A Skeptical Response to Raymond N. Rogerson on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin

This is the critique I wrote in March on Steven Schaferman's rebuttal article when another Freeper, Springheeljack, posted it as a definitive counter to Rogers peer reviewed research:

Geologist Steven D. Schafersman ... claims to be both the Science Consultant and the Administrator of the The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website... which is merely his own vanity site. How can he be a consultant to himself? None of his rebuttal articles have been submitted to peer review. Are you Schafersman, Jack? I suspect you might be.
His primary method of argument is to declare anyone who happens to disagree with him and McCrone as Psuedoscientists and claim that the real problem is the editors of peer-reviewed journals accepting "pseudoscience" articles.
His rebuttal of the Roger's peer-reviewed determination that the 1988 C14 samples were invalid is merely to throw everything he can think of, without citation of proof, against the wall to see what might stick. Some of his rebuttal facts are made up... on the spur of the moment it seems.
The last refuge of those who have no facts is to attack the opponent's character, competence, or motives... in other words, ad hominem...
An example of Schafersman's Ad hominem attack style is here:

"Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud)[This is actually false. Many of the 26 scientists recruited to STURP were skeptics, several Jewish, some agnostics, and some even Atheists... like the late Walter C. McCrone] and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s. He accepts all the shoddy work [only his characterization.] that STURP passed off as science two and three decades ago. As is well known, STURP's analyses on image formation, identity of the blood, sticky tape pollen, and history were hopelessly incompetent and unscientific [Ad hominem attack], despite their claims and posturing to be rigorously scientific. There is no real blood of any kind on the Shroud. Both the image and "blood" were applied by an artist. These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone[Who consistently refused to submit his work to peer-reviewed journals.], whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide["The STURP microscopists couldn't see it because they didn't look at 2500X Maginifiction, like I did... you can't see it at lower magnifications" - Walter C. McCrone. ] (red ochre) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud. "

Geologist Steven D. Schafersman's so-called papers are rife with assertions without proof... or any proper citations. His science is woefully lacking... and full of speculation that is both mischaracterizing of the research that has been done and insulting to the eminently qualified scientists who have been brought in, often without prior knowledge of the Shroud, to do the research using techniques they are very familiar with as they are IN THEIR FIELD of expertise which they use everyday. According to Schafersman, the ONLY competent scientist involved was Walter C. McCrone.
One good example of Schafersman's ad hominem attacks is this comment, attempting to ridicule STURP scientists competence and show the incompetence of Shroud researchers :

"I pointed out that the Christ figure's body, limbs, and fingers were unnaturally elongated, even deformed (amazingly, I was apparently the first person to describe this![AH, No, Schafersman, you weren't. Which really shows the status of your knowledge, or the lack, of the research into the Shroud.]); STURP members eventually claimed that Jesus had Marfan's syndrome or suffered skeletal deformities (odd for God on Earth, but there you are)."

This accusation, made primarily by Shroud skeptics such as Schafersman as evidence it was a fraud, prompted Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS (who was NOT a member of STURP), to write "Did Christ Have Marfan's Syndrome?" La Sindon", Turin, Italy, Dec. 1983... and the conclusion was NO. This is the ONLY mention of Jesus possibly having Marfan's Syndrome on the scientific shroud sites found by a Google search. The rest of the Google results are all versions of Schafersman's claim or citations of the same claim - mostly quotations from Schafersman or Joe Nickell.
Who is Dr. Zugibe? He is a world renowned Forensic Pathologist:

"He holds a Bachelor of Science, Master of Science (Anatomy/Electron Microscopy), Ph.D. (Anatomy/ Histochemistry), and an M.D. degree. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic Pathology and Forensic Pathology and a Diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice. Dr. Zugibe is an adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and is a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists, a Fellow of the American Academy of the Forensic Sciences, Forensic Pathology Section, and a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners."

