If you'd bothered to read the link I supplied, you'd find that the discussion was of a paper called "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin" published by Raymond Rogers in 2005. Vanillin, for example, is nowhere mentioned in this new article. As for this article, one major problem that I see with it from the getgo is that he uses "contaminated" fibers left over from McCrone's research, but only after they were "laboriously cleaned and prepared" by his wife. McCrone studied it prior to Mrs. Rogers' "laborious" cleaning and found paint pigments, something Rogers weirdly doesn't mention, and given the criticisms of his later paper for faulty and non-serious methodology you may take it for whatever you think it's worth.
Umm, Jack?
I was quoting an earlier paper than the one you supplied. Why?
Because in the quote in your post said that pyrolysis / mass spec should have been used to check for vanillin. This gives a strong indication that you are prepared to accept pyrolysis mass spec as both relevant and efficacious.
So (as I explicitly pointed out) I googled for these terms.
Within five minutes I had found a paper on pyrolysis/mass spec applied to the Shroud of Turin by Rogers. It explicitly, categorically, and in great detail gave NEGATIVES on paint -- which is and was the foundation of all your postings.
To quote:
"The pyrolysis-MS analyses did not detect any nitrogen-containing contaminants. This seemed to rule out glair (egg white) as well as any significant microbiological deposits, confirming microchemical tests that were also made. They did not detect any of the sulfide pigments that were used in antiquity, e.g., orpiment, realgar, mosaic gold, and cinnabar (vermilion, mercury sulfide, HgS). The Shroud's image had not been painted with any known vehicles and pigments."
So, why bleat about vanillin? A test method which you had just implied was accurate and relevant has ruled out paints.
As far as "cleaning the samples", that was required since McCrone himself violated the agreed-upon protocol for preparation and transfer of the samples. Almost as thoughhe had a vested interest in a way out. :-)
Nice try, though.
Cheers!
If he makes the claim it is up to him to substantiate it or to allow independent tests without interference.
And of course, you still ignore the actual presence of blood and of caramelized fibers inconsistent with paint.
The only criticisms of Rogers' work come from people with an axe to grind, who curiously enough only reference each other, and don't get accepted for independent peer-review publication.
Cheers, you lovable troll, you.