Podcast appearances and mentions of ray rogers

After meeting at a local deaf club, Lonene 'Lonnie' Ray Rogers and Clinton 'Buddy' Rogers quickly became an item. Unfortunately, Lonnie was unaware of Bud's past criminal history when the two were married. Lonnie planned to leave Bud on the evening of January 7, 1981, but according to Bud, she left in the middle of a snowstorm and has never been seen again. Over 40 years later, her daughter Alison is working tirelessly to find justice for her mom.   Research by Haley Gray and Anna Luria.   Special thanks to Lonnie's daughter Alison for sharing stories with us about her Mom and fact checking the episode.    Than you also to Light the Way for helping to link us with Alison, and Charlie from Crimelines for generously sharing her research with us to help make this episode possible.    If you have information in Lonnie's case, please call the Pennsylvania State Police at 814-332-6911.   Ways YOU can help:    Share the episode Buy Alison's book, “A Daughter's Journey: ...and Story of Resilience” also, check out her son's book,  Rudy the Resilient Rhinoceros.  Join the Facebook group. Sign the petition.  Share Lonnie's poster.    Sources:  https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigations/someone-knows-lonene-lonnie-rogers/95-741460f0-1788-4706-817e-2178e57b3fd4 https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/44423031/what-happened-to-lonene-rogers https://www.yourerie.com/news/western-pa-news/cold-case-police-still-searching-for-missing-pa-woman-41-years-after-her-disappearance/ https://www.namus.gov/MissingPersons/Case#/2662 https://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1850dfpa.html https://uncovered.com/cases/lonene-rogers#timeline https://www.change.org/p/grant-families-of-missing-persons-access-to-police-files-after-a-period-of-20-years?original_footer_petition_id=14335632&algorithm=promoted&source_location=petition_footer&grid_position=12&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uAFYWNR0AAAAAZmWYFgB87Jg2OGY2MTI5Yw%3D%3D https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/Appeals/DocketGetFile.cfm?id=80434#:~:text=v.,-PENNSYLVANIA%20STATE%20POLICE&text=Neal%20Duiker%20(%E2%80%9CRequester%E2%80%9D),related%20to%20a%20criminal%20investigation. https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/Appeals/DocketGetFile.cfm?id=95045 https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/commonwealth-court/2023/1481-c-d-2021.html https://www.facebook.com/groups/285829136570490/  Crimelines script, given to MAM with permission by the host Charlie MAM interview with Alison Duiker  

Part 2 of 2. Alison Duiker's mother, Lonnie Rogers, went missing in 1981. Alison still doesn't have answers to what happened to her mom or where she is.

Part 1 of 2. Alison Duiker's mother, Lonnie Rogers, went missing in 1981. Alison still doesn't have answers to what happened to her mom or where she is.

After meeting at a local deaf club, Lonene 'Lonnie' Ray Rogers and Clinton 'Buddy' Rogers quickly became an item. Unfortunately, Lonnie was unaware of Bud's past criminal history when the two were married. Lonnie planned to leave Bud on the evening of January 7, 1981, but according to Bud, she left in the middle of a snowstorm and has never been seen again. Over 40 years later, her daughter Alison is working tirelessly to find justice for her mom. Research by Haley Gray and Anna Luria. Special thanks to Lonnie's daughter Alison for sharing stories with us about her Mom and fact checking the episode.  Than you also to Light the Way for helping to link us with Alison, and Charlie from Crimelines for generously sharing her research with us to help make this episode possible.  If you have information in Lonnie's case, please call the Pennsylvania State Police at 814-332-6911. Ways YOU can help:  Share the episode Buy Alison's book, “A Daughter's Journey: ...and Story of Resilience” also, check out her son's book,  Rudy the Resilient Rhinoceros.  Join the Facebook group. Sign the petition.  Share Lonnie's poster.  Thank you to this week's sponsors! Get results you can run your fingers through! Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair.  That's Nutrafol.com promo code MOMS. We've worked out a special deal with Hiya for their best selling children's vitamin. Receive 50% off your first order. To claim this deal you must go to hiyahealth.com/MOMS. This deal is not available on their regular website.  Get your coolest, most comfortable sleep with Boll & Branch. Get 15% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets when you use promo code MOMS BollandBranch.com.  Stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions by going to RocketMoney.com/MOMS.  To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://www.advertisecast.com/MomsandMysteriesATrueCrimePodcast.  New merch! Check out Moms and Mysteries Threadless! You can also get new episodes a day early and ad free, plus merch and more at Patreon.com/momsandmysteriespodcast Listen and subscribe to Melissa's other podcast, Criminality!! It's the podcast for those who love reality TV, true crime, and want to hear all the juicy stories where the two genres intersect. Subscribe and listen here: www.pod.link/criminality  Check-out Moms and Mysteries to find links to our tiktok, youtube, twitter, instagram and more! Make sure you subscribe and rate our show to help others find us! Sources: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigations/someone-knows-lonene-lonnie-rogers/95-741460f0-1788-4706-817e-2178e57b3fd4 https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/44423031/what-happened-to-lonene-rogers https://www.yourerie.com/news/western-pa-news/cold-case-police-still-searching-for-missing-pa-woman-41-years-after-her-disappearance/ https://www.namus.gov/MissingPersons/Case#/2662 https://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1850dfpa.html https://uncovered.com/cases/lonene-rogers#timeline https://www.change.org/p/grant-families-of-missing-persons-access-to-police-files-after-a-period-of-20-years?original_footer_petition_id=14335632&algorithm=promoted&source_location=petition_footer&grid_position=12&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uAFYWNR0AAAAAZmWYFgB87Jg2OGY2MTI5Yw%3D%3D https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/Appeals/DocketGetFile.cfm?id=80434#:~:text=v.,-PENNSYLVANIA%20STATE%20POLICE&text=Neal%20Duiker%20(%E2%80%9CRequester%E2%80%9D),related%20to%20a%20criminal%20investigation. https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/Appeals/DocketGetFile.cfm?id=95045 https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/commonwealth-court/2023/1481-c-d-2021.html https://www.facebook.com/groups/285829136570490/  Crimelines script, given to MAM with permission by the host Charlie MAM interview with Alison Duiker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In part 2 we cover the teen years of Alison's life following the disappearance of her mother Lonnie. Then we dive into her search for justice and the work she's done to fight for her mom. Sources: "A Daughters Journey: .. And Story of Resilience" By Alison Morea Duiker https://www.amazon.com/Daughters-Journey-Story-Resilience/dp/B09RLY9L9M#:~:text=Alison%20Morea%20Duiker%20lives%20in,..%20and%20Story%20of%20Resilience. Social: Instagram @truecrimeexpod https://www.instagram.com/truecrimeexpod?igsh=N3k2eHltaTFieXY3&utm_source=qr Tiktok @truecrimeexposedpodcast https://www.tiktok.com/@truecrimeexposedpodcast?_t=8k30nU5wgtn&_r=1 Show your support: Justice for Lonene Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/share/jRVp2YM91De8K1cS/?mibextid=K35XfP

