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?
A 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?
This leads to an impasse.
Ray Rogers was correct, but then neither does the Maillard reaction that he proposed as a possible component in the image formation process convincing.
We also really cannot talk about radiation, that is why I said “radiation-like” in my interview with Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro, at ENEA:
He was aware of the difficulties involved and mentioned the “current paradigm of science”.
Whatever, if there was some kind of radiation there would be images of the sides, unless something like blocks of spices were placed on both sides, and so the body would not have been tightly wrapped.
If the body did indeed wrap the body of Jesus we will never know what exactly happened. It would be like asking what sort of power emanated from him when the woman with the haemorrhage (Mark 5:25-34) was cured instantaneously.
Well said, Louis: “It would be like asking what sort of power emanated from him when the woman with the haemorrhage (Mark 5:25-34) was cured instantaneously.”
I’ll throw in that it also would be like asking what sort of power emanated from him during the Transfiguration…..
Non-biblical sources also attest to Jesus’ ability to heal and cure and we can can go beyond the event you cited. Yet there will always be attempts to do away with traditional Christian doctrine, even if that means tampering with archaeological artefacts:
Radiation is a rather vague word used to describe so many emissions as to be almost meaningless. Although Rogers’s observations are interesting, they lack precision and do not really support his hypothesis that radiation damage to the fibres of the Shroud is uniform across image and non-image areas. From his two examples, I agree that the Shroud has been irradiated, mostly I guess by cosmic rays, but whether the heat required to produce discolouration would shown any marked difference is impossible to say. I find it interesting that although Rogers went to huge lengths to bombard fibres with nuclear particles, it apparently did not occur to him simply to shine a heat lamp on any. What’s more, his two shroud fibres (what a pity he couldn’t focus better on the non-image fibre!) look very like the Holland cloth fibre, from the 16th century, perhaps supporting a medieval provenance, and nothing at all like the 4000-year old Egyptian fibre. They don’t even appear to be ‘half-way’ between the 4000-year old fibre and the 500-year old fibre, which they might if they were 2000 years old.
There are many good reasons for rejecting radiation of various sorts, most of them specific to particular types of radiation, but I don’t think Rogers’s findings will contribute a great deal to the subject without a bit more systematic investigation.
One wonders whether the two Shroud fibres mentioned came from Professor Luigi Gonella, that is,not from the sample authorised by Turin.
“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?”
I didn’t ignore it. I don’t ignore anything. However, as I say above, it is not definitive enough to do a lot with, and as we are no longer able to ask the author for clarification, it will have to rest in limbo until it becomes relevant to something.
“In flax fibers, any photon or particle with an energy above about 3 eV (e.g., light with a shorter wavelength than green) can directly break a few bonds in the crystallized polymer chains.”
What wavelenght did ENEA scientists used?
Have they refuted, disputed or simply ignored Rogers’ observations?
What is not definitive enough to do anything with, is a comment claiming the Shroud has been mostly irradiated by cosmic rays.
Anoxie, the answer to your doubt about the wavelength is in the first paragraph of the response to question no.2:
Dr. Di Lazzaro took Ray Rogers’ views into consideration.
Di Lazzaro used UV wavelengths of considerably less than green, which no doubt broke a few bonds in the crystallised polymer chains, just as Rogers suggested. what is not clear is what the difference would be between UV-irradiated and unirradiated 500 year old linen, given that natural radiation would produce the majority of the observed imperfections.
The Shroud fibres shown by Rogers have an overall blur, which Rogers attributes to ‘electromagnetic radiation’, and some bright lines he attributes to alpha particles, protons or electron. The ‘electromagnetic radiation’ is made up of ‘light and gamma rays from cosmic radiation’ according to his description of the Egyptian fibre. It is this that makes up the major part of the overall deterioration of the fibres. In any cloth that has spent much of its life shut away from the light, the gamma rays from cosmic radiation play a bigger part than light.
My doubt is not about the wavelength, but whether they’ve serioulsy studied the depth of interaction between UV light and a flax fiber.
Rogers is clear.
Waiting for a clarification from ENEA scientists.
” In any cloth that has spent much of its life shut away from the light, the gamma rays from cosmic radiation play a bigger part than light.”
” I agree that the Shroud has been irradiated, mostly I guess by cosmic rays”
The issue is not light.
No birefringence analysis, no mention of the depth of the interaction between UV light and the flax fiber.
I think that there is no clear answer about your questions
(=”Has this ever really been refuted or disputed or
was it simply ignored as inconvenient? Is the linen coloration
obtained by ENEA scientists different?”) until we are
able to pass to the adequate level of advanced analyses
on linen samples (for example: using linen samples
already taken, in the past, from the Shroud).
Our view of Pluto has improved in the last 85 years,
but the same level of scientific interest seems not to happen
with linen fibrils of TS (apart ATR-FTIR investigation by Fanti
and other researcher and few other attempts).
Is an ice-and-rock planetoid and its entourage
of five moons more important than a precious christian relic?
It seems to me that in the past one wanted to avoid any
precise speech concerning the question of presumed radiations
and here I speak not only about the refusal of my speech for
Dallas 2005 (where I had indicated the use of AFM analyses
and SSNTD detectors […as witness materials during the
radiation exposures]. Both [= AFM and SSNTD] were already
used by Nikezic, and then I had indicated a paper by Nikezic…).
I had only obtained a few AFM measurements and
most likely I could not give great confidence
(…probably during the peer review process).
Then, an attempt done by an amateur scientist in order
to depict the situation can be quietly rejected, and
that is particularly true when the previous claims
are not reinforced with a serious analytical work on
linen samples (treated and not treated with radiations, etc.).
Instead, at the end, the scientific truth about linen samples
coming from the Shroud cannot be rejected…
In any case we cannot rely on few linen samples.
Perhaps we require a more serious work (but Rogers was
a sick person, near the end of life)…
— — —
Here a bibliographic reference:
Differentiation between tracks and damages in SSNTD
under the atomic force microscope
J.P.Y. Ho, C.W.Y. Yip, D. Nikezic, K.N. Yu
published in: “Radiation Measurements”,
Volume 36, Issues 1–6, June 2003, Pages 155–159
Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Nuclear Tracks in Solids
>We have observed three-dimensional sponge-like structures as well as strips of connecting pits on the surface of the LR 115 detector after etching, which can be confused with the small tracks formed after short etching time. We have employed an atomic force microscope (AFM) to study these “damages” as well as genuine alpha tracks for short etching time. It was found that while the track and damage openings could be similar in size and shape, the depths for the damages were consistently smaller. Therefore, the depth of the pits will serve as a clear criterion to differentiate between tracks and other damages. The ability to discriminate between genuine tracks from other damages is most important for etching for short time intervals.
Here other studies by Nikezic about
Atomic force microscopy (AFM) and
SSNTD (= Solid-state nuclear track detector):
– Effects of stirring on the bulk etch rate of LR 115 detector
by C.W.Y. Yip, J.P.Y. Ho, V.S.Y. Koo, D. Nikezic, K.N. Yu
– Measurement of bulk etch rate of LR115 detector
with atomic force microscopy
by J.P.Y. Ho, C.W.Y. Yip, V.S.Y. Koo, D. Nikezic, K.N. Yu
Here I don’t claim that linen coloration obtained
by ENEA scientists is different with respect linen fibrils
from the Holy Shroud (although I have some little doubt).
Simply, we have not yet seen the truth,
because there is a lack of adequate comparisons
(at high magnification, using AFM techniques, AFM-Raman, etc., etc.) …
I was writing my message at the same time that you have sent your interventions.
So my message was not well focused and centered on what already we know. I believe you forgot what said Eng. Gonella around radiations and strange claims. Please, read the book about the Acts of the Symposium at Villa Gualino in 2000.
Here I repeat what I wrote in this blog
in March 27, 2015:
>Here the words by Prof. Luigi Gonella
(title = “Discussant’s contribution”)
during the famous Meeting in Villa Gualino, Turin (in 2000):
>“…As for the neutron bombardment, skipping any comment on the weird idea of a nuclear physics of Resurrection, as a nuclear physicist I can assure you that the exposure of cellulose to a fast neutron fluence big enough to cause the required enrichment in 14C would play such a havoc with the hydrogen atoms to cause chemical changes visible to the naked eye (and this too can be easily checked). …”
>It’s easily understandable that my old idea (written by myself in my intervention paper for Dallas 2005) to use the AFM controls and the SSNTD witnesses during adequate experimental simulations perhaps should have had also this reference (… thinkable as an authoritative reference) in the paper (a simple thing that I didn’t do, if I well remember…)…
I believe that Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro can (easily) show us
an interesting comparison between what it was
obtained by him (using VUV excimer laser) and
linen fibrils of the Holy Shroud involved in the formation
of Image on that “ancient and mysterious linen”.
The same can apply to what Eng. Giulio Fanti
was able to obtain on linen using Corona Discharge.
And both researchers can use AFM techniques … or
what they prefer to use, in order to obtain the adequate
useful level of magnification…
Why these simple true comparisons were not performed?
In my opinion, the fact to work with AFM tools is not too
much difficult… See for example, the curious “AFM three-points
bending test” (and this for the case of trying to solve the question
for the search of “the true epoch”… detecting the Young’s modulus, etc. …!).
This may be the useful key to understanding the question.
The long and vain discussions/speculations seem
to be almost exclusively in the field of idle chatter …
In any case, I admit that we do not yet know
well our Universe (here, on this planet, using LHC…)
and not put myself even to speak about the “multiverse” …
Quarks and strings, and maybe the angels behind them,
are smiling to us …
What people who defend hypotheses involving any kind of energetic radiation (including a suddent burst of UV light) must answer (and this has never been done) is:
How in the world the same source of energetic radiation could produce a coloration of a linen fiber showing the very same physical and chemical properties (including the depth of color penetration at thread and also at fiber level) when the source is located in direct-contact with the cloth and when the source is located at more or less 4 cm of distance, while, at the same time, it would be totally unable to produce any visible coloration at more than 4 cm of distance (which is not a long distance at all)?
The Maillard reaction hypothesis (including the hypothesis of a color only located Inside a thin layer of impurities at the surface of the fibers) offer a viable explanation for this very strange (and important) data coming from the Shroud. I’m affraid all the radiation hypotheses do not.
Additional comment: In all logic, we should see more color produced and more color penetration when the source is located in direct-contact than when it is located at more or less 4 cm of distance. And here’s a good question: What kind of energetic radiation can be able to produce a color on a linen fiber when the source is located at more or less 4 cm of distance, while being unable to do so when the same exact source is located at 4.5 or 5 cm or so?
Just thinking out loud; If say the radiation causing the image was caused by a specific radioactive decay isotope with a very short half-life, that might account for the limited range of the image-forming mechanism. Several decay products of radon, including radioactive isotopes have extremely short half-lives. Perhaps there is such an isotope that produces a brief burst of UV radiation. However why then would that brief burst of UV not penetrate further than 4.5 – 5.0 cm?
And why such a burst of energy would not have produced noticeable defects (différents than what all the fibers shows, no matter if they came from an image area or not) on the surface of the colored fibers that would have been easy to detect by a specialist like Rogers?
There is a low penetration depth for VUV irradiations…
See, for example, the study:
“Modelling vacuum ultraviolet photon penetration depth and C=O bond depletion in 193 nm photoresist”
Monica J Titus, Dustin G Nest and David B Graves
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 42
Issue 15 (7 August 2009)
Received 7 May 2009, in final form 17 June 2009
Published 7 July 2009
>Vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) photons are known to modify the bulk chemical composition of 193 nm photoresist, typically penetrating ~100 nm and depleting carbon–oxygen bonds. Fourier transform infrared transmission measurements as a function of VUV photon fluence demonstrate that VUV-induced bond breaking occurs over a period of time. We present a model based on the idea that VUV photons initially deplete near-surface O-containing bonds, leading to deeper, subsequent penetration and more bond losses, until the remaining near-surface C–C bonds are able to absorb the incident radiation. Fitted model photoabsorption cross-sections compare well with the literature values.
a very short penetration depth:
>… we deduce that the light at λ = 0.193 μm penetrates 2% to 9% of the diameter of the linen yarn, depending on the
specific conditions of irradiation …
The ArF laser emits radiation in the VUV spectral region
with smaller energy and shorter pulse duration than XeCl lasers. See also the different hue of color:
– yellow after ArF laser irradiation at 0,193 μm
– light brown after XeCl laser irradiation at 0,308 μm
So, we have to better investigate the shallow penetration depth of the color obtained in adequate set of experiments
compared to the penetration observable on linen fibrils coming from the Holy Shroud.
What makes me puzzled is the possible effect (ie towards the decrease in power of the alleged emission of VUV) due to the presence of surface impurities (earth, dust, sweat, humidity, etc.).
Low penetration maybe… But what was the distance between the laser and the target (i.e. the linen sample)? And would the depth of penetration would remains that low if we place the same laser in direct-contact with the sample? I have to guess not. In all logic, the same source of energy must penetrate deeper into a linen cloth if that source is located in direct-contact with it in comparison with the same source being located at some distance.
