Alleged problems with McCrone's work
2/8/11
(Still under construction)

- - Walter McCrone, the one-actually-involved-scientist arguing for paint and against blood, apparently said and did a number of foolish and/or dishonest things.

1. From http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
a. The 1973 “Italian Commission” (composed mostly of scientists) concluded that what appeared to be blood on the Shroud was not blood.  According to Heller and Adler, however, that study was flawed.  Heller & Adler claim that unless the apparent blood was “passed into solution,” the tests performed by the commission COULD NOT indicate blood, and the Commission admitted that they were not able to solubilize the red encrustations that they were studying.  No one (that I can find) questions H&A’s claim.
b. Despite acknowledging the Italians’ failure to solubilize, Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell writes that “those conducting the tests on the blood were... internationally known forensic serologists, a fact that underscored the credibility of the [negative] results.”52 Since McCrone terms the 1973 testing“impossible to fault” and “good forensic science”53 despite the failure to solubilize, it is with a skeptical eye that we examine McCrone’s claim of obtaining negative test results on ‘blood.’
c. McCrone did two of the tests done in 1973, and he either did or did not get the ‘blood’ into solution before proceeding with the benzidine and sulfuric acid tests; if he got the ‘blood’ into solution, even as the Italians did not, then McCrone could not have honestly said “I find it impossible to fault the [1973] work.” I conclude that the other possibility is the correct one: McCrone did not get the ‘blood’ into solution, in which case, his negative results with the two tests, like the 1973 results, are meaningless.
d. …McCrone claimed that the body image resulted from the application of simply iron-oxide (Fe2O3) particles, a claim he later altered to say that the body image resulted from the application of iron-oxide particles in a proteinaceous medium (i.e., liquid iron-oxide paint). (p3)
e. McCrone does not mention the burned-‘blood’ and watermargin ironoxide, and has alleged at various times that the ‘blood’ images are 1) simply iron oxide particles, 2) simply post-1800s iron oxide particles, 3) iron oxide particles of a form derived from the earth and available for tens of thousands of years, all in a proteinaceous medium, i.e. liquid earthy iron-oxide paint, and 4) liquid earthy iron-oxide and liquid mercury-sulfide (HgS) paint. (p3
f. Contrary to McCrone’s allegation that iron oxide cannot under any circumstances arise from hemoglobin, it was discovered in 1747 that burned-blood contains iron oxide. (p3)
g. In that book, Heller read, “Attempts to dissolve the granules during chemical treatment with acetic acid, oxygenated water, and glycerin of
potassium were all unsuccessful.”48 The actual report states, “the pigmented encrustations did not pass into solution in the solvents, acids and the alkalies we used.”49 Heller informed Jackson that the negative test results were meaningless, explaining at the time, “If you don’t do the right tests in the right way, you can never get old blood into solution. If it’s not in solution, you can’t obtain a positive test.”50
h. The sticky tapes from which McCrone obtained his samples for testing had originally been promised to Heller for doing blood testing.57 In anticipation of receiving samples, Heller placed some blood and plasma “in different ways” on an old Spanish linen cloth (blood is composed of mostly red cells, with some white cells and platelets, all in a plasma suspension).58 After applying sticky tape to the cloth, Heller carefully studied the resulting tapes, so much so that he began dreaming about fibrils.59 In a similar manner, during the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc. (hereafter STURP) 8 - 13 October 1978 period of data collection on the Shroud, team members Ray Rogers and Robert Dinegar applied to the Shroud and removed 32 sticky tapes, each approximately 5 cm^2 in area.60 Rogers was a chemist that worked with explosives at New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory and a part-time archeologist, while Dinegar worked at Los Alamos making bombs and was an assistant Episcopal pastor.61 A month after the data collection group’s return, Heller inquired as to the whereabouts of the samples he had been promised. Rogers informed Heller that McCrone had borrowed the tapes with instructions, saying “I told Walter to send you any that might have blood on them.”62 Following the arrival of 1979, Heller told Rogers he had received no slides, to which Rogers suggested he phone McCrone, yet McCrone “was never available.”63 McCrone eventually returned Heller’s calls:“I’ll send you a slide that’s supposed to have some blood on it, but it’s so small, I don’t think you’ll be able to do anything with it.” I asked incredulously, “Is that all you’re sending?”“What more do you need?”“I should have at least a couple of other slides to orient me. At this point, I don’t have a clue to what anything looks like.”

