A Skeptical Response to Raymond N. Rogerson on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin

freeinquiry ^ | February 22, 2005 | Steven D. Schafersman

[Soliton]

Introduction: An Exercise in Pseudoscience Ray Rogers, a retired chemist who formerly worked at the Los Alamos national laboratory, recently published a pro-authenticity Shroud of Turin paper in a legitimate and peer-reviewed chemistry journal, Thermochimica Acta (hereafter TA). The Rogers paper makes two claims: First, the piece of the Shroud linen that was age-dated using radiocarbon technology in 1988 was actually a much-younger patch of cloth that allowed the radiocarbon labs to reach an incorrect medieval date. Second, using his own age-dating method, Rogers claims that the Shroud is actually much older than the early 14th century radiocarbon date. This paper has created a minor media frenzy, since it is the first pro-authenticity Shroud paper published in a legitimate scientific journal in about two decades. For this reason, and quite understandably, observers perceive that Rogers' paper must be exceptionally reliable. Unfortunately, these observers would be wrong. This response examines the scientific issues and elucidates the reasons why the Rogers paper fails in its claims in every instance.

[Swordmaker]

Since you are the epert on the shroud here, can you point me to some information on how Prof. Luigi Gonella came to be in posession of fibers from the c-14 samples, and particularly, the Raes sample?

Some quick research in my resources shows that Prof. Luigi Gonella is the science advisor to the Vatican for the Shroud of Turin, the owner of the Shroud. He is the custodian of materials removed from the Shroud that are in the possession of the Vatican. He is the primary source for such research materials outside of the STURP samples and provides them on request to qualified scientists.

Incidentally, Schafersman, Nickell, et al, have accused Raymond Rogers of doing tests in his home laboratory as though that were a ridiculous thing. Their basic premise is untrue. The chemical studies by Pyrolysis/Mass Spectometry were performed "at the Midwest Center for Mass Spectrometry (MCMS), University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This is a National Science Foundation "Center of Excellence," and it ranks among the foremost facilities in the world." It's testing equipment is so sensitive that the method was "sufficiently sensitive to detect traces of the low-molecular-weight fractions (oligomers) of the polyethylene bag that Prof. Luigi Gonella had used to wrap the Raes threads" for shipment to MCMS.

Here is the raw data printouts from the MCMS tests of both the Shroud and Raes materials showing that they are NOT THE SAME... and by extension and testing that the C14 test materials are a mixture of the Raes material and original Shroud material:

Concentration Map of Pyrolisis products of the main Shroud Sample

Concentration Map of Pyrolisis products of the Raes' Sample



(Sample above was taken from the back of the ankle image of the main body of the shroud.)

Note that a comparison of the tests show that the Raes sample is NOT the same chemical composition as the Shroud samples, in either test. That is conclusive. It's should be obvious even to a layman.

[Swordmaker]

I have three books on the way. I won’t be responding for a while.

Which three books? Please name them. I believe Grey has requested this information as well.

[Soliton]

I got Wilson’s The Shroud of Turin already. I ordered two more from other branch Libraries. One is McCrone’s first and I would have to look up to find the other.

[Soliton]

I have also been reading the published articles by principals and taking notes. There is a major problem with anyone having the Raes sample based on my early research, but I want to run it down first.

I’m going to see if I can go here on Friday:

The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY BLACKWELL HOTEL

August 14 through August 17, 2008 Open to the Public

[magisterium]

Naturwissenshaft

Just so you can correct it, Naturwissenschaft doesn't transtate to "supernatural." It translates to Natural Science. "Supernatural" in German is Ubernaturlich (with umlauts over each "u." You might also see this as Uebernatuerlich, to make up for the lack of umlauts (as is the case on my work computer here).

[Swordmaker]

Re: translation

Naturwissenshaft is proceeded by über in the name of the journal. I asked a friend who speaks fluent German to translate and he said it was “Viennese Journal of (the) Supernatural in Science and Art.”

Articles I found were along the lines of debunking reports of the legitamacy of investigators who had reported on the legitimacy “Cargo Cults” and artcles on Dragons. So I suspect my friend’s translation is right.