I’m affraid the only way a laser could produce the same exact color penetration, no matter if it is placed in direct-contact or at some distance from the linen sample, would be if he could only colored a thin layer of impurities that would coated the top-surface of the sample, which is obviously not the kind of color Di Lazzaro was able to produce. Effectively, the color was located Inside the primary cell wall of the linen fiber and not Inside a thin layer of impurities and that’s normal if we believe Rogers since it is highly unlikely that we could find a kind of energetic radiation that would be able to color that kind of thin layer of impurities without coloring also the linen fibers located underneath (or at the very least the primary cell wall of that fiber, which is what Di Lazzaro was able to get).
Maybe a better explanation, could be found in an intermediate chemical by-product. If say the various mixes of chemicals, sweat, urea, spices, myrrh etc, resulted in some kind of chemical reaction, then a short-life intermediate unstable chemical by-product might have formed the image. Because this notional unstable product then proceeds to its next stage, this might better explain its limited range of effect. It may even be a more complex process with radiation having some role in the process. All speculation, until more experimental work can be done.
Now that the Rogers mantra can be heard again I ask: is it possible to obtain a Maillard reaction at low temperature? If yes, one needs to see how it is done. If not, what would the temperature be to obtain such a reaction? It would have to be “instaneous Maillard” in the case of the Shroud in order to not damage the fibres.
The link below, in the context of cooking, describes the reaction in detail:
The short answer is yes, Louis. Not my pay-scale, but by Googling “low temperature” and “Maillard reaction” I find that dry-cured ham and some cheeses acquire some of their flavour (and colour?) by room temperature Maillard reactions. I have not been able to find the chemistry of this yet.
Rogers did a lab experiment (and he describe it well in his book) with a linen sample made the old-fashion way (meaning it had a thin layer of impurities on it) and he submitted this sample to ammonia vapor for 10 minutes at room temperature. He got the very same color we see in the image area on the Shroud… So, the answer to Louis question is: YES and it has been proven scientifically through a real lab experiment.
Rogers’s experiments were interesting but cannot be said to have explained anything more about the image formation than Rucker’s atomic disappearance or di Lazzaro’s UV radiation. He made no attempt to quantify the amount of ammonia that might be emitted by a dead body, and his thin layer of starch has not been verified. Heller & Adler, for example, tested for starch and didn’t find any. His ingenious idea to attempt to concentrate surface reactants by an evaporation gradient was insufficient to ensure that his ammonia stain was restricted only to the crowns of the threads. His conclusion that the image was restricted to the supposed starch coating contradicts the findings of Heller & Adler that image fibres were degraded with respect to non-image fibres.
Heller and Adler were not as specialist of the chromophore question as Rogers was. That can explain why they probably made an error of judgment concerning this important question… Rogers was clear that the entire structure of the linen fiber had not been affected at all by the very mild image formation process. I believe him because everything that regards this image (along with all that concerns the blood) is talking about a very mild process that probably happened at normal temperature. Taking this into account, we cannot, for the moment at least, discard the Maillard reaction hypothesis of Rogers… The same is not true when it comes to all the hypothesis involving energetic radiation (if we believe a specialist like Rogers of course).
Last thing (important): Rogers experiments were only PRELIMINARY and much more work needs to be done in order to make a full check of his hypothesis (in the form he proposed it).
Testing for starch does not require particular expertise, and Heller and Adler were as qualified as Rogers to carry out the test, and carried out more tests on more fibres. If there is any question of an error of judgement it is far more likely to have been that of Rogers, who was desperately trying to confirm his image formation hypothesis, than of the others, who had no particular process in mind. Nevertheless, I agree that the Maillard reaction hypothesis should not be altogether discarded, and that it has rather more going for it than any process involving nuclear disintegration.
One reason for Rogers’ supposition of a Maillard reaction on the surface was the apparently superficial depth of the image said to be no more than about 2 nm. What is known of the depth of the results from the radiation experiments? I have yet to see a reported depth. Does anyone else know the depth of the radiation coloration?
I recall that the claim of Maillard was not on the starch, but was on saccharides. Was the Shroud ever laundered, removing the starch but perhaps leaving the saccharides? The note I have reads: “Postulate that amino reactants from corpse react with saccharides from linen’s surface starch residues to produce colour; Rogers & Arnoldi obtained positive results using saponaria & ammonia vapour;
All colour was at surface, none in medulla pith, as similar to that on Shroud;”
They used a sample of Edgerton bleached linen treated with dextrin & saponaria, result – no colour; After evaporation, sample exposed to ammonia vapour for 10 minutes;
After 24 hours light colour observed on surface only.
Did Heller & Adler test for saccharides, if there is such a test?
Di Lazzaro’s paper “Coloring linens with excimer lasers to simulate the body image of the Turin Shroud” at academia.edu, gives lots of details about laser experiments on ‘sugared’ and ‘non-sugared’ linens, including depth of penetrations and effect on underlying substrate. It must be remembered that saccharides are generally soluble in water, and, had they been responsible for the image, it would surely have been affected by the water spillages apparent from the big stains and the 1352 extinguishing attempts.
To Daveb: Rogers’ hypothesis concerning the impurities involved not only saccharides that would have come from the ancient method of manufacturing the Shroud, but also starch deposits that would also have been left on the cloth’s surface during the manufacture of the Shroud. And Rogers even told the SSG that he believed that starch deposits were the most important part of the impurity coating that would have been colored on the top-surface of the cloth…
Hugh wrote: “It must be remembered that saccharides are generally soluble in water, and, had they been responsible for the image, it would surely have been affected by the water spillages apparent from the big stains and the 1352 extinguishing attempts.”
Here’s what Rogers told us (you can find this quote in the paper I wrote some years ago concerning his work): “Water-stained image areas on the Shroud showed that the image color does not dissolve or migrate in water. Maillard products are not water soluble, and they do not move when wetted.”
I think it’s you who select just what comfort your point of view! McCrone AND Rogers did find starch deposits on the Shroud. That’s a fact. I will check the paper of Adler and Heller to see what they tell about starch…
Here’s a very relevant quote from Rogers, which contradict what you said about diamines reacting with proteins instead of carbohydrate impurities: “The color formed by dehydration (caramelization) of any type of carbohydrate impurity (e.g., starch and/or sugars) would be the result of the same kinds of conjugated structures as produced by cellulose, and the color would appear on the surface of the fibrils only. All of the analytical tests described by Heller and Adler would apply to these impurity colors. All colored fibrils should color to approximately the same degree, depending on
the amount/thickness of the impurity layer, explaining the “half-tone” effect STRUP reported.”
And of course you mean 1532. Then surely if the saccharides are gone, and Heller & Adler found no starch, then the image must reside on the PCW, but seemingly only on the crowns (high points) of the fibres. So it looks like a localised reaction with the cellulose? Someone succeeded in reducing an imaged fibre with diimide, exposing the unaffected non-imaged fibre beneath. How can we expect such a reaction with radiation? Logic would seem to demand chemistry rather than physics.
You’re off track here Hugh. Rogers did not invent the fact that starch had been found on Shroud fibers in order to comfort his image formation hypothesis. That’s the contrary in fact! Once he get convinced that starch deposits were really present on the Shroud, that’s when he started to think of an image formation process that would have colored, not the fibers themselves (like he was thinking when he wrote his STURP paper), but that kind of impurities instead, which are MORE EASY TO COLOR CHEMICALLY THAN THE LINEN FIBERS (INCLUDING THE PRIMARY CELL WALL).
By the way, can you give me the name of the paper in which Adler and Heller wrote that they tested for starch and did not find any? I don’t remember having read something of that nature coming from them…
Also, you must consider the fact that, along with Rogers (who did test for starch and came up with a positive result), McCrone too found starch in his analysis of Shroud samples… In science, when you got two independent positive results concerning one topic, you should start to consider this positive result with much more confidence.
Last thing: Daveb is right! The fact that diimide is able to remove all color, while leaving behind a clean and undammaged fiber is one crucial fact that fits well with Rogers’ hypothesis concerning the image chromophore. And when you had the other fact that it is the same thing with the famous “ghosts” of color that were left stuck in the sticky tapes, while leaving behind a clean and undammaged fiber, you should start to consider Rogers’ hypothesis for the chromophore as being the most probable that exist. Also, you must understand that this particular hypothesis offer a truly rational (and simple!) explanation for one of the most strange data coming from Shroud, i.e. the extreme and quite homogeneous superficiality of the image, no matter if we look in zones of direct-contacts or not! The hypothesis of Di Lazzaro and Fanti concerning the primary cell wall DO NOT offer that kind of rational explanation for this crucial data.
“You’re off track here Hugh.” Not at all. Heller and Adler tested for starch but didn’t find any in A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin. Perhaps it is unkind of me, but I cannot help finding a little duplicity in Rogers’s careful selection of which of McCrone’s and Heller & Adler’s findings to accept and which to reject. Also, the diamide reaction was to dissolve protein, not carbohydrate, and the smooth surface found under the blood stains, where they claimed there was no image, was contrasted with the corroded appearance of the fibres where there was an image, in direct contradiction of Rogers’s findings. There are a number of other flaws in Rogers’s argument, discussed above, which is by no means as rational or simple as expressed above.
All speculation. While we are at it let’s consider the possibility of other sub-atomic particles interacting with the Shroud. Why not? Perhaps the Higgs boson? Is it not possible the elements in the Shroud are still entangled with the Christ?
Here the last interesting finding:
“Coloration of polyamide fibers in an aqueous solution by Maillard reaction”
Ohe, Takeru; Yoshimura, Yurika. Textile Research Journal84.5 (Mar 2014): 539-545.
Here a short excerpt from the Abstract:
>Polyamide fibers, such as wool, silk, and nylon fibers, could be colored in an aqueous solution containing reducing sugars, similar to the coloration of various foods containing both protein and reducing sugars, by the Maillard reaction. …
Do you remember the past discussions
about Lees and the Jospice Imprint?…
This study can be useful to comment!
In my opinion, before slipping into the possible delusions of Parapsychology it is best to study well all ordinary Science subjects …
See, for example, the interesting particular case of the Jospice Imprint and the fact that Polyamide fibers could be colored in an aqueous solution…
Yesterday I saw an image of the cover of a new Italian
science fiction review (“Enigmi”) were the claim is that 34 thousands of milliards of watts were needed in order to reproduce the Holy Shroud (= the work by Di Lazzaro in a sort of popularized version)…
Nothing of new.
But there are not the AFM controls …
Try under the address:
No. Rogers was straining at gnats. In “Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin”, Walter McCrone devotes an entire book to his observation of iron oxide particles in sufficient quantities to account for the image on the Shroud without the need for any vapours, radiation or even cellulose decomposition. He also observes vermillion particles and the remains of the collogen binder. Rogers, and STuRP generally, utterly denied that any of these observations were accurate. However, in a single sentence, McCrone mentions various minor impurities he also found: “silk, wool, linen and cotton fibres of various colours, wax spatters, bird feather fibres, rodent hairs, mica, limestone (calcite), quartz, aragonite, starch grains (corn and wheat), pollen (average less than 2-3 pollen grains per tape), mold sores, trichomes (leaf hairs), flyash (oil soot, power plant, incinerator, trash burning), Jeweler’s rouge, paper fibres, pigments (madder, orpiment, yellow ochre, azurite), paint fragments (titanium white, ultramarine, yellow ochre), plant and insect parts, charred linen fibres, etc.” From this list, Roger’s seized upon two words as substantiation of his idea that the entire shroud was coated in a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities.
In “A Chemical Investigation into the Shroud of Turin”, Heller and Adler list the tests they carried out on a wide range of fibres in order to determine any extraneous material. They report their tests in three groups: ‘proteins and heme derivatives’, ‘metallic species’, and ‘organic species and functional groups’. This last included tests for phenols, riboflavin, steroids, indoles, lignin (allyls), starch, porphyrins, pyroles, creatinine, uric acid, urea derivatives, primary amines, nitro derivatives, aldehydes, cellulosic carboxyl and Saponaria extrract. “With the exception of positive aldehyde and cellulosic carboxyl tests, all other species tested for tested negatively.” Rogers conveniently decided to ignore these negative results, particularly those for starch, Saponaria or urea derivatives, although he devotes an entire paragraph in “A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin” to the negative lignin test, which he accepts.
However, I was wrong in my remembering diimide as a protein rather than a carbohydrate removing agent. The point I wanted to make was that Heller and Adler noted that the darker the image, the more corroded the fibril carrying it appeared. They classified their samples into various groups, of which the following descriptions are relevant:
– Pale yellow fibrils (non-image areas) – Surfaces appear slightly corroded under phase contrast.
– Yellow fibrils (body image (non-blood) areas – Surfaces appear corroded under phase contrast.
– Dark fibrils (Scorch areas) – Surfaces appear very corroded under phase contrast.
In addition to this they report that after removing any protein from the blood areas with a proteolytic enzyme, the fibrils beneath looked like non-image fibrils. None of this concurs with Rogers’s view that the entire image resides on a thin layer of impurities, beneath which the Shroud material itself is unaffected.
