Open Discussion - Scientific Aspects of The Shroud of Turin

[joer]

Vanillin - first mention in Web Page on Rogers information.

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/index.htm

Madder root dyes (Alizarin and Purpurin), gum, a hydrous oxide mordant, cotton fibers and significant levels of vanillin (4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) have been found in the carbon 14 sample area and not anywhere else on the Shroud. The startling conclusion is that what was radiocarbon dated was chemically unlike the rest of the cloth. Thus it was an invalid sample.

Chemical and Texitile composition of the tested area
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/turin-shroud-faq-05.htm

The non-image cloth typically shows weak fluorescence (upper right). When image appears on the cloth, it quenches the fluorescence and gives it a brown color (see "Hands" below). The small, triangular, white area is where the Raes sample was cut in 1973. The radiocarbon sample was cut upward from there about 1 cm to the right of the seam and about 7 cm long. The area where the radiocarbon sample was taken is relatively dark, a fact that is not the result of dirt, image color, or scorching. The cloth is much less fluorescent in that area, brightening into more typical fluorescence to the right. The photograph proves that the radiocarbon area has a different chemical composition than the main part of the cloth. This was obviously not considered before the sample was cut.

Raes and radiocarbon yarn show colored encrustations on their surfaces. Some sections of medulla contain some of the material, showing that it had been able to flow by capillary attraction as a liquid. The encrustation is not removed by nonpolar solvents, but it swells and dissolves in water.



This photomicrograph shows several fibers from the center of the radiocarbon sample in water. The gum is swelling and slowly detaching from the fibers. Many red alizarin/mordant lakes can be seen, and yellow dye is in solution in the gum. Several cotton fibers are visible, a situation unique to the radiocarbon samples.

There was absolutely no encrustation on either the Holland cloth or fibers from the main part of the Shroud.

Al Adler had found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. I found that the radiocarbon sample was uniquely coated with a plant gum (probably gum Arabic), a hydrous aluminum oxide mordant (the aluminum found by Adler), and Madder root dye (alizarin and purpurin). Nothing similar exists on any other part of the Shroud. The photomicrograph shows several fibers from the center of the radiocarbon sample in water. The gum is swelling and slowly detaching from the fibers. Many red alizarin/mordant lakes can be seen, and yellow dye is in solution in the gum. Several cotton fibers are visible, a situation unique to the Raes and radiocarbon samples.

The radiocarbon sampling area had been dyed to match the old part of the cloth. The sample chosen for dating was totally invalid for determining the true age of the Shroud.
----------------------------
Most people associate "Vanillin" with the dating process of the shroud. But very few consider how it is used to determine the tempurature of the image making process.
----------------------------
The kinetics of vanillin elimination from lignin that determine a low­ temperature image-formation processhttp://www.shroudstory.com/faq/turin-shroud-faq-08.htm

Glucose decomposes by a multi-step process. As with all of the other saccharides, the first is a dehydration/condensation reaction. The condensation processes yield carbon-carbon double bonds, which ultimately lead to color formation. Bruce Waymack of Philip Morris measured the kinetics of the first reaction as E = 23.9 kcal/mole and Z = 1.26 X 107 s-1. The low-molecular-weight polysaccharides are much less stable than cellulose.

I measured the kinetics of vanillin elimination from lignin as E = 23.6 kcal/mol and Z = 3.7 X 1011 s-1. It is much less stable than crystalline cellulose.

Results of kinetics studies support a low­temperature image-formation process. The temperature was not high enough to change cellulose within the time available for image formation, and no char was produced.
--------------------------------
These following two discussions on Vanillin and Lignin are the one skeptics over react to as a dating process to determine the Shroud's Date. But we can discuss them openly here without concern of debate ramifications of the discussion. Let's do it!
--------------------------------
Are there any other ways than radiocarbon to date the Shroud of Turin?
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/turin-shroud-faq-13.htm

Some compounds like lignin change composition with time. The lignin in the Shroud does not give the normal microchemical test for vanillin, indicating that it is quite old. Measurements of the chemical rate for loss of vanillin estimates an age for the Shroud of more than 1300 years, depending on storage conditions.

