The Findings of Dr. Walter McCrone
The late Dr. Walter McCrone claimed to have definitively proved that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery by looking microscopically at a blood mark region and testing it for blood, or a form of paint. To do this, he would shine a light through one of the "blood" particles and see if the light would refract (break into different colors as a light would do through a prism). Blood does not cause light to refract, but some paints do.
When he did this, he did receive a light refraction. This led him to believe that the blood was painted on by a red ochre-vermillion paint, conclusively concluding that the Shroud of Turin is no more than a cunning painting.
There are a few problems with his results. First of all, they completely contradict the fourteen independent tests done on the Shroud for blood, all of which turned out to be positive for human male, type AB blood. Secondly, Dr. Walter McCrone admitted through correspondence with John Augsten that he only examined a sample from one area of the cloth, not a few samples from different blood marks. Lastly, in a radio debate with Dr. Gilbert Lavoie, Dr. Walter McCrone admitted that he did not remove the particles from the sticky tape before shining a light through them. This has obvious consequences. Clear sticky tape would cause light to refract when it is passed through it, as sticky tape would behave like a prism. Therefore, the refraction Dr. McCrone saw was likely due to the sticky tape, not the individual particle he was testing. When presented with these and other arguments, Dr. Walter McCrone was adamant about his findings, much the way he reacted when other scientists proved that the Vinland Map, which he had determined was a fake, was actually authentic.
While his contribution and work on the Shroud has been valuable and appreciated, his results, due to the overwhelming body of evidence against his findings, must logically be set aside.
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'and sno= 2' at line 1 |
