Posted on 02/25/2008 12:33:54 PM PST by BGHater
The Oxford laboratory that declared the Turin Shroud to be a medieval fake 20 years ago is investigating claims that its findings were wrong.
The head of the world-renowned laboratory has admitted that carbon dating tests it carried out on Christendom's most famous relic may be inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, said he was treating seriously a new theory suggesting that contamination had skewed the results.
Though he stressed that he would be surprised if the supposedly definitive 1988 tests were shown to be far out - especially "a thousand years wrong" - he insisted that he was keeping an open mind.
The development will re-ignite speculation about the four-metre linen sheet, which many believe bears the miraculous image of the crucified Christ.
The original carbon dating was carried out on a sample by researchers working separately in laboratories in Zurich and Arizona as well as Oxford.
To the dismay of Christians, the researchers concluded that the shroud was created between 1260 and 1390, and was therefore likely to be a forgery devised in the Middle Ages.
Even Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, the then Cardinal of Turin, conceded that the relic was probably a hoax.
There have been numerous theories purporting to explain how the tests could have produced false results, but so far they have all been rejected by the scientific establishment.
Many people remain convinced that the shroud is genuine.
Prof Ramsey, an expert in the use of carbon dating in archeological research, is conducting fresh experiments that could explain how a genuinely old linen could produce "younger" dates.
The results, which are due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud that is being broadcast on BBC 2 on Easter Saturday.
David Rolfe, the director of the documentary, said it was hugely significant that Prof Ramsey had thought it necessary to carry out further tests that could challenge the original dating.
He said that previous hypotheses, put forward to explain how the cloth could be older than the 1988 results suggested, had been "rejected out of hand".
"The main reason is that the contamination levels on the cloth that would have been needed to distort the results would have to be equivalent to the actual sample itself," he said.
"But this new theory only requires two per cent contamination to skew the results by 1,500 years. Moreover, it springs from published data about the behaviour of carbon-14 in the atmosphere which was unknown when the original tests were carried out 20 years ago."
Mr Rolfe added that the documentary, presented by Rageh Omaar, the former BBC correspondent, would also contain new archeological and historical evidence supporting claims that the shroud was a genuine burial cloth.
The film will focus on two other recorded relics, the Shroud of Constantinople, which is said to have been stolen by Crusaders in 1204, and the Shroud of Jerusalem that wrapped Jesus's body and which, according to John's Gospel, had such a profound effect when it was discovered.
According to Mr Rolfe, the documentary will produce convincing evidence that these are one and the same as the Shroud of Turin, adding credence to the belief that it dates back to Christ's death.
Ah, all your smoke and mirrors, gone.
You resort to ad hominem.
Nice try, though.
I googled on the exact methodology referred to in your quote, and used an even EARLIER study of the Shroud than the one you were hoping to sucker-punch me with.
Can you explain the physical principles behind pyrolosis/mass spec? Can you describe the kinetics of vanillin decomposition? Can you tell me which experiments have established the rate constant for the reaction? What are the principal by-products? Are they soluble in the adhesive used on McCrone's sticky tape? How about the components of the vermillion, red ochre, or iron oxide that he keeps bleating about?
(And does he publish the photomicrographs of the crystals from the Shroud, describing their crystal structure, density, and so forth, comparing them to known controls? Why not?)
Oh, that's right. You're a layman. Never mind...
I won't hold my breath. And, as per your prior protestations -- I'd hate for you to be inconsistent -- I won't accept Wikipedia from you.
In the meantime, though, Where are the peer-review studies in independent journals which falsify claims of blood and Maillard reactions?
The paint has been falsified, by a number of different studies, using multiple samples from different sources, and different physical and chemical methods.
The claims to paint have remained unduplicated.
Cheers, you lovable troll.
BFD.
You might note, btw, that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel prize for his work on global warming. ;-)
Cheers, you lovable troll, you.
There is often a strong political component to awards.
And on a topic as controversial as the Shroud, I like to see independent, converging lines of evidence from multiple disciplines, before announcing.
Nice try, though. Cheers, you lovable troll.
Write back when you get a clue.
Cheers!
It's his results, and those of corroborating teams like the Carbon 14 testers, which are highly respected in the mainstream scientific community.