This is the one of the scientists geologist Schafersman calls incompetent.
Another example of your exalted Schafersman's ad hominem approach to science is this paranoid rant against an esteemed pyrology chemist, Raymond N. Rogers. It is truly amazing:

"In the past I have pointed out that the STURP "scientists" never used a polarizing microscope [False claim... it IS one of the tests that has been repeated following McCrone's own claims... and failed to reproduce McCrone's claims!] to examine their Shroud fiber samples, for if they did, they would have been able to easily identify the iron oxide particles. I even used pictures in my talks of them in front of expensive and elaborate biological microscopes, which are not the polarizing microscopes used for mineralogical, petrographical, forensic, and chemical analysis that McCrone, I, and thousands of other scientists use. Therefore imagine my surprise a week ago when I visited Barrie Schwortz's Shroud of Turin website at http://www.shroud.com/ and saw a photo of the smiling visage of Ray Rogers in front of his polarizing "petrographic microscope"! Now, why does a chemist need a petrographic microscope? [Could it be because Roger's hobby was archaeology and he had been donating his chemical expertise to various archaeology digs since 1968 and used a "petrographic microscope" in pursuit of analysis of microscopic chemical evidence??? Or perhaps he got it to examine the extremely small particles that resulted from the explosions relating to the pyrolysis work that he specialized in?] How long has he had it? Did he get it to use with the Shroud samples, or did he get it recently for the purpose of indirectly refuting me once again! Well, to me this is an example of overreaching yet again, for if Ray actually knew how to use his microscope--of which he appears to be quite proud, exactly mimicking the well-known photo of Walter McCrone!--he would be able to place one of his fiber samples from a Shroud image or blood area under it, add the immersion fluid of proper density, cross the polars, focus up to move the Becke line, and determine that the thousands of tiny orange and red particles he sees covering the fibers have a high index of refraction, revealing them to be iron oxide. That he has apparently neglected to do this reveals Ray Rogers to be either incompetent or mendacious, and thus not deserving of the esteemed designation of microscopist.

Jack, why don't you tell your friend that it really ISN'T all about him? He seems to need some serious counseling if he believe that Rogers got the microscope merely to tweak HIS nose. Your source is outed as a raving lunatic.
Your and Schafersman's approach to discussion is merely to shout "Red Ochre" and "Vermilion" louder. Not to provide ANY other scientists who have found what McCrone claims... against dozens of others who have NOT.
Let's finish with Schafersman's final paragraph where he ignores the hundreds of attempts by scientists, artists, and magicians to duplicate the shroud. In fact, in a leap of illogic, Schaferman ignores his own report just prior to his conclusion of one of the latest failed attempts at duplicating the Shroud. Here is his last paragraph... an example of wishful thinking:

"I have always thought that the Shroud of Turin would be very easy to re-create, but no one has attempted it because either (1) it would reveal the ease of reproducing a Shroud of Turin and thus serve to debunk the magic and mystery that the current Shroud possesses, or (2) the evidence that already exists that the Shroud is an artifact is so overwhelming that it isn't worth anyone's time and expense to reproduce it. No. 2 is certainly my reason for not making a Shroud. And so far, no one has indeed taken the time and expense to duplicate it."
If it is so easy, WHERE IS SCHAFERSMAN's Shroud, Jack? Where? The man is a coward... hiding behind excuses for something he cannot do.

Schafersman's science is outdated and stuck in time with the poor work and attempts at sabotage done by McCrone 28 years ago.

Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: The Microscope 28, p. 105, 115 (1980); The Microscope 29, p. 19 (1981); Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.

Grey, here is my reply from the March thread in reference to Springheeljack's citation of the same articles by McCrone. Is it possible that our current thorn in the side is Springheel?

"The Microscope Journal"
Published Quarterly by McCrone Research Institute the journal is dedicated to the advancement of all forms of microscopy for the biologist, mineralogist, metallographer or chemist.
Contrary to claims by McCrone's company, it is not peer-reviewed except for an in-house committee of McCrone publication employees. [Even if it were truly peer-review, do you seriously believe that a committee (probably chaired by McCrone) would nix an article written by the boss?]
The journal was originally "The Microscope; The British Journal of Microscopy and Photomicrography" and was purchased in 1962 by McCrone Research Institute.