Lignin
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/turin-shroud-faq-14.htm

Lignin is a structural polymer that is found in all plants, including flax. Linen is bleached in an effort to remove as much lignin as possible, but some lignin always remains in linen. Lignin slowly ages with the loss of vanillin (4-hydroxy-2-methoxybenzaldehyde). A very sensitive microchemical test exists for the detection of traces of vanillin. It is easy to detect vanillin in modern lignin, it is harder to find in Medieval linen, and no test can be obtained from the few Shroud fibers that are still available for study. The lignin in samples from the Dead Sea scrolls (ca. AD 70) does not give the vanillin test. This observation would suggest that the linen of the Shroud is very old, casting doubt on the accuracy of the 1988 date. Observations on the lignin could be confirmed with samples from the "restoration"; however, such samples are jealously guarded in Turin.
----------------------------
Let's have some productive sharing my friends.

Knowledge is worth the effort. Wisdom is worth the experience. Resolution of the tensions of competing ideas leads to learning and growth. - joer 5/3/2009

[Wyvern]

Maybe a better way of going about this is to examine the actual historical record. According to the catholic encyclopedia the shroud first appears in c1360 in the diocese of Troyes. At that time the Bishop of Troyes claimed that it was a fake and in fact knew who the artist was, in fact in 1389 the bishop of Troyes made an appeal to pope Clement VII to stop its exhibition. The pope agreed but did not forbid its display merely that prior to being viewed it was to be denounced by a priest that it was not authenitc. It wasn't until 1506 that pope Julius II declared it to be real.

It should also be noted that in the middle ages no fewer than a half dozen claimed to be authentic burial shrouds of Jesus Christ provided by none other than Joseph of Arimathea himself existed.

Instead of trying to come up with new methodologies to prove a date you have already come up with start with what you know and see if there is anything more than legends and rumors to back it up. The approximate date of 1360 is pretty much the earliest provable date the shroud can be shown to exist.

[joer]

Maybe a better way of going about this is to examine the actual historical record. According to the catholic encyclopedia the shroud first appears in c1360 in the diocese of Troyes. At that time the Bishop of Troyes claimed that it was a fake and in fact knew who the artist was, in fact in 1389 the bishop of Troyes made an appeal to pope Clement VII to stop its exhibition. The pope agreed but did not forbid its display merely that prior to being viewed it was to be denounced by a priest that it was not authenitc. It wasn't until 1506 that pope Julius II declared it to be real.

It should also be noted that in the middle ages no fewer than a half dozen claimed to be authentic burial shrouds of Jesus Christ provided by none other than Joseph of Arimathea himself existed.

Instead of trying to come up with new methodologies to prove a date you have already come up with start with what you know and see if there is anything more than legends and rumors to back it up. The approximate date of 1360 is pretty much the earliest provable date the shroud can be shown to exist.

Hi Wyvern,

I think there is a balance between science and history. Historical sometimes say one thing while science says another. Historical is sometimes right when science errs. But the majority of the time I think science backs up or reveals the truth in details about the historical record.

Maybe what I'm missing is that skeptics believe the science surrounding the shroud is a hoax. Totally manufactured in a conspiracy to keep the concept of what the shroud is purported to be "alive".

I don't believe that. I believe it when scientists say that the image is unique in it's formation process. And it's a process unknown to humankind at this time.

Wyvern, if you have any links to McCrone's actual papers and/or reports on the shroud or any other scientist that has studied it that believes they KNOW and have proof of how the image was made, I'd really like to see it. I'd like to read the authoritative opposing view.

Thank Wyvern for any help in this.

[Goat]

Maybe a better way of going about this is to examine the actual historical record. According to the catholic encyclopedia the shroud first appears in c1360 in the diocese of Troyes. At that time the Bishop of Troyes claimed that it was a fake and in fact knew who the artist was, in fact in 1389 the bishop of Troyes made an appeal to pope Clement VII to stop its exhibition. The pope agreed but did not forbid its display merely that prior to being viewed it was to be denounced by a priest that it was not authenitc. It wasn't until 1506 that pope Julius II declared it to be real.

It should also be noted that in the middle ages no fewer than a half dozen claimed to be authentic burial shrouds of Jesus Christ provided by none other than Joseph of Arimathea himself existed.

Instead of trying to come up with new methodologies to prove a date you have already come up with start with what you know and see if there is anything more than legends and rumors to back it up. The approximate date of 1360 is pretty much the earliest provable date the shroud can be shown to exist.

Hi Wyvern,

I think there is a balance between science and history. Historical sometimes say one thing while science says another. Historical is sometimes right when science errs. But the majority of the time I think science backs up or reveals the truth in details about the historical record.