You should be less impressed, because grey_whiskers completely made it up.
Keep twisting yourself in circles. It would have been a lot easier just to admit you misunderstood what was being referred to, instead of dancing around accountability like a troll. It’s not like anyone is going to not notice that you didn’t know what was being talked about and were too lazy to follow a link and find out.
You were just baiting yourself, and it seems all you earned out of it was a lot of humiliation and loss of credit.
If your conduct represents the emotions and behavior a holy relic inspires in its believers, then the world might as well return it to the devil, for I can’t see Jesus having anything do with this thing.
Click on the link in The Skeptical Inquirer : the article was written by a McCrone crony, and openly states that the award was the result of a nomination by another McCrone crony.
Nothing made up there.
This is the same link as in the post above.
The line 'Can you say McCrone ... I knew you could" was sarcasm.
The fish in your barrel are dying at an alarming rate, dude.
Cheers, you lovable troll.
There was one man, David Stony, who wrote and sent a nomination of McCrone for the award. There is no evidence that the award was improperly awarded or undeserved. You’re completely making it up.
Your bitch about the criticisms of Rogers’ methodology is silly, for the critics are referring to another article which is clearly explained on the link.
I'll spell this out at the kindergarten level.
McCrone claimed to use microscopy to identify the materials in the shroud as paint.
At one point he was sure it was iron oxide.
At another time he referred to vermillion or red ochre.
1. These two identifications are inconsistent.
2. He did not use control samples.
3. I did not see any photomicrographs or other corroborating documentation.
4. He used Mylar tape which could have interfered with his detection of birefringence.
5. His work has not been replicated.
6. When he did submit samples to other labs, he was at first reluctant, and then submitted samples in violation of agreed-upon protocols. 7. The samples as submitted had already been adulterated. 8. When the other labs attempted to undo the adulteration, he claimed that such work invalidated their results.
9. Why did he submit adulterated samples? Or alternatively, why didn't he admit that it was *he* who did so?
10. His methods have been refuted by other labs, using multiple methodologies - wet chemistry, pyrylosis /mass spec, X-ray fluorescence, spectroscopy, examination of the individual linen fibers. All the labs agree that the image on the Shroud was of blood and protein, NOT paint.
11. After these reports, other reports come out on "skeptic" sites -- by definition, not open-minded, claiming that there is a *possibility* of false positives on the wet-bench tests. 12. These are not accepted in peer-review journals, do not use either known control groups or known samples from the Shroud, and are not replicated, merely parroted.
13. There is known contemporary evidence for the image on the Shroud being known and propagated long before the Shroud's forgery would have occurred.
14. There is soil and pollen evidence consistent with the Shroud's presence in Palestine.
15. There are anatomical and medical features of the image on the Shroud which would have been unknown to a medeival forger, and would have contradicted items "known" to a forger.
16. Even the C-14 testing will be redone: if the arguments against the medieval age attributed to the Shroud were specious, these tests would not be allowed. But the problem for the skeptics is, these objections are not like those of young-earth Creationists against such tests in general, but specific methodological faults with the execution of these particular tests. Lab error, if you will. And given that the actual samples taken for the prior testing were NOT done in the fashion agreed to in advance, and that multiple independent lines of inquiry showed that the samples taken for C-14 testing were from areas of the cloth that had been adulterated (re-weaving, re-staining)...re-doing the C-14 testing is merely best practices.
Your response boils down to:
McCrone painted the image on. He said so. He was quoted in Encylclopedia Britannica and was nominated for the ACS Analytical Chemistry award by one of his cronies. That proves it!
In the meantime, there is a well-known class of chemical reactions involving compounds *known* to come from dead bodies, which have been found on the Shroud, and which would account both methodologically and chemically for the image, and would be consistent with the totality of the other evidence.
And you speak of my “haste.” I won’t accuse you of deliberate omission like you try to insinuate me of — you’re just galled at Swordmaker’s exposure.