The Microscope is an international journal founded by Arthur Barron in 1937 and dedicated to the advancement of all forms of microscopy for the biologist, mineralogist, metallographer or chemist.
No matter what the field of research, the microscope is always a useful adjunct and often an essential tool.
A successful journal for microscopists must therefore interest and benefit a very wide spectrum of scientists. The Microscope accomplishes this by emphasizing new advances in microscope design, new accessories, new techniques, and unique applications to the study of particles, films, or surfaces of any substance.
A major source of papers for The Microscope is the INTER/ MICRO symposium held each year in Chicago. More Information about the Inter/Micro Symposium
The journal is also open to papers from other meetings or papers written expressly for publication. Also included are microscopy related book reviews.
Published Quarterly by McCrone Research Institute, Edited by Dr. Gary J. Laughlin
Previous Editors:
Robert M. Weaver (2004-2005)
David A. Stoney (1996-1999, 2001-2004)
Walter C. McCrone (1965-1995, 2000)
Harold M. Malies (1962-1965)
Arthur L.E. Barron (1937-1962)

Apparently, this is a companion publication of now discontinued "The Microscopist" which was another publication of McCrone Research Institute.

Now let's look at the other "august" Peer-reviewed journal... "Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988"
That is German for "The Viennes Journal of [the] Supernatural in Science and the Arts 1987/1988" It appears to be the German equivalent of the Skeptical Inquirer.
The article itself is about Richard Feynman's 1974 CalTech Commencement speech on "Cargo Cult Science" The includes the scientists investigating the Shroud of Turin as a prime example of Cargo Cult science in the light of the "impeccable work" done by Walter C. McCrone as reported in their own journal in 1988... and compares them to people like Erich von Daniken, etc. It calls the critics of McCrone psuedoscientists. Feynman did not refer to Shroud studies in his 1974 speech.:

German - "Walter McCrone benutzte mÃ¶glichst einfache, gut erprobte und adÃ¤quate Untersuchungsmethoden, was teils Â– mangels Medienwirksamkeit Â– gegen ihn verwendet wurde. Er betrieb Archiv- und Quellenarbeit zu Herkunft, Alter, Stil und Herstellungsweise des Tuches, verglich Proben vom Grabtuch mit eigenem Blut auf Textilien (wobei er deutliche Unterschiede feststellte) und konnte mit polarisations- und elektronenmikroskopischen Methoden Farbpigmente auf dem Grabtuch nachweisen[4]. "

English - "Walter McCrone used simple, well tested and adequate research methods, what was used partly - for lack of medium effectiveness - against him. It operated file and source work to origin, age, style and mode of production. Older, style and mode of production of the cloth, it compared samples of the grave cloth with own blood on textiles (whereby it determined clear differences) and could prove with polarization and electron microscopic methods [found] pigments on the shroud..."

German - "McCrone interpretierte das Grabtuch als mittelalterliche Tuchmalerei; seine Datierung wurde auch durch eine spÃ¤ter erfolgte C14 Altersbestimmung bestÃ¤tigt. "

English - "McCrone interpreted the grave cloth as medieval cloth painting; its dating was [confirmed] also by a [later] C14 age determination [test] taken place.

It goes on to comment that McCrone's simpler techniques were better than the Cargo Cult scientist critics sophisticated "Complex" tests and machines because McCrone proved the Shroud a medieval fake.
All-in-all, I don't think that "Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988" is a peer-reviewed scientific journal...

It appears the McCrone's "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?" article (Article first page - full article may be purchased for $25) in Accounts of Chemical Research 1990, 23, 77-83 may have been peer-reviewed but it is interesting that it was only submitted after the 1988 Carbon-14 Tests and 10 years after McCrone did his research. This very, very late, publication of his old work is interesting in its timing. McCrone finally published when the reviewers were likely to be aware of the 1988 C14 results... and look on his paper as being confirmed. It would also tend to prevent many would-be critics from disagreeing with him as the C14 tests seemed to have trumped everything else.
It certainly wasn't current work because McCrone no longer had any of the Shroud samples in his possession because they had been personally repossessed from McCrone in 1981 by STURP director, Dr. John Jackson, after McCrone ignored request after request to return STURP samples he held (which McCrone referred to as "his samples") or to send them on to other researchers who were scheduled to work on them. Any peer-review of McCrone's work by chemists reviewing his article in Acc. Che. Res. had to be done WITHOUT access to the samples... and is therefore only a review of methodology.

