore of the image was most probably incorrect and that it was instead the primary cell wall of the linen fiber itself (composed mainly of CELLULOSE, HEMICELLULOSE AND PECTIN) that had been colored. It’s their conclusion and it is completely different from Rogers. And what those people pretend is that Rogers made an error of interpretation because he didn’t was aware of the primary cell wall of the linen fiber ! This kind of thinking is kind of extreme when you think of all the time that Rogers spend studying linen fibers !!! To me, their assumption is just unbelievable…
The only problem is that Rogers never named the primary cell wall in any of his writings. And that’s the major argument of Fanti and al. in order to make believe that Rogers knew nothing about the primary cell wall. This kind of reasonning is much too simplistic to be true. We have to remember that it’s not because Rogers never named the primary cell wall that he knew nothing about it ! And some clues that he really knew this part of the linen fiber can be found in his book. In fact, if you’re wise enough to read between the lines, you understand that he knew perfectly well the structure of the primary cell wall and, nevertheless, he NEVER consider this part of the linen fiber as a valid option to explain the coloration !
Here’s some examples of that :
1- In page 12 of his book, we can read this : “When linen is heated, water immediately begins to be desorbed and the linen dries out. As the temperature increases, the cellulose melts with decomposition. Quickly heated and cooled linen shows little black balls where it melted. As it melts, the carbohydrates (CELLULOSE AND SUGAR-BASED HEMICELLULOSE IMPURITIES) start to dehydrate chemically. The colored products of dehydration are extremely complex, but they have some WELL-KNOWN CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND STRUCTURAL UNITS. Personal note : You can see here that Rogers knew perfectly well the cellulose and hemicellulose components of the primary cell wall (even if he don’t use the term “primary cell wall”) and he knew exactly how this chemical structure would dehydrate in presence of heat . And nevertheless, he NEVER CONSIDERED this kind of dehydrated chemical structure as a valid option to explain the color of the body image on the Shroud, even if he knew perfectly well that the coloration of the Shroud came from a dehydration-oxydation process ! In fact, in his paper “Scientific method applied to the Shroud of Turin”, Rogers said : “Some type of carbohydrate dehydration reaction seems most probable as an explanation for the image color; however, the COLOR APPEARS ONLY ON THE SURFACE OF THE INDIVIDUAL FIBERS. The color of the image DOES NOT INVOLVED THE CELLULOSE.” Personal note : Here, I think we have an important sign that, in Rogers perspective, when he was using the word “cellulose”, like here, this term included also the primary cell wall, because this part of the linen fiber is also composed (partially ) of cellulose, along with hemicellulose (the other major component with the cellulose) and pectin (third component which is a minority). I think that’s the reason why we don’t see anywhere in his writtings the expression “primary cell wall”. In other words, when Rogers refered to “cellulose” in his writings, he was thinking about the complete linen fiber as a whole (including the primary cell wall). It’s pretty evident that Rogers knew very well the chemical structure of this external part of the linen fiber, but he didn’t think that it was important to make the distinction with the rest of the fiber (the internal part, which is made almost exclusively of cellulose). If he had been aware of the pretention of Fanti and al. concerning the primary cell wall, I’m 100% sure that he would have make a clear distinction between the primary cell wall and the internal part of the linen fiber !!! We have to remember that, in the time Rogers wrote his papers and his book, there was still no hypothesis concerning the primary cell wall as the chromophore of the image. In this context, I’m sure Rogers didn’t thought it was necessary to make a clear distinction between the 2 main parts of the linen fiber. That’s most probably why he never write anything specific about the primary cell wall, even if it’s evident that he knew well about it… To conclude this comment, I suggest anyone to read again the list of 21 quotes from Rogers writings that I previously reported in this paper and each time you’ll read “cellulose”, try to think “the whole linen fiber” (including the primary cell wall, along with the internal part of the fiber), because I’m almost sure that’s what Rogers had in mind !