When Lonene Ray Rogers vanished on the night of a blizzard warning, it's not long before her entire family suspects that something is very wrong. Lonnie's daughter Alison was only 5 years old at the time her mother disappeared, and she would go on to grow into adulthood without her mother. Alison has written a book on this case and is still fighting for Justice.  Sources: "A Daughter's Jourey: ... and Story of Resilience" By Alison Morea Dukier Organization:  Justice For Lonene Facebook Page Social: Tiktok @truecrimeexposedpodcast Instagram @truecrimeexpod

Ray Rogers from Sea Breeze Cellars brings us Cocktail of The Week seabreezecellars.net.auSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lonene Ray Rogers, Lonnie to those who loved her most, was a 29 year old from Saegertown, PA. She was deaf and the mother of two. On the night of Jan. 7, 1981, Lonnie was at home with her children and husband. After putting the kids to bed, Lonnie's husband claimed she left with another man. She was never seen again.Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/groups/285829136570490Charley Project:https://charleyproject.org/case/lonene-ray-rogersNAMUS:https://www.namus.gov/MissingPersons/Case#/2662?navArticle:https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigations/someone-knows-lonene-lonnie-rogers/95-741460f0-1788-4706-817e-2178e57b3fd4If you have any information regarding the disappearance of Lonene Rogers, please contact the Pennsylvania State Police at 814-332-6911.Unfound supports accounts on Pandora, Audible, Podomatic, iTunes, Spotify, iHeart, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Deezer, and YouTube.--speaking of YouTube, on Wednesday nights at 9pm ET, please join us for the Unfound Live Show. All of you can talk with me and I can answer your questions.--Contribute to Unfound at Patreon.com/unfounpodcast.--You can also contribute at Paypal: paypal.me/unfoundpodcast--I also need to give a shout out to all the people who have monetarily contributed usingSuperChat during the Live Show on Wednesday nights.--thank you for watching and thank you for donating.--the email address: unfoundpodcast@gmail.com.--Merchandise:--The books at Amazon.com in both ebook and print form.--do not forget the reviews.--shirts at unfound-podcast.myshopify.com--or you can track down my assistant Heather in the Facebook Group.--playing cards at makeplayingcards.com/sell/unfoundpodcast--the website: the unfoundpodcast.com--And please mention Unfound at all true crime websites and forums. Thank you

Buckle up! We’re driving straight into the world of sustainable trucking. Ray Rogers of Amazon Web Services (AWS) chats with Aaron Terrazas, director of economic research at Convoy Inc. (Convoy). He discusses the impact of “empty miles” in terms of its environmental impact, worker impact, and industry impact and how machine learning on AWS is part of the solution. Next up, Ray caught up with Jennifer Wong, head of sustainability at Convoy, to take a deep dive into what zero waste actually means, how sustainability intersects with freight delivery, and how other companies can benefit from Convoy’s sustainable approach to trucking.

In this episode, the team explores how the cloud and data interoperability can improve outcomes for people experiencing homelessness. Ray Rogers of Amazon Web Services (AWS) chats with homelessness subject matter expert, Jessie Metcalf, from AWS. Next up, Ray chats with Beth Sandor and Jake Maguire, principals at Community Solutions, about how communities are already reaching “functional zero” for veteran and chronic homeless populations.

From workforce development to preserving ancient artifacts—the cloud changes how we think about the future. Ray Rogers from Amazon Web Services (AWS) talks to Sameer Raina, president of Digital Divide Data (DDD), about the nonprofit’s project to digitize the National Museum of Kenya’s one-of-a-kind, ancient collections. During phase one of the project, DDD upskilled the museum’s existing staff with cloud training. Randi Larson from AWS talks to Tom Soderstrom, IT chief technology officer at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). He shares how NASA JPL continues to hire the brightest, most curious minds in technology.

The team continues the conversation on how technology can be leveraged to end human trafficking. Ray Rogers of AWS chats with Rani Hong, CEO of The Freedom Seal, about how corporate transparency and responsibility can help organizations stay true to their mission while also eliminating forced labor from their supply chains. Andrew Wallis, CEO of Unseen, shares how data is at the center of the solution to end modern slavery.

The team explores what human trafficking is and how technology like Amazon Rekognition can be leveraged to combat the global issue. Randi Larson of Amazon Web Services (AWS) chats with Sarah Gardner, director of development at Thorn, and Ray Rogers of AWS discusses the Tech Against Trafficking initiative with Hannah Darnton, program manager of ethics, technology, and human rights at BSR.

Ha Kung Wong and Ryan Whitfield of Football Garbage Time are joined by SPECIAL GUESTS Wally Akinso and Ray Rogers of the Urban Sports Scene Podcast to discuss the results of the Urban Sports Scene Fantasy Football league, most surprising NFL news from the weekend including from the Wild Card games, which open NFL coaching position is the most desirable and why, Divisional Playoff game picks, Super Bowl winner predictions and MUCH MORE!!! Come "Waste Time With Us!"

Ray Rogers, Brad Keppler, Julien Simon (machine learning tech evangelist, Amazon Web Services), Dr. P. Anandan (CEO, Wadhwani Institute for Artificial Intelligence). In this episode of Fix This, the team explores the world of artificial intelligence (AI). Ray Rogers sits down with Julien Simon, machine learning tech evangelist at Amazon Web Services (AWS), for a crash course in AI 101. The second guest is Dr. P. Anandan, chief executive officer of an India-based nonprofit, Wadhwani Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Ray chats with Dr. Anandan to learn how AI and machine learning can reach even the most rural parts of the world to help communities stay safe and healthy.

This is Fix This. A bi-weekly podcast from Amazon Web Services (AWS) of bite-sized stories about how tech is making the world a better place. We talk to leaders from around the globe about how they use technology to fix some of the world’s most pressing issues. (Ray Rogers, Brad Keppler)

Welcome back to Covered! In this episode, we talk with Ray Rogers. Ray is a current member of the CO-OP, he’s been on the board of directors for five years and currently serves as the Board Chair. We ask Ray about health insurance costs and why they’re so high! We talk about preventative care and how collectively, we can help bring health insurance costs down. Ray brings a wealth of information and passion to the topic of health insurance that’s tough to match. If you’re in the market for affordable health care but wondering what differentiates the different options out there, this episode is for you. Enjoy the episode and, oh yeah, share this with anyone you think might be interested. Our goal is to kick out really helpful info. If we’re succeeding, share this with anyone you know that might be interested. Ray is currently developing the nation's first rural healthcare simulation training center in Butte, Montana. It will have a major impact on how our rural healthcare practitioners are trained. He is working hard to have an impact on healthcare, both in his profession and in the work he does with MHC.