[grey_whiskers]

McCrone resigned from the STURP team in June of 1980. In McCrone’s words, he was “drummed out” of STURP. Heller, however, stated that McCrone resigned after being “insulted” by the STURP’s reviewers’ conclusion that the papers McCrone submitted to be vetted for publication contained data that were “misrepresented”, observations that were “highly questionable”, and conclusions that were “pontifications” rather than “scientific logic” (Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin, p. 184).

I found your exact text on Wikipedia.

In addition, Wikipedia shares part of its text with www.shroudstory.com ; and the interesting thing is that the very sentence on shroudstory.com BEFORE the text it shares with Wikipedia says (and this is a direct cut-and-paste):

Was Walter McCrone every part of STURP?
The answer is no!

The next sentence shows up in Wikipedia:

Walter McCrone has often claimed that he was a member of the team. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP for his conclusions.

The text then diverges from Wikipedia, and says:

In fact, Walter McCrone refused to accept STURP’s professional standards agreement.

BTW, the article you posted to start this thread reads,

Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s.

So, do you now wish to claim McCrone was a member of STURP?

Or, based on the article you posted, do you wish to disavow his membership?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Do you mean Ian Wilson?

That's the first hit I got at Amazon under the name Wilson for "The Shroud of Turin".

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I googled the conference, it seems to be mostly sympathetic to STURPers in good standing.

I'm "STURP"rised at you!

Full Disclosure: given the bulk of your postings so far on this thread, I think you'd find the presentations on Saturday, Aug. 16 the most interesting.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I googled the conference, it seems to be mostly sympathetic to STURPers in good standing.

I'm "STURP"rised at you!

Full Disclosure: given the bulk of your postings so far on this thread, I think you'd find the presentations on Saturday, Aug. 16 the most interesting.

Cheers!

[Soliton]

Refers to McCrone as Sturp

http://books.google.com/books?id=lzodpIzjf0QC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=mccrone+member+of+sturp&source=web&ots=lgqbcYP_cc&sig=wedYvuoqOHkFMgJ12ws7-L21eGk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

http://www.crossspot.net/shroudturin/mccrone.html

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-wiki13.htm

http://www.number80.co.uk/page86.htm

http://www.shroud.com/mrinobnf.pdf

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/turin.php

There are many more sources saying he is a member of the STURP team.

Remember, I am studying and documenting. I personally think that NOT being a member of STURP would be a badge of honor.

[Soliton]

Refers to McCrone as Sturp

http://books.google.com/books?id=lzodpIzjf0QC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=mccrone+member+of+sturp&source=web&ots=lgqbcYP_cc&sig=wedYvuoqOHkFMgJ12ws7-L21eGk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

http://www.crossspot.net/shroudturin/mccrone.html

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-wiki13.htm

http://www.number80.co.uk/page86.htm

http://www.shroud.com/mrinobnf.pdf

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/turin.php

There are many more sources saying he is a member of the STURP team.

Remember, I am studying and documenting. I personally think that NOT being a member of STURP would be a badge of honor.

[magisterium]

Well, he’s wrong. Wissenschaft means “science.” Natur means “nature.” Therefore, the word literally means “Nature Science,” or, as we’d be more likely to say in English: Natural Science. There’s nothing supernatural about that, and the word in German for supernatural is basically a transliteration of the English, providing no occasion for confusion. It’s not a big deal, anyway, of course, but since this particular journal was cited several times just in this thread, I figured you might like a better translation. In the meantime, I checked my Cassell’s unabridged, and Natural Science (as a discipline) is, in fact, Naturwissenschaft. Your call on whether you want to use it.

[grey_whiskers]

Repeating an error does not make the error true; what you need to look for are primary source materials.

One of the sites you link to, http://www.shroud.com/mrinobnf.pdf, comes out and says :

One skeptic, Dr. Walter McCrone, who had been a member of STURP at one time, claims that the Shroud is only a medieval painting, based on his analysis of sticky-tape samples of the Shroud (he did not directly examine the whole cloth and reported many of his findings in a journal that he publishes). He said in a recent article that none of the other members of STURP (despite the multi-disciplinary makeup of the group and the fact that they worked in the nuclear and space programs of the USA) "is trained to study a complex image like the Shroud"! (McCrone, 33)

This article was written in 1999, is in favor of the Shroud's authenticity, and discredits McCrone's own work: are you sure you want to lay claim to it?

