You have not yet shown a single controlled scientific test, submitted for peer review, which falsifies blood proteins.
I have already shown you links which describe the peer-review studies, using generally accepted forensic tests, which DO test positive for tissue samples.
Strike one.
only pigments of red ochre and vermilion.
You quoted a skeptical site (the one with the reporter from Toronoto quoting the guy from Purdue) which attacks the claims of age based on vanillin -- Rogers should have tested for vanillin using this, the source claims.
In your haste to quote this, you failed to notice - or deliberately omitted -- that this test was explicitly looking for PAINT, described in detail the paints it was looking for, the chemical kinetics of their decomposition, expected species, etc. It didn't find any, thus demolishing the claim that the image was paint.
If you feel peeved at me arguing from competent and well-esteemed authority,
Argument from authority is invalid in science. Don't you know that?
Not so thrilled though to have you imagining me masturbating. I’ll do without the back-story on that one.
Well, I know where *your* stains came from, anyway.
Cheers! Whoops.
McCrone’s studies have been endorsed by the American Chemical Society, the leading publisher of peer-reviewed research journals in the chemical sciences. It is not the mainstream view of science that the Shroud was created by the carcass of a dead man, and the problems with the pro-Shroud research have been discussed ad nauseum.
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. 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.
I’m not a scientist, I’m a layman citing the research and conclusions that the vast bulk of scientists respect.