The actual fact is that most scientists have not bothered to even look at the evidence. For the "historical community" most are not involved and have not examined the extant evidence from the first millennia; they are willing to accept what they read from skeptics who, like you, continue to spout OLD information that has been superseded by newer research.
You continually trot out McCrone's optical microscopic claims... and totally unqualified Joe Nickell's assertions... as authoritative... but ignore the findings of scientists whose expertise in the specific areas they are testing (blood, blood fractions, ancient hemoglobin, porphyrins, pyrolosis, microspectrometry, etc.) FAR exceeds McCrone's limited expertise. McCrone is a microscopist, not a physicist, not a pyrolysis chemist, not a hemotology chemist, certainly not a blood specialist, and not even in the same ball park of expertise on blood fractions and hemoglobins as Dr. Bruce Cameron. McCrone based his entire claims on what he claims he saw (something NO OTHER SCIENTIST WHO HAS LOOKED HAS SEEN!) through an optical microscope with polarizing filters. Microscopists, equally skilled as McCrone, have looked at Shroud samples, both image and non-image, and have NOT seen what he claims.
McCrone did NOT perform microxrayspectrometry, which conclusively proved the Iron on the Shroud images and blood areas were NOT composed of Fe2O3 (red Ocher or Iron Oxide) or HgS (Mercuric Sulfide or Vermilion). He did NOT perform the much more sophisticated blood tests that Drs. Adler, Heller, Cameron, and Rogers performed that proved the the blood stains were composed of denatured meth-hemoglobin, a blood fraction that does indeed retain its red color. He did NOT perform the immunological assays that showed the blood stains were positive for PRIMATE blood... and not any other type of blood... and instead merely claimed, without proof, that the scientists got the positive test because of chicken egg Albumin was used (so he claimed) as a binder in tempera paint.
Your repeated claim that the image is made of Red Ochre is ludicrous in the light under the tests that dozens of qualified scientists have conducted on the Shroud and its fibers, even the most finely ground Iron Oxide would be completely obvious under a microscope... let alone the scanning electron microscopes, microspectrographs, and other much more sophisticated tools brought to bear on the investigation. Compared to the actual caramelized saccharide that DOES make up the image, even finely ground Jewelers Rouge (one of the Iron Oxide sources that McCrone has variously claimed to make up the image) would appear as large as boulders when compared to the coating of caramelized saccharides that is 1/100th the thickness of a human hair.
When only ONE scientists among dozens examining an object claims to see something so easily identified that ALL others cannot find, the conclusions of the ONE have to be discounted.
What part of "There is no Red Ochre on the shroud sufficient to rise to visibility" do you fail to understand?
Your sources are not authoritative on the current state of scholarship OR science on the Shroud. In 2004, Dr. Raymond Rogers conclusively proved... and had his work successfully peer-reviewed, found accurate, and published in prestigious scientific journals (which is something McCrone has NOT done)... that the sample used in the 1988 carbon dating was inconsistent with the main body of the shroud. Other scientists working from a different direction came to the same conclusion. The samples were NOT physically or chemically the same as the main body of the Shroud... ergo the 1988 C14 testing is proved invalid.
Dr. Rogers worked with photomicrographs and the remaining control sample retained from the five sub-samples cut from the original cutting from the Shroud.
I submit you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You have heard and repeated something that is untrue.
Chemist and pyrologist Raymond N. Rogers, (Sandia National Laboratory, University of California) and, independently, Dr. John L. Brown, (former Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory, Georgia Institute of Technology), have done other research and tests and presented evidence in peer reviewed scientific journals that proved that:
From an article in Thermochimica Acta: "A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth [the shroud's backing cloth], and all other medieval linens gave {positive results from] the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud."
Thus, the 1988 Carbon 14 Testing has been invalidated because the person who took the sample, literally, at the last hour, changed the agreed sampling protocols and took the sample from an area that had been patched, probably in 1532, with contemporary prepared linen thread that had been spun on a spinning wheel that had also spun cotton, then retted with alum, and dyed with alizarin dye from madder root, all done with 15th century technology. The tests were accurate for what they tested: a melange of old and newer material that gave. The reported a date that is inaccurate for both the old and the new. It is merely coincidence that the false date of the combined old and new happened to coincide with the first display of the Shroud in Lirey France. The repaired area is not the same as the main body of the shroud and tests are invalid.
New C14 testing should be allowed because there are now a lot of loose samples available since the ill advised "restoration" where they cut away the burned edges around the scorches from the 1532 fire.
I can tell you that there was an unauthorized C-14 test done on one of the threads taken during the 1978 STURP examination and the results were 1st Century, with a degree of confidence of 50 years because the sample was so small.
May I suggest you forget the website you keep repeatedly linking and do some reading of the peer reviewed scientific and scholarly articles on the Shroud? They are mostly available from Barrie Schwortz's website Shroud.com. Barrie was the official photographer of STURP... and he is Jewish. Daniel Porter has put together some of the best and current data in a good popularization of the Shroud information which is more accessible than the scientific papers. Daniel Porter is Freeper Shroudie, and his series of Websites, including Shroudforum.com, Shroud Facts Check, and Shroud Story are an excellent resource based on the latest science.. not on the 30 year old, non-peer-reviewed data from McCrone who ignored agreed protocols on handling Shroud samples which resulted in compromised samples, published his "findings" in a non-peer-reviewed journal (his own vanity publication, "The Microscopist," of which he was both publisher and editor), refused to submit his work for peer-review, and has actually attempted to sabotage other researchers by first, dragging his feet, and then sending them samples that were NOT exemplar of the bulk of samples he had in his possession.
The current state of scholarship is that the Shroud is a medieval forgery, and attempts by true believers to refute that have been found singularly unimpressive, as those distillations of contemporary thinking about the matter in 252 illustrate. That's peer review. The historical record points to a 14th century date, as does the scientific record. If the Church ever allows a further Carbon-14 test on another piece of the cloth it'll just repeat the 1988 results, though I don't expect the excuse-mongering will ever stop.