A question raised by a friend got me to wondering if a certain paper by Ray Rogers
was ever really refuted or disputed or was it simply ignored as inconvenient?

 

imageA 2005 paper by Ray Rogers, THE SHROUD OF TURIN: RADIATION EFFECTS, AGING AND IMAGE FORMATION clearly states on page 6:

Direct comparisons between image and non-image parts of the shroud show exactly the same amounts and types of radiation damage in the two types of areas (e.g., figures 7 and 8). This suggests that the image was not produced by any mechanism that involved heat, light, or ionizing radiation.

and concludes with this sentence:

I believe that the current evidence suggests that all radiation-based hypotheses for image formation will ultimately be rejected.

Has this ever really been refuted or disputed or was it simply ignored as inconvenient? Is the linen coloration obtained by ENEA scientists different? image