2- In page 57 of Rogers book, he talks about a pyrolysis mass spectrometry analysis that he did on different samples from the Shroud. Here’s one important thing he said about this analysis : “Mass 131 appeared at much higher temperatures in all of the spectra, but those are in the range of CELLULOSE, LIGNIN AND HEMICELLULOSE .” Personal note : Again, this is a very good clue that Rogers knew perfectly well the chemical structure of the primary cell wall of the linen fiber, even if he don’t use the term.
3- In page 86 of his book, Rogers show an image (figure X-7) that is the result of an experiment he made with a linen sample prepared with the same antique method described by Pliny the Elder in order to test the hypothesis of the corona discharge. Here’s what he said about his result : “A single fiber from the center of figure 2 in water. HEMICELLULOSES AND PECTINS have been oxydized, leaving most of the more stable cellulose.” Personal note : this observation from Rogers is highly important for 2 reasons : A) It clearly show, one more time, that Rogers knew perfectly well the chemical structure of the primary cell wall of the linen fiber, even if he don’t use the term. And B) It clearly show that, for Rogers, this kind of result, obtained from a corona discharge (and that also look pretty much the same as the result obtained by Di Lazarro with UV lasers), was DIFFERENT from the coloration present at the surface of the Shroud !!! THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE !!! For Rogers, an oxydation of the hemicelluloses (principal component of the primary cell wall) and pectins (minor component of the primary cell wall) WAS NOT the same thing as the oxydation on the Shroud that produce the body image. This example, taken from page 86 of Rogers book, show that, for him, it was very clear that the primary cell wall, as long as the rest of the linen fiber, WAS NOT colored during the image formation process that affected the Shroud.
4- In page 131 of his book, Rogers talk about the chemical treatment of the reliquary of the Shroud that was done after the 1988 C14 sampling. Here’s what he said : “A significant amount of thymol could have absorbed on the wood, and wood has a large cellular surface area. More thymol would have reacted with the CELLULOSE AND MORE REACTIVE HEMICELLULOSES, LIGNIN, and plant gums of the wood.” Personal note : Even if he speak here about wood and not about linen, we can see, one more time, that Rogers knew perfectly well the chemical structure of any cellular object, whether it is wood or linen. And he also knew perfectly well that the components of the primary cell wall (especially the hemicellulose and the pectin) are more reactive than the cellulose. This is another VERY IMPORTANT thing to note : Rogers knew very well that those components of the primary cell wall are easier to color but, nevertheless, he NEVER CONSIDERED this kind of chemical structure as a valid option to explain the color of the body image on the Shroud. In other words, we can say that Rogers not only knew very well the chemical structure of the primary cell wall, but he also knew very well that this part of the fiber is more reactive than the internal part of the same fiber. But even if he knew this, he NEVER CONSIDERED the primary cell wall as being the real chromophore of the body image on the Shroud.
So, you see ? I think those are very good clues that prove that Rogers knew perfectly well the complete chemical structure of a linen fiber, including the primary cell wall. And nevertheless, he NEVER consider this part of the linen fiber as a valid option to explain the coloration we see on the Shroud !!! Of course, that doesn’t prove that Rogers is right about his thin layer of impurities, but that clearly show the erroneous aspect of Fanti and al. argument that Rogers knew nothing about the primary cell wall and that his ignorance about it caused him to make an error of interpretation regarding the sum of evidences and observations concerning the Shroud. And if we take a global look at the whole picture of the situation, and if we consider all the arguments proposed by Rogers, I think it is VERY HARD to scientifically discard his own hypothesis concerning the coloration of a thin layer of impurity on top of the linen fibers at the surface of the cloth, nevertheless what M. Rolfe’s list can say at point #1 (i.e., the image come from a molecular change of the linen fiber itself) and nevertheless what Fanti and al. can say against Rogers hypothesis in their paper published in 2010.
That’s why, in the present state of our knowledge about the body image on the Shroud, the only thing we can say for sure is that it results from a dehydration-oxydation process on the top-surface of the cloth. For the question of the real chromophore of the image, it is still scientifically unproven yet. But, personally, I have to say that Rogers hypothesis represent a very good solution in regard of all the known facts and observations concerning the body image on the Shroud…
Here’s the sources I used for my documentary research :
1- Rogers book “A chemist’s perspective on the Shroud of Turin” (link : http://www.lulu.com/shop/raymond-n-rogers/a-chemists-perspective-on-the-shroud-of-turin/ebook/product-17416203.html)
2- Rogers paper “Shroud of Turin FAQ” (link : http://shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf)
3- Rogers paper “Scientific method applied to the Shroud of Turin” (link : http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf)
4- For basic information about the primary cell wall, see : http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3408000066.html
Louiseville, Québec, Canada. May 10, 2012.
Dan, in our conversation on SSG I said the following in relation to the possibility that the List, as drawn, might inadvertently have excluded Rogers’ hypothesis :
“Should this point remain unclear despite the scientific reality and it remains a stumbling block to unanimity, I would be prepared to go back to the original signatories to seek any necessary re-wording as required. There was definitely no intention to exclude any of the major contending image formation theories from consideration.”
Dan, you rejected this offer. Why seek confrontation when conciliation and cooperation is on offer?
And what about seeking the TRUTH ??? Conciliation and cooperation is good, but ONLY if this is done with the only goal of seeking the TRUTH. These days, I really don’t think that most of what we see in Shroud research is ONLY oriented in that direction. Sorry. On the contrary, I have a deep feeling that most of the present research (I don’t want to make any kind of personal accusation here) is done (conciously or not) with some kind of “religious agenda” that lies under a real quest for truth. That’s something I call “religious pollution” in scientific research regarding the Shroud ! Because of the subject matter, that don’t surprise me much, but I have to say that, for a guy like me who only seek the truth, it’s very sad to see. And that’s the principal reason why Shroud science has lost most of is credibility in recent years. I think it’s easy to note that we’re VERY FAR from the good old days of the STURP team, where everything was done with one major goal : the seek of TRUTH ! Since then, we have seen a big bunch of Jesus freaks, of lunatics, of opportunists, and/or of pseudo-scientists came in the Shroud research and destroy most of his credibility in regard of the international scientific community. This situation have a very bad effect that is : Everytime someone put out a new scientific paper about the Shroud, suspicion is always there because we never know the real motive of the person that can be hidden behind his research ! Very sad !
David, we are clearly not communicating. You wrote, “There was definitely no intention to exclude any of the major contending image formation theories from consideration.”
In my reply to you at SSG I wrote, “It is not about a favorite body image hypothesis.” I repeated the sentence three or four times throughout the letter. I used the word favorite because you had used the word favorite instead of major as you now do.
I tried to make it clear that it is about the impurity layer that Rogers concluded was on the fibers. I think Yannick makes this clear as well. Impurity layer, which is a characteristic, does not necessarily mean a Maillard reaction, which is a body image formation hypothesis. Nor, for that matter does a Maillard reaction necessarily mean that an impurity layer of starch and saccharide is required. Isn’t that what Paolo Di Lazzaro was trying argue?
David, characteristics of the image, whatever they are, ultimately dictate what image formation theories/hypotheses are acceptable. You don’t exclude or include hypotheses when literally report characteristics. You report observed characteristics, which should be factual.
Now it may be that there are differences of opinion. Some SSG scientists have claimed that the image that was formed lies very superficially within the fiber. Others have claimed, Ray Rogers most notably, have claimed that the image that was formed lies within a very superficial impurity layer of starch and sugar.
In other words there is no consensus on the statement that reads: “The body image is created by molecular change of linen fibres.” Yes there is a consensus by a cabal of a few scientists who met in Valencia. But the public is not going to accept that. And Dawkins after a few minutes of Googling by one of his volunteers is not going to accept it. Their commentary is likely to be that people behind the challenge don’t know what they are talking about or are promoting a one-side view. The correction to sentence one should be “The body image is created by molecular change of linen fibres or to a chemical impurity layer adhering to the fibers.”
You say that I rejected your offer to go back to the signatories or whatever they are. I didn’t. Go back. But it is not about a favorite or major image formation hypothesis. It is about the impurity layer. Go back. Discuss it. Get consensus on the non-consensus. I have not objection to that.
What I also stated is my objection to science by consensus and the foregoing is why. Science should be driven by facts. And if there are differences of opinions about what is factual, then and until they can be ironed out, openness and candor must be the norm.
