-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
But where are the records for it in Besançon if it was there? The city’s Cathedral of Saint Etienne was struck by lightning in 1349 and burned to the ground along with countless records in its archives. That may explain why there are no records before the 1350s. That is not proof, of course. It … Continue reading
The list that Molly’s teacher distributed to the class might have also contained a reference to a certain mummy at the Georges Labit Museum in Toulouse, France. Carbon dating had been used to show that it was from about 1800 B.C. The tests had laid waste to the opinion of some Egyptologists that it was … Continue reading
There is historical evidence that the shroud is much older than the dates arrived at by carbon dating. We’ll see that this is so. We’ll also see scientific evidence that says the same thing. So, do we have an anomaly? If so, do we now have an explanation. The fact that three laboratories did the … Continue reading
Rogers had a long and distinguished scientific career as a chemist. He had been honored as a Fellow of the prestigious Los Alamos lab, part of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), once the home of the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb. In his home state of New Mexico, Rogers … Continue reading
In 1978, Rogers had been selected as one of many scientists asked to go to Turin and study the shroud up and close. From his work on the shroud, Rogers’ only substantive conclusion was that the shroud images were not painted. He did not then offer an opinion on its authenticity. Following the carbon dating, … Continue reading
Though Rogers had stopped doing research on the shroud, he had maintained a passing interest, in part because no one had figured out how the images had been made. He was quite sure that they were not somehow miraculously formed. He was annoyed by claims from those who thought they could explain away the carbon … Continue reading
As it turned out, Benford and Marino seemed to be onto something. In 2002, after considerable research, Rogers, along with Anna Arnoldi, a chemistry professor at the University of Milan, wrote a paper that strongly suggested that Benford and Marino were right. More work needed to be done, however, and Rogers continued to study the … Continue reading
In a letter to the editors of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, in response to criticisms leveled at him by Joe Nickell, one of the magazine’s non-scientist columnists who had raised questions about Rogers’ scientific competence, Rogers wrote: I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the “invisible reweave” claim was highly improbable. I used my … Continue reading
With the 1988 carbon dating in shambles, the last convincing scientific argument that the shroud was a fake had gone up in smoke. This didn’t mean that the shroud was real. That is yet to be determined. But with the collapse of the last bit of what was thought to be a scientifically sustainable argument, … Continue reading
That described me. I have no significant credentials. I am a jack of all trades. I had once shared Nickell’s skepticism about the shroud, mostly for the same reasons he gives. But, over time, I have changed my mind. Well, mostly. I now think the shroud may be real. Nonetheless, I agree with Nickell that … Continue reading
Shroud of Turin Story 