Stephen E. Jones

Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified quotes: February 2008

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My TheShroudofTurin blog]

The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in February 2008. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Jan, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]

"All reference to a shroud disappeared from written history for centuries. Then it gradually began to be 
reported as existing, and having been seen. The first account could be a legend, preserved by Nicephorus. 
This story says that the lady who was beatified as St. Helena was shown a shroud in Jerusalem during the 
Fourth Century. Next, we have the report of a pilgrim in 570 who returned from Jerusalem and talked of a 
shroud that was kept in a monastery beside the Jordan. A little over half a century later, St. Braulion said he 
believed in the authenticity of a `winding sheet in which our Lord was wrapped.' There are other reports 
scattered through the centuries like tiny pinpoints of light. The earliest reference ... is St. Nino in the Fifth or 
Sixth Century; and Antonius Placentinus can also be cited for the same period. In 670, a French bishop 
named Arculph reported having seen and kissed the Shroud, and as the years rolled by, other men also 
spoke of it. Among these were the English theologian, the Venerable Bede, who is buried in Durham 
Cathedral in England, and the Emperor Baldwin. St. John Damascene mentions the sindon as being among 
the relics venerated by the Christians, and St. Willibald spoke of seeing a shroud in the neighborhood of 
Jerusalem. Then there is the song of the voyage of Charlemagne to Jerusalem. This mentions the sindon 
Jesus wore `when He was laid and stretched in the tomb.' There are a few others including a letter of the 
Twelfth Century historian, William of Tyre, which refers specifically to `a shroud of Christ.' There is also a 
letter of Alexius of Comenos, some documents of Peter the Deacon, and two catalogues made by pilgrims to 
Constantinople. There are less than twenty of these random reports from antique texts, stretching over a 
period of 700 years. They may all be apocryphal, or any one of them may be true." (Adams, F.O., "Sindon: A 
Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, 1982, pp.16-17. Emphasis original) 

"It is a fact known to historians of art that the physical appearance of Christ in paintings, sculptures and 
carvings is rather sharply divided into two periods, with the line of demarcation running through the Fourth 
Century. In the first period, from the evidence of the catacomb pictures and some early Christian sarcophagi, 
Christ is depicted as an Apollo-like beardless youth with an oval, innocent face. In none of the art that has 
been preserved from the first three hundred years after His death is He seen any other way. Then, with the 
emergence of Christianity under Constantine, this obviously symbolic portrayal was discarded and pictures 
of Christ began to appear quite differently. Now He consistently resembled the face we see on the Shroud of 
Turin. Many pictures and icons of this period exist today, coming from Russia, Greece, Egypt, the Balkans 
and Italy. In all of them, there are many significantly similar features: the mustache and forked beard, hair 
parted in the middle and falling to the shoulders. These were distinctive characteristics of the Nazarenes. In 
addition, there were the three-sided square between the brows, the second V above this, the transverse 
streak across the forehead, the accentuated cheeks and enlarged left nostril. The heavily drawn owlish eyes 
which were also evident in most of the reproductions could today be explained by the fact that the Shroud 
image is a negative, and what is seen is the outline of the eye socket." (Adams, F.O., "Sindon: A Layman's 
Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, 1982, pp.18-19. Emphasis original)

"Paul Vignon, the foremost early researcher into the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, is the one who 
conceived the idea that these numerous icons and portraits had somehow been based on the face of the 
Shroud. Checking them in the museums and libraries of Paris, he discovered dramatic evidence that there 
was more than a casual link between them. Of the hundreds of Byzantine icons he examined, eighty percent 
had the identifying mark between the eyes as well as many other points of similarity. The earliest icons he 
found with sindonlike similarities were copies of what was known as the "Image of Edessa," ... Vignon wrote 
in a 1937 magazine, `There are many representations of Christ, notably the Image of Edessa, which could be 
derived only from the Shroud. A careful study of these copies, which I recently completed, shows that the ... 
face visible on the Shroud served as a model for artists as early as the fifth century. The artists did not copy 
slavishly, but tried to interpret the face, translating the masklike features into a living portrait, which was still 
a recognizable copy of the original.' [Vignon, P., "The problem of the Holy Shroud," Scientific American, Vol. 
156, 1937, pp.162-164, p.162] Vignon noticed that the very oddities of the Shroud, certain peculiarities that 
were really accidental imperfections in the image or the fabric itself, were reproduced, appearing again and 
again in a whole series of ancient art works, even though artistically they made no sense. Surely, this could 
mean only one thing, he decided; ancient artists had taken their conception of a bearded, long-haired man 
from the image on the Shroud, and had included the anomalies which were aspects of the negative image 
because of a feeling that they were in some mysterious way connected with the earthly appearance of 
Jesus." (Adams, F.O., "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, 
1982, pp.20-21. Emphasis original).

