Replies

Obviously, you did not know Dr. Mcrone.

Obviously I know his work... and it failed peer review. His work on the shroud has NEVER passed peer review and in fact his findings have been completely discredited by others with much more expertise than his, using much more descerning equipment.

McCrone, an optical light microscopist, claims to find elements that pyrolysis mass spectrography cannot find.

Which to believe... a guy who say, "Gee, that looks like it might be Red Ocher (Iron Oxide) paint" when he looks at a microscope image, something no one else but he sees, and whose results are only published in his own personal vanity press? Should I believe a man who admitted that his identification of iron-oxide was based on neither chemical testing nor physics -based testing but conisted simply of looking through his microscope and seeing particles that seemed to have the appearance and crystalline characteristics of iron-oxide? Should I believe a man who looked at those samples he had THROUGH THE STICKY TAPE THEY WERE ATTACHED TO and thereby introduced error in his conclusions claiming things that were not there when the samples were removed from the sticky tape???

Or should I believe the results produced by a sophisticated piece of equipment, operated by one of the world's renowned experts in the field, capable of finding compounds down almost to the molecular level, who reports that although there is some Iron Oxide, that it is randomly distributed over the entire shroud and never in sufficient quantities to be visible? Should I mention THIS work was peer reviewed and published in a legitimate scientific journal? Yeah, I think I should.

Gee, should I believe a guy who says "There is no blood on the Shroud and that the blood stains are painted on using vermillion, a compound of Mercury"? A guy who, at various times claimed that the blood images are: 1) simply iron oxide particles, 2) simply "post-1800s iron oxide particles, 3) iron oxide particles derived from the earth and available for tens of thousands of years, all in a prteinaceous medium, i.e. liquid earthy iron-oxide paint , and 4) liquid earth iron-oxide paint and liquid mercury-sulfide (HgS) paint.

Or should I go back to other tests, say the pyrolysis mass spectrometer tests, much more discriminating that what can be seen through a light microscope, that show that what vermillion (HgS) exists on the shroud is again, random, insufficient to be visible, and not associated with the blood stains. Or should I instead take the testimony of chemist Dr. Alan Adler and biophysisicst Dr. John Heller, experts on blood and blood fractions, who state categorically, again in peer reviewed scientific Journals that the blood stains consist of hemoglobin. Aside from light microscopy, Heller and Adler also tested for hemochromagen (positive), cyanmethemoglovin (positive), bile pigment bilirubin (positive), and proteolytic enzymes (positive), human specific protein albumin (positive), presence of serum halos around stains (positive), and immunilogical determination that the blood is of primate origin. Perhaps I should use Yale University's Dr. Joseph Gall's secrtophotometer tests that should the blood absorbing light in 410 nanometer... a test that he states is "specific" for blood as "nothing in nature that absorbs light at four hundred ten nanometers that strongly". Or perhaps we should accept the word of Dr. Bruce Cameron, whose "double doctorate is dedicated to hemoglobin in all its many forms", who on reviewing the test results stated "You both should know what it is. It's old acid methemoglobin."

Perhaps we should look at McCrone's non-cooperation with other scientists investigating the Shroud? When instructed to provide sticky tape slides with "blood" on them to J. Heller, months later, after repeated requests, McCrone finally sent four slides with ONE (1) microscopic dot he claimed might be blood... circled and commented with "Good Luck!" Adler and Heller were forced to spend months working with a spot so small that it was difficult to see under a microscope. Later after the researcher in charge finally went to McCrone's business and retrieved the other samples, it was discovered that McCrone had apparently deliberately sent bad samples because he had in his possession threads that were literally red with blood. How about the fact that McCrone refused for over a year to allow his OWN COLLEGUES and EMPLOYEES in his business to conduct electron microscope studies? He even admits this:

"By January 1980 [i.e., by about 1 year after receiving Shroud slides], O had prepared two technical papers for publication.... Only then, did I allow the electron optics group at McCrone Associates to examine the "Shroud" fibers and tapes. I prevented them from doing this earlier because I )selfishly) wished to see polarized light microscopy solve the "Shroud" problem without assistance."

Or perhaps his refusal to allow peer-review of his work... all showing a "scientist" who did not use the scientific principles who may have known his work would not stand up to peer-review.

Now, should we believe a microscopist who claims the Shroud was PAINTED when we now know what the image is composed of... and the image exists on a coating that is 1/100 thinner than a human hair! It is NOT paint of any kind, and certainly not the "dilute iron-oxide solution in albumin" that McCrone claims to have seen.

I suggest, that YOU don't know Walter C. McCrone.