Swordmaker got sick of the unwarranted ad hominem. I've actually been *reading* the thread. You admit you are not a scientist: I’m not a scientist, I’m a layman citing the research and conclusions that the vast bulk of scientists respect.
and it is clear you are in over your head. Cut-and-pasting from skeptical sites make it appear that you thought you would feast on a bunch of uneducated fundamentalists who would be frustrated by your superior command of the facts. That's a nice feeling, when you get it -- but in this case, neither the facts, nor the data, nor the command of the subject, are on your side.
Cheers, you lovable troll.
His "Accounts of Chemical Research" is peer reviewed. Thanks for the update. But this paper is simply his original claim of paint on the Shroud. You cannot use the mere fact that this claim was published as *further* evidence of its accuracy. And it has been extensively refuted elsewhere.
The Microscopist--I was unable to find in a brief Google search. Inconclusive.
For the third, try Googling "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=0Zw&q=Wiener+Berichte+uber+Naturwissenschaft+in+der+Kunst+McCrone&btnG=Search" It comes up on the German Wikipedia under "Cargo Cult science" but is strangely missing from the American.
If you know German, please tell me what it says.
Ihre Spenden helfen, Wikipedia zu betreiben. Cargo-Kult-Wissenschaft aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche Der Begriff Cargo-Kult-Wissenschaft oder englisch Cargo Cult Science stammt vom Nobelpreisträger und Physiker Richard Feynman. Feynman hat dabei die Anwendung einer eigentlich ethnologischen Kategorie, des Cargo-Cultes, auf Abläufe im Westen popularisiert und als politischen Kampfbegriff benutzt. [1] Als Metapher steht „Cargo-Kult-Wissenschaft“ vor allem für (formal bzw. syntaktisch richtige) Abläufe und Prozesse im westlichen Wissenschaftsbetrieb und im Umgang mit Technologie, bei denen der Status und Symbolgehalt dieser Vorgänge den tatsächlichen Nutzwert übersteigt. Es wird also versucht, durch die eher symbolischen Handlungen wirtschaftlichen Erfolg und öffentliche Anerkennung zu erreichen. Inhaltsverzeichnis [Verbergen] * 1 Cargo-Kult-Wissenschaft * 2 Cargo Kult-Technologie * 3 Feynmans Verwendung des Begriffs * 4 Weblinks * 5 Quellen Cargo-Kult-Wissenschaft [Bearbeiten] Eine mögliche Anwendung sind Ãœbergange beziehungsweise mittlerweile stattgefundene Ausgliederungen aus dem anerkannten Wissenschaftsbetrieb (vgl. Physiognomik, Homöopathie). In den Grenzbereich fallen auch Versuche von Pseudowissenschaftlern, ihre Theorien mit dem Erwerb von Formalia und Statussymbolen des Wissenschaftsbetriebs aufzuwerten oder Teilaspekte von wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen entsprechend heranzuziehen, vgl. Erich von Däniken, Johannes von Buttlar. So interessant wie umstritten ist die Anwendung auf von wissenschaftlichen Hypes und Moden vorangetragenen Arbeiten mit hohem Symbolgehalt und geringem realem Nutzwert im Zusammenspiel von Wissenschaft, Öffentlichkeit und Politik.[2] Diese informelle und polemische Verwendung findet sich auch bei etlichen englischsprachigen Blogs und Diskussionen über die globale Erwärmung, etwa bei Steve McIntyre. Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt wie Hans-Hermann Dubben haben den ihrer Ansicht nach problematischen Umgang mit statistischen Methoden und Ergebnissen in einem an Output und Schlagzeilen - und weniger Qualität und Substanz - orientierten Wissenschaftsbetrieb in einer Reihe von Fallsammlungen und populärwissenschaftlichen Darstellungen zusammengefasst. Laut den Autoren war die propagierte Zunahme der CJD-Fälle bei Menschen statistisch nie von der durch das öffentliche Interesse an BSE verbesserten Diagnostik zu trennen. Massenschlachtungen, Importverbote und das aufwändige Testen im Zusammenhang mit BSE wären demnach rein symbolische Handlungen ohne praktischen Nutzwert oder Auswirkung. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen ohne Nutzwert, aber mit hohem symbolischem Gehalt, unterstellte Walter McCrone auch einer Vielzahl von Arbeiten am Turiner Grabtuch [3]. Walter McCrone benutzte möglichst einfache, gut erprobte und adäquate Untersuchungsmethoden, was teils – mangels Medienwirksamkeit – gegen ihn verwendet wurde. Er betrieb Archiv- und Quellenarbeit zu Herkunft, Alter, Stil und Herstellungsweise des Tuches, verglich Proben vom Grabtuch mit eigenem Blut auf Textilien (wobei er deutliche Unterschiede feststellte) und konnte mit polarisations- und elektronenmikroskopischen Methoden Farbpigmente auf dem Grabtuch nachweisen[4]. McCrone interpretierte das Grabtuch als mittelalterliche Tuchmalerei; seine Datierung wurde auch durch eine später erfolgte C14 Altersbestimmung bestätigt. Untersuchungen, die (bei laut McCrone eisenhaltigen Ockerpigmenten und organischen Bindemitteln) mit hochauflösenden High-Tech Methoden die Blutgruppe Jesu oder Brotkrumen vom Letzten Abendmahl festzustellen glauben, hielt McCrone für unsinnig. Hier gehe es mehr um eine bereits erfolgten Deutung (als geheimnisvolles Original) und die Eitelkeit von Institutsleitern sowie Marktwert beziehungsweise Prestige aufwendiger apparativer Methoden als um die Aufklärung komplexer Sachverhalte. Cargo Kult-Technologie [Bearbeiten] In der Entwicklung und im Einsatz von Geschäftsprozessen und bei der Software-Entwicklung komplexer IT-Projekte wird durch die Bezeichnung als „Cargo-Kult“ das syntaktisch richtige aber sinnlose Abarbeiten eines Vorgehensmodells oder Prozessmodells ohne tieferes Verständnis des zugrundeliegenden Problems angeprangert. [5] In der Technikentwicklung von Großbetrieben und der Technologiepolitik von Regierungen unterstellt der Begriff ritualisiertes Festhalten an überlieferten Symbolen wie sinnlos gewordenen Projekten. In diesem Zusammenhang wird häufig die Metapher „Totes Pferd“, bzw. „Ein totes Pferd soll man nicht reiten“ gebraucht. Feynmans Verwendung des Begriffs [Bearbeiten] Feynman verwendete den Begriff erstmals in einer Rede vor dem Abschlussjahrgang 1974 am Caltech. Er bezeichnete damit eine Vorgehensweise im Wissenschaftsbetrieb, die zwar formale Kriterien erfüllt, der es jedoch an wissenschaftlicher Integrität mangelt. Die Rede wurde gleichzeitig in einer Ausgabe von Engineering and Science abgedruckt[6] und ist auf vielen Webseiten zu finden, weil sie vom Caltech zur nichtkommerziellen Verbreitung freigegeben wurde.[7] Auch wurde sie später in seinem Buch Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman![8] abgedruckt (die deutsche Ausgabe, Sie belieben wohl zu scherzen, Mr. Feynman, enthält sie nicht; sie ist dafür in Es ist so einfach enthalten). Feynman beschreibt Riten eines Cargo-Kult wie folgt: "Auf den Samoainseln haben die Einheimischen nicht begriffen, was es mit den Flugzeugen auf sich hat, die während des Krieges landeten und ihnen alle möglichen herrlichen Dinge brachten. Und jetzt huldigen sie einem Flugzeugkult. Sie legen künstliche Landebahnen an, neben denen sie Feuer entzünden, um die Signallichter nachzuahmen. Und in einer Holzhütte hockt so ein armer Eingeborener mit hölzernen Kopfhörern, aus denen Bambusstäbe ragen, die Antennen vorstellen sollen, und dreht den Kopf hin und her. Auch Radartürme aus Holz haben sie und alles mögliche andere und hoffen, so die Flugzeuge anzulocken, die ihnen die schönen Dinge bringen. Sie machen alles richtig. Der Form nach einwandfrei. Alles sieht genau so aus wie damals. Aber es haut nicht hin. Nicht ein Flugzeug landet." Richard Feynman: Cargo Cult Science. Eröffnungsrede des California Institute of Technology zum Semesterbeginn 1974. Ãœbersetzt von Inge