By now you're just trolling, and I don't know that it's worth my effort, but claiming McCrone is not mainstream is just internet key-hammering.
Of course McCrone is mainstream. He's the only Shroud of Turin researcher that I know of graced with a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica, a recognized expert in microscopy, a consultant on many different projects, and in 2000 McCrone received the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin -- including his findings that the image and blood were composed with pigments of ochre and vermilion.
He's the only Shroud of Turin researcher that I know of graced with a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Argument from authority is not scientifically legitimate. And Britannica is not a peer-review journal.
a recognized expert in microscopy,
who while reviewing the Shround changed his own conclusions as to the composition of the colorations; who did not prepare control samples; who was reticent about providing samples to independent researchers; who during his own tests used a matrix for the sample which was known to be capable of interfering with the tests.
And the current state of the art on studying the Shroud has moved beyond this, to multiple chemical and physical tests, all of which are consistent with genuine blood and body chemicals as a source for the stains, and many of which explicitly ruled out the very paints McCrone is claiming.
And in the meantime, attempts to independently replicate his results have failed.
a consultant on many different projects,
Irrelevant. The specific tests performed and the results obtained are what matters.
in 2000 McCrone received the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin -- including his findings that the image and blood were composed with pigments of ochre and vermilion.
From The Skeptical Inquirer:
The award nomination was written by David Stony, Director of the McCrone Research Institute in Chicago, who wrote that McCrone's work on the shroud "is an excellent example of the use and application of his methodology, the necessity for the ultramicroanalytical approach, and of McCrone's character." The award is sponsored by Fisher Scientific Co.
So it isn't even a independently peer-reviewed award; and it is sponsored by a manufacturer of lab equipment.
Can you say, "McCrone gives himself an award and then uses it to bolster his credentials?"
I knew you could.
Oh, and the *author* of the piece I just quoted -- read it yourself --William Vanderlinde, Ph.D., is an engineering failure analyst in Columbia, Maryland, and a member of the National Capital Area Skeptics. He recently co-authored a paper on microscopic methods with McCrone Institute Director Dave Stoney.
The jokes write themselves.
Nice try, though.
Cheers!