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