It is easy to get a small number of scientists together and present a consensus about just about anything. How different would be the consensus about the Anthropic Principle by a dozen or so members of the Society of Ordained Scientists and a dozen or so scientist members of the Council for Secular Humanism. Tell me the consensus group from Valencia isn’t a group of scientists who are not perceived to have a bias.
Permit me to quote Jos Verhulst who, in regard to this matter, wrote: “But there nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong, with this lacking of a ‘consensus’. If people want to debate the shroud, they should do so as rational individuals, with each individual thinker pondering the evidence and developing careful reasoning. That’s all that there is to a scientific discussion. Thinking that the position of a protagonist moves somehow closer to the truth, or becomes more trustworthy or reliable, when it is backed by a ‘consensus’, is completely absurd. ‘Consensus’ is for those who believe, not in the power of truth and reason, but in the power of number and amount. This whole consensus thing should be dropped.”
What has happened to Shroud Science? Is it now the tossing down of gauntlets and daring skeptics to knock blocks off of our shoulders rather than pursuing the truth of the shroud with open candor.
I’am going to guess no on picked up on my comment in the post “The body image is a created by molecular change of the linen”. Really? …In very few words I think I spelled it out simply, instead of writing a book. R.Roger’s “Impurity Layer is on the ‘A’ list, listed as A4. Meaning it has been agreed his findings of the impurity layer has already been accepted as “unquestionable”. Therefore it should HAVE BEEN included, no ifs ands or butts…simple! I can only venture to say the lack of this being stated in the first sentence of the consensus leads one to think there is a bias in the group. Which does not add to the credibility whatsoever.
R
Ron, the problem is much more complex than you seem to think, because there is authentic scientists, like Di Lazarro for example, who are still not convinced that Rogers hypothesis versus the thin layer of carbohydrates impurities is correct. And their assumption is that the coloration affected the primary cell wall instead, which is made of other kinds of carbohydrates. No matter what the list of Dallas said in point A4, I don’t think any credible scientist will state that one hypothesis or the other concerning the chromophore of the image is completely proven without any doubts for the moment. Even for Rogers, I don’t think he ever wrote that his hypothesis regarding the thin layer of impurities was completely proven without any doubts. In fact, that’s precisely why it is called a “hypothesis” and not a “theory” ! The carbohydrate layer that was colored on the surface of the Shroud is so thin and his chemical structure is so common (this fact was clearly mentioned by Rogers himself) that it is easy, for someone who is not an expert in chemistry, to get fooled. Look, even Rogers himself was fooled by it when he analyze the question during his investigation with the STURP team ! He and the other members of STURP thought that the coloration affected the linen fibers themselves and that’s exactly what they wrote in their conclusion (published in peer-reviewed journals) ! This example show you how complex and unresolved this question can be ! For the moment, Rogers hypothesis can really look like the right answer to the mystery, but no credible scientist can state that it is a proven FACT !
That’s precisely why this list of “facts” presented in Dallas in 2005 didn’t received praised from all the scientists involved with the Shroud… And I think these critics were right because this list contains some “facts” (even in part A) that are still waiting to be fully demonstrate and proven !!! Rogers hypothesis about the thin layer of impurities was present in the part A of the list in 2005 and, in 2010, Fanti take this list and present an updated list by himself. And in his own list, Rogers hypothesis wasn’t there no more ! You can see that this question is still debated today. But, I’ll say it again, in regard of all we know about the Shroud, it seem to me evident that Rogers hypothesis is the best we have to explain correctly the body image on the Shroud. M. Rolfe and all the others who signed the list of Valencia don’t seem to agree with that… But the bottom line is this : For the moment, no one can be 100% sure, scientifically speaking, of the real answer. The ONLY thing science can say right now is this : The body image on the Shroud results from a dehydration-oxydation process involving some kind of carbohydrates on the top-surface of the cloth. THAT’S ALL WE ARE 100% SURE AT THE MOMENT.