Maybe what I'm missing is that skeptics believe the science surrounding the shroud is a hoax. Totally manufactured in a conspiracy to keep the concept of what the shroud is purported to be "alive".

I don't believe that. I believe it when scientists say that the image is unique in it's formation process. And it's a process unknown to humankind at this time.

Wyvern, if you have any links to McCrone's actual papers and/or reports on the shroud or any other scientist that has studied it that believes they KNOW and have proof of how the image was made, I'd really like to see it. I'd like to read the authoritative opposing view.

Thank Wyvern for any help in this.

It has been reproduced .. see http://www.shadowshroud.com/

In addition, Joe Nickell reproduced it use a bas relief, and McCrone reproduced it using painting methods. So, there have been multiple ways the effects have been reproduced.

Here is a link to some of McCrones work on the red ochre .. including photographs and the actual analysis of those photographs, rather than the false claims of the shroud site.

http://www.mcri.org/home/section/63-64- ... oud-update

This is a chart of where MCrone got his samples from..

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64-293- ... ple-points

And this is an anaylsis of how much contamination woudl have to occur to throw the results off to the degree claimed
http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64-293- ... .d.-shroud



Here is a link to a 'fake' that was created by Joe Nickell

http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html

[Wyvern]

Maybe a better way of going about this is to examine the actual historical record. According to the catholic encyclopedia the shroud first appears in c1360 in the diocese of Troyes. At that time the Bishop of Troyes claimed that it was a fake and in fact knew who the artist was, in fact in 1389 the bishop of Troyes made an appeal to pope Clement VII to stop its exhibition. The pope agreed but did not forbid its display merely that prior to being viewed it was to be denounced by a priest that it was not authenitc. It wasn't until 1506 that pope Julius II declared it to be real.

It should also be noted that in the middle ages no fewer than a half dozen claimed to be authentic burial shrouds of Jesus Christ provided by none other than Joseph of Arimathea himself existed.

Instead of trying to come up with new methodologies to prove a date you have already come up with start with what you know and see if there is anything more than legends and rumors to back it up. The approximate date of 1360 is pretty much the earliest provable date the shroud can be shown to exist.

Hi Wyvern,

I think there is a balance between science and history. Historical sometimes say one thing while science says another. Historical is sometimes right when science errs. But the majority of the time I think science backs up or reveals the truth in details about the historical record.

Maybe what I'm missing is that skeptics believe the science surrounding the shroud is a hoax. Totally manufactured in a conspiracy to keep the concept of what the shroud is purported to be "alive".

I don't believe that. I believe it when scientists say that the image is unique in it's formation process. And it's a process unknown to humankind at this time.

Wyvern, if you have any links to McCrone's actual papers and/or reports on the shroud or any other scientist that has studied it that believes they KNOW and have proof of how the image was made, I'd really like to see it. I'd like to read the authoritative opposing view.

Thank Wyvern for any help in this.

Goat has been nice enough to provide links to McCrone's research.

In this case science and history are in accord, the historical record shows the shrouds first appearance to be around 1360 and McCrone's research tagged the date at 1355. McCrone came up with this date a full ten years before the carbon 14 tests and at the same time invalidated the fire and biological explanations for misdating. More interesting is that he has moved on to other areas of research and has no apparant interest in the topic anymore, which I think speaks of the honesty of his research. I am not saying his research is definitive but it would be nice if an opposing view instead of trying to punch holes in the current research would instead fund further reseach into the subject, if nothing else it would be equivalent to getting a second opinion.

[Goat]

Goat has been nice enough to provide links to McCrone's research.

In this case science and history are in accord, the historical record shows the shrouds first appearance to be around 1360 and McCrone's research tagged the date at 1355. McCrone came up with this date a full ten years before the carbon 14 tests and at the same time invalidated the fire and biological explanations for misdating. More interesting is that he has moved on to other areas of research and has no apparent interest in the topic anymore, which I think speaks of the honesty of his research. I am not saying his research is definitive but it would be nice if an opposing view instead of trying to punch holes in the current research would instead fund further research into the subject, if nothing else it would be equivalent to getting a second opinion.

Well, it is obvious he is not doing the research anymore, since he passed away in 2002 at the age of 84. However, his contributions to chemical microscopy is very much acknowledged by the scientific community... with such things as showing there was too low a level of arsenic in Napoleon's hair to have that as what killed him, and finding out the Beethoven had an excess in lead in his hair, which probabaly lead to his death, and explain his deafness, and his mood swings.