Incidentally, you might note that some of the sites you quoted have other errors in their assertions, or contradict sources you have relied upon elsewhere.

Let's look at a couple of them.

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/turin.php says that the radiocarbon dating was double blind; but one of your posts on the other thread. quoting from a source you trust, says (boldface YOURS):

Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample.

So your own sources are directly contradicting each other on a very important procedural point.

But it gets worse: some of the sources you quoted appear to be contradicting both your central assertion about radiocarbon dating, and impugning McCrone's reputation:

Your book The Turin Shroud (which claims that Leonardo daVinci created the Shroud, which contradicts your reliance on the radiocarbon dating, as daVinci was born in 1452, whereas the article in Nature gives the 95% confidence limts as "The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence"), even admits that McCrone's claim to fame, the Vinland map study was wrong:

In 1987 physicists at the University of California examined the map using a well-tried technique for analyzing chemicals, particle-induced X-ray emission, and found that the ink contained only minute amounts of titanium--less than one-thousandth that claimed by McCrone--which one would expect to find in medieval ink.

And here's a reference which only says he particpated with STURP, not that he was a member:

http://www.crossspot.net/shroudturin/mccrone.html says (direct cut and paste):

McCrone's most famous analytical work began with his participation in the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).

"Participation with" is not "membership in".

And http://www.number80.co.uk/page86.htm merely quotes Schaeferman, who has been thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread.

Again, repeating your error over and over does not change its truth value.

But the best link is this, which word for word contradicts your own contention that McCrone belonged to STRUP:

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-wiki13.htm says (a direct quote):

STURP, upon learning of his findings, confiscated McCrone's samples and brought in other scientists to replace him. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP, and continued to defend the analysis he had performed, becoming a prominent proponent of the position that the Shroud is a forgery. As of 2004, no other scientists have confirmed McCrone's results with independent experiments. Other microscopic analysis of the fibers seems to indicate that the image is strictly limited to the carbohydrate layer, with no additional layer of pigment visible. Proponents of the position that the Shroud is authentic say that no known technique for hand-application of paint could apply a pigment with the necessary degree of control on such a nano-scale fibrillar surface plane. [This includes unnecessary polemics. McCrone was never part of STURP.]

You claimed that you are studying and documenting.

From the samples you gave, it looks like you are attempting to cherry-pick, and doing so rather poorly.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

From an article YOU posted:

Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s.

From a post of yours on this thread:

There are many more sources saying he is a member of the STURP team.

I personally think that NOT being a member of STURP would be a badge of honor.

So by implication, you are admitting that McCrone is dishonorable?

Contradicting yourself repeatedly, in spirit as well as in letter, will not prove any of your corollary assertions.

Cheers!

[Soliton]

I don’t care if McCrone was a STURP member or not nor do I care if the shroud is real or not. I just don’t like pseudoscience passed off as science. Whether McCrone was a “member” of STURP or just working for them is irrelevent as to the validity of his work or of the shroud.

I just getting started, but a pattern is emerging. STURP is constantly finding reputable scientists’ methods flawed. STURP attacks any findings that suggests that the shroud isn’t really the burial cloth of Christ. They get UPSET when it is even suggested scientifically and immediately try to discredit the methodology and the motives of the scientists involved prior to conducting any experiment. Without STURP, the Shroud story is a one of a straight forward fake. STURP creates fear uncertainty and doubt through very dubious, unreplicatable experiments under very loose controls. There is no science there.

I will write an essay with footnotes and sources in a week or two when I’m done. I am compiling sources now.

[Soliton]

So by implication, you are admitting that McCrone is dishonorable?

Why are you playing silly little gotcha games? I was asked to review the record and I am. I didn't kno McCrone existed until a few days ago. I am not emotionally invested in him, his reputation, nor his results.

[grey_whiskers]

I don’t care if McCrone was a STURP member or not nor do I care if the shroud is real or not.

This is in contradiction to your posts here

Rogers is another Liar for God.