Today,  I think it would be helpful to have an episode that takes a broad and wide view of The Shroud - that covers all of the basics, so that we're all on the same page. That's the focus of this episode - let's call it an overview of The Shroud of Turin, but the material we cover won't all be introductory level.  As I mentioned in the first episode, I first heard about The Shroud way back in the very early 80s from In Search of.   PLAY CLIP Hearing Mr. Spock - Leonard Nimoy - talking about The Shroud was fascinating to my young mind, and understanding that their might - just might - be a possible artifact from the time of Jesus - that Jesus actually touched - that could actually have a real picture of Jesus - inarguably the most famous person that ever lived - was mind-blowing. So, I read up on The Shroud as I grew older. Most of my Presbyterian church leaders didn't believe in The Shroud - dismissing it as a Catholic hoax, but I wasn't fully convinced. The fact is - once you see pictures of it, then you begin to take it at least a little bit seriously. If The Shroud is a fake - it is an amazing one, and the deeper you dig into it, the more remarkable it becomes.  Some Terms You Should Know:  Icon:  An icon is a religious work of art, usually a painting. Sometimes icons are statues or carvings, or other artistic renderings. Most of the time those pictured in icons are Jesus, Mary, or other saints in the Bible. Some Christians, including many Reformed Christians, consider paintings of Jesus to be violations of the second commandment of the Bible - "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" The oldest surviving icon of Jesus - dating from the 500s - is copied below. Let's answer 4 big questions today in our overview:  What exactly is The Shroud? The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that is 14.5 feet long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide and has the somewhat faded negative image of a man on it.  Essentially think of the image like a photo-negative - the areas of dark and light are reversed. The darkest areas of the imprint of the man in The Shroud appear light, and vice-versa. The weave of The Shroud is a fine herringbone twill weave. I'm not an expert on textiles, but most experts that I've read seem to think that such a weave would have been possible and used in 1st century middle eastern areas. Like all things related to The Shroud, that is debatable.  The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed listed in the Scriptures, so we know that the body of Jesus was actually wrapped in a linen cloth. There is not enough of a description of that cloth to know whether or not The Shroud is similar. As many have pointed out, there is no Scripture whatsoever that seems to indicate some kind of miraculous imprint of Jesus was left on the burial cloths. To be fair, there is no Scripture to indicate that the disciples examined the cloths, only that they saw them. Considering that there is very little information in Scripture about what happened directly after the resurrection of Jesus, and that the Bible writers focused on The Great Commission there, I don't think it is a very strong argument from silence to say that because the Bible doesn't mention something miraculous regarding the burial cloths of Jesus, therefore it did not happen. John 19: 38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus—but secretly because of his fear of the Jews—asked Pilate that he might remove Jesus' body. Pilate gave him permission, so he came and took His body away. 39 Nicodemus (who had previously come to Him at night) also came, bringing a mixture of about 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes. 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it. John 20: 20 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put Him!” 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. 8 The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then entered the tomb, saw, and believed. 9 For they still did not understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead.  The figure on The Shroud is interesting. He is tall - significantly taller than the average Jewish man of the first century, which was, according to different sources, somewhere between 5'2 and 5'5. The Shroud figure would be anything from around 5'8 to 6'2, with a figure around 5'11 seeming to be fairly likely. The man is well built and quite muscular, and has a beard, shoulder length hair, and a moustache. The Shroud is in excellent condition for its age, but not in mint condition. It has survived numerous fires and movings, and has some scars and singeing from fire. There were fourteen large patches and 16 or so smaller patches that were sewn onto The Shroud to repair it in the 1530s, all of those patches were removed in 2002 by a restoration team who sewed The Shroud onto a new cloth backing. What is the history of The Shroud? This question might have its own episode, because it is quite complex, and very, very disputed. Amongst the difficulties in determining the real history of The Shroud is the lack of photographic and artistic evidence, and the fact that there are more than one burial cloths that are claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. As you might know, the medieval period was quite focused on biblical relics, and many unscrupulous people profited greatly from displaying supposed pieces of the true cross, fingerbones of the apostles, grails used at The Last Supper, etc. Many who believe that The Shroud is genuine believe that the history of it can be traced all the way back to The Image of Edessa, which was supposedly given to King Abgar of Edessa by Thaddeus, one of the 70 disciples of Jesus mentioned in Luke 10 - possibly even the Judas Thaddeus that was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus. However, the connection to The Shroud and The Image of Edessa is fairly disputed and tenuous, and we won't discuss it yet. The Shroud of Turin can clearly trace its history to the 1300s. Geoffroi de Charny was a well known and well respected French knight, who was known as a great warrior and a man of honor. He wrote three books in chivalry, served King Jean II, was a founding member of The Order of The Star, and carried the Oriflamme into battle. The what, you say? The Oriflamme was the royal battle standard (or flag) of the French army, and it was a significant honor to be the knight who carried this banner into battle. De Charny was killed by five English knights in the 1356 Battle of Poitiers against the English, and his king was taken captive. Historian Jean Froissart describes De Charny's fall in that battle: “There Sir Geoffroi de Charny fought gallantly near the king (and his fourteen-year-old son). The whole press and cry of battle were upon him because he was carrying the king's sovereign banner [the Oriflamme]. He also had before him his own banner, red, with three white shields. So many English and Gascons came around him from all sides that they cracked open the king's battle formation and smashed it; there were so many English and Gascons that at least five of these men at arms attacked one [French] gentleman. Sir Geoffroi de Charny was killed with the banner of France in his hand, as other French banners fell to earth. So, real life Game of Thrones kind of material here. De Charny was obviously a pretty amazing person. There is some question about how he acquired The Shroud, which we will go into later, but one of the first undisputed images of The Shroud comes from a Pilgrimage of Lirey medal that dates to de Charny's time and area.  To give you a bit further of an idea into the character of Geoffroi de Charny, we can go to the record of the happenings before The Battle of Poitiers, to a meeting amongst the British and French leadership recorded by English Knight John Chandos (on the opposing side of de Charny): The King, to prolong the matter and to put off the battle, assembled and brought together all the barons of both sides. Of speech there he (the King) made no stint. There came the Count of Tancarville, and, as the list says, the Archbishop of Sens (Guillaume de Melun) was there, he of Taurus, of great discretion, Charny, Bouciquaut, and Clermont; all these went there for the council of the King of France. On the other side there came gladly the Earl of Warwick, the hoary-headed (white or grey headed) Earl of Suffolk was there, and Bartholomew de Burghersh, most privy to the Prince, and Audeley and Chandos, who at that time were of great repute. There they held their parliament, and each one spoke his mind. But their counsel I cannot relate, yet I know well, in very truth, as I hear in my record, that they could not be agreed, wherefore each one of them began to depart. Then said Geoffroi de Charny: 'Lords,' quoth he, 'since so it is that this treaty pleases you no more, I make offer that we fight you, a hundred against a hundred, choosing each one from his own side; and know well, whichever hundred be discomfited, all the others, know for sure, shall quit this field and let the quarrel be. I think that it will be best so, and that God will be gracious to us if the battle be avoided in which so many valiant men will be slain.” The Shroud stayed in the Di Charny family until 1453 when it was transferred to the House of Savoy, a royal family in northern Italy. In 1389, a Bishop Pierre D'arcis actually wrote about The Shroud, and said that it was a fake. I'll quote from his letter,  and then give some reasons that his conclusion is controversial: The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of the law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year. I would consider this memorandum to be one of the stronger evidences against the authenticity of The Shroud. It fails to be completely convincing, however, for three primary reasons: D'Arcis' memo mentions that the Lirey Shroud was painted, and the painter confessed. The Turin Shroud shows no evidence or sign whatsoever of being painted, and it has been carefully and chemically analyzed for paint. There are several other documents of the same time period that dispute what is in this memorandum. For instance, D'Arcis claims that his predecessor had The Shroud removed because it was a fake, but other documents from the time assert that The Shroud was removed for protection because of war nearby. It is possible – though not proven – that D'Arcis memo was motivated by political issues, or perhaps by competing relic claims. D'Arcis was the Bishop of Troyes – was he disturbed/bothered by people flocking to nearby Lirey to see The Shroud? While his letter claims he is not writing for competitive purposes, it is easy to see why a Bishop of a nearby town – lacking a profound relic – might be opposed to The Shroud drawing crowds elsewhere.  