2. According to Ray Rogers (http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/rogers.htm),
a. I was the one who "commissioned" him [McCrone] to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. [In the writing referred to above, Joe Nickell claims that McCrone was commissioned to look at these samples.]
b.The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic.
c. Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests.
d. Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the cloth?
e. I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference.
f. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra.

3. Also according to Ray Rogers, just prior to his death in 2005 (This is taken from Chapter V of his book published in 2008, called A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin. A lot of the spelling is incorrect cause I scanned it.):
a. In order to protect the charged fibers from dust, I designed a gasketed, sealed box that could be flushed with an inert atmosphere. The inert atmosphere was an attempt to avoid any unwanted reactions at stressed locations on fibers. Walter McCrone claimed that the box contaminated the tapes with jewelers’ rouge that had been used to polish the plastic. The plastic had been cleaned thoroughly and sealed in a clean-room after it was assembled. It was not opened again until the fresh samples were placed in it in Turin.
b. Walter McCrone had taken part in the 1977 meeting at which STURP was organized. He badly wanted to develop a micro-radiocarbon system for dating the Shroud. I had known Walter since the 1950s, arid I considered him to be both an ethical scientist and one of the worlds best micmscopisls, We agreed to share the work on the tape samples.
c. Walter later mightily irritated the custodians of the Shroud by going over their heads to talk to King Umberto, who was the surviving member of the Savoy family and who owned the Shroud. He was consequently refused admission to the experimental area in Turin, and he never became a formal STIJRP team member, He had nothing to do with the sampling procedure or equipment.
d. Walter and I had made an agreement to share uncontaminated samples before any chemistry was done on them- The first step in making observations would be direct, low-power microscopy on the original tapes. I opened the sample box in a clean room on 27 October 1978. The adhesive sides of the tapes were protected in their frame, but I could look through the tape with a low-power microscope. Sample 3EF from the ~ist blood spot showed a number of red spots. It was marked to reserve for blood testing. Sample 3AF from the middle finger showed a large number of yellow fibers. It was marked for image testing. Many other image-area samples showed yellowish fibers. The tape samples appeared to be perfect for our purposes, and we celebrated.
e. I had kept a few tape samples open in the experimental room in Turin to check for unexpected particulates that might be drifting around. Those tapes appeared to be nearly free of fibers.The next step would be to observe small segments of the tapes at higher magnification. I did not want to open the sealed box more than necessary. I let Walter have the box of samples and take it to his laboratory. He agreed to open the box in a clean-room, and he promised that he would do nothing but cut small sections of the tapes for microscopy. He said: “You know how little that will take.” He also promised to maintain the “chain of evidence” for the samples, allowing no unauthorized access to the. He paid no attention to his promises: he nearly destroyed the value of the carefully prepared samples.
f. Walter McCrone took it upon himself to stick all of the samples down to microscope slides. He did not reserve any samples in a pristine state. Even worse than that he immediately found that he could not tolerate the optical effects of a thick slide. That is amazing performance for a ‘great” microscopist. Consequently, he pulled the tapes off of the slides and stuck all of them down to microscope cover slips. This destroyed much of the physical evidence we had sought.  Some fibers can now he seen to have been broken during these transfers and thin coatings were often pulled off of fibers’ surfaces. This exacerbated contamination with adhesive, and it also initiated crystallization of the adhesive and amorphous tape at a higher rate than would have been necessary. The original tape is still amorphous, but the samples mishandled by McCrone are crystallizing. McCrone’s failure to follow protocols and his abuse of the samples were unconscionable.
g. Fortunately, we had chosen the adhesive to provide for quantitative removal from the samples. It required much meticulous work to get around the damage caused by McCrone, and much information was simply destroyed by his actions.


