Peer review doesn’t validate findings, just that scientific method was used properly.
Iron oxide and tempera were found on the cloth. Please note that the guy who claims that all three labs were wrong when they carbon 14 dated the shroud to the middle ages didn’t do a new carbon dating test but went to vanillin analysis. He was obviously looking for a method that would allow that (not prove) the shroud was first century.
Peer review reviews the findings and if the report is that there is no Ferrous Oxide in the tests, it confirms there was no Ferrous oxide in the tests. It also allows the reviewer to DUPLICATE the work. All of this work has been duplicated. No one, using definitive tests, has found what your article claims must be present if the Shroud is a fake created by a medieval artist dabbing at a cloth on a bas-relief. You choose to believe that something is there that simply is not. Much of it has been done independently using different approaches. The results have been confirmed by these different approaches.
When you deny the facts established by science in favor of your preferred result, you move to the position of belief and faith. You want to believe the Shroud is a fake.
Iron oxide and tempera were found on the cloth. Please note that the guy who claims that all three labs were wrong when they carbon 14 dated the shroud to the middle ages didn’t do a new carbon dating test but went to vanillin analysis. He was obviously looking for a method that would allow that (not prove) the shroud was first century.
The only person claiming sufficient quantities of either Iron Oxide and tempera on the Shroud is Walter C. McCrone, who claimed he "saw" them in his optical microscope. He refused to allow his work to be peer reviewed, publishing it instead only in his own vanity magazine, The Microscope.
Since McCrone's claimed findings, research by over one hundred scientists, specialists in their fields, have falsified his claims. His work cannot be reproduced. Every other scientist who has looked at samples taken from the image areas on the shroud, including the same samples used by McCrone, in attempts to duplicate McCrone's findings, have failed to see what McCrone claimed he saw. McCrone claimed he could see copious quantities of Red Ocher (Iron Oxide derived from Hematite) in his optical microscope. However, other scientists using much more sensitive equipment including transmission and scanning electron Microscopes cannot find it except in incidental, environmental pollution level quantities that is randomly located over the Shroud and not statistically associated in any way with the image locations. Even Mark Anderson, a McCrone Research employee, fellow scientist, and McCrone's specialist in Molecular Optical Laser Examination, debunked McCrone's claims of seeing Red Ochre pigments, writing that what McCrone thought was Iron Oxide derived from Hematite, was actually an organic iron compound. This organic iron was later confirmed to be meth-hemoglobin, a derivative of the hemoglobin in blood.
Ray N. Rogers' work HAS been peer reviewed, unlike McCrone's debunked findings, and duplicated, as well as independently confirmed by other scientists using different approaches. The C14 tests are invalid.
Your ad hominem attack on Rogers ignores his reputation, his published work, and the fact that it can be duplicated.
Rogers has pleaded for proper C14 tests be done using the original protocols that were violated in the 1988 sampling. The custodians of the Shroud have refused.
An un-authorized C14 test was performed on a thread taken from the image area of the Shroud. The results, unpublished because of the lack of authorization from the Shroud's owners, were consistent with a first Century provenance, plus or minus 50 years.
By the way, the approach to dating by vanillin levels has been confirmed by other scientists working with other plant derived materials of known provenance and ages. Other chemists have tested the main body shroud material for vanillin and found that Rogers' findings are accurate as to the lack of vanillin in the threads.
Harry Gove, the inventor of the C14 testing technique used in the 1988 tests on the Shroud has agreed that the samples were compromised and included materials of a different date than the main body intended to be tested, thereby invalidating the tests.
The science in overwhelming against the idea that the Shroud is a painting, daubing, or photograph of any kind.
Just how much good science does it take to over come one dishonest or deluded microscopist who changed his claims and story over the years?