That said, I certainly appreciate his anti-profit and anti-swindling the faithful stance, and wish more churchmen of the time held to it. This alone gives the memo an air of authority and authenticity.  3. The memo is unsigned, unsealed, and not found in any official Vatican records. This likely means it was unsent to the Antipope. Did D'Arcis reconsider the authenticity of The Shroud? What made him withhold the sending of the memo? In 1418, Geoffroi De Charny's granddaughter Margaret, married Humbert of Villersexel, the Count De La Roche, and a significant noble. One month later, the leaders of the Chapel at Lirey, where The Shroud was being kept, temporarily gave it to Count Humbert for safekeeping at his castle Montfort. Humbert dies in 1438, and Margaret hangs onto The Shroud, much to the annoyance of the canons at Lirey, and they sue her in church court to get it back. Margaret takes The Shroud with her on a tour of France, where it is seen by many frenchmen. Margaret dies in 1460, and in 1464, Duke Louis I of Savoy agrees to pay the church at Lirey a yearly stipend, seemingly in exchange for The Shroud. Thus ownership of The Shroud essentially passed into the hands of The Savoy family.  While The Savoy family had possession of The Shroud, they primarily had it kept in  Sainte-Chapelle in Chambery, which was the capital city of the Savoy region. It also toured around France and the parts of modern day Italy, being showcased in Turin in 1473 and a few other times. Unfortunately, in 1532, near-disaster strikes as Fire breaks out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry. Almost everything in the chapel is damaged and destroyed, but The Shroud manages to survive. The case it is held in is seriously damaged by the fire, which causes a drop of molten silver to melt through The Shroud, and several obvious scorch marks are made. That said, the damage is not fatal to any important parts of the image, and the sisters of Poor Clare, tasked with caretaking of The Shroud, repair it in 1534, and sew it onto a new backing called The Holland cloth. In 1578 the Shroud was taken to Turin with great fanfare by The Savoy family. Upon arrival, it is greeted by rifle salute, and displayed to a crowd of 40,000 later in the year. With only a few exceptions, The Shroud has remained in Turin to this day. What have scientific tests shown so far? This is a most controversial question, because there have been dozens of scientific inquiries. I'll briefly focus on two scientific inquiries here - STURP's research in the late 70s and the radiocarbon dating from 1988. The radiocarbon dating is the one everybody knows about, so let's start there. In April, 1988, a very small portion of The Shroud was removed - approximately 3 inches long and a little over half an inch wide. That strip was cut in half, and The Vatican stored half it away for future testing. The remaining strip, approximately 1.5 inches long and a little over half an inch wide, was divided into 3 strips and send to three separate labs in Arizona, Oxford, England, and Switzerland. All three labs came back with results that were very similar, and the consensus was that The Shroud material dated from somewhere between the 1200s and the 1300s, which proved the relic to be a medieval hoax in most people's minds.  As with everything Shroud wise, there have been many criticisms of the original testing. Noted chemist Ray Rogers has written and published one of the more interesting challenges noting that the chemical vanillin was readily found in the samples of The Shroud used for radiocarbon dating, but completely absent from other parts of the main body of The Shroud.  Rogers claimed in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years" I do not understand textile chemistry nearly well enough to dispute or confirm Rogers' findings, but I am intrigued by then. More recently, research Tristan Casabianca's team found that the 1988 carbon dating was unreliable, as only pieces from the edges of the cloth were radiocarbon tested. Many scholars believe that The Shroud, particularly the edge parts, might have been compromised significantly by several of the fires that have impacted it, especially the 1532 fire. That fire, as well as centuries of display and handling could, in their view, radically alter results from radiocarbon dating.  Casabianca obtained a lot of insight into the 1988 radiocarbon testing via a freedom of information inquiry, and upon examining the original data and process of testing, concluded, “The tested samples are obviously heterogeneous from many different dates. There is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the shroud, are representative of the whole fabric. It is, therefore, impossible to conclude that the Shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.” Shroud researcher Russ Breault, upon reviewing Casabianca's newly uncovered information, stated,  “this tells us there is something anomalous with the single sample used to date The Shroud. This is something we have long suspected because the corner chosen was absolutely the most handled area of the cloth, exactly where it was held up by hand for hundreds of public exhibitions over the centuries. If you were looking for the worst possible sample location, you would choose from one of the two outside corners — right where the sample was cut in 1988.” That said, it should be considered here that no scientist that specializes in radiocarbon testing has raised significant questions about the method of dating used in the 1988 testing. Summary of Sturp's 1978 findings:  No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved. Why care? It doesn't prove anything one way or the other about Jesus, so in my mind, it is not a crucial artifact, and certainly shouldn't be used to prove or disprove somebody's faith. If the Shroud is ultimately proved to be a hoax, how big of a deal is that? I would say - religiously speaking - it is not a big deal at all. None of the Christian faith rests on The Shroud of Turin being genuine. While it is true that the burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned a few times in the Bible, it is not given particular attention, and no central or tertiary claims of Christianity rest on the Shroud.  What if - somehow, someway, The Shroud was proven to be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus? I think that would be a HUGE deal...but not a religiously huge deal. Here's what I mean: If The Shroud could be authenticated, then what we would have is a cloth that was actually wrapped around the single most important and well-known person in all of history. Not only that, but we would have a near-photograph of Jesus, and we would know His size, and what He looked like. It would be incredible to know for sure whether or not The Shroud was genuine...but what would its genuineness prove? That Jesus existed? Sure, there are some people who doubt the existence of Jesus, but some people also doubt the moon-landing, and many other obvious facts of history but almost no serious scholar denies that Jesus existed. Would a genuine Shroud PROVE the resurrection of Jesus, which is the central claim of Christianity? Of course not! How could it? I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, but The Shroud could neither prove nor disprove that. In my understanding, The Shroud is an amazing historical artifact - especially if it is proved genuine - but it is not an amazing focus of faith.  To wit, in John 5, Jesus strongly challenged the people who were following him and said:  39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. A challenging verse that I think has application in this situation: The Shroud is not capable of saving people from their sins and should not be an object of religious veneration. All veneration and honor should go to Jesus. That said, The Shroud is still - if genuine - one of the most amazing pieces of history in the world. We should not worship it, but there is nothing wrong with being interested and fascinated by it. 

