Tiens je cite de wikipedia :

McCrone, upon analyzing the samples he had, concluded that the red stains that had been pointed to as blood were actually pigment—specifically, red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. Two later additions to the STURP team, John Heller and Alan Adler, published their own peer-reviewed analysis concluding that the stains were blood. (Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin", Applied Optics, 19:2742-4, 1980; Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation on the Shroud of Turin", Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal 81-103, 1981) According to Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell, neither Heller nor Adler was a forensic serologist or a pigment expert. Nickell adds that, "at the 1983 conference of the International Association for Identification, forensic analyst John E Fischer explained how results similar to theirs could be obtained from tempera paint."[1] McCrone adhered to his opinion that comparison of microscopic images showed that the stain on the Shroud was not blood.[2]

Je résume :
McCrone sur les échantillon qu'il a eu a analyser le rouge du suaire et en a déduit que c'était des pigments de rouge ocre, et vermillon.

Ajouté a l'équipe "STURP" un peu plus tard, Heller & Alder on dit que le rouge était du sang [Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin", Applied Optics, 19:2742-4, 1980; Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation on the Shroud of Turin", Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal 81-103, 1981] mais Joe Nickell a dit que ni Heller, ni Alder était des experts ni en sérologie, ni en pigments. Et en 1983 John E Fischer a fait des test sur les pigments cité par McCrone et en est venu au meme conclusions que lui.

Par contre, IMPOSSIBLE de trouver un seul passage de l'article, sur le fait que McCrone ai été concidéré comme un faussaire, et ce pour quoi que ce soit