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!
Because you didn't know what the hell was being talked about, clearly, and were too lazy to follow the link and check.