He also showed the vinland map to be a fake, since although the parchement was medeaval, the ink used has aluminum in it, which wasn't introduced until the 20th century. In other words, he was very respected, and much an innovator in the field.

[joer]

Thank You Wyvern and Goat.

I reviewed all the links to McCrone’s site and the Nickell’s article. I thought there was more evidence. I thought there might be a peer-reviewed paper (reviewed outside of McCrone’s own magazine, Microscope) on it that McCrone wrote. But besides the figure of where the 32 tape pieces came from the shroud which doesn’t present any evidence only locations and the Bio contaminant graph of the quantity of bio contaminants necessary for a certain age date for the shroud that isn’t the current issue in question, His four self-fabricated samples that he claims yielded results that are identical to the tape samples, lack the detail, the scope of examination and depth of discussion of Rogers and even Brown’s presented work.

His site seems mostly promotional. Promoting his businesses and books. His book on the shroud is linked to and referred to from his report on the shroud for one to BUY if they want more details on his work.

In my opinion this evidence is geared more to sales of McCrone’s products, and less detailed and informative than evidence presented to the contrary.

I’m not saying McCrone is wrong. I’m saying his evidence without seeing his book, isn’t that convincing to me. And of course Nickell’s piece is based on McCrone’s work. I would need to see more details of his work before I would be convicted that he is right.

Is it possible Goat and Wyvern that you are convinced of the integrity of McCrone’s work because of your own convictions based on other evidence?

If it is do your have links to the other evidence, if any, you base your convictions on?

Thank You both. You have been most kind. I appreciate those links Goat.

[Goat]

Thank You Wyvern and Goat.

I reviewed all the links to McCrone’s site and the Nickell’s article. I thought there was more evidence. I thought there might be a peer-reviewed paper (reviewed outside of McCrone’s own magazine, Microscope) on it that McCrone wrote. But besides the figure of where the 32 tape pieces came from the shroud which doesn’t present any evidence only locations and the Bio contaminant graph of the quantity of bio contaminants necessary for a certain age date for the shroud that isn’t the current issue in question, His four self-fabricated samples that he claims yielded results that are identical to the tape samples, lack the detail, the scope of examination and depth of discussion of Rogers and even Brown’s presented work.

His site seems mostly promotional. Promoting his businesses and books. His book on the shroud is linked to and referred to from his report on the shroud for one to BUY if they want more details on his work.

In my opinion this evidence is geared more to sales of McCrone’s products, and less detailed and informative than evidence presented to the contrary.

I’m not saying McCrone is wrong. I’m saying his evidence without seeing his book, isn’t that convincing to me. And of course Nickell’s piece is based on McCrone’s work. I would need to see more details of his work before I would be convicted that he is right.

Is it possible Goat and Wyvern that you are convinced of the integrity of McCrone’s work because of your own convictions based on other evidence?

If it is do your have links to the other evidence, if any, you base your convictions on?

Thank You both. You have been most kind. I appreciate those links Goat.

Excuse me?? And the shroud believer site is not 'promotional'>??? Heck, half the 'articles' they present can't even get published. I will note in 2000, he received the American Chemical Society National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin..

In additon, here is a link to a peer reviewed article on it. .. in pdf format.

http://mcri.org/CMSuploads/the_microscope_%20shroud.pdf

[joer]

Goat wrote:

Excuse me?? And the shroud believer site is not 'promotional'>??? Heck, half the 'articles' they present can't even get published. I will note in 2000, he received the American Chemical Society National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin..

In additon, here is a link to a peer reviewed article on it. .. in pdf format.

http://mcri.org/CMSuploads/the_microscope_%20shroud.pdf

I don't know what "the shroud believer site" you are referring to is But it sure isn't this one with Rogers work. McCrone site is MUCH MORE comercial than this one. Maybe you'd like to check again. Count the sales offers on McCrone site than count the ones on Rogers. You'll see about a ten to one or 100 to1 difference bewteen McCrone's site and Rogers.
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

AND HERE
Anyway I read the PDF. And I recognize it as the BEST evidence you have provided me with so far.

There are still questions in my mind about the conclusiveness of McCrone's work especially since it's been almost 20 years since he wrote it and almost 30 since he did the work. And a lot of things have changed. It also seemed like he was taking advantage of the carbon dating test the year before his paper, to sell himself and the products he pedals.

I couldn't copy anything from the PDF file so here's a few notes I typed up.