Today,  I think it would be helpful to have an episode that takes a broad and wide view of The Shroud - that covers all of the basics, so that we're all on the same page. That's the focus of this episode - let's call it an overview of The Shroud of Turin, but the material we cover won't all be introductory level.  As I mentioned in the first episode, I first heard about The Shroud way back in the very early 80s from In Search of.   PLAY CLIP Hearing Mr. Spock - Leonard Nimoy - talking about The Shroud was fascinating to my young mind, and understanding that their might - just might - be a possible artifact from the time of Jesus - that Jesus actually touched - that could actually have a real picture of Jesus - inarguably the most famous person that ever lived - was mind-blowing. So, I read up on The Shroud as I grew older. Most of my Presbyterian church leaders didn't believe in The Shroud - dismissing it as a Catholic hoax, but I wasn't fully convinced. The fact is - once you see pictures of it, then you begin to take it at least a little bit seriously. If The Shroud is a fake - it is an amazing one, and the deeper you dig into it, the more remarkable it becomes.  Some Terms You Should Know:  Icon:  An icon is a religious work of art, usually a painting. Sometimes icons are statues or carvings, or other artistic renderings. Most of the time those pictured in icons are Jesus, Mary, or other saints in the Bible. Some Christians, including many Reformed Christians, consider paintings of Jesus to be violations of the second commandment of the Bible - "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" The oldest surviving icon of Jesus - dating from the 500s - is copied below. Let's answer 4 big questions today in our overview:  What exactly is The Shroud? The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that is 14.5 feet long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide and has the somewhat faded negative image of a man on it.  Essentially think of the image like a photo-negative - the areas of dark and light are reversed. The darkest areas of the imprint of the man in The Shroud appear light, and vice-versa. The weave of The Shroud is a fine herringbone twill weave. I'm not an expert on textiles, but most experts that I've read seem to think that such a weave would have been possible and used in 1st century middle eastern areas. Like all things related to The Shroud, that is debatable.  The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed listed in the Scriptures, so we know that the body of Jesus was actually wrapped in a linen cloth. There is not enough of a description of that cloth to know whether or not The Shroud is similar. As many have pointed out, there is no Scripture whatsoever that seems to indicate some kind of miraculous imprint of Jesus was left on the burial cloths. To be fair, there is no Scripture to indicate that the disciples examined the cloths, only that they saw them. Considering that there is very little information in Scripture about what happened directly after the resurrection of Jesus, and that the Bible writers focused on The Great Commission there, I don't think it is a very strong argument from silence to say that because the Bible doesn't mention something miraculous regarding the burial cloths of Jesus, therefore it did not happen. John 19: 38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus—but secretly because of his fear of the Jews—asked Pilate that he might remove Jesus' body. Pilate gave him permission, so he came and took His body away. 39 Nicodemus (who had previously come to Him at night) also came, bringing a mixture of about 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes. 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it. John 20: 20 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put Him!” 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. 8 The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then entered the tomb, saw, and believed. 9 For they still did not understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead.  The figure on The Shroud is interesting. He is tall - significantly taller than the average Jewish man of the first century, which was, according to different sources, somewhere between 5'2 and 5'5. The Shroud figure would be anything from around 5'8 to 6'2, with a figure around 5'11 seeming to be fairly likely. The man is well built and quite muscular, and has a beard, shoulder length hair, and a moustache. The Shroud is in excellent condition for its age, but not in mint condition. It has survived numerous fires and movings, and has some scars and singeing from fire. There were fourteen large patches and 16 or so smaller patches that were sewn onto The Shroud to repair it in the 1530s, all of those patches were removed in 2002 by a restoration team who sewed The Shroud onto a new cloth backing. What is the history of The Shroud? This question might have its own episode, because it is quite complex, and very, very disputed. Amongst the difficulties in determining the real history of The Shroud is the lack of photographic and artistic evidence, and the fact that there are more than one burial cloths that are claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. As you might know, the medieval period was quite focused on biblical relics, and many unscrupulous people profited greatly from displaying supposed pieces of the true cross, fingerbones of the apostles, grails used at The Last Supper, etc. Many who believe that The Shroud is genuine believe that the history of it can be traced all the way back to The Image of Edessa, which was supposedly given to King Abgar of Edessa by Thaddeus, one of the 70 disciples of Jesus mentioned in Luke 10 - possibly even the Judas Thaddeus that was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus. However, the connection to The Shroud and The Image of Edessa is fairly disputed and tenuous, and we won't discuss it yet. The Shroud of Turin can clearly trace its history to the 1300s. Geoffroi de Charny was a well known and well respected French knight, who was known as a great warrior and a man of honor. He wrote three books in chivalry, served King Jean II, was a founding member of The Order of The Star, and carried the Oriflamme into battle. The what, you say? The Oriflamme was the royal battle standard (or flag) of the French army, and it was a significant honor to be the knight who carried this banner into battle. De Charny was killed by five English knights in the 1356 Battle of Poitiers against the English, and his king was taken captive. Historian Jean Froissart describes De Charny's fall in that battle: “There Sir Geoffroi de Charny fought gallantly near the king (and his fourteen-year-old son). The whole press and cry of battle were upon him because he was carrying the king's sovereign banner [the Oriflamme]. He also had before him his own banner, red, with three white shields. So many English and Gascons came around him from all sides that they cracked open the king's battle formation and smashed it; there were so many English and Gascons that at least five of these men at arms attacked one [French] gentleman. Sir Geoffroi de Charny was killed with the banner of France in his hand, as other French banners fell to earth. So, real life Game of Thrones kind of material here. De Charny was obviously a pretty amazing person. There is some question about how he acquired The Shroud, which we will go into later, but one of the first undisputed images of The Shroud comes from a Pilgrimage of Lirey medal that dates to de Charny's time and area.  To give you a bit further of an idea into the character of Geoffroi de Charny, we can go to the record of the happenings before The Battle of Poitiers, to a meeting amongst the British and French leadership recorded by English Knight John Chandos (on the opposing side of de Charny): The King, to prolong the matter and to put off the battle, assembled and brought together all the barons of both sides. Of speech there he (the King) made no stint. There came the Count of Tancarville, and, as the list says, the Archbishop of Sens (Guillaume de Melun) was there, he of Taurus, of great discretion, Charny, Bouciquaut, and Clermont; all these went there for the council of the King of France. On the other side there came gladly the Earl of Warwick, the hoary-headed (white or grey headed) Earl of Suffolk was there, and Bartholomew de Burghersh, most privy to the Prince, and Audeley and Chandos, who at that time were of great repute. There they held their parliament, and each one spoke his mind. But their counsel I cannot relate, yet I know well, in very truth, as I hear in my record, that they could not be agreed, wherefore each one of them began to depart. Then said Geoffroi de Charny: 'Lords,' quoth he, 'since so it is that this treaty pleases you no more, I make offer that we fight you, a hundred against a hundred, choosing each one from his own side; and know well, whichever hundred be discomfited, all the others, know for sure, shall quit this field and let the quarrel be. I think that it will be best so, and that God will be gracious to us if the battle be avoided in which so many valiant men will be slain.” The Shroud stayed in the Di Charny family until 1453 when it was transferred to the House of Savoy, a royal family in northern Italy. In 1389, a Bishop Pierre D'arcis actually wrote about The Shroud, and said that it was a fake. I'll quote from his letter,  and then give some reasons that his conclusion is controversial: The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of the law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year. I would consider this memorandum to be one of the stronger evidences against the authenticity of The Shroud. It fails to be completely convincing, however, for three primary reasons: D'Arcis' memo mentions that the Lirey Shroud was painted, and the painter confessed. The Turin Shroud shows no evidence or sign whatsoever of being painted, and it has been carefully and chemically analyzed for paint. There are several other documents of the same time period that dispute what is in this memorandum. For instance, D'Arcis claims that his predecessor had The Shroud removed because it was a fake, but other documents from the time assert that The Shroud was removed for protection because of war nearby. It is possible – though not proven – that D'Arcis memo was motivated by political issues, or perhaps by competing relic claims. D'Arcis was the Bishop of Troyes – was he disturbed/bothered by people flocking to nearby Lirey to see The Shroud? While his letter claims he is not writing for competitive purposes, it is easy to see why a Bishop of a nearby town – lacking a profound relic – might be opposed to The Shroud drawing crowds elsewhere.  