Leipold in Jeffrey Robbins (Hrsg), Richard P. Feynman, Freeman J. Dyson: Es ist so einfach - Vom Vergnügen, Dinge zu entdecken (München/Zürich: Piper Verlag, 2001). Feynman warnte, dass Wissenschaftler zuallererst vermeiden müssten, sich selbst zu täuschen, wenn sie verhindern wollten, zu Cargo-Kult-Wissenschaftlern zu werden. Außerdem müssten sie bereit sein, ihre eigenen Theorien und Resultate in Frage zu stellen und nach möglichen Schwachstellen in einer Theorie oder einem Experiment zu suchen. Dass er als ethnologischer Laie in der Rede einiges an sachlichen Fehlern (etwa geographische Zuordnung) beging, hat der Begriffsbildung keinen Abbruch getan. Beim Umgang mit Technologie führte Feynman später seine Eindrücke aus der Untersuchungskommission der Challenger-Katastrophe an. Er krititisiert sowohl die von Wunschdenken geprägten Risikoeinschätzungen der NASA zum Space-Shuttle-Programm wie auch die Arbeit der Untersuchungskommission selbst als Cargo-Kult-Science. In beiden Fällen wurde laut Feynman formalen Kriterien genügt, ohne die teilweise absurden Inhalte zu hinterfragen. Weblinks [Bearbeiten] * Podcast mit kleinen Teilen aus der Rede Quellen [Bearbeiten] 1. ↑ Cargo-Kulte haben auch in der ethnologischen Analyse einen dezidiert neuzeitlichen (Chiliasmus|chiliastischen]] Aspekt: Es werden ganz speziell Abläufe bei westlichen Staaten (etwa Truppenaufmärsche, Elemente der modernen Industriekultur wie Kassettenrekorder oder Funkgeräte, Landebahnen und Radarsysteme) wie auch westliche Würdenträger (Johnson cult, Prince Philip Movement) mit Steinen und Zweigen nachgebildet, mythisiert und verehrt, mit dem Ziel, symbolisch überlegen-‚westliche‘ Züge in die eigene Kultur einzubeziehen und ohne Aufgabe klassischer Gepflogenheiten auf wundersame Weise westliches Wohlstandsniveau. 2. ↑ Letzteres unterstellt Richard Lindzen einem Großteil der Forschung zur globalen Erwärmung in [1] 3. ↑ Walter McCrone in: Wiener Berichte über Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50. 4. ↑ . Siehe seine Publikation Judgment day for the Shroud of Turin. Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books, (1999) ISBN 1-5739-2679-5 5. ↑ Steve McConnell: Cargo Cult Software Engineering. IEEE Software 17:2 (March/April 2000), S. 11–13. 6. ↑ Richard Feynman: Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science 37:7 (June 1974), S. 10–13. 7. ↑ Siehe unter http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/, "Usage Policy: You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format." 8. ↑ Richard Feynman: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (W. W. Norton & Company, April 1997), ISBN 0393316041. Von „http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo-Kult-Wissenschaft“ Kategorien: Wissenschaftstheorie | Wissenschaftspolitik Ansichten * Artikel * Diskussion * Seite bearbeiten * Versionen/Autoren Persönliche Werkzeuge * Anmelden Navigation * Hauptseite * Ãœber Wikipedia * Themenportale * Von A bis Z * Zufälliger Artikel Mitmachen * Hilfe * Autorenportal * Letzte Änderungen * Spenden Suche Werkzeuge * Links auf diese Seite * Änderungen an verlinkten Seiten * Hochladen * Spezialseiten * Druckversion * Permanentlink * Seite zitieren Andere Sprachen * English * Suomi * 中文 Powered by MediaWiki Wikimedia Foundation * Diese Seite wurde zuletzt am 20. Februar 2008 um 20:03 Uhr geändert. * Ihr Text steht unter der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation. Wikipedia® ist eine eingetragene Marke der Wikimedia Foundation Inc. * Datenschutz * Ãœber Wikipedia * Impressum
Swordmaker was the initiator of the ad hominem, and his conduct thoroughly reprehensible. You've taken the baton.
McCrone's work was published in peer-reviewed journals and has received the endorsement of mainstream scientists, internet falsehoods and ad hominems aside.
