Tomorrow, we are expecting Thibault Heimburger’s paper from the St. Louis conference
on the chain of custody of Rogers’ C14 samples.
HOWEVER, on the Holy Shroud Guild website, today, we read, “Gonella then said
that he had reason to believe that some or all of Raes’ samples had been switched
with materials not originally from the Shroud.”
Google spotted this NEW item on the HSG website yesterday. It is a short statement linked to a short questionnaire that, as such, has the appearances of being one big loaded question. (Google Cached Copy of Same).
The HSG hosted statement begins with this paragraph following an innocuous title that reads, Ray Rogers, Thermochimica Acta:
All researchers have an ethical responsibility to be factual when writing an academic or research paper for publication. Publication journals are responsible for reviewing the submitted work or manuscript before being published. The interdependence between researchers and journals is imperative. Each body has control over public opinion, legislation, funding, and resources. Unethical work that is produced based on authors’ biases or journals’ agendas will have a negative impact for everyone.
“Unethical work . . . based on authors’ biases or journals’ agendas. . .” What is being implied? Let’s see:
Rogers argued that the fibers collected in 1988 testing were not representative to the main part of the cloth (Rogers, 2005). The most important evidence Rogers’ possessed were the threads he obtained. Rogers explained,
I received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Prof. Luigi Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic University) on 14 October 1979. I photographed the samples as received and archived them separately in numbered vials. Some of the samples were destroyed in chemical tests between 1979 and 1982, but most of the segments have been preserved” (p.188). Rogers continues and explains, “On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample. (p. 189)
Rogers’ manuscript successfully established ownership for the threads; however, what Rogers failed to offer was the chronological documentation pertaining to the threads. It is possible, Roger’s familiarity with the threads made him sedentary procuring the proper protocol producing the chain of custody. . . .
Dr. Nitowksi was an archeologist studying the Shroud’s image formation in Jerusalem during 1986. In her paper titled, Criteria for authentication: A procedure of the verification of the shroud samples, Nitowski writes,
On the evening of April 28, 1986, I and several of my companions returning from our Jerusalem testing relative to the Shroud of Turin, had supper with Dr. Luigi Gonella, and his family at their Turin apartment. Among other Shroud topics, Dr. Gonella and I spoke briefly about the Rogers Mylar tape samples on loan to Joseph Kohlbeck, my colleague, and currently in my possession. Included with those samples is a small glass vial labeled Raes Sample containing a 12mm long thread. I told Dr. Gonella that Kohlbeck had found it to be coated with starch by an iodine test. Gonella expressed amazement at this, since no one had reported such substance on the Shroud material previously. He then asked me if I knew for certain that the thread had a “Z” twist. I told him that I had not checked it. Gonella then said that he had reason to believe that some or all of Raes’ samples had been switched with materials not originally from the Shroud. (Personal archive collection of the Holy Shroud Guild, Nitowski, 1986)
“Reason to believe?”
And there is this:
Rogers indeed received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Gonella in 1979. However, Rogers never maintained them in his own custody prior to 1979, and some of the samples he received after 1979, he distributed to other scientist for further evaluations as documented in the letter by Dr. Nitowski. Notwithstanding, Rogers still may have found these threads suitable for his study. But in no way does that excuse the review process to do its due diligence and inquire detailed documentation concerning the threads. Even more questionable were the threads received by Rogers in 2003. In Rogers’ Thermochimica Acta manuscript, Rogers briefly mentions that is was Gonella who excised the threads before it was distributed for dating (p.189). What was never mentioned in Rogers’ Thermochimica Acta manuscript was by whom he received the threads from. . . .
Recently, Giorgio Bracaglia posted the following on The Holy Shroud Guild Facebook page:
By December I am planning to do a research survey with this audience. The topics will be about GMO (Monsanto) and Ray Rogers’ 2005 Thermochimica Acta manuscript. The articles are designed to represent faithfully only one perspective.Your task will be to read the two short essays (1/2 page each) and respond accordingly based on the readings. 5 questions in total for each topic.
This seems to be what he is talking about. It is almost December. There is a similar GMO paper, as well. It is interesting that the first paragraph of the GMO paper, which deals with the issue of ethical peer journalism, is identical, word for word with the article about Rogers’ paper. So what is the GMO paper doing on the HSG website?
Suggestion: Wait on, then read Thibault Heimburger’s paper from the St. Louis conference when it appears on shroud.com, hopefully tomorrow. Then and only then answer the questions from the short questionnaire, in which you choose to disagree or agree by degree):
- There are clear evidences that the threads excised for the radio carbon data was representative to the cloth
- The radio carbon data performed on the Shroud in 1988, is flawed
- The request by Arch. Bishop Saldarini to have the unauthorized threads return has no influence on Rogers findings
- Raes samples excised in 1973 are viable evidence
- Rogers demonstrates enough provenance of the threads used for his research
Dan these questions and the content of the reading has yet to be approved by my mentor. I’ll will let everyone know when the survey is ready. Until then, please if you can remove this post until further notice hopefully in two weeks.
Hi Giorgio. Google reported your pages. I found out about them when I turned my phone on after landing in Savannah Airport last night and I got a tweet from Yahoo News before the plane even got to the gate. I did not put it out there. I can only imagine that Google found out about the pages because you notified them or you linked to the pages from other indexed pages. There is no way that I would have even known the URLs if they were not indexed in the search engines. Hundreds of email copies of this post went out after I made this posting. It’s been tweeted on Twitter. Facebook has it in full. Attempting to remove the post would only draw more attention to it, I’m afraid. I’m sorry; I post when I see things in public. Otherwise I ask for permission. Think about what you want to do and write to me offline if you want (firstname.lastname@example.org).
It’s best that we leave it as it is. I’ll just place a password on the survey so no one can gain access until it’s ready.
Who is your mentor?
A statistician, and business professor. I’m submitting the survey to two cluster groups, One group such as the Shroudies, the second who are knowledgeable with GMO’s.
This assignment is in preparation for my master degree in business. Nothing more should be read into this. This assignment will require individuals to answer according to the readings. (yet to be approved by my two mentors) I picked these two subjects because I had already done research on them and it saved me five weeks of journal entry and I have only 15 weeks to compile my data and write the research paper. I would really appreciate that anyone interested in taking the survey wait until it is ready and answer according to the readings.
Thanks, Giorgio. I do not know which Shroudies you are referring to, but it would be nice to have both pro- and anti-authenticty folks involved.
That would be an excellent idea; however, in all honesty, the final data analysis will be a result of confidence sampling just targeted to two groups.
connivence not confidence, sorry
Alright, I understand, but others may not.
Comments are closed.