Yannick it isn’t that complex, they have made it complicated by not simply using the A list, which alot of time went into deciding what or what not should be there. That was is my point. We’re not talking about an hypothesis here, from what i gather from Dna’s remarks, we are talking simply about the “Impurity layer” and whether that was coloured or the fibrels and acoording to the list many already agreed with the impurity layer Rogers found. simple.
R
That would be simple Ron if that wasn’t for Fanti, Di Lazarro and many other members of the Shroud Science Group who disagree with Rogers about the chromophore of the image. For them, that was not a thin layer of impurity that was colored but the most external part of the linen fiber itself. And this hypothesis was first put forward by Fanti because it was better for his hypothesis regarding the corona discharge. Rogers had his own hypothesis regarding image formation that came AFTER he made his hypothesis regarding the thin layer of impurity. So, who is right here and who is wrong ? Fanti or Rogers. But the fact is this : both have presented what can be consider for the moment as an hypothesis. It would need more chemical investigations in order to be 100% sure of what carbohydrates exacly were colored on top of the fibers of the Shroud. That’s the situation right now.
We can say that before Fanti came in with his hypothesis concerning the primary cell wall, a lot of Shroud experts seemed to think that Rogers hypothesis regarding the impurities that were colored was probably correct. But since it is an hypothesis (no matter the list you cite), the door was still open for other conter-hypothesis and that’s when Fanti came into the picture ! And what he did was to put suspicion in the mind of many Shroud researchers (many of which are not expert in chemistry by the way…). That’s the situation and I want to say that this question of the chromophore is crucial in regard of any proposed hypothesis of image formation. That’s why the debate right now is pretty intense. The Di Lazarro’s experiments with laser and Fanti’s hypothesis of the corona discharge are much more easily backed-up with the primary cell wall as the chromophore than an external layer of impurities on top of the fibers. That’s why they push this hypothesis of the primary cell wall and, scientifically speaking and to stay honest, it’s impossible to totally reject their proposition for the moment. But, I’ll say it again, in regard of all the observations and facts we know about the Shroud now, the hypothesis of Rogers really seem to be much more credible than the one of Fanti and al. That’s what I think. That’s not what many people on the Shroud Science Group and in Valencia seem to think. That’s their opinion but, on that particular question, I think differently and I know there’s other experts who also think differently and still favored Rogers hypothesis (no matter what M. Rolfe can think)…
Yannick, I have got a question for you. Do you agree with the recent post “Ray Schneider and the STAR Properties” and more particularly with the lack of isotropy of the image?If so, it seems to me very difficult to support Rogers’s hypothesis because any natural chemical reaction would tend to show an isotropic image. Seemengly, it is not
WHy or simply Ray SChneider is wrong and this is not a true property of the image?
Gabriel, just go here and read my comment : http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/comment-of-the-week-by-thibault-heimburger/#comment-11309
Hi Yannick, I took a closer look at Rogers’ answer to question #12 (http://shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf ). It was based on Adler’s two observations, quoted by Dan from Rogers:
1) diimide rendered the fibers colorless and undamaged again, and
2) cross sections of the fibers didn’t show color in the cellulose.
(http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/the-body-image-is-created-by-molecular-change-of-linen-fibres-really/ )
Then, Rogers didn’t say that the colorlessness of stripped fibers confirmed that diimide-treated fibers were colorless and undamaged again, but that it confirmed that “the cellulose” was not colored.
I agree with you that Rogers’ words suggest the primary cell wall was not colored, but he didn’t and couldn’t say it, because Adler’s two observations plus the colorlessness of the stripped fibers don’t prove it. They only imply the colored layer could have been linen and/or impurities.
At your point 11- : The continuity of the cloth’s banded appearance through the image does not prove there are impurities that influenced the image formation. Because the image consists of colored and not-colored fibers as in a pixel image, the bands of the background simply ‘shine through’ the image via the not-colored fibers in it (addition to http://jesusking.info/Internal%20selvedge.pdf p. 32).
Nevertheless, I agree with you and Ron that there were impurities, based on other scientific observations.
Yannick’s point 11-, got changed into point 16-, so he added at least 5 points, after I printed Yannick’s first guest posting.
Yes. I did some more research yesterday evening and came up with more quotes from Rogers on the subject. I’m kind of a perfectionist. ;-)
Also his address to me, personal, about Rogers’ answer to question #12, disappeared.
Yes, I thought that my paper should not take a personal tone and stay more public.
Yannick’s first published guest posting also said it was his reply to my comment http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/wheres-the-beef/#comment-11244 to him.
That’s right Adrie. You are responsible of the fact I did some exhaustive researches in Rogers papers ! Thank you for having done that ! Without your comment of the other day, I would never have done this research. It was like a kick for me !!! :-)
Adrie, this is your personal opinion and I respect it but I disagree with you. For the first point, what you say is some kind of a play on words. When you read Rogers papers and his book, it is clear that the stripping of color was a confirmation of the reduction of color with diimide. Maybe he didn’t say it EXPLICITELY in those terms, but nevertheless, for him, those observations were a great indicator that it wasn’t the fiber itself that was directly affected by the image formation process. And this is confirmed by what he said in page 86 of his book versus the result he obtained with corona discharge. Even if the internal part of the fiber didn’t seem to be affected by the oxydation process and just the external part was, for Rogers, this was DIFFERENT from the image fibers from the Shroud that he analysed.
And for Rogers, it is very clear that the banding effect was another great evidence that the body image reside only on carbohydrates impurities on top of the fibers. Of course, you can have a different opinion than Rogers on the subject (and you’re surely not alone). But for him, the banding effect is a very important evidence in favor of his hypothesis concerning the thin layer of impurities that would be present on top of the fiber.
Here’s my point #16. Read again what Rogers said : “16- Bands of different-colored yarn can be observed in the weave of the cloth. Where darker bands intersect image areas, the image is darker and where lighter bands intersect image areas, the image is lighter. THIS PROVES that the image color IS NOT SOLELY a result of reactions in the cellulose of the linen. Something ON THE SURFACE of the different batches of yarn produced color and/or accelerated color formation. This suggests that significant VARIATIONS in impurity concentrations existed among yarn batches. The observations of bands of color agree with historical reports on the methods used to produce ancient linen.” Here, you can see that he’s quite prudent in his affirmation. But nevertheless, for him, this was a great observation that contribute to comfort his hypothesis concerning the chromophore of the image.
Finaly, I don’t understand how you can, at the same time, agree that there is a thin layer of impurities on top of the fibers (Rogers hypothesis) and believe that “the image consists of colored and not-colored fibers as in a pixel image”. If there really is a thin layer of impurities, then it is sure that this layer was colored during the image formation process and all the other observations (ghosts, diimide, bands, etc.) indicate that, if it is really the case, this was the ONLY thing that was colored during the process !!! You’re 2 ideas on the question seem to be in contradiction. Unless you think that the coloration affect both the layer of impurities and the fiber itself ? But then, how can you explain the diimide and the ghost that leave a colorless and undammaged fiber behind ?
Should read as; from what I gather from Dan’s remarks. Sorry there seems to be an issue with the comment box jumping around, makes it hard to post.
R
Dear Yannick my friend,
You know me and I know you.
You know that for me Ray Rogers was a “master”, a true scientist (perhaps the only one in Shroud studies).
You know that I have studied in depth all the papers, articles etc.. you are quoting.
The truth, in my opinion, is that there is absolutely no possibility…to know the truth.
There is absolutely no mean to be sure that the image chromophore is carried by the pcw or by an ” impurity layer”.
Please show me a single fact (from Rogers himself) demonstrating that the “impurity layer” is the only possibility.
Maybe he was right, maybe not. ALL the facts are consistent with both possibilities.
Warm regards.
Thibault.
Thibault, that is absolutely true, but the argument is that both possibilities should be mentioned on the list, since neither have been proved 100%, but both are the most highly probable. I think this is the argument or have I gone astray? Dan?
R
Any credible and honest list of facts should say exactly this : “The body image on the Shroud results from a dehydration-oxydation process involving some kind of carbohydrates on the top-surface of the clothon the top-surface of the cloth.