5. From Barrie Schwortz (through personal correspondence):
- To my knowledge, the only journal McCrone published in was The Microscope, which he owned and edited. It was not peer reviewed.  As for Nickell, his work is published in his commercial books and perhaps in the Skeptical Enquirer magazine (or on tv), but those are not peer reviewed either.
- Almost all of STURP's papers were published in peer-reviewed journals (Applied Optics, Analytica Chimica Acta, Journal of Biological Photography, X-Ray Spectrometry, Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Materials Evaluation, Archaeology, Thermochimica Acta, etc.).
- Frankly, not many people even mention McCrone anymore since so much evidence has been published that contradicts his conclusions. Remember also that McCrone never examined (or even saw) the Shroud itself. He only looked through the microscope at some of the tape samples lifted from the surface of the Shroud by Ray Rogers and Robert Dinegar once we returned to the U.S. 
- As for Nickell, he is mainly a "professional skeptic" and media personality who wears a white labcoat and calls himself a "senior research fellow," although he is not affiliated with any academic or scientific organizations, just the Skeptical Enquirer magazine.
Barrie,
    The people with whom I'm debating are claiming that STURP unfairly prevented McCrone from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.  Can you direct me to a good discussion of that issue?
    Thanks.
        Rich Savage
...Ask them to explain how anyone could "prevent" McCrone from submitting his work to any peer reviewed journal, which he was free to do whenever he wanted to.  And once it was submitted, the decision to publish the work rests solely with the editorial review committee of the journal itself. Not with any STURP members...
...Tell your friends to get more reliable sources than Joe Nickell, who was not there and has twisted the story to defend McCrone and support his own anti-Shroud views.  I was there and this claim is completely false!
... Even if STURP wanted to do so, there was no way any journal would allow STURP's interference in their peer review process. 
- One thing I should clarify.  I was raised in an Orthodox Jewish home and both my parents were immigrants from little villages in Poland (like in Fiddler on the Roof). God was a part of everything, every day. I stopped practicing Judaism minutes after my Bar Mitzvah (at age 13), after discerning a level of hypocrisy that I wanted nothing to do with. I never even considered my own faith until 1996, when I was 48 years old.  I am not a Messianic Jew.  I am not a Christian.  My faith is not supported by relics. I personally do not like any institutional religions and I do not "practice" any rituals.  I do however, have faith in a greater power, which I rediscovered because of my involvement with the Shroud of Turin.  After building the website and taking a public stand on the Shroud, people started asking me what I believed, and they weren't referring to the Shroud anymore.  I had to search within myself for the first time as an adult and was truly surprised to find that I had an inherent faith in a greater power. 
I hope this is helpful in understanding my role with the Shroud.  I was there. I am a professional.  I was part of a serious scientific investigation.  And I documented everything, which forms the basis for shroud.com. I am not on a "crusade." I do not care whether people accept the Shroud as authentic or not.  That is their choice.  I only provide the factual information.  What they make of it is up to them.
- You can also tell your athiest friends that I appreciate their honest and intellectual approach to these questions without turning them into an attack on the researchers themselves (a la Joe Nickell).  These guys (STURP) were NOT religious fanatics as they are sometimes portrayed and really did good science which was published in refereed scientific journals.  By comparison, how much anti-Shroud material is there in the peer reviewed literature?  The skeptics have a lot of catching up to do!!

6. From http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3891
#395, 10/28/10
- Keep in mind that this magazine was owned and operated by McCrone, and is not peer-reviewed.
- There must be a direct response or two to McCrone's paper -- by one or more of his detractors -- but so far, the best I can find are responses to Joe Nickell's written support of McCrone's findings...
- This is Nickell's article: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/claims_of_invalid_ldquoshroudrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth/  (the original link here was wrong).
- This is Ray Rogers' letter to the editor of The Skeptical Inquirer: http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Jo...ell/rogers.htm.
- This seems like a well thought out rebuttal of Nickell's article by Raymond Schneider:http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Jo.../schneider.htm.
- This is an article about Joe Nickell by one of his detractors: http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm
#413, 10/30/10
- Re a) From Wikipedia, "...in academic use, a journal refers to a serious, scholarly publication, most often peer-reviewed."
- Re b) Apparently my bad. Apparently, The Microscope is currently "peer-reviewed," but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't peer-reviewed when McCrone published his article in 1980. I'll let you know when it became peer-reviewed as soon as I find out.
#424, 11/3/10
- I actually spoke to Dr. Gary J. Laughlin, current Editor of The Microscope, on the phone yesterday.
- I told him that someone had told me that The Microscope was not peer-reviewed at an earlier time. He told me that, as far as he knew, the journal has been peer-reviewed ever since its founding in 1937.
- I then asked if there might be more than one "level" of peer-review, and he said yes -- that some journals did do a much more rigorous (I'm not sure that was the word he used, but that's how I took it) peer-review than did the Microscope. He told me that peer-review for The Micropcope was done by their own Editors, and while they didn't specifically give the editors' names to the authors of submitted papers, the names could be tracked down with a little effort.
- Now, that’s how I understood what he was saying. I didn’t tape our conversation, so I can’t quote him verbatim. And since that was sort of what I wanted to hear, it would probably be good for you to call him yourself, to make sure what he meant -- I don't want to wear out my welcome. (I never did tell him that I wasn't on his side.)
- I can’t remember for sure which number I used, but I think it was 312-842-7100.
- Anyway, after the call, I found the following at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/lsl/help/modules/peer.html:
What Does "Peer Reviewed" or "Refereed" Mean?
Peer Review is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available. When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same field (the author's peers) to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc.
Publications that don't use peer review (Time, Cosmo, Salon) just rely on the judgement of the editors whether an article is up to snuff or not. That's why you can't count on them for solid, scientific scholarship.
- And then, at Wikipedia I found:
Open peer review describes a scientific literature concept and process, central to which is the various transparency and disclosure of the identities of those reviewing scientific publications. The concept thus represents a departure from, and an alternative to, the incumbent anonymous peer review process, in which non-disclosure of these identities toward the public - and toward the authors of the work under review - is default practice. The open peer review concept appears to constitute a response to modern criticisms of the incumbent system; ergo, its emergence may be partially attributed to these phenomena.
Independent review is the practice of having an expert, but independent evaluation of a set of results or artifacts produced by an author or organization.[1] The practice appears in a large number of fields, including science, engineering, public policy, finance, medical practice, etc. In science, the term is often used synonymously with peer review.[2] The term is sometimes used to contrast it with an "in-house review" performed by someone inside an organization.[3][4][5][6]
- So, for the moment at least, it looks like The Microscope is peer-reviewed in the “weak” sense… I'll be waiting -- and hoping -- for your confirmation.
# 435, 11/7/10,
- Just to let you all know...
- I had emailed Gary Laughlin (Editor of The Microscope), about the peer-review status of his journal, before talking to him on the phone. A day or two after the phone call, he sent me the following email:
Thank you for your email. The Microscope journal has always used a pre-publication process of evaluation involving reviewers and advisors. The editors do not judge all of the submitted material themselves so it is normal for manuscripts to be sent to one or more reviewers, external researchers, or scholars who are experts in the field.
- All I can say, for the moment at least, is that such is certainly not what I understood him to say on the phone...
- I'll be back.
#449, 11/8/10
- I just sent the following to Gary Laughlin (the Executive Editor of The Microscope).
Gary,
- Before asking for more of your time, I should probably point out that my motivation here is sort of adversarial in that
1) I want the Shroud of Turin to be authentic (at least in the sense that it assumed the image by being wrapped around a recently tortured and crucified human body), and am not impartial;
2) Dr. McCrone was the strongest proponent of the Shroud being a forgery (specifically, a painting);
3) I've been debating with some atheists at http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?p=72325 (I'm "Jabba," if you have a chance to check it out), and have been advocating the importance of a journal being "peer-reviewed," if we are to take it very seriously;
4) Barrie Schwortz (a member of STURP) had told me that when Dr.McCrone published regarding the Shroud of Turin in The Microscope in 1980 and 81, the journal was not peer-reviewed (at least, in the "strong" sense); and,
5) Since Dr. McCrone was the owner and Editor in 80 and 81, I have to wonder about the liklihood of him shipping his papers out to independent and anonymous referees for approval -- even if that was the normal policy of the company at the time.
- So anyway, I would like to find out to what sort of peer-review were his papers submitted.
- Could you point me to the appropriate office for determining such a thing?
- Could I get a copy of the current operating rules of the publications committee?
- Could I get a copy of the 1981 operating rules?
- Sorry to be such a pain, and I know this seems rather picayune -- but it really is all in the name of the truth, and I will pass your response on to the atheists (whatever it is).
- Thanks.
#461, 11/10/10
- So anyway, I propose to put the peer reviewed issue on the back burner for now, and take up the painting issue as my main squeeze.
- If and when Dr Laughlin responds to my last email, I'll let you know -- and, go from there.
1/18/11
- Dr Laughlin never did respond.

7. From Walter McCrone
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html
The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.
http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#sidebar
*Iron oxide (red ochre) as image- -neither Adler nor anyone else has shown that 90 percent of the iron is bonded to cellulose and is not present as colored iron oxide. This ludicrous statement is an out-and-out misrepresentation of the facts. Anyone making such a statement is either not a microscopist or is incompetent or lying. The explanation of the shroud image as due to debydrative oxidation of the cellulose is balderdash-absolutely impossible; 99 percent of the iron on the shroud is readily visible to a microscopist x micron-sized red particles of high refractive index bound to the linen with a dried gelatin paint medium.

8. Then, There's Joe Nickell -- McCrone's almost singular "defender."
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/shroud_of_turin_developments/
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/claims_of_invalid_ldquoshroudrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth/
Longtime Shroud of Turin devotee Ray Rogers, a retired research chemist, now admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus. By tortuous logic and selective evidence, however, he uses the coloration to claim the “shroud” image was not the work of a medieval artist (Rogers 2004, 2005). Rogers follows many other shroud defenders in attempting to discredit the medieval date given by radiocarbon testing (Nickell 1998, 150—151)...
However, Rogers’ assertions to the contrary, both the cotton and the madder have been found elsewhere on the shroud. Both were specifically reported by famed microanalyst Walter McCrone (1996, 85) who was commissioned to examine samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). After McCrone discovered the image was rendered in tempera paint, STURP held him to a secrecy agreement, while statements were made to the press that no evidence of artistry was found. McCrone was then, he says, “drummed out” of the organization [Nickell 1998, 124—125; 2004, 193—194]. As evidence of its pro-authenticity bias, STURP’s leaders served on the executive committee of the Holy Shroud Guild...
Astonishingly—and with serious implications to the spirit of peer review—Rogers omits any mention of McCrone’s findings from his report while insisting elsewhere, “let’s be honest about our science” (Rogers 2004)...
Although Rogers is a research chemist, unlike McCrone he is not an internationally celebrated microanalyst with special expertise in examining questioned paintings. Working in his “home laboratory,” he did not, as far as his report informs, use a “blind” approach as McCrone did to mitigate against the subjectivity that has continually plagued the work of shroud advocates. Moreover, McCrone once referred to Rogers’ and his fellow STURP co-author’s “incompetence in light microscopy” and pointed out errors in the test procedures they relied on (McCrone 1996, 157, 158—171)...
Science has proved the Shroud of Turin a medieval fake, but defenders of authenticity turn the scientific method on its head by starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence—picking and choosing and reinterpreting as necessary. It is an approach I call “shroud science.”

9. From http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/thoughts-for-a-sunday-morning-if-i-am-right-then-i-am-right/
Emails from Walter McCrone, discussed by Joe Marino:
McCrone: You say since the "blood" went on first; this is not so. The body-image was first so that the artist knew where to put the blood-image. There is NO doubt about that. The paint in the blood-image area shows separate applications of red ochre and vermilion. I can’t say which was first by this observation but common sense says the body-image has to be first for an artist to put the "blood" in the right places."
Marino: When I had mentioned the blood going on first, I gave the scientific explanation of why that is believed.  Notice that he doesn’t respond to the scientific explanation–he just says it’s not so–but gives no scientific explanation.  He just appeals to common sense saying that an artist would have to put the image on first to know where to put the blood.  That’s obviously true if the image was forged, which he is assuming.  Nickell always writes that "shroudologists" always begin with a conclusion and then work backwards to the evidence.  And McCrone is NOT doing that???
McCrone: I did not address many of the points you raised on behalf of Heller and Adler, Piczek, and Jackson because they are meaningless. They represent the will-of-the-wisps they have concocted to rationalize their belief in an authentic Shroud. All of them and Meacham, Frei, Whanger, Garza-Valdes, Wilson, etc., are "red herrings." They cannot be right because the Shroud is a straightforward artist’s painting, no more, no less. It is 100% red ochre, vermilion, and a gelatin base there is no blood on the Shroud. Most of the arguments of these people are based on no known facts but come from their imagination. The observations seemingly based on factual observations (Bollone’s typing of my paint, Garza-Valdes biological contamination, Frei’s pollen, Adler’s positive tests for blood, etc., are either imagination or due to incompetence or deceit; Adler and Frei fall in that category.
McCrone: Everything I have read or heard from Ian Wilson, Max Frei, John Jackson, William Meacham, Alan Adler, Baima Bollone, Alan Whanger, Leoncio Garza-Valdez, et al., is contradicted by my findings. How can I explain how only I could be right and dozens of other "scientists" be wrong? Very simply, none of them are chemical microscopists, small particle microanalysts, nor have they studied the Shroud tapes against a background of familiarity with pigments, media and artist’s paintings. If I am right, then all of their ideas are wrong and I am right.
Marino: Read that last sentence again: “If I am right, then all of their ideas are wrong and I am right.”

10. Also from
http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/thoughts-for-a-sunday-morning-if-i-am-right-then-i-am-right/
In 1965, Yale researchers discovered a map that was known to have been produced at least 50 years before Columbus’ first journey to America. The map, which showed Vinlandia Insula, the Island of Vinland or Newfoundland as it is known today, was part of a small medieval volume, the Tartar Relation. The Tartar Relation had originally been bound together with the Vinland Map and another medieval volume, the Speculum Historiale. Wormhole alignments between the map and both volumes clearly showed that they had been all bound together at one time. The Tartar Relation volume was reliably dated by contemporaneous references to the Katatas people (Mongols) who dominated one end of the Eurasian land mass. There were also references to a certain bishop of Gada and Greenland that further corroborated the dating.

In 1972, Walter McCrone, who would later attempt to debunk the shroud, examined some particles of ink and found titanium anatase, a material scientist discovered in the 1920s. He thus concluded that the map was a recent relic-forgery.

Several people doubted McCrone’s conclusion including George Painter, the curator of ancient documents of the British Museum. In 1985, physicist Thomas Cahill, of the University of California at Davis, analyzed the map using a newly developed process, Particle Induced X-ray Emission, and found only minute traces of titanium anatase, amounts that were consistent with what would be expected in the common green vitoral ink of the fifteenth century.

As with the shroud, McCrone had found the substances that he claimed were there. Indeed they may be there but in amounts too miniscule to support his conclusions.

Yet, myths and doubts about the Vinland Map persist. Why? Because a scientist had proven it was a hoax and PBS television reported the results of McCrone’s findings. There was very little reporting about the Cahill’s later findings at Cal-Davis until 1996.

Then, on February 10, 1996, a symposium was organized by Yale University Press to announce a second edition of “The Vinland Map” published by Yale University Press and authored by R.A. Skelton, T.E. Marston, and G.D. Painter. Many scholars and journalists were invited. It seemed that anyone and everyone ever involved with the Vinland Map was present except Walter McCrone. He had not been invited. The New York Times quoted Wilcomb Washburn of the Smithsonian saying, “I think the evidence is clearly on the side of authenticity.” Cahill reported at the symposium by his trace analysis instrument that the VM ink contained only the trace amounts of titanium characteristic of all medieval maps – “none of the quantities were sufficient to be considered a purposefully added ingredient.”

Walter McCrone was furious. More tilting-at-windmills. Was he trying to defend his solo visual observations against “two different groups of presumably good scientists” or was he claiming that PLM was unjustly being replaced with newer technology? "I hope something can be done,” he writes, “to convince scientists to use the proper technique and instruments to solve today’s analytical problems.” He continued: Up to now I’ve been able to maintain my equilibrium and even my sense of humor in the face of being ignored or being insulted-one post-card stated “Old man Walter C. McCrone is an incompetent senile old fart who belongs in the nuthouse. That old fraud fudges data on an unprecedented scale [signed] Citizens for Scientific Honesty". . . .

Lately and especially after the recent Yale Symposium, I find it more difficult to see the humor in these situations. From a scientific point-of-view, these two problems were not difficult to solve, especially if one uses PLM and other ultramicro techniques and instruments on tiny particle samples rather than trace analysis techniques on millimeter samples like PIXE, Cahill’s instrument. No one other than McCrone working on these two fakes used light and electron microscopes. Instead, others looked for traces using good but inadequate and inappropriate trace analysis techniques. These are not intended for problems like VM or the Shroud.

I had hoped solving these problems using PLM then using other proper ultramicroanalytical instrumentation for confirmation would help PLM recover its lost position in analytical chemistry. PLM has been cheated out of this recovery and is rapidly sliding into oblivion. This situation is now no longer funny, and I am looking for ways to redress this wrong. It seems to me to be a matter for the attention of the American Academy of Sciences.

If a committee of scientists qualified in the physical methods of ultramicro particle analysis were appointed by the Academy, I am absolutely certain they would decide the VM and the Turin “Shroud” are masterpieces of art. If two different groups of presumably good scientists can be so wrong on the VM and the Shroud, what other important projects they work on may also be wrongly concluded. The situation, highlighted by the VM and Turin “Shroud,” indicates a very serious problem in science today. Far more serious than either the VM and Shroud or any individual scientist, I hope something can be done to convince scientists to use the proper technique and instruments to solve today’s analytical problems.

 

 

 

Antonacci, 22 -