It's not up to anyone to prove him wrong. In science, the person making the claim has to prove the claim.
And the indpendent evidence to prove his claim is lacking.
Where's his *proof* that the actual image on the Shroud itself results from pigmentation?
Not just his assertion -- it must have been independently tested by disinterested observers.
Or, even better, instrumental analysis (such as light absorption or scattering) which scans across the wavelengths of visible light, (or even IR spectroscopy or UV spectroscopy) which will specifically detect the functional groups present in the dyes McCrone shows are present. And the presence of controls for his assertions would be nice, too.
Not to mention studies to show the miniumum concentration of these pigments which need to be present to show an image -- and control samples to demonstrate this, together with analytical chemistry studies (non-destructive, of course) on the areas of the Shroud where there is an image, to compare those values...
Here's one of McCrone's own papers.
Can you show me in detail where he has done this?
*Snerk*.
Cheers!
The author of the criticism that I posted states the he has personally identified the same substances as McCone.
These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone, whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide (red ochre) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud. He published the photographic and chemical evidence in his papers and book. I have microscopically observed these pigments myself on Shroud fibers and can attest to this fact (see below).
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic//shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm
Thanks for the ping!