Ray Rogers, one of the lead research scientists involved with STURP, became furious when he found out the integrity of his work product had been challenged by amateurs in a published, peer-reviewed paper.He said the claims of Benford and Marino were absurd and promised to prove they were wrong by testing material from the original sample still in his possession.Tests and analysis eliminated any possibility the image on the fabric had been painted.
Rogers also claimed in an interview that he’d come close to proving the shroud was real. Here’s what we think we currently know: The Shroud of Turin once covered the bloodied corpse of a crucified man.
The image on the shroud was created by a still unidentified process. From pollen and flower tests, we also know the shroud was once in or very near to Jerusalem.
Instead, Rogers found powerful evidence suggesting Benford and Marino had been absolutely correct in saying the material for the original carbon dating tests had been taken from a contaminated section of the shroud, identifying cotton fibers in the sample not found in the rest of the shroud.
He proposed testing the scorch marks on the shroud for more accurate carbon dating.
If queried for their opinion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, probably 9 out of every 10 people would essentially say the same thing — carbon testing performed in 1988 clearly proved that the religious artifact was nothing more than a brilliantly conceived fraud.
I can’t say that I find fault with the Shroud’s critics, because I’ve seen the same evidence.Robert Villarreal (Paper and video presentation awaiting publication, see Ohio State University Shroud of Turin Conference Press Release) Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N.Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp 189-194).LANL's work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan.The article is available on Elsevier BV's Science DirectÂ® online information site.Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.