That said, I certainly appreciate his anti-profit and anti-swindling the faithful stance, and wish more churchmen of the time held to it. This alone gives the memo an air of authority and authenticity.  3. The memo is unsigned, unsealed, and not found in any official Vatican records. This likely means it was unsent to the Antipope. Did D'Arcis reconsider the authenticity of The Shroud? What made him withhold the sending of the memo? In 1418, Geoffroi De Charny's granddaughter Margaret, married Humbert of Villersexel, the Count De La Roche, and a significant noble. One month later, the leaders of the Chapel at Lirey, where The Shroud was being kept, temporarily gave it to Count Humbert for safekeeping at his castle Montfort. Humbert dies in 1438, and Margaret hangs onto The Shroud, much to the annoyance of the canons at Lirey, and they sue her in church court to get it back. Margaret takes The Shroud with her on a tour of France, where it is seen by many frenchmen. Margaret dies in 1460, and in 1464, Duke Louis I of Savoy agrees to pay the church at Lirey a yearly stipend, seemingly in exchange for The Shroud. Thus ownership of The Shroud essentially passed into the hands of The Savoy family.  While The Savoy family had possession of The Shroud, they primarily had it kept in  Sainte-Chapelle in Chambery, which was the capital city of the Savoy region. It also toured around France and the parts of modern day Italy, being showcased in Turin in 1473 and a few other times. Unfortunately, in 1532, near-disaster strikes as Fire breaks out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry. Almost everything in the chapel is damaged and destroyed, but The Shroud manages to survive. The case it is held in is seriously damaged by the fire, which causes a drop of molten silver to melt through The Shroud, and several obvious scorch marks are made. That said, the damage is not fatal to any important parts of the image, and the sisters of Poor Clare, tasked with caretaking of The Shroud, repair it in 1534, and sew it onto a new backing called The Holland cloth. In 1578 the Shroud was taken to Turin with great fanfare by The Savoy family. Upon arrival, it is greeted by rifle salute, and displayed to a crowd of 40,000 later in the year. With only a few exceptions, The Shroud has remained in Turin to this day. What have scientific tests shown so far? This is a most controversial question, because there have been dozens of scientific inquiries. I'll briefly focus on two scientific inquiries here - STURP's research in the late 70s and the radiocarbon dating from 1988. The radiocarbon dating is the one everybody knows about, so let's start there. In April, 1988, a very small portion of The Shroud was removed - approximately 3 inches long and a little over half an inch wide. That strip was cut in half, and The Vatican stored half it away for future testing. The remaining strip, approximately 1.5 inches long and a little over half an inch wide, was divided into 3 strips and send to three separate labs in Arizona, Oxford, England, and Switzerland. All three labs came back with results that were very similar, and the consensus was that The Shroud material dated from somewhere between the 1200s and the 1300s, which proved the relic to be a medieval hoax in most people's minds.  As with everything Shroud wise, there have been many criticisms of the original testing. Noted chemist Ray Rogers has written and published one of the more interesting challenges noting that the chemical vanillin was readily found in the samples of The Shroud used for radiocarbon dating, but completely absent from other parts of the main body of The Shroud.  Rogers claimed in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years" I do not understand textile chemistry nearly well enough to dispute or confirm Rogers' findings, but I am intrigued by then. More recently, research Tristan Casabianca's team found that the 1988 carbon dating was unreliable, as only pieces from the edges of the cloth were radiocarbon tested. Many scholars believe that The Shroud, particularly the edge parts, might have been compromised significantly by several of the fires that have impacted it, especially the 1532 fire. That fire, as well as centuries of display and handling could, in their view, radically alter results from radiocarbon dating.  Casabianca obtained a lot of insight into the 1988 radiocarbon testing via a freedom of information inquiry, and upon examining the original data and process of testing, concluded, “The tested samples are obviously heterogeneous from many different dates. There is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the shroud, are representative of the whole fabric. It is, therefore, impossible to conclude that the Shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.” Shroud researcher Russ Breault, upon reviewing Casabianca's newly uncovered information, stated,  “this tells us there is something anomalous with the single sample used to date The Shroud. This is something we have long suspected because the corner chosen was absolutely the most handled area of the cloth, exactly where it was held up by hand for hundreds of public exhibitions over the centuries. If you were looking for the worst possible sample location, you would choose from one of the two outside corners — right where the sample was cut in 1988.” That said, it should be considered here that no scientist that specializes in radiocarbon testing has raised significant questions about the method of dating used in the 1988 testing. Summary of Sturp's 1978 findings:  No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved. Why care? It doesn't prove anything one way or the other about Jesus, so in my mind, it is not a crucial artifact, and certainly shouldn't be used to prove or disprove somebody's faith. If the Shroud is ultimately proved to be a hoax, how big of a deal is that? I would say - religiously speaking - it is not a big deal at all. None of the Christian faith rests on The Shroud of Turin being genuine. While it is true that the burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned a few times in the Bible, it is not given particular attention, and no central or tertiary claims of Christianity rest on the Shroud.  What if - somehow, someway, The Shroud was proven to be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus? I think that would be a HUGE deal...but not a religiously huge deal. Here's what I mean: If The Shroud could be authenticated, then what we would have is a cloth that was actually wrapped around the single most important and well-known person in all of history. Not only that, but we would have a near-photograph of Jesus, and we would know His size, and what He looked like. It would be incredible to know for sure whether or not The Shroud was genuine...but what would its genuineness prove? That Jesus existed? Sure, there are some people who doubt the existence of Jesus, but some people also doubt the moon-landing, and many other obvious facts of history but almost no serious scholar denies that Jesus existed. Would a genuine Shroud PROVE the resurrection of Jesus, which is the central claim of Christianity? Of course not! How could it? I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, but The Shroud could neither prove nor disprove that. In my understanding, The Shroud is an amazing historical artifact - especially if it is proved genuine - but it is not an amazing focus of faith.  To wit, in John 5, Jesus strongly challenged the people who were following him and said:  39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. A challenging verse that I think has application in this situation: The Shroud is not capable of saving people from their sins and should not be an object of religious veneration. All veneration and honor should go to Jesus. That said, The Shroud is still - if genuine - one of the most amazing pieces of history in the world. We should not worship it, but there is nothing wrong with being interested and fascinated by it. 