339 posted on 03/03/2008 3:12:59 AM PST by Swordmaker (We can fix this, but you're gonna need a butter knife, a roll of duct tape, and a car battery.)

it is peer reviewed and so is the german Journal

The only "peer review" that may have been used in The Microscope was provided by McCrone Research, the publisher of the journal. It is not peer reviewed. McCrone was its editor and publisher. So, McCrone, the editor and boss of the whole shebang asks an employee to look at his article... right

It went through the normal peer review at the time and he had his results published in a German peer reviewed journal too. I posted it earlier.

I truly hate to see a very well respected man's reputation dragged through the mud simply because his scientific findings disagreed with someone's religious beliefs. It is the same with ID and AGW. People of little scientific acumen are duped by pseudoscience in the name of a religios agenda.

If you can prove that McCrone's research wasn't peer reviewed please do, but don't lie for God. He doesn't like that.

The thought had crossed my mind; but I doubt it -- our current McCrone champion is a regular on DC and has spoken of being suspended here twice and permanently banned once.

Secondly, the other gentleman you refer to made some very distasteful ad hominem against me and played up the "argument by authority" card, primarily relying on descriptions of McCrone from the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Cheers!

The Microscope is one I have never heard of -- are you sure you--or your source--don't mean The Microscopist?

Hint: further up the thread, Swordmaker has already replied to you.

Cheers!

Here, you might want to read this. Here's the money quote for those playing along at home:

McCrone did two of the tests done in 1973,
and he either did or did not get the ‘blood’ into
solution before proceeding with the benzidine and
sulfuric acid tests; if he got the ‘blood’ into solution,
even as the Italians did not, then McCrone could not
have honestly said “I find it impossible to fault the
[1973] work.” I conclude that the other possibility is
the correct one: McCrone did not get the ‘blood’
into solution, in which case, his negative results with
the two tests, like the 1973 results, are meaningless.
McCrone performed the phenolphthalein test,
which is much more difficult to do than the benzidine
test. 54

Since McCrone could not even properly
handle the benzidine test, I conclude that he could not
have properly done the much more complicated
phenolphthalein test, in which case his obtaining
negative result(s) with the latter is worthless. The
Takayama and Teichman tests yielded McCrone
negative results, yet since they are so insensitive,
negative results with them does not mean blood is
absent. 55

McCrone states that when sodium azide in an
iodine solution is applied to blood, nitrogen gas bubble
production indicates the presence of sulfur-containing
amino acids, which blood has. When he applied the
solution to ‘blood’ fibers and to red Shroud particles,
“little or no nitrogen gas is released,” which he
interprets as indicating that the red material is not
actual blood. 56
However, since he apparently failed
to perform controls with artificially-aged blood, he
failed to check the possibility that nitrogen gas will not
be produced by very aged, strongly denatured blood samples.

The sticky tapes from which McCrone
obtained his samples for testing had originally been
promised to Heller for doing blood testing. 57
In anticipation of receiving samples, Heller placed some
blood and plasma “in different ways” on an old
Spanish linen cloth (blood is composed of mostly red
cells, with some white cells and platelets, all in a
plasma suspension). 58
After applying sticky tape to
the cloth, Heller carefully studied the resulting tapes,
so much so that he began dreaming about fibrils. 59

In a similar manner, during the Shroud of Turin
Research Project, Inc. (hereafter STURP) 8 - 13
October 1978 period of data collection on the Shroud,
team members Ray Rogers and Robert Dinegar
applied to the Shroud and removed 32 sticky tapes,
each approximately 5 cm^2 in area. 60
Rogers was a chemist that worked with explosives at New
Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory and a
part-time archeologist, while Dinegar worked at Los
Alamos making bombs and was an assistant
Episcopal pastor. 61
A month after the data collection group’s
return, Heller inquired as to the whereabouts of the
samples he had been promised. Rogers informed
Heller that McCrone had borrowed the tapes with
instructions, saying “I told Walter to send you any that
might have blood on them.” 62
Following the arrival of
1979, Heller told Rogers he had received no slides, to
which Rogers suggested he phone McCrone, yet
McCrone “was never available.” 63

McCrone eventually returned Heller’s calls:
“I’ll send you a slide that’s supposed to have
some blood on it, but it’s so small, I don’t
think you’ll be able to do anything with it.”
I asked incredulously, “Is that all you’re sending?”
“What more do you need?”
“I should have at least a couple of other
slides to orient me. At this point, I don’t have
a clue to what anything looks like.”
Page 5 5
“All right, I’ll see what I can do.” 64

