I forgot one important thing. At the end of your comments versus my long post, you wrote this: "Rogers to my knowledge never by science ruled out a miraculous explanation."
By writing this, you show that you never read all the writings of Rogers! Of course he ruled out a miraculous explanation! It was at the heart of his "fight" against the supernatural fringe!!!
May I suggest that you read again his book and particularly the chapter 1, in which he clearly say that searching a supernatural explanation for the Shroud (just like Jackson, Rinaudo, Moran, Fanti, DiLazzaro and a bunch of other researchers have done in recent years) is not at all a valid part of the true scientific method? Read chapter 1 again please and we can exchange about Rogers’ point of view about all the supernatural explanations that have been proposed over the years!
Yannick, may I suggest that it is a matter of comprehending what Rogers wrote.
Rogers argued that a supernatural event/component/causation/etc. “is not at all a valid part of the true scientific method.” (quoting you). But this is a philosophical statement. Rogers believed, philosophically, that once you invoked a miraculous explanation you were beyond the realm of science; to be more specific, once you invoked a miraculous explanation you were unable to apply the method of doing science correctly. I agree with him on that but keep in mind that all philosophers of science do not agree about this.
Rogers once wrote in an email (he copied me), “I do not want to gore anyone’s sacred cow (or in some cases ‘bull’), but, if we are going to profess ‘science,’ we should stick to facts.”
Let’s stick to facts, Yannick. My statement was, “Rogers to my knowledge never by science ruled out a miraculous explanation.” I did not need to say, ‘to my knowledge.’ You can’t prove a miracle by science and you can’t rule out a miracle by science.
Are you sure you know what I read and didn’t read?
Can you show me, Yannick, how Rogers used science to show that the image was not miraculous? No! I didn’t think so.