The Coming of the Quantum Christ: The Shroud of Turin and the Apocalypse of Selfishness by John C. Klotz

Author:John C. Klotz [Klotz, John C.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: John C. Klotz
Published: 2015-12-07T16:00:00+00:00

These two microphotographs are of individual cotton threads at 315X magnification.41

These two were taken by a Scanning Electronic Microscope (SEM) at magnifications of 3650X and 3300X respectively.42

The Brown microphotographs establish the presence of cotton in the Raes samples and the presence of encrustations which Rogers identified as dye. When Rogers examined the threads carbon sample area that had been supplied by Gonella, he found they were identical to the Raes threads.

H. Ray Rogers does not go gentle

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Dylan Thomas

The first, reflexive reaction from some in Turin was disdain. Monsignor Giuseppe Ghiberti frequent spokesperson for Turin Cardinal Poletto in shroud matters told an Italian Newspaper “I am astonished that an expert like Rogers could fall into so many inaccuracies in his article.”43 Ghiberti’s skepticism was rebutted by Turin Centro which released a formal statement that Rogers’ study was “very interesting” and would be the basis for a future study “on the chemical characteristics of the cloth and its possible inhomogeneity.”44

Isabel Piczek responded in Rogers’ defense:

“[I]t is not good enough just to look (with the naked eye) for a re-woven patch. It is an invisible reweave, which requires microscopic and microchemical analysis (to discover). Rogers’ paper has to be accepted. New discoveries always cause lots of controversy, but (Roger’s report) should be trusted because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.”45

Centro did not represent the Archbishop and Rogers was quick to rebut Ghiberti in an article published by Schwortz on shroud.com:

“It is interesting that Msgr, Ghiberti thinks that I am supporting the Benford and Marino hypothesis that the radiocarbon sample was taken from an “invisible reweave.” I believed it would be easy completely to refute them. It is highly embarrassing that I could not.

“This is the first time I have had to present information that seemed to support what I consider to be the “lunatic fringe.” However, an ethical scientist absolutely must publish accurate information no matter what the emotional implications.

“The fact there is any controversy over my results to implicitly trust visual observations without any confirmation and to accept the unconfirmed testimony of “experts.” The importance of the sampling operation should have the necessity for careful observations and confirmation before cutting.”46

It had been more than four years since the December 23, 2001 publication on shroud.com of the Benford-Marino Oviedo paper and Rogers’ angry reaction. In December 2001, Ray Rogers was deep into a losing battle with prostate cancer. His doctor’s prognosis was that he had only six months to live. Perhaps the battle over the carbon sample invigorated him for he was still in fighting fettle in January 2005 when he responded to Ghiberti’s attack. Also, he was involved in adding additional weight to the science of his arguments.

Rogers had earlier asked Robert Villarreal, a Los Alamos colleague for some help in Rogers’ attempts to solve the image formation puzzle. Villarreal had proved quite helpful and Rogers was impressed with Villarreal’s work. Rogers decided to ask Villarreal for help in analyzing the Raes samples.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.