The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?
Walter C. McCrone revised manuscript Dec. 11 1989.

On Page 2 he wrote:

Of 8000 fibers counted, 19% yellow fibers were from Non-image areas and 46% yellow fibers from the image area of the shroud.

The significance of this discoloration of the image fibers lies in the suggestion that the image was applied as a liquid suspension of red particles, that is, a paint. Paint media and varnishes commonly yellow with time.

This doesn't seem like a very accurate test. he acknowledges in the end that one of his students did teh catagorizing. he implies the yellow comes from a very thin paint. BUT he doesn't consider other possibilities. Like a coat of thin laquer to preserve the shroud.

On Page 3 he writes:

Less than one half of the pigment is crystalline (hematite or vermilion), hence the lines in the XRD pattern are very spotty and difficult to measure. The agreement with known hematite data is, nonetheless, convincing.

Here he writes about teh X-ray diffraction which is table 2 on Page 2. And admits the data is spotty and difficult to measure. What he doesn't rule out is that there may be other data that looks like the hematite data.

Of the vermilion found on the shroud he writes

A dry process form first prepared by alchemists about 800AD. All three are readily distingished microscopically. Significantly on the Shroud is the 800AD form.

This isn't a big deal since a modern person could follow the 800A.D. recipe. BUT it also could have been apllied in 800 A.D. If the shroud is about 1300 years old like many now in teh science community are convinced it is.

On Page 7 McChrone quotes Rogers and Schwalbe as concluding:

The Primary conclusion is that the image does not reside in an applied pigment. The reflectance, fluorescence and chemical characteristics of the Shroud image indicate rather than the image-recording mechanism involved some cellulose oxidation/ dehydration process.

Notice Rogers DOESN'T SAY that there's not an apllied pigment. he says the image isn't in it! It's not in any layer of pigment. So McCrone writes:

There are very small amounts of pigment and medium on the body image fibers, undetectable except by careful light microscopy at a minimum magnification of 400X. the Blood-image areas hold more solid material as red ochre, vermilion, and collagen tempera BUT, still, much less than a normal painting.

This conclusion in 1980 was based solely on observations made with a polarized light microscope, though latter by X-ray, electron diffraction, and electron microprobe analyses.

Sounds like he's trying to sell more microscopes in his conclusion. Then his curtious acknowledgement:

I acknowledge with gratitude the help of Ray Rogers of Los Alamos , who took the excellent Turin Shroud tapes; Christine Skirius, one of my students, who patiently made the meticulous color evaluation of more than 8000 linen fibers.

As I mentioned in a previous post this was reviewed by his own Magazine Microscope.

Thanks goat. Any comments on McCrone's paper?

[Goat]

Goat wrote:

Excuse me?? And the shroud believer site is not 'promotional'>??? Heck, half the 'articles' they present can't even get published. I will note in 2000, he received the American Chemical Society National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin..

In additon, here is a link to a peer reviewed article on it. .. in pdf format.

http://mcri.org/CMSuploads/the_microscope_%20shroud.pdf

I don't know what "the shroud believer site" you are referring to is But it sure isn't this one with Rogers work. McCrone site is MUCH MORE comercial than this one. Maybe you'd like to check again. Count the sales offers on McCrone site than count the ones on Rogers. You'll see about a ten to one or 100 to1 difference bewteen McCrone's site and Rogers.
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

Yes, selling psuedoscience ot the believers is much more profitable than selling books to skeptics. As for 'much more commerical.. I think you should reevaluate.
yes, that sight is selling one book about the shroud.. but it also has links to peer reviewed works. It also is providing opportuinties to train students for study for chemical micoscopic analsyis. If you look at what the McCrone Institute is it is

The McCrone Research Institute (McRI) is an independent not-for-profit educational and research organization in Chicago dedicated to teaching and research in microscopy. Active since 1952 and founded as the institute by Walter C. McCrone in 1960, McRI was organized to provide the highest quality microscopy and microanalsysi.


In other words, it is a NON PROFIT SCHOOL.

It has ongoing afflications with

American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Association of Criminalists (CAC)
Campbell Center for Historic Preservation Studies
The Conservation Center at the Institute of Fine Arts – New York University
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
The University of Chicago, Graham School of General Studies
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
The National Guard Bureau Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) Microscope Specialty Training Program
The NIJ Forensic Microscopy Training Program

among others.

