Another Reaction to Ray Rogers’ Paper on Radiation

“… [Rogers’ conclusion is predetermined by his anti-supernatural presupposition.”

clip_image001Robert A. Rucker, who presented MCNP Analysis of Neutrons Released from Jesus’ Body in the Resurrection has responded by email to yesterday’s posting, A Reason to Doubt the Image Was Formed By Radiation:

I happened to go to your website today (7-16-15) where you asked a question about whether Ray Rogers 2005 paper "The Shroud of Turin: Radiation Effects, Aging and Image Formation" was ever refuted or disputed.  I have read the paper several times and do not regard his conclusion as being justified by the evidence that he included in the paper, rather his conclusion is predetermined by his anti-supernatural presupposition.  If you assume that everything must operate according to the "laws of physics" as we currently understand them, then of course radiation could not have been emitted by the dead body wrapped in the Shroud, and no investigation with the microscope is even needed.  After reading his paper the first time, I thought his investigation and logic were so poor that I just ignored it.  But I find that many people are still referring to this paper to prove that radiation can not have been involved in the production of the image on the Shroud, whereas I believe that radiation emitted from the body and absorbed on the Shroud is the key to understanding how the image was formed.  As a result, I have written a four page critical review of his paper titled "Review of ‘The Shroud of Turin: Radiation Effects, Aging, and Image Formation’ by Ray Rogers" to which I am going to ask others to add their reviews of Rogers’ paper as well.  I have also recently completed a first draft of a ten page paper titled "Information Content on the Shroud of Turin" which I believe proves that only radiation is capable of carrying the information content from the body to the cloth that is necessary to define the appearance of a crucified man in the pattern of discolored fibers on the top of the threads in the Shroud of Turin.  Something must have caused this information content to go from the body to the cloth and if it was not radiation, then what was it?  This paper is now in review.      Keep up the good work,  Bob Rucker 

Do I need to say it?  I am not persuaded by any of the arguments for radiation. But then, I’m not a scientist; what do I know?  But I’m not persuaded by any of the so-called natural explanations. But then again, I’m not a scientist; what do I know? And I am not persuaded by any of the arts-and-crafts-of-fake shroud explanations, either. But then again, again, I’m not a scientist; what do I know?

Here are some links pertaining to Bob’s St. Louis presentation:

Abstract for the Following

MCNP Analysis of Neutrons Released from Jesus’ Body in the Resurrection (54 Slides)

Notes for the 54 Slides

Video of the Presentation in St. Louis (1 Hour)

9 thoughts on “Another Reaction to Ray Rogers’ Paper on Radiation”

  1. Spot the scientist.

    1) “A wise scientist never writes his/her results are the “definitive proof” or “provide conclusive evidence” of something.”

    2) “… which I believe proves that only radiation is capable of carrying the information content from the body to the cloth … “

  2. Those of us in St. Louis for the Shroud conference last October remember the standing ovation Robert A. Rucker received after presenting his paper. He was immediately rushed by many in the room in order to obtain a copy of it. I would encourage those of this blog to read it.

    1. The problem is that the science in this presentation is well beyond layman level. Before I get too excited I’d like to see some summarized peer review by objective physicists. Colour me intrigued until then.

      1. There is always a problem in communicating a technical subject to laymen, but I spent much time on this presentation to put the cookies on the bottom shelf if at all possible. The response of the people at the conference indicates that I succeeded in this effort, at least for the most part. Several laymen came up to me after the presentation and indicated that they were surprised, even amazed, that they understood the presentation. One couple told me this several times as I encountered them during the remainder of the conference. Admittedly, my presentation will not be understood by those only willing to put in a few minutes on it, but an hour or two of time should be sufficient.

        On the topic of an independent review, this is something that I very much want to obtain because it is standard operating procedure in the nuclear industry. But consider the problems in finding an appropriate peer reviewer in this situation. He or she would need to have preferably 10 to 15 years of experience in running the MCNP nuclear analysis computer code in order to check my computer calculations, and to not have worked with me on anything that I have already done in order to be an independent reviewer, and have about 50 to 100 hours of preferably full time available for the review, and have a sufficiently strong interest in the Shroud of Turin that would motivate him to be willing to work this 50 to 100 hours without charge, since I have no funding for this project.

        The plan for my path forward is to update my MCNP computer calculations to confirm certain technical issues with how I am running the calculations and to update my results to take into account my new understanding of the Tucson lab’s subsampling procedure. I will then write a WORD document on my results. These new calculations and the corresponding WORD document can then be used for an independent review. I will probably have to seek an appropriate peer reviewer from among my friends in the nuclear criticality safety industry that have retired. I will then have the task of persuading them to do the work for free. I hope this gives you a better understanding of the situation. Bob Rucker

  3. Hugh is correct, and I would go further:
    Robert A. Rucker has the best of intentions, however one is obliged to disagee with him when he says that “something must have caused this information content to go from the body to the cloth, and if it was not radiation, what was it?”
    Assuming that the cloth did indeed wrap Jesus, one must ask: how do we know that it was radiation? Was the power that had gone out of Jesus to cure the woman with the haemorrhage in an instant radiation? Do we know what happened before t=0? What power did God use to create matter?
    One thing I learnt from my professor of Parapsychology was that a miracle would be a “power from beyond acting in our world.” We do not know what this power is.
    One can easily agree with Dr. Rucker when he says that “Rogers’ conclusion is predetermined by his anti-supernatural presupposition.” That was also what I detected and mentioned in the interview:
    Dennett is on the same track and reduces everything to algorithms in order to deny miracles, but he has no support from many scientists.

  4. And what about Di Lazzaro’s (and arch-miracilists’/arch paranormalists’) conclusion being predetermined by his (their) pro-supernatural presupposition? When it comes to the Sindon, if the latter is Yeshua’s inner burial winding sheet, researchers worth their salt should be open minded first and foremost to an halakhic approach before looking for any natural stricto sensu or supernatural image/imprint formation process.

    1. Max,
      What is your opinion about the true identity for Fulcanelli?
      Was Fulcanelli the engineer Paul Decoeur?


      In this case I would appreciate the knowledges
      in the field of Structural Mechanics
      (useful in the case of AFM three point bending test, see:, etc.)
      of that important dead Engineer…
      — —
      Here what I have found:
      >Pour moi, après tous mes recherches, l’ingénieur
      Paul Decoeur (1839 – 1923) c’est la véritable identité de Fulcanelli !


      I think that “AFM three point bending tests”,
      can be useful in the case of controls about
      treated (with radiation, heat, etc.) linen fibrils…

    2. Re the image formation process:

      Could anybody acount for most if not all alleged “Shroud researchers” discarding the exegetical fact that Yeshua’s body was wound, compressed and fastened in shrouds along with “aromaton” i.e. koine Greek for spices in terms not only of myrrh and aloe wood –used as frankincense or perfume– but also of fresh flower heads –used both symbolically and insect repulsive.

      Now most likely a flower crown or/and “halo” (with blooms plucked from the garden in which was the tomb) was placed on or/and around Yeshu’a head and maybe another “halo” of fresh flowers around hands.

      Reminder: more or less stylised crown daisy and rock rose heads are currently carved out on Second temple period ossuaries, sarcophagi and even memorial/monumental tomb facades. The sole ossuary that kept the bones of a crucifixion victim ever found in Jerusalem also held a bouquet of withered flowers.

      This is no coincidence no matter what Israeli anthropologist, Joe Zias can tell us against Israeli Botanist Avinoam Danin’s expertise of the TS image/imprint.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: