You almost got no reply from me. You immediately previous post was extremely trollish in content and uncalled for. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. This one is close. You are asking me to do your research for you.
The sites are:
The first site is maintained by Barrie Schwortz, who is Jewish. Barrie was the principal visible light photographer for STURP. It is the official repository for scholarly and scientific papers on the Shroud. The second is maintained by fellow Freeper Shroudie. It is much more accessible and understandable.
The claims of Walter C. McCrone to have seen Red Ocher (iron Oxide) and Vermilion (Mercury Sulfide) through his polarized optical microscope were completely falsified by Electron microscopy, X-ray micro spectroscopy (which could identify the composition of the vinyl baggies the samples were transported in, as well as all compounds and element on the threads) which found NO pigments. This work has been replicated, numerous times, and confirmed. These are proved facts. Yet the skeptics keep trotting McCrone out.
McCrone reported he found his standard forensic tests for blood were negative so he reported no blood on the Shroud in 1979. A test run by Italian forensic experts using the same standard tests were also negative. However two specialists in hemoglobin, blood derivatives, and blood chemistries, A. Adler, and R. Heller, confirmed by B. Cameron, whose double doctorate specializes in methemoglobin, report that standard forensic tests won't work on old denatured blood unless it can be gotten into solution. Both mcCrone and the Italians reported being unable to get the "blood stain" into solution. However, the specialist knew how to do it, and confirmed the substance as blood, using over thirty different tests, all of which were positive, including 12 that were specific for human blood. These are proved facts published in multiple medical and scientific journals. Their work has been replicated, several times. On the skeptics side they have the 1979 McCrone and 1973 Italian tests and the statements of a Geologist and a police forensic tech with an AA degree claiming the more modern test mistook egg albumin and plant porphyrins for human blood with no evidence. Yet they keep trotting McCrone's and the Italian's tests out.
And, the invalidation of the C-14 test sample by five independent researchers. Three by physical and chemical examination of surviving sample threads, photo micrographs of the tested samples, the surviving sample 'c' kept by the C-14 team for later examination, all showing they were NOT homogenous with the item intended to be dated. Three alternative approaches, finding the same thing, approaches certainty the hypothesis is factual. . . the sample is contaminated with spurious non-original material. In this case, the original 100% Linen Shroud was skillfully repaired in the area the sample was cut from with dyed medieval Cotton, thus introducing a carbon containing substance of a differing, unknown origination date than the unknown origination date of the material intended to be dated.
Then two studies done statistically showing conclusively that even within the four tested C14 sub-samples, the variation in results were statistically so far from normal range, that none of the reported results could have come from a homogeneous sample! I.E., internally, the sample varied in date so much from one sub-sample to the next, that the degrees of confidence DID NOT OVERLAP! This was a big RED FLAG that the testers should have seen—in fact the Arizona lab DID note the discrepancy and averaged their results instead of reporting it!—and alerted the testers something was seriously wrong with their sampling! The C14 statisticians said the samples could have just as easily come from totally different sources. The odds they came from the same homogenous source were astronomical. The statistical work has been doubly checked by other statisticians and found to be correct. These results invalidated the sample, thus invalidating the results of the C14 test. These are proved facts. Yet the skeptics keep trotting out the C14 test date as if it has a meaning. It doesn't.
The settled science is that which has been proved and NOT been falsified. . . Yet. I follow the science. I find it very tiresome to keep arguing with the same individuals who refuse to listen, read, or accept the scientific method merely because the results disturb their world view. . . and then use ad hominem attacks when they run out of facts. I think we are justified in being short with them. Perhaps you got caught in the friendly fire.
There are still potential problems. Can you see them? If not, then I'll just go ahead and assume those problems have been argued away by polemical, for otherwise, I see some mention, but not exactly precise follow up.
Now who's work along these lines relied upon some scant few threads scooped up on the sly? There is so much of this recent Shroud claim and counter-claim (and missing counter claims, as in questions that should be asked) it's difficult to keep track of. Which threads, which sample, how were the threads obtained, etc. Broken threads...with threads of differing composition it is said...had been held together by some resin. Ok. What resin? was that possible to ascertain? Possibly not, and though there may be good cause that could be reasonably excusable, they DID say "resin".
For one small example of previous contentions I've encountered;
The two thread portions...where they both cotton, or was one cotton, and one linen? Stuff like that, loose ends hanging, I find among EVERYTHING argued one way or another regarding this relic. It never ends, with each item having the same sort of holes, or potential for serious holes.
How much of this work did they actually show instead of simply tell ? How many "good cause" exceptions to this, that or another, along with tentatively or not "good cause" for assuming this, that, and the other, do we need keep track of in all this Shroud biz, anyway? The thundering herd seems much unaware of their own assumptions, even as they add in all sorts of little tidbits of second-hand scuttlebutt.
Some or most of(?) the evidences are up to these experts judgments. Not having access to those types of things more directly, or access to those in position to engage in critical review of those discussions (that I can trust), leaves me having to rely upon second-hand accounts, though it may be reasonable to trust that guys like Shroudie are faithfully enough transmitting what the various author's have declared their own results or opinions to be.
When evidences are subject to interpretation, or are more directly required to be subject to an investigator's judgement (along with some occasional special pleadings, it seems!) the much vaunted " peer review", at that stage loses much of the value...for it's not exactly like someone can replicate tests themselves. Sticking with protocols, having some qualification, training etc., plus having something of interest to publishers -- that's about it for "peer review", for that phrase does not mean that anyone else has examined the work closely AND critically, or that there may not be weak points existent, much less that anyone else has replicated the same processes followed with the same materials (impossible in this instance) and gotten the same results.
You almost got no reply from me.
So what? That's not my problem. Except you waited until weeks later to reply at all, then late on a Saturday night, and I get the self-justification tap dance, that I have to read first thing Sunday morning. If it's any consolation to you, you have ruined my day. No really. Go ahead and smile.
You immediately previous post was extremely trollish in content and uncalled for.
I'm not sure about that. This one, well yeah. But you've pissed me off. There was no "immediate previous post" from me to YOU, anyway. I wasn't talking to you, but another. Your own opinion of such things, is more than a bit lopsided. Besides, I was making a joke, offering him IOU's. Perhaps I'll now scrounge around for a jpeg and really pay the man since I just again today promised. Then again, that could be one of those little things enjoyable to postpone. You on the other hand, will have to do without completely, with no hope of any coming your way. No IOU's for you at all. Just grin and bear it. ;^)
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. This one is close. You are asking me to do your research for you.
Excuse me, but you said to me previous, that you included such links as you now have done, "in each thread". I looked, didn't see them on this thread, made oblique mention I did not, including I didn't have much desire of following another's links to FR threads (where he was doing some ax-grinding?) and wade through those threads, including all the acrimony, just to find some outside links (which still underwhelm). But thanks for providing them this time. Better late than never, even as they are repeats. I'll take your word they are typically in previous threads...but they weren't in this one, which would leave me wondering upon finding the links myself (which I did earlier today) if those were the ones you were talking about, or not. Thanks for clearing that up.
What's missing is critical examination of the very evidences upon which "true believers" are relying. Perhaps it will be forever that way, for one thing I have noticed concerning the miraculous, things of the Lord's doing, is there will always be some way for those not present and experiencing his presence directly, to explain it all away. It's almost as if He wants it to be that way, on PURPOSE. Then again, folks run around repeating false but hopeful claims, at the same time.
I'll thank you for post #46, for there you rationally gave refutation and reasonable explanation for one of the breathless claims which had been circulating concerning the shroud and the other, "head napkin" relic. Even there, I still wonder about an aspect or two...but nevermind, for now.