“I think it’s you who selects just what comforts your point of view!” In this respect I don’t have a particular point of view. All I want to do here is to point out the inconsistencies between various scientist’s observations. Maybe Rogers is right and Adler is wrong, or maybe it’s the other way round. Maybe McCrone was right all along. However, hagiographic acceptance of any one of them above the others is not currently justified.
in a single sentence, McCrone mentions various minor impurities he also found: “silk, wool, linen and cotton fibres of various colours, wax spatters, bird feather fibres, rodent hairs, mica, limestone (calcite), quartz, aragonite, starch grains (corn and wheat), pollen (average less than 2-3 pollen grains per tape), mold sores, trichomes (leaf hairs), flyash (oil soot, power plant, incinerator, trash burning), Jeweler’s rouge, paper fibres, pigments (madder, orpiment, yellow ochre, azurite), paint fragments (titanium white, ultramarine, yellow ochre), plant and insect parts, charred linen fibres, etc.”
Hi Hugh, it might be in a single sentence but the list is very impressive indeed. It demonstrates that Mc Crone’s tests were very extensive and that this man was , and still is, unfairly treated by some authenticists .
Hear, hear. Exactly what one of the people who knew McCrone well wrote to me after my HT article came out. Although he was often his own worst enemy , people who knew his work were outraged by the cavalier way in which he was treated.
I should ignore McCrone’s results entirely. He was a loose cannon in the entire STURP investigation, and none of the other 30 or so scientists could comprehend how he could possibly come to the assertions he made. He seems to have proved a poor witness under interrogation, relying entirely on his own interpretation of observations with little more than an optical microscope.
Check out the following: “THE SHROUD FABRIC AND THE BODY IMAGE: CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS” by ALAN D. ADLER:
An extremely thorough and comprehensive paper covering a wide breadth of the various properties.
In particular, concerning the chromophore:
“A series of 22 microchemical spot tests for 16 different organic structures or functional groups postulated as possible stains or dyes that could account for the body images were also carried out, again by comparison with appropriate controls. The only positive results were seen for the presence of aldehydes and cellulosic carboxyl functional groups. These results argue against the body images being the result of painting with some type of applied stain or dye, but suggest instead that the image was produced by some type of chemical process yielding a dehydrative oxidation of the cellulosic structure of the linen itself. Note this is consistent with the corroded surface appearance as seen in phase contrast and the brittleness of the body image fibers as observed in the microscope studies. Thus the chromophore accounting for the body image fiber color would be a mixture of conjugated carbonyl structures generated within the cellulose polymer itself.9, 24 It should be noted that this type of chemistry accounts for the natural yellowing of linen as it ages. Therefore the body image chemistry can be thought of as some type of selective differential accelerated aging process. No one as yet has experimentally demonstrated a chemical mechanism that would yield this type of chromophore and at the same time be consistent with the observed physical properties of the image.33”
Thus he dismisses the coating hypothesis of Rogers, and attributes the image thus “… body image fiber color would be a mixture of conjugated carbonyl structures generated within the cellulose polymer itself”
Yes. Quite. I was pointing out that Rogers’s findings are in conflict with those above. Sadly, however, Adler was not in a position to dismiss Rogers’s coating hypothesis directly, as he died before it was formulated. A discussion between the two of them would have been fascinating.
Message for Hugh:
Concerning your comment that starch deposits, if they were ever there on the cloth, should have been greatly affected by the water spillages following the 1352 fire, I want to give you a relevant quote we can find in Rogers’ book, which contradict your assumption: “…not all of the polysaccharides on the Raes fibers were removed by concentrated HCl. Higher-molecular-weight starch fractions are MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO HYDROLYZE than are polypentose-containing plant gums. Some starch could be detected on HCl-cleaned Raes fibers with an aqueous iodine reagent.”
And here’s another quote from Rogers’ book concerning the detection of starch fraction he made on his Shroud samples: “Walter (McCrone) also stated that he had found wheat starch on the Shroud. We confirmed this by microchemical testing with aqueous iodine, supporting an hypothesis that the cloth had been made by ancient methods.”
By the way, I have read the part of Heller and Adler’s paper in which they stated that they couldn’t find starch residues on their samples. However, in the same section, the authors made a prudent comment, telling their readers that this doesn’t mean starch residues and others residues were not present originally on the Shroud. This could simply mean that these residues have “been “lost” over time through oxidation, degradation, etc.” Taking this into account, I think it’s fair to say that even if McCrone and Rogers’ positive results for the detection of starch residues on the Shroud (independent results) would have been in fact false positive results for some reasons (I don’t believe this, but let’s assume it’s right), we would still have no right to state categorically that starch have not been used to manufacture the Shroud, that starch fractions have never been present on the top-surface of the cloth and/or that these starch fractions have never been part of the material that have been colored by the image formation process.
Last thing: Some years ago, I wrote a paper entitled “My thoughts on a recently published paper by Raymond N. Rogers” (it can be found on shroudnm.com library) concerning the first paper Rogers wrote once he got back to Shroud research at the beginning of the 21st Century. That paper is entitled “An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color” and was written in 2001, prior the writing of his book and prior to the publishing of his paper entitled “THE SHROUD OF TURIN: AN AMINO-CARBONYL REACTION (MAILLARD REACTION) MAY EXPLAIN THE IMAGE FORMATION”, which he wrote with Arnoldi.
There’s a couple of things I wrote in my paper that truly deserves to be read by Hugh because it could show him how Rogers built his image formation hypothesis while respecting the proper scientific method (unlike what he thinks).
Here’s what I wrote in page 1 of my paper: “On the contrary to many Shroud researchers who have proposed in recent years their image formation “theories” (mostly supernatural hypotheses related to the Resurrection of Jesus that involve some form of energetic radiation), this “new” paper of Rogers clearly shows that this great scientist had no preconceived ideas about what would have been the main reactive agent (his words: “catalytic compound”) that initiated the formation of the image on the cloth. Effectively, this paper clearly shows that, when he wrote it in 2001, Rogers had not found out yet the Maillard reaction hypothesis (including the idea that some post-mortem gases were the main catalytic compounds) he would propose later on and he was, for the moment, favoring the presence of skin perspiration (sweat) and/or skin secretions, including skin oils (which are biological substances that were tested by Samuel Pellicori of STURP), as the most probable catalytic compounds which could have initiated, with the help of heat released by the dead body, a caramelization process of a portion of the top-most fibers on the top surface of the cloth. This shows how science should work (i.e. always keep following all the pertinent data and observations in order to develop a rational hypothesis and adjust it along the way as necessary) and also how science should not work (i.e. never start with a preconceived notion of what must have been the cause of a phenomenon, in this case, the formation of the body image on the Shroud), in order to avoid the strong temptation of considering only the data and observations that can possibly “fit” with your preconceived idea, while leaving aside all the other data and observations that can be truly problematic to your hypothesis.”
