Almost every day I search for new apperances of “Turin Shroud” on the internet, so I’m astonished that this site has clocked up 150 replies since beinmg posted.
I am one of those ‘skeptical anti-Shroud “scientists” ‘ Swordmaker mentions (145), but not a ‘failed stage magician’ nor the holder of a degree in ‘non-technical fields such as English Literature’. However I am a leading researcher in the subject, and find Swordmaker’s comments both the most detailed and the most authoritative (so much so that I wonder if we haven’t met before on the internet) , so I thought I’d reply to him, although obviously my observations apply to lots of other responders too.
Like Swordmaker, I like to study ‘research done by scientists working in their fields of expertise doing actual research’, publishing in ‘peer-reviewed’ journals. But I find it a little curious that this opening gambit is followed by a denigration of by far the most qualified and experienced scientist of the whole STuRP team, namely Walter McCrone. He was a by-word in microscopy then, and acknowledged as such today, as witnessed by his continuing achievements, The Microscope, The Particle Atlas, and the McCrone Research Institute. Ray Rogers, who carried out the tape sampling exercise, had taken a course tutored by McCrone, so it was no wonder he first entrusted his tapes to him.
So what of Swordmaker’s claim that his work has been “long debunked”. I don’t think that’s the right approach, and suggests an authenticist bias that I hope is not mirrored by a similar non-authenticist bias on my part.
In his peer-reviewed paper (Acc. Chem. Res. Vol. 23), McCrone publishes several micrographs liberally sprinkled with red dots. It is useless to pretend that they are not there, or that they represent ‘cellulosic bound’ iron oxide associated with the retting process. So why are they ignored by John Heller and Alan Adler (Can. Soc. Forens. Sci. J., Vol. 14)? Rather than dismiss one or the other as an idiot, it is better to try to find an answer.
This may lie in Heller’s book ‘Report on the Shroud of Turin’ where he explains that in order to carry out their chemical tests, he and Adler had to extract each fibre carefully from the sticky tape, and to wash away the ‘stickum’ (Heller’s word) with copious toluene. No wonder they did not discover much particulate matter not firmly adhering.
Roger Morris, STuRP’s X-Ray fluorescence tester, identified varying concentrations of iron across the Shroud, including a remarkable correlation between concentration and image intensity across the face; and both Gérard Lucotte and Giulio Fanti have independently identified cinnabar on two different blood stains. All three are convinced authenticists who do not think the Shroud was painted, but their evidence is certainly not so dismissive of the possibility as Swordmaker seems to imply.
Moving back a bit to Swordmaker’s comment 130. Othonia does not mean burial cloths. Sail is not the root of Sindon (where on earth did you find that?).
Comment 129. There is no archaeological evidence that the ‘dumb bell’ marks on the Shroud match any kind of Roman flagrum, and some sculptural and literary evidence that they don’t. The copies made and illustrated, including yours, are based solely on the Shroud itself, so it is hardly surprising they match so well.
Comment 125. It is not obvious to a number of convinced authenticists, such as John Jackson, the founder of STuRP, and Bob Rucker, that there is any anomalous material in the radiocarbon corner. For a start, every single thread can be followed from the main body of the Shroud into the corner (particularly on the X-Ray photos and Barrie Schwortz’s transmitted light photos), and for a second, there must be at least three times as much interpolation as orignal cloth (that’s 75% / 25%, not 60% / 40%). ‘Approximately equal weights of 16th and 1st century Carbon’ could not have produced the 13th / 14th century date. Various ways of ‘invisible mending’ have been suggested and refuted, and the current front runner is that the invisible mending cannot be detected on the Shroud becasue it is invisible. I have to say I find that not credible.
I have no idea what you mean by beta particles being emitted from the carbon monoxide and dioxide while the samples were being tested. The AMS system measures whole atoms, not beta decay. Perhaps you mean something else.
Comment 121. Damaging the median nerve has various effects depending where it is damaged. None of them result exclusively in the retraction of the thumb. Noted pathologist Freg Zugibe declared that the nail hole wasn’t where Pierre Barbet said it was (he was quite rude about him actually) and that the median nerve had nothing to do with the non-appearance of thumbs on the Shroud.