Join us as special guest speaker, Ray Rogers, takes us through a journey in the book of Jonah, asking the question What If? The post What If? appeared first on Living Water Adventist Church.

Ray Rogers is the Chief Executive Officer for the National Center for Health Care Informatics (NCHCI) and The Praxis Center for Innovative Learning located in Butte, Montana. Ray serves as the CEO for the NCHCI, a non-profit corporation dedicated to improving the management of health care data, information, and knowledge. His company is leading an effort to develop the Praxis Center for Innovative Learning - a $35 million, 70,000+ square foot rural healthcare simulation training center. This will be the nation's first independent, non-profit, non-affiliated medical simulation training center dedicated specifically to the needs of rural healthcare practitioners. “Mastery is achieved through practice.” Ray has extensive experience developing simulation training for the USAF Special Operations Forces (Pararescuemen). He has hosted regional conferences and has spoken to audiences nationally on the topics of electronic medical records, personal health records, and health information exchange. He has also worked with Hewlett Packard and CrossFlo System on a syndromic surveillance Health Information Exchange (HIE) demonstration project, and served as a lead planner for the past three Montana Economic Development Summits hosted by Senator Max Baucus.  Ray has over 15 years’ experience in higher education administration, fundraising, marketing, and business development, 13 years’ experience working in the field of health care informatics, and 5 years as a marketing engineer for a full-service environmental consulting company. In 2001, Ray led an effort on behalf of the Montana University System to create the nation’s first undergraduate degree in Health Care Informatics. He is a part-time faculty member at Montana Tech. Ray holds an undergraduate degree in Engineering and a MS degree in Technical Communications. Ray has three grown children and enjoys skiing, running, hiking and fly-fishing. You can reach Ray by email at rrogers@mtech.edu.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz we’re revisiting the workers at CVS on Flatbush Avenue and their ongoing fight to become the first unionized shop on the East Coast to secure a fairly bargained contract from the giant pharmaceutical chain. Despite successfully organizing nearly three years ago, CVS continues to drag its feet. Local 338’s Mike Pasquaretta and Yomaira Franqui fill us in on the latest. Also joining us in the studio are labor historian Jane LaTour and labor rights and anti-REBNY activist Ray Rogers who discuss the ongoing closures of small businesses throughout the city, as well as the more than 450-day old strike against Cable-TV behemoth Charter/Spectrum.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz we’re revisiting the workers at CVS on Flatbush Avenue and their ongoing fight to become the first unionized shop on the East Coast to secure a fairly bargained contract from the giant pharmaceutical chain. Despite successfully organizing nearly three years ago, CVS continues to drag its feet. Local 338’s Mike Pasquaretta and Yomaira Franqui fill us in on the latest. Also joining us in the studio are labor historian Jane LaTour and labor rights and anti-REBNY activist Ray Rogers who discuss the ongoing closures of small businesses throughout the city, as well as the more than 450-day old strike against Cable-TV behemoth Charter/Spectrum.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz we’re revisiting the workers at CVS on Flatbush Avenue and their ongoing fight to become the first unionized shop on the East Coast to secure a fairly bargained contract from the giant pharmaceutical chain. Despite successfully organizing nearly three years ago, CVS continues to drag its feet. Local 338’s Mike Pasquaretta and Yomaira Franqui fill us in on the latest. Also joining us in the studio are labor historian Jane LaTour and labor rights and anti-REBNY activist Ray Rogers who discuss the ongoing closures of small businesses throughout the city, as well as the more than 450-day old strike against Cable-TV behemoth Charter/Spectrum.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz we’re revisiting the workers at CVS on Flatbush Avenue and their ongoing fight to become the first unionized shop on the East Coast to secure a fairly bargained contract from the giant pharmaceutical chain. Despite successfully organizing nearly three years ago, CVS continues to drag its feet. Local 338’s Mike Pasquaretta and Yomaira Franqui fill us in on the latest. Also joining us in the studio are labor historian Jane LaTour and labor rights and anti-REBNY activist Ray Rogers who discuss the ongoing closures of small businesses throughout the city, as well as the more than 450-day old strike against Cable-TV behemoth Charter/Spectrum.

Love it or hate it, there's no denying that Fortnite is everywhere. Producers Peter Ogburn and Ray Rogers talk to Morning Consult's Joanna Piacenza about the popularity of the video game, how much money it's made and the future of the online world!

Producers Peter Ogburn and Ray Rogers talk to the latest winner of the James Beard Award for Best Chef: Southeast. He's Rodney Scott, legendary pitmaster at Scott's BBQ in Hemingway, SC and Rodney Scott's BBQ in Charleston, SC. We talk about the big win, BBQ culture, and the merging of tradition and innovation.

It's been a wild week for Kanye West. He's tied himself to Donald Trump and said some disparaging remarks about slavery. Producers Peter Ogburn and Ray Rogers weigh in on the damage he's done to his brand and also how dangerous his words can be. Plus, can you separate the art from the artist?

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz, Staten Island mom Sanela Djencic talks about the 11-month-old strike against Charter/Spectrum and what thecorporate fat cats are doing to working families like hers; activist Ray Rogers and Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 Business Rep. Robert Rotolo talk about the attack on good jobs at the Hudson Yards development; Workmen’s Circle Social Justice Director Larry Moskowitz tackles racism in society; and labor organizer Phil Cohen and LP correspondent Steve Wishnia discuss the Supreme Court case threatening to undermine the U.S. labor movement. Listen below.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz, Staten Island mom Salena Djencic talks about the 11-month-old strike against Charter/Spectrum and what the corporate fat cats are doing to working families like hers; activist Ray Rogers and Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 Business Rep. Robert Rotolo talk about the attack on good jobs at the Hudson Yards development; Workmen’s Circle Social Justice Director Larry Moskowitz tackles racism in society; and labor organizer Phil Cohen and LP correspondent Steve Wishnia discuss the Supreme Court case threatening to undermine the U.S. labor movement.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz, Staten Island mom Salena Djencic talks about the 11-month-old strike against Charter/Spectrum and what the corporate fat cats are doing to working families like hers; activist Ray Rogers and Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 Business Rep. Robert Rotolo talk about the attack on good jobs at the Hudson Yards development; Workmen’s Circle Social Justice Director Larry Moskowitz tackles racism in society; and labor organizer Phil Cohen and LP correspondent Steve Wishnia discuss the Supreme Court case threatening to undermine the U.S. labor movement.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz, Staten Island mom Sanela Djencic talks about the 11-month-old strike against Charter/Spectrum and what thecorporate fat cats are doing to working families like hers; activist Ray Rogers and Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 Business Rep. Robert Rotolo talk about the attack on good jobs at the Hudson Yards development; Workmen’s Circle Social Justice Director Larry Moskowitz tackles racism in society; and labor organizer Phil Cohen and LP correspondent Steve Wishnia discuss the Supreme Court case threatening to undermine the U.S. labor movement. Listen below.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz, Staten Island mom Sanela Djencic talks about the 11-month-old strike against Charter/Spectrum and what thecorporate fat cats are doing to working families like hers; activist Ray Rogers and Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 Business Rep. Robert Rotolo talk about the attack on good jobs at the Hudson Yards development; Workmen’s Circle Social Justice Director Larry Moskowitz tackles racism in society; and labor organizer Phil Cohen and LP correspondent Steve Wishnia discuss the Supreme Court case threatening to undermine the U.S. labor movement. Listen below.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz, Staten Island mom Sanela Djencic talks about the 11-month-old strike against Charter/Spectrum and what thecorporate fat cats are doing to working families like hers; activist Ray Rogers and Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 Business Rep. Robert Rotolo talk about the attack on good jobs at the Hudson Yards development; Workmen’s Circle Social Justice Director Larry Moskowitz tackles racism in society; and labor organizer Phil Cohen and LP correspondent Steve Wishnia discuss the Supreme Court case threatening to undermine the U.S. labor movement. Listen below.

On this episode of LaborPress’ Blue Collar Buzz, Staten Island mom Salena Djencic talks about the 11-month-old strike against Charter/Spectrum and what the corporate fat cats are doing to working families like hers; activist Ray Rogers and Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 Business Rep. Robert Rotolo talk about the attack on good jobs at the Hudson Yards development; Workmen’s Circle Social Justice Director Larry Moskowitz tackles racism in society; and labor organizer Phil Cohen and LP correspondent Steve Wishnia discuss the Supreme Court case threatening to undermine the U.S. labor movement.

Hasn't the Shroud of Turin been exposed once and for all as a Mediaeval forgery (albeit the work of an artistic genius) thanks to rigorous carbon-dating tests carried out in the 1980s? Or is there more to be said? This week we are joined by attorney and author Mark Antonacci, founder and president of Test the Shroud Foundation, for a discussion on his fascinating book Test the Shroud : At the Atomic and Molecular Levels. Arguing that new scientific tests might contest these findings and reveal the Shroud to be very probably the genuine burial cloth of Jesus Christ, Mark Antonacci proposes a scientifically-testable hypothesis that particle radiation emanating from the shroud-wrapped, crucified body may account for very many of the Shroud's features, such as full-length body images, still-red blood marks, erroneous carbon dating and more. He also describes scientific tests that could be applied to the burial cloth and its human bloodstains that could, he believes, demonstrate whether or not the Shroud was impacted by a miraculous event, when and where it happened, and even the identity of the victim. Join us as we discuss the issues and debate whether or not his proposals might be fruitful in the ongoing quest to determine the truth about The Shroud of Turin. (For show notes please visit http://themindrenewed.com)

Hasn't the Shroud of Turin been exposed once and for all as a Mediaeval forgery (albeit the work of an artistic genius) thanks to rigorous carbon-dating tests carried out in the 1980s? Or is there more to be said? This week we are joined by attorney and author Mark Antonacci, founder and president of Test the Shroud Foundation, for a discussion on his fascinating book Test the Shroud : At the Atomic and Molecular Levels. Arguing that new scientific tests might contest these findings and reveal the Shroud to be very probably the genuine burial cloth of Jesus Christ, Mark Antonacci proposes a scientifically-testable hypothesis that particle radiation emanating from the shroud-wrapped, crucified body may account for very many of the Shroud's features, such as full-length body images, still-red blood marks, erroneous carbon dating and more. He also describes scientific tests that could be applied to the burial cloth and its human bloodstains that could, he believes, demonstrate whether or not the Shroud was impacted by a miraculous event, when and where it happened, and even the identity of the victim. Join us as we discuss the issues and debate whether or not his proposals might be fruitful in the ongoing quest to determine the truth about The Shroud of Turin. (For show notes please visit http://themindrenewed.com)

This week, Ralph talks sharks to ocean activist David Helvarg of Blue Frontier and talks coke to corporate nemesis Ray Rogers and his Campaign to Stop Killer Coke.