If you want to own up to your laziness in failing to find out which article by Rogers was actually been commented on and chastised for its unserious attitude towards research, I'm all ears, but until then there's little point in pretending to respond to it. This is what, the third time you've stamped your feet and tried to change the subject in a purported reply to the observation?
They’re all peer-reviewed, and the claims to the contrary that have been made are complete garbage. Very foolish of me to take some people at their word, especially when it was so obvious that McCrone’s research, along with the Carbon 14 tests, were the only ones that had standing in the mainstream scientific and historical communities.
Which is why it was *your* post #290 which was deleted, not his.
McCrone's work was published in peer-reviewed journals and has received the endorsement of mainstream scientists, internet falsehoods and ad hominems aside. been completely repudidated; and has failed to address multiple other tests, all from different disciplines, performed by groups with no axe to grind, all of which agreed that the Shroud image was not paint, and that there were genuine bloodstains on it.
There, all fixed.
If you want to own up to your laziness in failing to find out which article by Rogers was actually been commented on and chastised for its unserious attitude towards research, I'm all ears, but until then there's little point in pretending to respond to it.
The article I quoted destroyed any semblance of a hope that the image on the Shroud is due to paint; the article you quoted was chastising Rogers for not looking for vanillin residues, which are not crucial to the issue of blood vs. paint anyway. The presence or absence of vanillin is a minor point at best: since there is no paint, the whole backbone of McCrone's contentions goes out the window.
So after that, any bleating about "he didn't look for vanillin" is pointless, since the possibility of forgery has been excluded.
Now, it's time to go to the garage.
Say goodnight, troll.
Cheers!
That's what I've been trying to find out from the Religion Moderator privately. My guess is that you or someone else reported it and #296 to the Mod and that's all they checked, because if those two posts are unacceptable then there are some of Swordmaker's and yours that absolutely need to go. Heck, you yourself ought to be suspended.
Anyone who wants copies of my original posts can Freepmail me. Suffice it to say that if you believe the comments in 293 and 284 by Swordmaker are accurate you should see what I wrote in reply.
Have fun in the garage; after completely misstating the status of McCrone's work in mainstream science and the standing of his critics you deserve a rest.
There's an abuse button available next to any post you want. Click on it, and a complaint will go to the Admin Moderator. You can say what is wrong with the post, or you can allow them to read the offending post for themselves.
Anyone who wants copies of my original posts can Freepmail me. Suffice it to say that if you believe the comments in 293 and 284 by Swordmaker are accurate you should see what I wrote in reply.
I see nothing wrong with #284, I've seen far worse on many other threads. When I click "View Replies" next to it there is none. I am guessing this is post #290?
When I click "View Replies" next to 293 there is none...is the reply the now-deleted #296?
Tell ya what, Freepmail me the contents of #284 and #290, so I can see for myself.
Cheers!
Will do.
I found it...
Published Quarterly by McCrone Research Institute the journal is dedicated to the advancement of all forms of microscopy for the biologist, mineralogist, metallographer or chemist.
Contrary to claims by McCrone's company, it is not peer-reviewed except for an in-house committee of McCrone publication employees. [Even if it were truly peer-review, do you seriously believe that a committee (probably chaired by McCrone) would nix an article written by the boss?]
The journal was originally "The Microscope; The British Journal of Microscopy and Photomicrography" and was purchased in 1962 by McCrone Research Institute.
The Microscope is an international journal founded by Arthur Barron in 1937 and dedicated to the advancement of all forms of microscopy for the biologist, mineralogist, metallographer or chemist.No matter what the field of research, the microscope is always a useful adjunct and often an essential tool.
A successful journal for microscopists must therefore interest and benefit a very wide spectrum of scientists. The Microscope accomplishes this by emphasizing new advances in microscope design, new accessories, new techniques, and unique applications to the study of particles, films, or surfaces of any substance.
A major source of papers for The Microscope is the INTER/ MICRO symposium held each year in Chicago. More Information about the Inter/Micro Symposium
The journal is also open to papers from other meetings or papers written expressly for publication. Also included are microscopy related book reviews.
