Who is Joe Nickell ?
The top page for this discussion. Read this first.
Raymond Rogers' letter to the editor,
skeptical inquirer magazine
You may wish to
open Joe Nickell's
article in a separate window to compare the text
with the comments that follow.
Dear Editor:
Joe Nickell has attacked my scientific competence and honesty in his
latest publication on the Shroud of Turin. Everything I have done
investigating the shroud had the goal of testing some hypothesis
[Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud
of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta
135, 3 (1982); Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an
amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image
formation," in Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp.
106-113].
My latest paper [Rogers, R. N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample
from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta 425/1-2, 189-194
(2005)] is no exception. I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I
believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I
used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a
scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. So,
Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the
results from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?
Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared
explosives data with him. I was the one who "commissioned" him to
look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust
him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who
signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples
back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not
allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would
handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical
tests. Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter
found Madder on the cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made,
and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference. I
can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests,
spectra, and mass spectra.
Now Joe thinks I am a "Shroud of Turin devotee," a "pro-authenticity
researcher," and incompetent at microanalysis. If he ever read any of
my professional publications, he would know that I have international
recognition as an expert on chemical kinetics. I have a medal for
Exceptional Civilian Service from the US Air Force, and I have
developed many microanalytical methods. I was elected to be a Fellow
of a national laboratory. A cloud still hangs over Walter with regard
to the Vinland map. Joe does not take his job as "Research Director"
very seriously. If he thinks I am a "true believer," I will put him
solidly on the "far-right" lunatic fringe.
Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the
pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands
the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry
or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics.
If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to
observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but
I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and
scientific standards we require of others.
Sincerely,
Raymond N. Rogers
Fellow (Retired)
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a
charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science
Education. He has published many scientific papers in
peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other
scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy
for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and
particle materials for further study.
|