McCrone sent four microscope slides labeled Blank,
Scorch, Nonimage, and Blood, on each of which a
sticky tape had been attached. 65
On the Blood slide, McCrone had circled a minuscule speck and written
“Good Luck,” yet the speck was so small that even
using a high magnification light microscope viewing
technique, Heller thought it impossible to determine
what was being examined: “It could have been blood,
dirt, a fragment of a linen fiber--anything.” 66

Heller had better luck elsewhere, thinking to himself upon finding a red-coated fiber on the Nonimage slide, “That sure looks as though it might be blood.” 67
He eventually found on the slide a total
of 7 fibers partly-coated with red stains, plus a glob he
dubbed “biltong” after the sun-dried meat some
African tribes produce. 68

Disregarding biltong, Heller
calculated he had about 700 picograms of hemoglobin,
assuming the red stains were blood. He considered
attempting to measure that little blood absurd, telling
readers, “I am reasonably sure that no one in the
history of science ever tried or even fantasized about
it.” 69

This unique problem was precipitated by
McCrone. Despite Rogers’s directive that Heller be
sent slides with material that might be blood,
McCrone’s Blood slide was no such slide; to reiterate
from above, the circled ‘blood’ speck was so small
that by its appearance under a light microscope, “it
could have been blood, dirt, a fragment of a linen
fiber--anything.” I infer that McCrone attempted to
see to it that Heller could not do any testing for blood.

McCrone’s attempt is hardly surprising considering
that he long delayed sending Shroud slides for
electron microscope examination to people in his own
company: writes McCrone,
By January 1980 [i.e., by about 1 year after
receiving Shroud slides], I had prepared two
technical papers for publication.... Only then,
did I allow the electron optics group at
McCrone Associates to examine the
“Shroud” fibers and tapes. I prevented them
from doing this earlier because I (selfishly)
wished to see polarized light microscopy solve
the “Shroud” problem without assistance. 70
His explanation of this self-described selfishness
toward his own coworkers is that he “was hurt by”
the fact that “an instrument I still found very useful...
became the dinosaur of the research and development
world,” and thus, “wanted to show ‘them’ [i.e., the
world at large] the light microscope is still
important.” 71

Read that last paragraph again.

Cheers!

So all their claims of finding blood are bogus?

it is peer reviewed and so is the german Journal

Peer review requires independence which a team of McCrone employees is not.

It went through the normal peer review at the time and he had his results published in a German peer reviewed journal too. I posted it earlier.

Right. That german "peer reviewed journal:" The Viennese Journal of [the] Supernatural in Science and the Arts 1987/1988

That's really something... a skeptic gets published in a German skeptics magazine.

Peer review requires independence which a team of McCrone employees is not

You simply do not understand the peer review process. It's not done by employees.Admit it, you are just a shroud worshiper, facts don't matter

It’s not a negative

'tis

However, when his cloth is spread out flat - the face flattens out - which the Shroud face does not.

there is also forensic confirmation up the ying yang - that testifies to the fact that the image is NOT paint, that the ‘blood’ is real blood - that the linen is from the right time and place, that the plant biology proves the linen was in the Jerusalem area and in the correct time frame, - etc etc...

Then there's the provenance via art: Iconic paintings done hundreds of years before the atheists would like us to believe, show that the artists took their depiction of Jesus straight from the Shroud - many even paint in 3 little wisps of hair on the forehead...that appeared to them to be hair - but are, in fact, blood. But those little wisps, painted in the iconic paintings, are proof that the Shroud was in existence and available very early on.

Sorry that the preponderance of evidence for authenticity is 'inconvenient' - The atheists continue to grind their teeth - pretty pointed by now

Here's an example of an Iconic painting done from Shroud with the '3 wisps of hair' on the forehead, as I explained in my post #53..

Note also, the 'hidden' message by the artist that James the Just, on the right, was the blood brother of Jesus, that they (long braid down back - which the man of the Shroud also has) belonged the Essene sect of Mt. Carmel, and the it was James the Just who was the leader of the church in Jerusalem after Jesus - and not Peter - who, in the painting, clutching the keys to the Roman church, scowls his displeasure at James.

