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.
I'll spell this out at the kindergarten level.
McCrone claimed to use microscopy to identify the materials in the shroud as paint.
At one point he was sure it was iron oxide.
At another time he referred to vermillion or red ochre.
1. These two identifications are inconsistent.
2. He did not use control samples.
3. I did not see any photomicrographs or other corroborating documentation.
4. He used Mylar tape which could have interfered with his detection of birefringence.
5. His work has not been replicated.
6. When he did submit samples to other labs, he was at first reluctant, and then submitted samples in violation of agreed-upon protocols. 7. The samples as submitted had already been adulterated. 8. When the other labs attempted to undo the adulteration, he claimed that such work invalidated their results.
9. Why did he submit adulterated samples? Or alternatively, why didn't he admit that it was *he* who did so?
10. His methods have been refuted by other labs, using multiple methodologies - wet chemistry, pyrylosis /mass spec, X-ray fluorescence, spectroscopy, examination of the individual linen fibers. All the labs agree that the image on the Shroud was of blood and protein, NOT paint.
11. After these reports, other reports come out on "skeptic" sites -- by definition, not open-minded, claiming that there is a *possibility* of false positives on the wet-bench tests. 12. These are not accepted in peer-review journals, do not use either known control groups or known samples from the Shroud, and are not replicated, merely parroted.
13. There is known contemporary evidence for the image on the Shroud being known and propagated long before the Shroud's forgery would have occurred.
14. There is soil and pollen evidence consistent with the Shroud's presence in Palestine.
15. There are anatomical and medical features of the image on the Shroud which would have been unknown to a medeival forger, and would have contradicted items "known" to a forger.
16. Even the C-14 testing will be redone: if the arguments against the medieval age attributed to the Shroud were specious, these tests would not be allowed. But the problem for the skeptics is, these objections are not like those of young-earth Creationists against such tests in general, but specific methodological faults with the execution of these particular tests. Lab error, if you will. And given that the actual samples taken for the prior testing were NOT done in the fashion agreed to in advance, and that multiple independent lines of inquiry showed that the samples taken for C-14 testing were from areas of the cloth that had been adulterated (re-weaving, re-staining)...re-doing the C-14 testing is merely best practices.
Your response boils down to:
McCrone painted the image on. He said so. He was quoted in Encylclopedia Britannica and was nominated for the ACS Analytical Chemistry award by one of his cronies. That proves it!
In the meantime, there is a well-known class of chemical reactions involving compounds *known* to come from dead bodies, which have been found on the Shroud, and which would account both methodologically and chemically for the image, and would be consistent with the totality of the other evidence.
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.
Swordmaker got sick of the unwarranted ad hominem. I've actually been *reading* the thread. You admit you are not a scientist: I’m not a scientist, I’m a layman citing the research and conclusions that the vast bulk of scientists respect.
and it is clear you are in over your head. Cut-and-pasting from skeptical sites make it appear that you thought you would feast on a bunch of uneducated fundamentalists who would be frustrated by your superior command of the facts. That's a nice feeling, when you get it -- but in this case, neither the facts, nor the data, nor the command of the subject, are on your side.
Cheers, you lovable troll.
Swordmaker was the initiator of the ad hominem, and his conduct thoroughly reprehensible. You've taken the baton.
McCrone's work was published in peer-reviewed journals and has received the endorsement of mainstream scientists, internet falsehoods and ad hominems aside.
If you want to own up to your laziness in failing to find out which article by Rogers was actually been commented on and chastised for its unserious attitude towards research, I'm all ears, but until then there's little point in pretending to respond to it. This is what, the third time you've stamped your feet and tried to change the subject in a purported reply to the observation?