Originally Posted by Reynard

Sorry for not responding sooner, Clete, but I decided to do my taxes and not wait until the last minute like I usually do.

Originally Posted by Reynard

First, it's important to note McCrone's credentials: Many in the field consider him the "Father of Modern Microscopic Analysis.� McCrone, who died in July 2002 at the age of 86, had a PhD in organic chemistry from Cornell U. He published 600 papers and 16 books or chapters. Five “shroud� papers were published by McCrone in three peer-reviewed journals.

It's important to note that McCrone's findings were also verified by the Electron Optics Group at McCrone's laboratory using electron & x-ray diffraction and electron microprobe analysis. As the reference cited by MortalWombat states, McCrone’s investigation employed polarized light microscopy, involving examination of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas from the shroud, “characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids.�

The original investigation by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was mostly comprised by a group of believers, who made every attempt to make the facts fit the theory (if the facts don’t fit the theory, discard the facts is their mantra. That sounds like creationism!). In addition to McCrone’s analysis, he also exposed fraudulent claims endorsed by STURP, such as the positive ID for blood and the claim that pollen was found on the shroud that only came from Palestine at the time of Christ.

Joe Nickell (see below for reference) reported that STURP representatives paid a surprise visit to McCrone’s Chicago lab and confiscated his 32 samples. They gave these samples to STURP members, John Heller and Alan Adler, who had no expertise in forensic serology or pigment chemistry as did McCrone. Guess what? Heller & Adler ID’d blood. However, at the 1983 conference of the International Association for Identification, noted forensic analyst, John F. Fischer showed how H&A's results could be obtained from tempera paint.

Nickel states that McCrone “was held to a secrecy agreement, while statements were made to the press by STURP that there was no evidence of artistry.� McCrone stated that he was ‘drummed out of STURP’ because his findings. Nickell also makes note of the strenuous STURP effort to obtain DNA from blood. This effort was disputed by Victor Tryon, a DNA expert. Tryon was concerned that the shroud was contaminated by thousands over the years. Nickell states that “Tryon resigned from the new shroud project due to what he disparaged as ‘zealotry in science’. �

The C-14 testing was done at laboratory facilities at Oxford, Zurich and U. of Arizona, with results published in Nature by 21 scientists from the U. of Oxford, the U. of Arizona, the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich, Columbia U., and the British Museum. The testing was performed on shroud samples that had been cleaned according to established protocol. Tests were run on both unburned and burned samples, the latter demonstrating that the often-cited church fire had no effect on the C-14 dating. The results obtained were also compared to available control standards, where dates had been established by alternate means.

The following is reported in Joe Nickell’s article “Scandals and Follies of the ‘Holy Shroud’ � in the Sept./Oct. 2001 issue of Skepical Inquirer (published by CSICOP):

IMPORTANT HISTORY: The shroud showed up in 1355 at a church in Lirey, France. In 1389, Bishop Pierre D’Arcis wrote a report that was sent to the Avignon Pope, Clement VII. D’Arcis complained that “ ‘the shroud was being used as part of a faith-based healing scam.’ � Nickell, in part, quotes from this report, [He (the Dean of Lirey)] ............“ ‘procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which HE bore......’ �.

D’Arcis also referred to an investigation conducted by his predecessor who discovered that the shroud was painted by a forger (artist): “ ‘Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was the work of human skill and not miracuously wrought or bestowed.’ �

The “infallible� Pope Clement ordered that that the shroud could continue to be exhibited, but it must be loudly announced that “ ‘it is not the True Shroud of Our Lord, but a painting or picture made in the semblance of the Shroud.’ �

Nickell also points out , “There have been numerous ‘true shrouds’ of Jesus--in Medieval Europe alone, there were ‘at least forty-three True Shrouds’ claimed, along with vials of his mother’s breast milk, hay from the manger in which he was born, and countless relics of his crucifixion.�

McCrone’s conclusion that the Shroud of Turin “is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356�, together with the C-14 dating evidence, is particularly significant in light of the Bishop D’Arcis/Pope Clement VII historical documentation from 1389.

Originally Posted by Reynard

Sorry for the excessive length of my post, but I had to get it off my chest.

Originally Posted by Clete

It really calls the credibility of the show in general into question. I saw an episode a while back about Bubonic Plague immunity and it's relationship to HIV immunity that I thought was fascinating. Now I wonder if the "facts" on that episode were as poorly grounded as some of the "facts" on the Shroud of Turin episode.