Comment 109. I’m a skeptic and I don’t claim that. The easiest way to produce the image on the Shroud is to drape it over a damp bas-relief. The areas of greatest pressure result in the areas of densest image. Pseudo-negativity is an inevitable comsequence.
Apart from that, I agree with a lot of what you say!
(PS. Just noticed even more comments. Maybe I’ll post again!)
First of all, to my recollection, Ray Rogers did not carry out the sampling via tape on the Shroud at STURP. That is a mischaracterization. That was not his function. Ray was a Pyrology chemist. I would have to look it up who actually did it or ask Barrie. Some of the samples, especially the ones that had sticky material on them were taken by Max Frei with over-the-counter Scotch Tape, not the special tape STURP had made for the purpose. Some others were shocked when another Italian scientist also used an over-the-counter cellophane tape. Barrie tells about that. It is also known that McCrone remounted many of the threads and in his own mounting material when he put them on slides.
McCrone did not get his samples from Ray Rogers. Rogers was not the repository of samples. Once he got them, he refused to return them. There is quite a narrative about the effort to get them returned to STURP custody.
Walter McCrone was never an official member of the STURP team although he claimed he was. He was granted some threads to examine, but he refused to submit his reports to STURP. Instead, he chose to self-publish his findings in his own in-house magazine the Microscopist, published and edited by Walter C. McCrone.
We cannot look at his “continuing” achievements because Walter McCrone has been dead since 2002.
So what of Swordmaker’s claim that his work has been “long debunked”. I don’t think that’s the right approach, and suggests an authenticist bias that I hope is not mirrored by a similar non-authenticist bias on my part.
What part of there is no pigment in the image areas that is associated with the images, when McCrone claimed there was that he could easily see with his light microscope? No OTHER microscopist could replicate his findings. Not one. No image related red ocher, no egg albumin, which McCrone claims to find scads of, no albumin, no other pigments. Electron microscope studies found NO PIGMENTS yet McCrone claimed he saw PIGMENTS. The same with the blood, which turned out to be real blood where McCrone claimed it was paint with scads of Vermillion and Red Ocher, and even specified rouge and depending on the paper or speech, specific makes of rouge, or specific grinds including one invented by a technique as late as 1830. That is what debunked McCrone’s claims.
In his peer-reviewed paper (Acc. Chem. Res. Vol. 23), McCrone publishes several micrographs liberally sprinkled with red dots. It is useless to pretend that they are not there, or that they represent ‘cellulosic bound’ iron oxide associated with the retting process. So why are they ignored by John Heller and Alan Adler (Can. Soc. Forens. Sci. J., Vol. 14)? Rather than dismiss one or the other as an idiot, it is better to try to find an answer.
I disagree that those “liberally sprinkled red dots” McCrone published were ignored by Heller and Adler. I’ve seen those addressed. First of all, as McCrone himself noted these dots are “sub-micron” in size. They are not visible except under a microscope. The are not visible to the human eye, even “liberally sprinkled.” They are environmental Iron Oxide from multiple sources, not associated with the image or blood.
Yes, there are environmental Iron Oxide particles found on the Shroud. Yes, McCrone found some. Those were those dots. They were found both in image areas and in non-image areas in about equal distribution. These particles were NOT associated in any image area or any non-image area, nor in any amount that rose to visibility, nor were they distributed in a coherent fashion, and seemed to be randomly distributed as the result environmental contamination.
Gérard Lucotte and Giulio Fanti have independently identified cinnabar on two different blood stains
I don’t have too much of a problem with the microscopic amounts of Mercury Sulfide found on two very small blood stains found by Lucotte and Fante. It isn’t found in the rest of the blood on the Shroud. It is well known that medieval artists who painted copies of the Shroud of which 26 still exist today, would frequently press their finished artistic work to the original to imbue it with an air of impressed authenticity by contact. Transfer of pigments is a likely consequence of such a practice, even when dried, because such art on cloth sheds.
