Godzil (./542) :
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

Je cite wikipedia moi aussi:

In 1970s a special eleven-member Turin Commission conducted several tests. Conventional and electron microscopic examination of the Shroud at that time revealed an absence of heterogeneous coloring material or pigment.[65] In 1979, Walter McCrone, upon analyzing the samples he was given by STURP, concluded that the image is actually made up of billions of submicrometre pigment particles. The only fibrils that had been made available for testing of the stains were those that remained affixed to custom-designed adhesive tape applied to thirty-two different sections of the image.[79]John Heller and lan Adler examined the same samples and agreed with McCrone's result that the cloth contains iron oxide. However, they concluded, the exceptional purity of the chemical and comparisons with other ancient textiles showed that, while retting flax absorbs iron selectively, the iron itself was not the source of the image on the shroud.[80][81] Other microscopic analysis of the fibers seems to indicate that the image is strictly limited to the carbohydrate layer, with no additional layer of pigment visible.[82]

Pour résumer :
McCrone conclue que l'image est formé de pigments.
Heller et Adler après examen des mêmes échantillons; sont d'accord sur la présence d'Oxyde de fer, mais que ce n'est pas ce qui forme l'image.
Les autres analyses microscopiques confirment que l'image est limitée à la couche de lin, sans couche de pigments supplémentaire.

Je continu:

STURP members also disputed McCrone's similar conclusion that the Shroud image was painted. They contended (also in peer-reviewed papers) that physical analyses excluded the presence of pigments in sufficient quantities to be accountable for the image. (For a summary of STURP studies see L.A. Schwalbe, R.N. Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3-49, 1982.)McCrone resigned from the STURP team in June 1980. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP. Heller, however, stated that McCrone resigned after being "insulted" by the STURP's reviewers' conclusion that the papers McCrone submitted to be vetted for publication contained data that were "misrepresented", observations that were "highly questionable", and conclusions that were "pontifications" rather than "scientific logic" (Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin, p. 184).

Les membres du STURP reprocherent également à McCrone des conclusions similaires sur la façon dont l'image fut peinte. Ils ont soutenu (et publiés) que les analyses physiques exclues la présence de pigments, et est en bien trop petite quantité pour former l'image.

Je continu (la carte vinland)

In 1972, with new technology becoming available, Yale sent the map for chemical analysis by forensic specialist Walter McCrone whose team, using a variety of techniques, found that the yellowish lines contain anatase (titanium dioxide) in a rounded crystalline form manufactured for use in pale pigments since the 1920s, indicating that the ink was modern. They also confirmed that the ink contained only trace amounts of iron, and that the black line remnants were on top of the yellow, indicating that they were not the remains of a penciled guide-line, as the British Museum staff had speculated.[ 9]A new investigation in the early 1980s, by a team under Dr. Thomas Cahill at the University of California, Davis, using Particle-Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) found that only trace amounts (< 0.0062% by weight) of titanium appeared to be present in the ink, which should have been too little for some of McCrone's analyses to detect

En résumer, en 1972 McCrone conclue à la présence d' anatase (substances synthetique), inconnue au moyen age, dans l'encre. En 1980 une étude utilisant la technologie PIXE (ParticleInduced X-ray Emission) ne trouve que 0.0062% d'anatase. Même pas suffisamment pour que McCrone ne puisse les détecter.

Bref, ce n'est pas dit, mais ils se foutent tellement de sa gueule, avec une douce ironie (0.0062% ^^), que je crois pouvoir lui enlever toute crédibilité, sans qu'on puisse me le reprocher.