Ah, all your smoke and mirrors, gone.
You resort to ad hominem.
Nice try, though.
I googled on the exact methodology referred to in your quote, and used an even EARLIER study of the Shroud than the one you were hoping to sucker-punch me with.
Can you explain the physical principles behind pyrolosis/mass spec? Can you describe the kinetics of vanillin decomposition? Can you tell me which experiments have established the rate constant for the reaction? What are the principal by-products? Are they soluble in the adhesive used on McCrone's sticky tape? How about the components of the vermillion, red ochre, or iron oxide that he keeps bleating about?
(And does he publish the photomicrographs of the crystals from the Shroud, describing their crystal structure, density, and so forth, comparing them to known controls? Why not?)
Oh, that's right. You're a layman. Never mind...
I won't hold my breath. And, as per your prior protestations -- I'd hate for you to be inconsistent -- I won't accept Wikipedia from you.
In the meantime, though, Where are the peer-review studies in independent journals which falsify claims of blood and Maillard reactions?
The paint has been falsified, by a number of different studies, using multiple samples from different sources, and different physical and chemical methods.
The claims to paint have remained unduplicated.
Cheers, you lovable troll.
Keep twisting yourself in circles. It would have been a lot easier just to admit you misunderstood what was being referred to, instead of dancing around accountability like a troll. It’s not like anyone is going to not notice that you didn’t know what was being talked about and were too lazy to follow a link and find out.