And here’s another relevant quote from my paper, which can be found at the bottom of page 1: “After the reading of Rogers’ “new” paper, it’s quite evident that the impurity hypothesis he proposed for the question of the image chromophore was the corner stone and also the starting point of his whole hypothesis for image formation and that was still the case when he proposed his Maillard reaction later on, which proves the solidity of this particular hypothesis (at least, in Rogers’ mind). For him, the presence of a thin and uneven layer of carbohydrate impurities on the top surface of the cloth was the most probable explanation for two of the most “mysterious” characteristics of the image, i.e. the discontinuous distribution of the yellowed fibers in the image area and the very superficial aspect of the image, which affected only the top-most fibers on the surface of the cloth”
I hope these quotes will help Hugh to understand that Rogers did not come up with the idea of Maillard reactions for the image formation and then tried to build a hypothesis concerning the image chromophore that would fit with such a mild chemical process. This 2001 paper of Rogers PROVES that he did the contrary in fact, which is totally consistent with a real professional scientist who followed the scientific method properly. This include the fact that, obviously, Rogers was 100% convinced that starch fractions were really present on his Shroud samples, since this particular discovery was the starting point of his whole image formation hypothesis (which, at the beginning, didn’t involved Maillard reactions but a caramelization process coming from skin perspiration (sweat) and/or skin secretions)!
Here’s a message to all the Rogers detractors: If you don’t like Rogers’ hypotheses and conclusions (which are still waiting to be confirmed), you have the right to do so and to prefer other hypotheses and conclusions, but that doesn’t change a thing versus the fact that he followed the scientific method properly, which is not what I can see of some other Shroud researchers who, in recent years, have came up with supernatural hypotheses for image formation and then (only afterward) have come up with a hypothesis for the chromophore that would fit with the mechanism they already proposed! This is not what science should look like and, when it comes to those researchers, truly they deserve some hard critics. That’s not the case for Rogers. But having said that, it’s important to add this: that doesn’t mean that all his conclusions and hypotheses concerning the Shroud are 100% correct. That simply means that his inquiry about the Shroud was done properly (scientifically speaking) with honesty, which truly deserves some consideration if you (like me) really seek the truth concerning the Shroud. And one thing I’m sure of: in the present state of our knowledge about the Shroud, that would be a huge error to completely discard these hypotheses and conclusions. Much more researches (including lab experiments) need to be done before anyone got the right to do so!
Note: Following the scientific method properly doesn’t mean you will automatically come up with a conclusion that will be 100% accurate, but by following it properly, you will have much more chance to do so than if you don’t!
I remember all your papers well, Yannick. They are a little repetitive and rather over-adulatory in tone, but in general I agree with them. It’s not that Rogers was wrong, and I agree that it “would be a huge error to completely discard these hypotheses and conclusions.” However, there is also no doubt that his papers do not “mean that all his conclusions and hypotheses concerning the Shroud are 100% correct.” They are in conflict with other observations from other scientists with equally good credentials, particularly concerning his starch layer, which is wholly unconfirmed and in direct contradiction of the observations of Heller and Adler. Paolo di Lazzaro’s laser discolouration of linen fibres exactly replicates the colour and depth of penetration observed on the Shroud, and that is all he claims, not that his way is the only possible way, or that there is any known way in which an exploding body can produce such radiation. Similarly, Rogers has no qualitative explanation of how a recently dead body can produce any of the vapours he thinks responsible for the discolouration of his starch layer.
You praise Roger’s for gradually developing his ideas regarding image formation, and condemn others for starting with pre-conceived ideas, but I think this is unjustified and unfair, and part of the cult of Rogers-worship that typifies most of your posts. I do not know of any scientists who have done any less. Just because you disagree with them does not mean that their methods were any less scientific than Rogers.
Fanti came out with his corona discharge years before he found out that this kind of discharge could NOT color only a thin layer of impurities, but was always coloring at least the primary cell wall of the fibers. What he did when he found that out (probably thanks to Rogers experiment with corona discharge)? He came out and tried hard to make believe the color on the Shroud was precisely located there (in the primary cell wall instead of just Inside the impurity layer)!!! Di Lazzaro followed closely afterward with pretty much the same idea. That’s not how science is suppose to operates.
I’m not certain you understand how Rogers really built his hypothesis… The impurities are the corner stone of it and if he wasn’t 100% sure that there was such a coating on-top of the Shroud, he would have propose a very different hypothesis! The fact that he never change his mind versus the impurity coating is very telling.
Again, I’ll say this: that kind of hypothesis for the image chromophore is the only one to date that can explain rationally two of the most bizarre feature of the Shroud image, i.e. the discontinuous distribution of the yellowed fibers in the image area and the very superficial aspect of the image, which affected only the top-most fibers on the surface of the cloth. That should tell you something, especially when it comes to the ultra-superficiality… ALL the Shroud fibers got a primary cell wall and not just those located on the top-surface of the cloth. This fact is very hard to match with the extreme superficiality, especially in zones of direct-contacts.
Last thing: you said that Di Lazzaro matches the color and depth of penetration. Maybe. But this is certainly not the only characteristics of the Shroud image he had to match, which I don’t think he succeeded, like the one Rogers described concerning the fact that there are no more structural defects on image fibers than on non-image fibers… It’s impossible to color the primary cell wall of a fiber with a laser without leaving evident defects that a specialist like Rogers would have certainly noticed. He did not. Also, as I said earlier, I have great doubt Di Lazzaro could produce the same depth of color penetration with his laser if he would locate it in direct-contact with the linen sample (we don’t know the distance his laser was from the target when he achieve his “good” coloration, but it certainly wasn’t located in direct-contact with the sample).
That first paragraph is an unwarranted attack on Fanti’s professionalism and integrity. Please avoid this type of criticism.
“He came out and tried hard to make believe the color on the Shroud was precisely located there (in the primary cell wall instead of just Inside the impurity layer)!!!” No, you see this is a misrepresentation of the development of Fanti’s ideas. He does not consider the impurity layer as relevant, and why should he when there is so little evidence for it, but was attempting to account for the corroded discolouration observed on the surface of the fibres by Heller and Adler, but which is ignored by Rogers. In particular, it was his observation (which may have been mistaken) of evidence of discolouration on both sides of the Shroud that led him to explore the development of an idea first proposed in 1984. You have also clearly not read di Lazzaro’s explanation of how he came to explore his UV laser ideas.
And you are being over selective about your criticism. Of course there are lots of things wrong with di Lazzaro’s hypotheses; neither I nor he deny that; but there are also lots of things wrong with Rogers’s ideas as well, and they are very similar, namely that Rogers has nothing to say about how an appropriate amount of ammonia can be emitted from a recently dead body, just as di Lazzaro (or Fanti) does not explain how an appropriate amount of radiation can be emitted.
