Shroud of turin and carbon 14 dating united healthcare backdating issue
Please consult the journal’s reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and use of punctuation.When the final article is assigned to an volumes/issues of the Publication, the Article in Press version will be removed and the final version will appear in the associated published volumes/issues of the Publication.I remember a friend telling me how he had retrieved relics from a presbytery bin when the parish priest had disposed of them in the early 1980s.
The “frosty” 6 contaminant is also not present on the Mark Evans image of the Shroud.15 As ‘the "frosty" coating is almost certainly a plant gum in the Raes sample’ 6 it is likely to be a plant gum in the Oxford sample.
Therefore, none of the presented data supports the conclusion by Rogers. Rogers has been exploited to support a pseudoscientific hypothesis which is in no way confirmed by the reported data.
Regardless of the debate on the hypothetical authenticity of the Shroud, the scientific community and the general public can only be misled by this paper.
In conclusion, the unspecific qualitative chemical tests presented by Rogers are in no way confirmed by instrumental analysis (mass spectrometry).
No diagnostic peak in the pyrolysis mass spectra indicates a significant difference in the two samples, besides hydrocarbon-derived contamination.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion.