|
|
|
|
|
We should not completely doubt that Walter McCrone found iron-oxide and
mercury-sulfide, both constituents of paint. But there are many reasons why such
chemical particles might be found on the Shroud: water used for retting flax and
centuries of dust; particularly dust in churches with frescoed ceiling and
walls. All other scientists who examined the image fibers -- many of them as
renowned and every bit as qualified -- have disagreed with McCrone. There is,
simply, an insufficient amount of paint constituents to form a visible image.
Spectral analysis proves that. So does the now certain knowledge of the image
bearing super-thin film. Ironically, McCrone identified the super-thin starch
substance that ultimately became part of the proof that his conclusions were
wrong.
|
The
scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the
scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than
settle it.”
It is
simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was
made.”
Scientist-Journalist Philip Ball Nature, that most prestigious of scientific journals, that once had bragging rights to claim that the Shroud was fake, responding to new, peer-reviewed studies that discredit the carbon 14 dating and show that the Shroud could be authentic. WHAT WE KNOW IN 2005
|