In short, a number of possible image formation hypotheses have been suggested by a number of researchers, and none of them are sufficiently comprehensive or sufficiently well demonstrated to be considered definitive. As such, it would be unwise to reject any of them, or at least their priniciples, although no doubt different commenters will have their personal preferences.
No, Yannick. Please don’t say anything else.
As far as I can find Giulio Fanti’s first involvement with corona discharge was published at the Ohio Shroud Conference of 2005, although he built on the ideas of several predecessors dating back to a ball lightning hypothesis in 1984. In “Body Image Formation Hypotheses Based on Corona Discharge” he specifically addresses Rogers’s observations of fibres irradiated with various things as illustrated in “The Shroud of Turin: Radiation Effects, Aging and Image Formation”, and shows that mild coronal discharge does not cause the defects that Rogers thought it must.
It is interesting that although Fanti profoundly disagreed with Rogers on almost everything, he explained his reasons for disagreement courteously and in detail, and concluded: “Many thanks to the late Raymond Rogers who by means of hundreds of e-mails exchanged with G. Fanti made it possible to study and compare in depth the CD effects on linen fibers with those of the TS and who was so kind as to give to G. Fanti a piece of sticky-tape classified as STURP-1EB that was very useful in understanding some of the very particular characteristics of the TS image fibers by direct detection.” This courtesy and co-operation in the presence of deep disagreement is the hallmark of true science. Non-scientists who see only the disagreement might take note.
1. One last piece of evidence : In 2005, the SSG published the famous list of data coming from the Shroud (www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf). This list of evidences included the presence of starch impurities in it and Fanti was among those who signed this document! At that time, he was already pushing in favor of his Corona discharge hypothesis and had no idea that such a discharge could not produce a color that would be restricted to this kind of thin layer of impurities. In 2008, the book of Rogers was published in which he describe an experiment he made with Corona discharge and show that the color was located inside the primary cell wall of the linen fiber (he didn’t used the term « primary cell wall », but that what he meant anyway), while clearly stating that this was NOT the same kind of chromophore as what he saw on his Shroud sample (reading that part of Rogers book, it’s obvious that, for him, this kind of result was very different). Less than 2 years after the publication of Rogers, here comes Fanti with his idea of a color located solely inside the primary cell wall!!! What a coincidence my friends! If Rogers would have been there, you can bet he would have crushed this idea of Fanti to the ground! And then, after he published his idea in a paper that came out in 2010, he changed the list published in 2005 and present a new list of evidence at the Shroud conference of Frascati in which we don’t find the presence of starch impurities no more and it was replaced by the primary cell wall as the chromophore of the image! It was about the time Di Lazzaro became involved in Shroud research in partnership with Fanti at the time (he was among those who signed the 2010 paper in which they pushed the primary cell wall hypothesis that was discard by Rogers himself in his book). Those are facts. Do whatever you want with them!
Would it not be a mystery of chemistry of how the image was formed by some kind of body emissions combining with an elusive starch or saccharide layer, which seems to be no longer evident, except for the manifest image, of which Adler says: ” … is consistent with the corroded surface appearance as seen in phase contrast and the brittleness of the body image fibers as observed in the microscope studies. Thus the chromophore accounting for the body image fiber color would be a mixture of conjugated carbonyl structures generated within the cellulose polymer itself.”
And elsewhere: “A series of 22 microchemical spot tests for 16 different organic structures or functional groups postulated as possible stains or dyes that could account for the body images were also carried out, again by comparison with appropriate controls. The only positive results were seen for the presence of aldehydes and cellulosic carboxyl functional groups.” No mention of the presence of starch or saccharides there!
Rogers was much more an expert on those questions. Adler was an expert in blood chemistry… I prefer by far to trust Rogers on this question of the chromophore.
Here’s again a very relevant quote from Rogers: “The color formed by dehydration (caramelization) of any type of carbohydrate impurity (e.g., starch and/or sugars) would be the result of the same kinds of conjugated structures as produced by cellulose, and the color would appear on the surface of the fibrils only. All of the analytical tests described by Heller and Adler would apply to these impurity colors. All colored fibrils should color to approximately the same degree, depending on the amount/thickness of the impurity layer, explaining the “half-tone” effect STRUP reported.”
The most important thing to remember is the fact that the impurities are the corner stone of Rogers’ hypothesis about image formation and he first thought that the color reaction was due to skin secretion and/or perspiration coming in contact with these impurities. It’s only afterward that he changed his mind about the most probable “catalytic compound”, which were post-mortem gases (heavy amines along with ammonia). But all the time, up until his death, he never changed his mind about the chromophore (i.e. the impurities and only that). This speak to me very loud. If Rogers wouldn’t have been 100% convinced that this was the chromophore, I think he would have come up with a hypothesis very different.
Another fact that speaks loud to me is the very good color result Rogers obtained during a test he made with a linen sample that was made the old-fashion way (i.e. on which a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities was present), which he submitted to ammonia vapor for 10 minutes. For Rogers, the result he got was very close to the color he saw on the Shroud samples he took in image areas. The thickness was pretty much the same. The color was pretty much the same. The appearance of the color layer over the fibers was pretty much the same. The ultra-superficiality was pretty much the same (i.e. color restricted to the topmost fibers, etc., etc.
We must be sure of one thing: if the result would have showed a color with a very different aspect than what Rogers saw on his Shroud samples, he would most probably have made some important corrections to his hypothesis. He did not. This speaks loud to me.
One last thing that speaks loud to me is the fact that the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the impurities is the most able to rationally explain (and in a very simple way!) two of the most strange features of the Shroud image, i.e. the discontinuous distribution of the yellowed fibers in the image area and the very superficial aspect of the image, which affected only the top-most fibers on the surface of the cloth.
I know this sound like I repeat myself over and over, but I just wanted to summarize what I consider very good arguments in favor of Rogers’ hypothesis… That’s all I had to say (for today at least).
“Rogers was much more an expert on those questions.” Rogers spent 37 years studying explosives, and most of his published papers are on the kinetics of explosives and pyrolysis. His scientific credentials are impeccable, but to claim that they were any more impeccable than those of a biochemist like Adler is highly subjective. It may be true that he based all his hypotheses about image formation on his carbohydrate layer, which he claimed would have reacted just as well as the cellulose of the linen itself, and could therefore be missed, but he ignored the descriptions of the ‘corroded’ fibres, which is in direct contradiction of the impurity layer hypothesis. Although the impurity layer formed the bedrock for his hypotheses, his actual evidence for its existence is vanishingly small and highly disputed. In claiming: “We expected to find starch on the Shroud, so we did not specifically look for it. That was
an unfortunate oversight” Rogers is simply wrong. Starch was specifically looked for, and was not found.