(James is named as the successor to leader of the church in the Bible, yet it is largely ignored - another 'inconvenient' truth?)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the painting was done in the 1100s

Thanks for the ping!

that testifies to the fact that the image is NOT paint, that the ‘blood’ is real blood

They never found blood but possible constituents of blood. These constituents are consistent with McCrone's finding organic tempera binder and therefore does not prove blood on the shroud. Extensive tests for blood were done in the 70's no blood was foond

The linen is a 3/1 herringbone twill, no other confirmed first century example has been found. to match it

The plant polen study is almost certainly fraud and the STURP team has distanced itself from it.

"[T]he earliest record of the shroud is a report in which a bishop condemned it as a forgery and said the forger had confessed. The report was sent to Pope Clement VII by Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, in 1389. This was some 35 years after the shroud appeared in France - inexplicably and with no account of its earlier whereabouts.

The bishop's text began: ''The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes, the dean of a certain collegiate church . . . 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 the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.''

After telling how the shroud had been exhibited as genuine, and how ''pretended miracles'' were staged to promote belief in the shroud's authenticity, d'Arcis said: ''Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination'' - an earlier bishop of Troyes -''discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.''

Exactly backwards.

McCrone did not use controls during his tests for blood.

McCrone did not check to see whether his test would react with a known sample of old blood -- the test was only done with the sample from the Shroud.

This is a methodological error on McCrone's part.

In addition, the evidence suggests that McCrone did not properly *perform* the blood tests in the first place, so that his 'negatives' are not significant.

Besides this, there aremethodological issues with McCrone's other work.

The slides he sent for analysis to other labs for confirmation contained too little material to allow the independent tests to be performed.

McCrone did not separate his samples from the Mylar tape before examining them, which was another systematic error in his study -- which made the conclusions in his first paper invalid.

He admitted as much himself in a 1996 paper, where he changes his identification of the red particles from to : In 1996, McCrone obliquely admitted having made the mistake in attributing crystalline characteristics-- including birefringence and pleochroism-- to red Shroud particles they do not possess: “The particles are isotropic hence not pure hematite but they match red ochre in size, shape and color.”

Compare the 1980 “This material... is identical in appearance and properties (color, pleochroism, shape, size, crystallinity, refractive indices, and birefringence) to the particles of hydrous and anhydrous iron oxide particles....”; gone is any mention of pleochroism, crystallinity, refractive indicies, and birefringence.

McCrone not only was stingy with other labs: he refused other scientists in his OWN lab access to the samples until after he published. (This means that there was no chance to perform alternative studies and hence no chance to refute his initial findings). He did so, by his own admission, out of "selfishness":

By January 1980 [i.e., by about 1 year after receiving Shroud slides], I had prepared two technical papers for publication.... Only then, did I allow the electron optics group at McCrone Associates to examine the “Shroud” fibers and tapes. I prevented them from doing this earlier because I (selfishly) wished to see polarized light microscopy solve the “Shroud” problem without assistance

His explanation of this self-described selfishness toward his own coworkers is that he “was hurt by” the fact that “an instrument I still found very useful... became the dinosaur of the research and development world,” and thus, “wanted to show ‘them’ [i.e., theworld at large] the light microscope is still important.” 71

Notice, by the way, he admits he had an attitude problem; he admits it affected his protocol; and in making that admission, undercuts his entire claim to objectivity.

Incidentally, when he sent the slides to the other researchers for independent testing (after not answering phone calls, and many delays), why did one of the slides have the insufficient sample circled with the handwritten note, "Good Luck" ??

This further undercuts any claim McCrone has to objectivity.

By contrast, look at one (not the only) test which Heller and Adler did for blood:

Regarding hemoglobin’s various fingerprints, H&A note that there exists no specific spectrum for blood per se; what is seen depends on the chemical state of the hemoglobin (e.g., reduced, methemoglobin [which would be oxidized hemoglobin], denatured) and on its state of aggregation (e.g., film, crystal, solution). 104 Heller and Gall were looking for the Soret band, which is extremely strong absorption at about four hundred ten nanometers wavelength because of the heme porphyrin. 105 In response to Gall’s question about the absorption’s specificity, Heller replied, “It’s specific. There’s nothing in nature which absorbs light at four hundred... ten nanometers that strongly. The porphyrins... should give a peak that looks like Mount Everest.” 106

Specificity.

