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
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
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!