The shroud analsysi is just a very very small portion of what the institute is involved with. Your critisim is noted, and frankly rejected. All signs show that
they are not polticially interested in one specific result or another, but rather more
interested in doing extremely good science.

It's their job, and it is their reputation. And, they are extremely respected in their field. So stop building straw men.

AND HERE
Anyway I read the PDF. And I recognize it as the BEST evidence you have provided me with so far.

There are still questions in my mind about the conclusiveness of McCrone's work especially since it's been almost 20 years since he wrote it and almost 30 since he did the work. And a lot of things have changed. It also seemed like he was taking advantage of the carbon dating test the year before his paper, to sell himself and the products he pedals.

I couldn't copy anything from the PDF file so here's a few notes I typed up.

The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?
Walter C. McCrone revised manuscript Dec. 11 1989.

On Page 2 he wrote:

Of 8000 fibers counted, 19% yellow fibers were from Non-image areas and 46% yellow fibers from the image area of the shroud.

The significance of this discoloration of the image fibers lies in the suggestion that the image was applied as a liquid suspension of red particles, that is, a paint. Paint media and varnishes commonly yellow with time.

This doesn't seem like a very accurate test. he acknowledges in the end that one of his students did teh catagorizing. he implies the yellow comes from a very thin paint. BUT he doesn't consider other possibilities. Like a coat of thin laquer to preserve the shroud.

On Page 3 he writes:

Less than one half of the pigment is crystalline (hematite or vermilion), hence the lines in the XRD pattern are very spotty and difficult to measure. The agreement with known hematite data is, nonetheless, convincing.

Here he writes about teh X-ray diffraction which is table 2 on Page 2. And admits the data is spotty and difficult to measure. What he doesn't rule out is that there may be other data that looks like the hematite data.

Of the vermilion found on the shroud he writes

A dry process form first prepared by alchemists about 800AD. All three are readily distingished microscopically. Significantly on the Shroud is the 800AD form.

This isn't a big deal since a modern person could follow the 800A.D. recipe. BUT it also could have been apllied in 800 A.D. If the shroud is about 1300 years old like many now in teh science community are convinced it is.

On Page 7 McChrone quotes Rogers and Schwalbe as concluding:

The Primary conclusion is that the image does not reside in an applied pigment. The reflectance, fluorescence and chemical characteristics of the Shroud image indicate rather than the image-recording mechanism involved some cellulose oxidation/ dehydration process.

Notice Rogers DOESN'T SAY that there's not an apllied pigment. he says the image isn't in it! It's not in any layer of pigment. So McCrone writes:

There are very small amounts of pigment and medium on the body image fibers, undetectable except by careful light microscopy at a minimum magnification of 400X. the Blood-image areas hold more solid material as red ochre, vermilion, and collagen tempera BUT, still, much less than a normal painting.

This conclusion in 1980 was based solely on observations made with a polarized light microscope, though latter by X-ray, electron diffraction, and electron microprobe analyses.

Sounds like he's trying to sell more microscopes in his conclusion. Then his curtious acknowledgement:

I acknowledge with gratitude the help of Ray Rogers of Los Alamos , who took the excellent Turin Shroud tapes; Christine Skirius, one of my students, who patiently made the meticulous color evaluation of more than 8000 linen fibers.

As I mentioned in a previous post this was reviewed by his own Magazine Microscope.

Thanks goat. Any comments on McCrone's paper?

|

Yes, it is an honest paper, which is basically not only describing his work, and meticiously making sure that people know exactly his tecnhiques and what he is doing, but he is giving all the credit of who did what. The fact you think he is trying to sell 'microscopes' obviously is a straw man attack that is more of an ad homenen against him than understanding on your part of his paper.

Frankly, you have yet to show you actually UNDERSTAND anything you have read.
And, I find that discouraging.

[joer]

This is not a debate Goat. It's an open discussion. Ad homenen and straw men have nothing to do here. We are not practicing for debate.

I can understand if you don't like my critical assessment of McCrone. But you seem very emotional about this subject and like you have an emotional need to argue about it. We're just talking here Goat. No need to get all fired up like your out on the debate floor. Just say what you want to say. No need to get all excited about it.

I shared my honest opinion I'll wait for the future verdict and we'll see what develops. And whose scientist was more correct about the date and how the image was made on the shroud. It doesn't matter to me which one wins the argument. I just enjoy seeing their work and developing my own perspective on them.

And I'll go with Rogers. Peace Bro!