We STILL have to return the very basic fact there there is simply NO PIGMENT where the image exists, no FIXATIVE for a photograph to exist there, and nothing in the Shroud of that smacks of human artifice. As I said above we KNOW what and where that image exists in. . . what we don’t know is what created that Maillard reaction caused that discoloration in that ~100 Ångstrom thin layer only on one side of the fibril.
It is not obvious to a number of convinced authenticists, such as John Jackson, the founder of STuRP, and Bob Rucker, that there is any anomalous material in the radiocarbon corner. For a start, every single thread can be followed from the main body of the Shroud into the corner. . .
I think Dr. Jackson and you are misinterpreting how “French Invisible Reweaving” is accomplished. Of course each thread ever single thread can be followed from the main body of the Shroud. It’s the way the technique works. Each individual thread is RE-TWISTED into the newly spun and dyed and matched thread to continue it so it the splice cannot be seen. They are not just laid side by side and continued which would make an obvious patch in fine cloth.
. . .there must be at least three times as much interpolation as orignal cloth (that’s 75% / 25%, not 60% / 40%). ‘Approximately equal weights of 16th and 1st century Carbon’ could not have produced the 13th / 14th century date.
It’s 100% as much, Hugh. Almost equal amounts. You are thinking about it wrong. You have to think of it as a contaminant. If the entire sample is the whole, but we are dating the entire 100% of only the half of the sample that is 1st Century, then the other half is 100% 16th Century. I think I will rely on the calculations of Dr. Harry Gove, the inventor of the C-14 test technique that was actually USED in the Shroud testing, who did the calculations who came up with that figure. He was asked what it would take to skew the dates given those ratios. He did the calculations. It really depends on what estimated age the patch material is. I know that the amount actually varied, according to those who were doing the estimating from 40% to 60%. It has been many years since I studied the decay rate of of C-14 to N14, but I still defer to Dr. Gove, not to somebody on line. Several other C-14 specialists also stated that it would take an equal weight of NEW material to skew a 1st Century item to the 14th century.
Comment 109. I’m a skeptic and I don’t claim that. The easiest way to produce the image on the Shroud is to drape it over a damp bas-relief. The areas of greatest pressure result in the areas of densest image. Pseudo-negativity is an inevitable comsequence.
That bas relief technique, as I said above, does semi-work, BUT Hugh, it has one major failing. The resulting product is left with scads of dusted pigments, dyes, or chars if heat was used, neither of which the Shroud evinces in the image areas. It also suffers from the working backwards fallacy, trying to get the result from knowing where you are and going backwards, trying to get back to the result. Knowing it was done, and trying to get a similar result that superficially looks the same and claiming, “There, did it.”
I don’t hold all the answers, but I do follow the science. I don’t toss out the good science due to outlying results such as the Cinnebar findings in a few reports. (The Mercury Sulfide was also found only in sub-micron non-visible amounts) I file it and consider it.
In the interests of openness, Fanti shared another paper where the authors hypothesize that the Cinnebar may have resulted from some medieval artists may have tried to “touch up” the blood stains on the Shroud to enhance the redness of those two locations where it was seen. I find this a stretch.
McCrone’s fatal flaw was he wanted to solve everything with a single tool, his optical microscope. The hammer/nail conundrum. This lead him into several major mistakes of arrogance, not just with the Shroud. He’s declared several other ancient manuscripts to be frauds based on his microscopic examination, when they were later proved authentic. He’s often right, too. But he has to recognize there ARE other tools. His McCrone Institute has an Electron Microscope department but he refused to allow them to see the Shroud samples because he said he didn’t want to solve the mystery by anything except optical means. THAT came from his own ex-employees.
Hugh, thanks for not being one of those like the rabid skeptics, but being a rational, open minded skeptic. Those like you make discussion fun. Skeptics like Habermann and Randi, not so much. I was very sorry to hear that we’ve lost Rogers, Heller, and Adler. . . even McCrone. All of them are now dead.
PS, welcome to FreeRepublic Hugh.