Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start.
-
http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
-
http://shroud.com/78team.htm
Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*
His expertise is in optical sensors. But he does have a PhD.
Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
I can't find him on the internet to assess his area of expertise.
John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
Can't find him either, though to be fair his surname may make it difficult.
Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography*
He appears to be a photographer, but not a scientist.
Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*
There are too many famous people called Mark Evans for me to be able to find him on the net.
Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Another photographer, appearing to specialise in nudes.
Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*
His expertise was in computer image analysis, but though he studied physics he does not appear to have a PhD
Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado*
Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM*
Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation*
Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation*
Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph*
John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories*
Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center*
Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios*
I had expected that you would have listed their areas of expertise, Jabba, as I'd particularly asked you to do this.
So I went through the first seven names (as it was Jabba's job to do this, I stopped after seven) on the list of 'scientists' who took part in the investigation in 1978, and so far it seems that 'scientist' is being used in a very loose sense; only one of the first seven has a PhD that I can find, and in any case none of their areas of expertise appear to relate to textiles, art history, archaeology, chemistry, biology or forensics.
It is not even clear from this list how many of these people actually observed or handled the shroud itself (rather than photographs of it).
The investigation that these people did took place before the carbon dating analysis; it may be that if those results had been known, the results of their investigation may have been rather different.
I don't think you have evidenced your assertion that "most" scientists who have studied the shroud 'admit they cannot explain it'. In 1978, a number of people, at least one of whom can properly be described as a scientist (but including many who were not scientists) performed an investigation. Their conclusion was that some aspects could not currently be explained, but that they suspected explanations would be made in the future. That was 37 years ago.
I do not know, of course, how many scientists were part of that group, since you did not provide that information. Nor how many scientists have been involved in investigations before or since, including the carbon dating work.
But I don't think you have met your burden of proof of showing that "most" (51%+) scientists who have studied the shroud have admitted it cannot be explained.
Nor does any of this really touch on authenticity (see the many analogies already made to demonstrate that irreproducibility and inexplicability do not support or imply authenticity).