, here

Admit it, you are just a shroud worshiper, facts don't matter ,

and here, which ends

After telling how the shroud had been exhibited as genuine, and how ‘’pretended miracles’’ were staged to promote belief in the shroud’s authenticity, d’Arcis said: ‘’Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination’’ - an earlier bishop of Troyes -’’discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.’’

Can you find a single post of yours in the last couple of threads which has not been attempting to claim the Shroud was a fake (as opposed to the neutrality you are now claiming)?

I just don’t like pseudoscience passed off as science.

Which explains why you posted an article from Schaeferman, who (as detailed earlier) resorted to extensive ad hominem instead of science; and why you have continuously attempted to defend McCrone's techniques, even though he his work has been shown -- by his own admissions, by other scientists, and by sources YOU quoted (http://books.google.com/books?id=lzodpIzjf0QC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=mccrone+member+of+sturp&source=web&ots=lgqbcYP_cc&sig=wedYvuoqOHkFMgJ12ws7-L21eGk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result) -- to be unreliable.

Whether McCrone was a “member” of STURP or just working for them is irrelevent as to the validity of his work or of the shroud.

Then why did you attempt to insist on it, by posting an article which contained this:

Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s.
and this:

This includes Ray Rogers and all the other STURP members with the exception of Walter McCrone, a former member of STURP and the single individual with scientific integrity and professional competence among them.

You claim:

I just getting started, but a pattern is emerging. STURP is constantly finding reputable scientists’ methods flawed. STURP attacks any findings that suggests that the shroud isn’t really the burial cloth of Christ. They get UPSET when it is even suggested scientifically and immediately try to discredit the methodology and the motives of the scientists involved prior to conducting any experiment.

But the following is from an article you posted, and one whose conclusions you agree with.:

In violation of good scientific practice and honesty, Rogers's TA paper completely ignores all of this evidence that refutes his analysis and conclusions. Rogers' paper is an exercise in pseudoscience and should not have been published in Thermochimica Acta. The editor of that journal should be ashamed. So should the STURP "scientists," but I don't expect that to happen soon.

This is ad hominem on part of a skeptic, not on the part of STURP.

Without STURP, the Shroud story is a one of a straight forward fake. STURP creates fear uncertainty and doubt through very dubious, unreplicatable experiments under very loose controls. There is no science there.

You are projecting. Re-read the last couple paragraphs of hysteria in Schaeferman's article:

As it is, educated, informed, and rational individuals don't believe the Shroud is authentic, tend to look on the controversy with either disgust or boredom (as I certainly do), and wish to get on with their lives. The Shroud of Turin is, after all, a notorious religious relic of the Catholic Church, and thus should be regarded with the same skepticism and contempt as other such relics...I have always thought that the Shroud of Turin would be very easy to re-create, but no one has attempted it because either (1) it would reveal the ease of reproducing a Shroud of Turin and thus serve to debunk the magic and mystery that the current Shroud possesses, or (2) the evidence that already exists that the Shroud is an artifact is so overwhelming that it isn't worth anyone's time and expense to reproduce it. No. 2 is certainly my reason for not making a Shroud. And so far, no one has indeed taken the time and expense to duplicate it.

Please show me anything resembling such personal, emotional attachments in any of the peer-reviewed, work whose results are consistent with the authenticity of the Shroud.

Cheers! Cheers!

[Soliton]

Got me!

[Swordmaker]

Wissenschaft means “science.” Natur means “nature.

OK, I don't remember much of Junior High School German—and I studied Russian in High School—but what does the word "über" do when placed before the Naturwissenchaft? My friend could very well be wrong. I searched for articles from "Wiener Berichte über Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst" and the few that were found were, as I mentioned, along the lines of debunking articles on things like the psuedoscience studies on the Cargo Cult (from Richard Feynman's 1974 CalTech commencement address) and the existence of dragons.

. . .

I just recalled another friend and emailed him the name. He is a native German. He translated it as "Vienna Journal of Natural Science in the Arts." How does that comport with your understanding of the name? Still doesn't sound like a peer reviewed scientific journal, more like a popularization. I found

Google translation renders it as "Vienna Reports on Science in Art."