imageJohn Klotz has made an important point, one I agree with:

Critics of Rogers’ view on image formation keep rolling it into a critique of his work on he shroud samples. Rogers analysis included threads from the material held back FROM THE CARBON AREA that were retained by Luigi Gonella. His science in that regard was completely peer reviewed. He asked other scientists to double check his work. They did and they concurred.

That’s one issue.

His ideas on image formation were incomplete as even he realized.

Rogers work on the carbon test area was completely transparent. The fact is that he had a hypothesis that even he realized was incomplete when it came to the image formation problem.

It is not logical to combine the critique of his incomplete image formation hypothesis with criticism of his documented and work on the threads from the carbon test area.

It’s really depressing that people who have an argument with his image hypothesis then feel it necessary to blow smoke about his work on the carbon test site threads.

imageIt’s apple and oranges. Logically it is self-defeating for one faction to try to discredit another faction on an issue. We should be open to multiple view points. There is no conflict between the proof that the carbon testing area was subject to repairs and that the image formation process implicates the resurrection directly. One, the carbon testing, is directly resolvable by scientific testing of the physical threads. Rogers did that. The other is still a bit over the horizon.