The principal question that still need further proofs is this : What exactly are those carbohydrates that were colored on top of the cloth ? Is it carbohydrates that are naturally present in the primary cell wall of the linen fibers or is it carbohydrates that have been left on top of the fibers because of the antique textile technique that was used to make linen cloths ? THAT’S THE QUESTION !!! Personally, I think Rogers arguments and observations are VERY HARD to dismiss and really seem to fit better with what we know about the body image on the Shroud.
Oups, typing mistake !
Here’s my reply to Ron again :
Any credible and honest list of facts should say exactly this : “The body image on the Shroud results from a dehydration-oxydation process involving some kind of carbohydrates on the top-surface of the cloth.
The principal question that still need further proofs is this : What exactly are those carbohydrates that were colored on top of the cloth ? Is it carbohydrates that are naturally present in the primary cell wall of the linen fibers or is it carbohydrates that have been left on top of the fibers because of the antique textile technique that was used to make linen cloths ? THAT’S THE QUESTION !!! Personally, I think Rogers arguments and observations are VERY HARD to dismiss and really seem to fit better with what we know about the body image on the Shroud.
I agree with Thibault on the fact that, for now, science cannot clearly state for sure which one of the 2 hypothesis is the correct one. But I disagree with him one what he said here : “ALL the facts are consistent with both possibilities.” For the moment, I don’t think this is true. Rogers as showed with good scientific arguments that his hypothesis CAN be correct regarding ALL the observations and facts concerning the body image on the Shroud. But I’ve NEVER seen one single scientific paper published by a real Shroud expert who is also an expert in chemistry and microscopy that do the same than Rogers did with his papers, i.e. to DEMONSTRATE that the hypothesis he defend CAN be applied to what we know about the body image on the Shroud. I still wait for a paper like that to be published in order to properly defend the hypothesis of the primary cell wall being the true chromophore of the image. I’ve never saw one so far. For the moment, I consider this hypothesis of the primary cell wall more like a personal opinion of some researchers than a real hypothesis that have been correctly DEMONSTRATE with solid scientific arguments, like it was done by Rogers for his own hypothesis.
Sorry Thibault for having a different opinion that yours on the subject !!! ;-) In fact, we both agree that there is no way to be scientifically certain about the correct chromophore of the image but, where I defer from him, is because I favor Rogers hypothesis well before the one about the primary cell wall. But that just my opinion, based on a long reflection…
Also, you have to know that Thibault Heimburger, a friend of mine, is one of the co-author of the paper published in 2010 with Fanti, Di Lazzaro and some other members of the Shroud Science Group that pushed the issue of the primary cell wall. That’s why I’m not really surprised by the fact he put the hypothesis of the primary cell wall on the same level of credibility than the one of Rogers. As I said, that’s where I defer from him. On the general principle, I agree with him but I don’t think it is scientifically correct to think those 2 hypotheses have the same credibility, simply because the hypothesis of the primary cell wall has never been studied (in regard of what we know about the body image on the Shroud) to the SAME in-deep level as the hypothesis of Rogers…
For example, can someone give me a solid and credible scientific explanation for the FACT that the ghost and the diimide leave a clean uncolored and undamaged fiber behind ? At first sight, that doesn’t seem to really fit with the idea that the primary cell wall would have been colored instead of a thin layer of impurities on top of the fibers !!! If the color would be in the primary cell wall, then the ghosts would be composed mainly of a dehydrated and oxidized primary cell wall that surely would have left a DAMAGED fiber behind. You understand what I mean ? This is PURE LOGIC thinking ! If you take away the colored primary cell wall of a fiber, how in the world the resulting linen fiber can be considered undamaged ??? It just doesn’t seem to fit.
And the reduction of the color with diimide, leaving an undamaged linen fiber behind, is also one of the main argument of Rogers (among many other) to show that the whole linen fiber (including the primary cell wall) WAS NOT colored at all during the image formation process, because the resulting fiber seem to be undamaged. Don’t you think that chemist experts like Rogers and Adler (also expert on the Shroud) would not have noticed the absence of the primary cell wall of the fibers after the use of diimide ? I just can’t imagine that ! For me, it’s pretty evident that experts like them would have note a significant change in the physical aspect of the resulting fibers. That’s just my opinion of course but I don’t think it’s idiot to think that way…