He's the only Shroud of Turin researcher that I know of graced with a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Argument from authority is not scientifically legitimate. And Britannica is not a peer-review journal.
a recognized expert in microscopy,
who while reviewing the Shround changed his own conclusions as to the composition of the colorations; who did not prepare control samples; who was reticent about providing samples to independent researchers; who during his own tests used a matrix for the sample which was known to be capable of interfering with the tests.
And the current state of the art on studying the Shroud has moved beyond this, to multiple chemical and physical tests, all of which are consistent with genuine blood and body chemicals as a source for the stains, and many of which explicitly ruled out the very paints McCrone is claiming.
And in the meantime, attempts to independently replicate his results have failed.
a consultant on many different projects,
Irrelevant. The specific tests performed and the results obtained are what matters.
in 2000 McCrone received the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin -- including his findings that the image and blood were composed with pigments of ochre and vermilion.
From The Skeptical Inquirer:
The award nomination was written by David Stony, Director of the McCrone Research Institute in Chicago, who wrote that McCrone's work on the shroud "is an excellent example of the use and application of his methodology, the necessity for the ultramicroanalytical approach, and of McCrone's character." The award is sponsored by Fisher Scientific Co.
So it isn't even a independently peer-reviewed award; and it is sponsored by a manufacturer of lab equipment.
Can you say, "McCrone gives himself an award and then uses it to bolster his credentials?"
I knew you could.
Oh, and the *author* of the piece I just quoted -- read it yourself --William Vanderlinde, Ph.D., is an engineering failure analyst in Columbia, Maryland, and a member of the National Capital Area Skeptics. He recently co-authored a paper on microscopic methods with McCrone Institute Director Dave Stoney.
The jokes write themselves.
Nice try, though.
Cheers!
And your attack on the ACS Award in Analytical Chemistry is ridiculous. From Cornell University's Department of Chemistry newsletter: "It has just been announced that Professor Fred W. McLafferty has won the prestigious American Chemical Society Award in Analytical Chemistry sponsored by the Fisher Scientific Company. This is the country's leading award in analytical chemistry. Pro- fessor George Morrison of our faculty won it in 1971. With the present award to Fred McLafferty we now have official recognition of what we have known all along— that our Department has one of the leading programs in analytical chemistry in the country, and two of the world's leading analytical chemists" newsletter
I knew about the award... and who had nominated him... but had forgotten it. Thanks for the reminder.
This is similar to McCrone ony publishing his findings in his in house magazine, "The Microscopist," published and edited by McCrone.
Has McCrone done good work on other topics? I think so... but not on this. Unfortunately, allowing his biases to invade his work, such as appears to have happened with his Shroud work, will tend to discount his other good work.
There is almost a rabid aversion to the Shroud and Shroud research among atheists as it seems to challenge their world view. Did you read the skeptic links from Steven Schafersman's site? Whow... vitriol everywhere.