There is no doubt that Rogers was a competent, thorough and much respected scientist, and in many ways I applaud Yannick’s unswerving devotion to him; but objectively, his observations and his conclusions must be judged in the context of the findings of the other STuRP scientists, who neither observed nor concluded the same.
Yesterday, I read again the part of Heller and Adler’s paper in which they talks about the tests they performed for organic species and functional groups (including for starch). I also read parts of Thibault Heimburger’s paper “ROGERS’ MAILLARD REACTION HYPOTHESIS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL BY ROGERS HIMSELF”.
In pages 94 and 95 of Heller and Adler’s paper, we can read this: “These tests were performed on the uncoated (with blood) fibrils: body image, non-image and scorch fibrils. With the exception of positive aldehyde and cellulosic carboxyl tests, all other species tested for tested negatively. Thus we see no evidence for stains or dyes ON THE BODY IMAGE FIBRILS at levels that would be evident to the eye.”
Then, in page 15 of Heimburger’s paper, we can read these lines from Rogers himself:
“Figure 3 of the attachment shows how the different pyrolysis products appear as the sample is heated, with the total ion current being the lower graph. There was RELATIVELY LITTLE POLYSACCHARIDE OF LOWER STABILITY LEFT ON THAT IMAGE FIBER. I have assumed that this showed DEPLETION OF REDUCING SACCHARIDES AS A RESULT OF IMAGE FORMATION.”
“Crude starch is composed of a very large number of different chain lengths, and they all have different properties. Remember that the image was not soluble in the water that percolated through parts of it in 1532. Many of the components of crude starch are soluble in water; therefore, I assume that image areas ARE NO LONGER POLYSACCHARIDES.”
Even if Heller and Adler described their tests as having been performed on both image and non-image fibers, as well as on scorch fibers, the sentence that immediately follow in which they talked about body image fibrils only seemed strange to me and lead me to think of one real possibility, which is that, for at least some of the organic species and functional groups they tested (maybe including starch), they only tested image fibers, which could explain why the test they did for starch came up with a negative result. To understand my thinking, I suggest that you read again the 2 quotes from Rogers I just give you in which he said that the image formation process could have changed the chemical composition of reducing saccharides (which could includes starch) that could have taken part in the image formation… Note that, after all, these specific tests done by Heller and Adler concerning organic species and functional groups had one major goal: to see if one or more of these substances could have been responsible for the image (all this with the idea in mind that this image could be the work of a forger).
I’m not an expert at all and I don’t know if Heller and Adler did run all their tests on both image and non-image fibers. I just gives you one possible explanation for why they did not find any traces of starch during their tests, while McCrone and Rogers did get positive results… It seems evident to me, especially after reading the 2 quotes from Rogers, that he surely did performed his own test for starch on a non-image fiber, which is maybe the contrary of what Heller and Adler did at the beginning of the 80s. Again, we must understand that their main goal with these tests was to check out the artistic forgery scenario concerning the body image and if it’s true that, for starch, they only tested an image fiber, this could explain quite well why their test came up with a negative result (i.e. because, as Rogers said, the image formation process could well have changed the composition of the starch fractions that would have been involved in the image formation process).
What do you think of such a possibility? If Heller or Adler would still be with us today, we would get the truth about that… But read again the quote from their paper that I gave you at the beginning of my comment. Note how they seem to focus only on the body image fibers… Is it possible that the reason why they didn’t found any traces of starch is simply because they didn’t used a non-image fiber when they were checking out this specific substance? I simply ask the question… Personally, I think this is a true possibility that would explain many things. I other words, is it possible that the negative result obtained by Heller and Adler for starch was in fact a “false negative” result due to the fact that they would only have used an image fiber for this specific test and that the starch that would have been there originally would have been modified chemically during the image formation process, thus leading to a negative result? I simply ask the question… I don’t think this is a dumb question!
One thing’s for sure: The great confidence showed by a great chemist like Rogers concerning the presence of carbohydrate impurities (including starch) on the top-surface of the cloth (remember that it became the corner stone of his image formation hypothesis and remained that way up until his death) makes me think that he was right. Effectively, I just don’t see a Professional like him building an important hypothesis like that on something that he would have had some doubts about its reality… And if Heller and Adler only used an image fiber to see if there was starch on the Shroud, it’s not surprising at all if the result was negative. But because we don’t know this for sure and there’s still conflicting evidences about this issue, I’m afraid the question concerning the presence of starch on the Shroud’s surface will have to be settled (like many other issues regarding the Shroud) by a new series of direct tests that would be performed on the cloth… Unfortunately, I don’t expect to see this in a near future.
“The great confidence showed by a great chemist like Rogers concerning the presence of carbohydrate impurities (including starch) on the top-surface of the cloth (remember that it became the corner stone of his image formation hypothesis and remained that way up until his death) makes me think that he was right.”.
This is getting tedious, Yannick. Kindly give it a rest. Rogers was a middle-ranking scientist, same as the rest of us. There is nothing in the literature that warrants his description as “great”. If there is, then this blogger/retired biochemist is great as well. Care for my autograph?
Your lengthy Rogers adoring comments are counterproductive. Rogers was not a great chemist but a good one. So when we read you making unsubstaniated claims of greatness we tend to dismiss everything else you say. Shroud science for you seems to revolve around your unfounded opinions about certain scientists and not their science. Actually, as Berry suggests, Rogers was probably very wrong about many things. Quoting Rogers ad nauseum does not make him right but only flags up his mistakes. Give it a rest.
At some point, we must have a “Hats off to Ray Rogers day” in appreciation of his hitting a range of interesting buttons. But now is not the time.
“I’m not an expert at all and I don’t know if Heller and Adler did run all their tests on both image and non-image fibers.” If you had read their paper a little more carefully, you would know that they did. They found no starch on either image or non-image fibres. McCrone did not find a coating of starch on either image or non-image fibres. He found some starch grains among the miscellaneous debris on the tapes; that’s not the same thing at all. It is not clear to me that Rogers tested for starch on anything but his Raes sample fibres. His statement: “Microchemical tests with iodine indicated the presence of some starch fractions on the cloth” (from Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin) is, in typical Rogers fashion, vague and imprecise. It is not clear who carried out these tests or what he carried them out on.
It’s important to note that Adler and Heller were honest enough to clearly state in their paper that, even if they got a negative result for various substances, this do not represent a definitive result to state that none of them were not present originally on the cloth and this includes starch and saponaria… And the fact that Rogers, later on, was able to detect starch fractions (but no traces of saponaria) seems to indicate that, at least for starch, this substance was effectively present on the top-surface of the cloth at the time of the image formation.
Comments are closed.