Published Quarterly by McCrone Research Institute, Edited by Dr. Gary J. Laughlin
Previous Editors:
Robert M. Weaver (2004-2005)
David A. Stoney (1996-1999, 2001-2004)
Walter C. McCrone (1965-1995, 2000)
Harold M. Malies (1962-1965)
Arthur L.E. Barron (1937-1962)
Apparently, this is a companion publication of now discontinued "The Microscopist" which was another publication of McCrone Research Institute.
Now let's look at the other "august" Peer-reviewed journal... "Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988"
That is German for "The Viennes Journal of [the] Supernatural in Science and the Arts 1987/1988" It appears to be the German equivalent of the Skeptical Inquirer.
The article itself is about Richard Feynman's 1974 CalTech Commencement speech on "Cargo Cult Science" The includes the scientists investigating the Shroud of Turin as a prime example of Cargo Cult science in the light of the "impeccable work" done by Walter C. McCrone as reported in their own journal in 1988... and compares them to people like Erich von Daniken, etc. It calls the critics of McCrone psuedoscientists. Feynman did not refer to Shroud studies in his 1974 speech.:
German - "Walter McCrone benutzte möglichst einfache, gut erprobte und adäquate Untersuchungsmethoden, was teils – mangels Medienwirksamkeit – gegen ihn verwendet wurde. Er betrieb Archiv- und Quellenarbeit zu Herkunft, Alter, Stil und Herstellungsweise des Tuches, verglich Proben vom Grabtuch mit eigenem Blut auf Textilien (wobei er deutliche Unterschiede feststellte) und konnte mit polarisations- und elektronenmikroskopischen Methoden Farbpigmente auf dem Grabtuch nachweisen[4]. "
English - "Walter McCrone used simple, well tested and adequate research methods, what was used partly - for lack of medium effectiveness - against him. It operated file and source work to origin, age, style and mode of production. Older, style and mode of production of the cloth, it compared samples of the grave cloth with own blood on textiles (whereby it determined clear differences) and could prove with polarization and electron microscopic methods [found] pigments on the shroud..."German - "McCrone interpretierte das Grabtuch als mittelalterliche Tuchmalerei; seine Datierung wurde auch durch eine später erfolgte C14 Altersbestimmung bestätigt. "
English - "McCrone interpreted the grave cloth as medieval cloth painting; its dating was [confirmed] also by a [later] C14 age determination [test] taken place.
It goes on to comment that McCrone's simpler techniques were better than the Cargo Cult scientist critics sophisticated "Complex" tests and machines because McCrone proved the Shroud a medieval fake.
All-in-all, I don't think that "Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988" is a peer-reviewed scientific journal...
It appears the McCrone's "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?" article (Article first page - full article may be purchased for $25) in Accounts of Chemical Research 1990, 23, 77-83 may have been peer-reviewed but it is interesting that it was only submitted after the 1988 Carbon-14 Tests and 10 years after McCrone did his research. This very, very late, publication of his old work is interesting in its timing. McCrone finally published when the reviewers were likely to be aware of the 1988 C14 results... and look on his paper as being confirmed. It would also tend to prevent many would-be critics from disagreeing with him as the C14 tests seemed to have trumped everything else.
It certainly wasn't current work because McCrone no longer had any of the Shroud samples in his possession because they had been personally repossessed from McCrone in 1981 by STURP director, Dr. John Jackson, after McCrone ignored request after request to return STURP samples he held (which McCrone referred to as "his samples") or to send them on to other researchers who were scheduled to work on them. Any peer-review of McCrone's work by chemists reviewing his article in Acc. Che. Res. had to be done WITHOUT access to the samples... and is therefore only a review of methodology.
I just went line by line through every post of yours on this thread. The only thing which could even be MISTAKEN for personal animus was #250:
If you cannot move beyond your ONE discredited source, you are willfully ignorant of the facts.
and #261: I submit you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You have heard and repeated something that is untrue.
and #284:
I also find it amusing you criticized someone for apparently using Wikipedia as an authoritative source and you are doing the same thing...
and #293:
His mind is made up... and it is locked like a bank vault. His science (as is his mentor;s Schafersman)
Rather thin gruel for someone accusing you of ad hominem.
I as usual was far more crass, as I tolerate fools gladly but have far less patience for what looks like dishonesty.
The proof is left as an exercise for the interested reader.
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.