Who is Joe Nickell ?
The Top page for this discussion. Read this first.
JOE NICKELL poisoning the well
You may wish to
open Joe Nickell's
article in a separate window to compare the text
with the comments that follow. Joe Nickell's article is an
attack on Raymond Rogers' scientific competence and honesty.
Read Rogers'
Letter to the Editor of Skeptical Inquirer
magazine.
Ray
Schneider's Comment on paragraph 1: Nickell starts by poisoning the well -- He cites Rogers as a
"Shroud of Turin devotee", implies the shroud is painted by
using "equivalent of a watercolor paint" and characterizes the
shroud as "the alleged burial cloth of Jesus" -- Roger's logic
is minimalized before it is actually mentioned as "torturous
logic and selective evidence". Rogers is characterized as a
follower of other shroud defenders. So in paragraph 1, Nickell
is already attacking the person, the community and the
competence of the finding which he has not yet so much as
described. Ray
Schneider's complete comments on a single page.
Joe Nickell
had started of his article with this sentence: "Longtime
Shroud of Turin devotee Ray Rogers, a retired research chemist,
now admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the
alleged burial cloth of Jesus."
This is hardly what Rogers wrote in his article
in the peer-reviewed, scientific journal Thermochimica Acta
( v. 425/1-2, 189-194 2005). Rogers found alizarin dye, the
mordant alum and gum in the area from which the carbon 14
samples were taken. And very specifically, he found this only in
the carbon 14 area of the Shroud. This was "evidence" of mending
and "proof" that the carbon 14 sample was chemically unlike the
rest of the cloth. Joe Nickell, who argues that images
were painted, tries to imply that Rogers admits that paint has
been found.
Rogers admits no such thing. In fact, Rogers has
demonstrated that paint is not found on the main part of the
Shroud:
In an FAQ written by Rogers in 2004 (published at
shroud.com and shroudstory.com), Rogers wrote:
"The Shroud was observed by visible and
ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray
fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Later observations
were made by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, lasermicroprobe Raman
analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or
media was found.
 "Your eye sees
colors when the surface
absorbs some wavelengths of light and reflects others. A
red surface absorbs all visible wavelengths other than red. Each
chemical compound absorbs wavelengths that are characteristic of
its chemical structure. The best way to determine the properties
of a color is by measuring its spectrum. Reflectance
spectrometry was one of the most important contributions of the
STURP observations.
"The reflectance spectra in the visible range
for the image, blood, and hematite are shown in the figure. The
image could not have been painted with hematite or any of the
other known pigments. The spectrum of the image color does not
show any specific features: it gradually changes through the
spectrum. This proves that it is composed of many different
light-absorbing chemical structures. It has the properties of a
dehydrated carbohydrate.
"There is no evidence for significant amounts
of any of the many pigments and/or dyes that could have been
used to paint or touch up the blood stains. We had considered
and studied Tyrian purple (6,6'-dibromoindigo) and Madder root
dye on an aluminum and/or chromium mordant as well as cinnabar
(mercuric sulfide) and ferric oxide pigments.
"During and before the 14th
Century, gold metal was the most important yellow. That would
easily be detected by x-ray fluorescence. Other pigments in
common use were yellow ocher (hydrated Fe2O3), burnt ocher
(hematite Fe2O3) and other ochers, orpiment (As2S3), realgar (AsS),
Naples Yellow (Pb3[SbO4]), massicot (PbO), and mosaic gold
(SnS2). Organic dyes included saffron, bile yellow, buckthorn,
and weld. Madder root began appearing in Europe from the Near
East about that time. Many of the dyes required mordants, which
are hydrated oxides of several metals (e.g., aluminum, iron, and
chromium). In order to produce the shadings observed in the
Shroud's image, the concentrations of pigments would have to
vary across the image. No variations in any pigment were
observed by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. The image was not
painted with any inorganic pigment of an appropriate color. "
Joe Nickell's
article is an attack on Raymond Rogers' scientific competence
and honesty. Read Rogers'
Letter to the Editor of
Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
Ray Schneider's
complete comments on a single page.
| 