Using a Zeiss microspectrophotometer, they began the readings of biltong at 700 nanometers, and initially went down in increments of 10 nanometers. Heller recalls that When we reached 450 nanometers, my pulse rate began to go up. Very unscientific. At 430 nanometers, we shortened the gap between readings to 5 nanometers. At 425, the peak was still climbing. At 420 and 415, it was still rising. The crucial reading was 410. If the graph peaked here and began to fall away, we were onto something big. If, however, it continued to rise, the experiment had fallen through and was useless. At 405, there seemed to be a flattening-out. My pulse was racing. “Calm down,” I said to myself. “This is an experiment--nothing more, nothing less. The data are the data!” When we hit four hundred, the peak began to fall. At 395--more so. At 390, it was sharply down. “Oh, my God,” I said aloud, “it really is blood!” The hair stood up on the nape of my neck. Exhilaration shot through me. This was blood, not iron oxide. I let out my breath with a huge whoosh, and Gall turned to me and smiled. “I guess we did it, John. Now, let’s try a fibril.” 107

That is the presence of a control -- biltong (dried meat) first, which confirms the presence of blood material in a different sample, and proves that the instrument is working properly.

Following biltong, they found the Soret band on the fibril. Gall left to keep an appointment, and Heller “floated out” to his car: “‘It’s blood!’ ran the refrain through my head. This is a project, not a boondoggle. It is an abso-bloody-lutely first-class, interesting project. My veins felt too full.”

Note the excitement here is *AFTER* the findings, not before performing the experiment, in order to "show them" as with McCrone.

Finally, so far from being stingy with their findings and not allowing for second opinions, Heller and Adler sought them out:

Upon returning to the New England Institute, Heller ran in and seized Adler. After the coordinates had been plotted on graph paper, Adler observed, “John, this is hemoglobin. It’s the acid methemoglobin form, and it’s denatured and very old.” Heller “beamed” before noting, “But Al. We don’t have the requisite fine structure,” to which Adler replied, “Fine structure, my foot! Do you think this is the spectrum of sauteed artichoke hearts? Don’t be ridiculous.” Suggested Heller, “Let’s check with at least two other top hemoglobin hotshots and see if they are as sure as we are. Pick anyone you want.” Adler’s choice gave the answer of old acid methemoglobin. They then spoke via speakerphone to Bruce Cameron, “whose double-doctorate is dedicated to hemoglobin in all its many forms,” and upon receiving and plotting the numbers, Cameron said, “You both should know what it is. It’s old acid methemoglobin. I don’t know why you wanted to bother me with something you know as well as I do... Hey, wait a minute. Are you two idiots working on the Shroud of Turin?” At this point, Heller and Adler shook hands after smiling at each other. 108

Notice that the person they consulted revealed their *own* anti-Shroud bias by calling them 'idiots', and yet he still confirmed their findings.

Pwned.

Cheers!

I am taking a break. I have a book on the shroud and have ordered two more.

Rather than play whack a mole. I will be back fully informed.

BTW the first tests done by mostly Italian Catholics published in 1973 didn’t find any blood.

Cheers!

I am taking a break. I have a book on the shroud and have ordered two more.

From whom? Some avowedly anti-Shroud group?

Rather than play whack a mole. I will be back fully informed.

If you are relying on the sources you have relyed upon so far, or sources akin to them, the mis-informed will be more like it.

If you'd bother to go back to the sites your originally posted from -- you'd notice that they included articles (and responses to the articles) from *both* sides of the debate.

Which tends to be a sign of objectivity, in case you didn't notice...

If you go back through the threads, you can see that I not only read your posts, and the links within them, but quoted your own links to show internal inconsistencies, methodological errors, and evidence of bias.

Whereas you did not even read the articles you were posting, nor did you do as much as scroll further down the page on some of your own links to find detailed refutations of your points, on the very same page you had linked.

Sites that do this are not usually those with a pre-conceived agenda.

BTW the first tests done by mostly Italian Catholics published in 1973 didn’t find any blood.

Who cares? Those tests have been superseded.

Incidentally, you may not have realized that the state of the art in analytical chemistry has advanced in the last 35 years!

Cheers!