Posted on 08/09/2008 1:52:58 AM PDT by Swordmaker
To determine what substances are present in the shroud images, I conducted tests based on polarized light microscopy. I identified the substance of the body-and-blood images as the paint pigment red ochre, in a collagen tempera medium. The blood image areas consist of another pigment, ver-milion, in addition to red ochre and tempera. These paints were in common use during the Middle Ages.
His work has been validated by others
Based on the complete absence of any reference to the shroud before 1356, Bishop Henri of Poitiers's statement that he knew' the artist, the 14th-century painting style and my test results, I concluded in two papers published in 1980 that the shroud was painted in 1355 ('to give the paint a year to dry"). A third paper in 1981 confirmed these results with X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray determination of the elements present (iron, mercury and sulfur) in the two paints. Eight years after my published results, the carbon-dating results were reported as 1325 ± 65 year - thus confirming my date of 1355.
If you have a specific refutation of this by a peer reviewed scientist, then cut and paste the specific refutation and cite a source so I can look at it. What's been linked to so far are whole documents that are often opinion pieces or irrelevent.
http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#sidebar
Ah, but humans have shown that they must be reminded every so often with the ‘party favors’. How’s that saying go, ‘those that fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it?’ ... something like that.
Walter C. McCrone did his work in 1978 and 1978. His work has never been duplicated and in fact has been falsified by his own employees. This article, from a non-peer reviewed journal, is 10 years old (November/December 1978) and much of the work that falsified McCrone's claims had already been done. Further work in the ten years following nailed shut any claims that McCrone made as false.
Which, of course, is why so many respected scientists have agreed that the Carbon-14 tests were flawed and Oxford University is doing new tests, last I heard?
I thought I just read that Oxford University was doing new tests and the results were do any time? Was this on the original material, or did they obtain new samples?
You’re becoming a parody of your own twisted self with your refusal to read the links provided and cheery picking data already questioned! Bwahahahaha, such a maroon! ... And I’ll save you the trouble of hitting the abuse button by pinging the moderator with this post. Mwahaha
The "flawed C-14 tests were accurate. They were taken under a very strict protocol and under direct observation of the Vatican and experts in carbon dating. Rogers received a specimen that was allegedly from the shroud without any protocol whatsoever. The original scientists stand by their results. If Rogers wants to prove them wrong, he will have to do another C-14 test. Something that will never happen. His vanillin dating test was invented by him as a bogus way to allow for a first century date. It is not only totally invalid, but borders on fraud.
The "flawed C-14 tests were accurate. They were taken under a very strict protocol and under direct observation of the Vatican and experts in carbon dating. Rogers received a specimen that was allegedly from the shroud without any protocol whatsoever. The original scientists stand by their results. If Rogers wants to prove them wrong, he will have to do another C-14 test. Something that will never happen. His vanillin dating test was invented by him as a bogus way to allow for a first century date. It is not only totally invalid, but borders on fraud.
Re: new tests
They are not testing shroud material. They are testing other old linen that has been exposed to fire to see if atmospheric carbon from adjacent newer material can be exchanged for the carbon in the linen.
Thanks.
Your assertion that world class scientists are using "pseudoscience" and that well respected scientific journals would publish such "psuedoscience" reveals your ignorance and your agenda. I have provided numerous links to peer reviewed science that post-dates McCrone and prove beyond any doubt that what he claims he saw in his polarized light microscope simply is not there. Your clinging to this discredited nonsense makes you not worth bothering with. You do not read the articles written by scientist far more expert than McCrone in the fields that they are writing about or you merely ignore them because their validated conclusions do not agree with your preconceived prejudices.
Your purpose here is to throw spit wads and be irritating in hopes of eliciting an intemperate response so you can hit the abuse button. Your agenda is not discussion but disruption. You demand links and citations that when provided you then ignore as if they don't exist. I am done wasting my time with you.
Support this statement
Little man, all you have to do is a search of Swordmaker’s posting history to find hundreds of links on the Shroud threads, if you were actually interested in discussion and serious debate. He has characterized you accurately, you are a poser throwing spitwads hoping to get Amin Mod intervention. You are, in fact, merely a little ‘nettle irritant’.
McCone found that it was red ocre amd tempura. He has never been proven wrong.
You keep refering to your writings. Has anything been published?
“Why did you leave out (or worse, suppress) their comments from your own page?”
I think we all know the answer to that.
Aftert reading mulitple posts from multiple threads,
there are some people that would deny God exists and even if God Himself sat soliton down on his knee for millions of years explaining things to him, at the end of the day God would just sigh and exclaim...”well, I know I’ve tried”!
Some of the specific refutations are contained in part in the same webpage *YOU* quoted in 79. I pointed this out in the very next post, #80, and included one example in italics.
His work has been validated by others.
Who? The quote in italics which you posted refers to earlier papers of his own, not others. Read your own postings.
...and I have already pointed out that his conclusions have been called into question by some of his underlings, using Raman spectroscopy. This has also been pointed out earlier in this thread.
If you have a specific refutation of this by a peer reviewed scientist, then cut and paste the specific refutation and cite a source so I can look at it. What's been linked to so far are whole documents that are often opinion pieces or irrelevant.
That's been done already. See post 69, this thread.
Cheers!
Have you looked at THE SAME WEBSITE YOU POSTED FROM ?
Click here. The problem is that the history of the Shroud, from the preparation of the linen fabric to its storage over the ages, may have resulted in properties which make *any* C-14 dating problematic.
And looky here!
This paper, on the site you quoted from (but somehow neglected to mention, and ignored even after it was given to you in post 47), is not peer-reviewed: it *is* a review, of the problems with the statistics cited in your own article from Nature.
And it includes accounts of personal conversations with the scientists who did the testing in that paper.
Oh, yes, post 47 was commended to you in post 73.
Finally -- do you know the difference between accuracy and precision? Do you know the meaning of the term "systematic error"?
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.