"An analysis of the Shroud of Turin very strikingly reveals dumbbell-shaped markings all over the front and 
back of the trunk and legs, essentially sparing the head, neck, and distal aspects of the extremities 
consistent with the use of bits of metal or bone on the end of a flagrum. The number of scourge impressions 
totals from 100 to 120 ... Some scientists, who have studied the Shroud in detail, indicate that the various 
markings on the Shroud are directed downward and inward toward the center of the body, suggesting either 
that two individuals executed the scourging or that one individual changed his position from one side to the 
other." (Zugibe, F.T., "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon 
House: New York NY, Revised edition, 1988, p.18)

"Now that we have a basic knowledge of the characteristics of the plant used to plait the crown of thorns 
and a brief familiarity with the anatomy of the head region, with some insight into the effects of irritating the 
nerves that supply pain perception to these areas, let us now examine the probable effects of the crown of 
thorns during the mock coronation of Christ. Scriptures relate that the soldiers filed past Jesus, taking the 
reed from him and striking it down on the crown of thorns. It is important to note that the crown was made 
by interweaving (plaiting) the thorn twigs into the shape of a cap. This placed a large number of thorns in 
contact with the entire top of the head, including the front, back, and sides. The blows from the reed across 
Jesus' face or against the thorns would directly irritate the nerves or activate trigger zones along the lip, side 
of the nose, or face, bringing on severe pains resembling a hot poker or electric shock lancinating across the 
sides of his face or deep to his ears. The pain would stop almost abruptly, only to recur again with the 
slightest movement of the jaws or even from a wisp of wind, stopping Jesus `dead' in his tracks. The 
traumatic shock from the brutal scourging would be further enhanced with each paroxysmal pain across the 
face bringing him to his knees. Exacerbations and remissions of throbbing bolts of pain would occur all the 
way to Calvary and during crucifixion, being activated by the movements of walking, falling, and twisting, 
from pressure of the thorns against the cross stipes, and from the many shoves and blows by the soldiers. 
Because the head region contains a plethora of blood vessels, the blood would run freely down the face. 
This is very dramatically depicted in the Turin Shroud, which shows images representing rivulets and 
seepage points running down the forehead and confirms that the crown of thorns was plaited in the shape 
of a cap and not a circlet ... . This is an important fact for Christ's crucifixion. The various blows across the 
face are shown on the Shroud particularly in the region of the forehead, brow, right upper lip, jaw, and nose. 
The tridimensional pattern more vividly reveals a broken nose and confirms the above injuries ..." (Zugibe, 
F.T., "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York 
NY, Revised edition, 1988, pp.27-28)

"Throughout the period when crucifixion was practiced, several kinds of crosses were used. The basic forms 
were the crux simplex, composed of a single stake to which the hands were fastened above the head and 
the feet were fastened below (affixio), and the crux compacta, which consisted of two parts, the upright 
referred to as the stipes or staticulum, and the crosspiece, called the patibulum or antenna. The 
crux compacta varied in one of the following three forms. The crux commissa resembled the capital 
letter T and was sometimes referred to as the T-cross. The crux immissa, or capitata, is the conventional 
cross usually displayed in churches and sometimes called the Roman cross; its stipes projected above 
the patibulum ... This form is the one that most scholars believe was used to crucify Jesus because 
Scriptures relate that the titulus or title (placard) was placed above his head depicting the nature of his 
crime. `Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews' (Mark 15:26 and John 19:19). This, of course, depended in a 
large degree on the width of the patibulum because experiments reveal sufficient space even on the crux 
commissa. Another form, the crux decussata or X-cross, was also referred to as the Cross of St. Andrew 
because this was the form used to crucify St. Andrew at Patrae. This form may not have been unique to St. 
Andrew because the historian Josephus, in the Jewish War, reports that during the siege of Jerusalem, 
the Romans crucified Jews in a multiplicity of positions." (Zugibe, F.T., "The Cross and the Shroud: A 
Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, 1988, pp.32-33)

"The stipes or staticulum were constructed of strong wood and were usually permanently fixed in the 
ground in a hilly area on the city's outskirts just beyond the walls so that the crucified were conspicuously 
displayed in full view. In Rome, crucifixion was initiated in the Esquiline Camp, just outside of the Servian 
walls, where the vulturelike birds of the Esquiline awaited their prey-the bodies of the crucified. The same 
pattern was true in Jerusalem. The Romans set up their place of execution just outside the walls, in a hilly, 
conspicuous region called Calvary (Latin: calvarii) or Golgotha (Aramaic: Gulgutha), both of which 
mean "skull," probably because of the shape of this hilly knoll. It is of interest that the place of crucifixion 
was close to the nearby tombs." (Zugibe, F.T., "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the 
Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, 1988, p.33)

"Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. It read, `Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.' Many of 
the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in 
Hebrew, in Latin and in Greek (John 19:19-20). `Over his head they put the charges against him which read, 
`This is Jesus, King of the Jews' (Matthew 27:37). The titulus (title) was the piece of tablet containing the 
crime of the cruciarius (victim) and was usually nailed to the cross above the victim's head. This was 
carried by the condemned individual, usually around his neck, from the place of sentencing and was part of 
the parade all the way to the crucifixion site. The chief priest made much of the fact that Christ's crime was 
written as being King of the Jews and objected vehemently to Pilate, `Do not write `King of the Jews,' but, 
`This man said, I am King of the Jews,' but Pilate answered him, `What I have written, I have written' (John 
19:21-22). It appears that Pilate was no longer worried about the previous pressures about reporting him to 
Rome. The above quoted scriptural references that the titulus was nailed above his head is the single 
most important argument that the crux immissa was used rather than the crux commissa. Our 
experiments indicate, however, that there was enough room for the title on the crux commissa. This is 
hardly important because the degree and type of suffering exhibited by Christ would be identical, regardless 
of which of the two crosses was used." (Zugibe, F.T., "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into 
the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, 1988, pp.36-37)

"The C-14 Laboratory Test Results Unfortunately, as often happens, the newspapers printed the results 
prematurely. The London Times stated on August 27, 1988 that Oxford scientists had leaked the results. 
Shortly thereafter, the Vatican made an announcement in Turin, Italy on October 13, 1988. The results of the 
test were first officially published in an article entitled `Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin' in 1989 in 
Nature Magazine. [Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature February 
16, 1989, p.612] The official report stated that the Shroud of Turin was dated between 1260-1390, and this 
would make the Shroud between 607 to 737 years old. ... The report stated the following conclusion: `The 
results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range 
with at least 95 percent confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of A.D. 1260-1390. These results 
therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is medieval.' [Ibid.] Headlines all 
over the world jumped on this report and, ignoring the vast body of evidence to the contrary, and the 
warnings of the perils of the C-14 test, prematurely accepted the results of this one test to condemn the Holy 
Shroud as a `fake or fraud.' Sensationalism was the operative word. The newspapers in New York, as an 
example, capitalized on the negative test results of the Holy Shroud. Some headlines read as follows: `Test 
Shows Shroud of Turin to be Fraud, Scientist Hints,' read the New York Times on September 22, 1988. 
`Turin Shroud Made After Crucifixion,' was the Associated Press headline in the Daily News, September 
28, 1988, which went on to explain that the Shroud was created almost a millennium after the death of Jesus. 
`Shroud of Turin Legend in Tatters: Carbon Tests Date it to the 14th Century,' was the headline in the New 
York Post on September 28, 1988." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific 
Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.164-165. Emphasis original)

"It was truly a bleak period for the Holy Shroud - no stranger to difficult periods - and for scientists 
who had carefully studied the `preponderance of evidence,' as Dreisbach calls it. They knew that the 
mass of evidence supported the probable authenticity and antiquity of the Shroud while one test 
contradicted this evidence. Unfortunately, the press, in a highly unbalanced approach, simply ignored 
the body of evidence and never questioned the reliability of the Carbon-14 test. The Vatican, to the 
dismay of sindonologists, exercised poor `spin-control' on the one-sided view of the press and lent 
credibility to the C-14 tests by failing to question the reliability of the tests. Since 1988, however, a 
number of scientists have carefully examined the results of the C-14 test and have seriously challenged 
its results, claiming that the tests were performed in such a manner as to call into question the reliability 
of the data. The C-14 test, normally reliable under very controlled circumstances, was studying an 
object subjected to many historical events and highly contaminated. This C-14 test was out of balance 
with many other scientific tests that confirmed the antiquity of the cloth. The data was now subjected 
to serious scrutiny by the scientific community. What accounts for the discrepancy? As Dr. Anthony 
N. Paruta observed: `There is a vast array of coherent scientific data and information from other fields 
that points to its authenticity. In the case of the Shroud, one piece of seemingly contradictory data is 
certainly over-balanced by all of the favorable data that has been determined on the Shroud that 
undergirds its authenticity.' (Reported by Father Joseph Marino, O.S.B. in the newsletter `Sources for 
Information and Materials on the Shroud of Turin.')" (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of 
Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, p.165)

"The first lab to report its results to Tite was the Tucson laboratory on May 6, 1988. The second lab to 
submit its data was Zurich on May 26. Finally, Oxford submitted its results several months later on 
August 8, more than ample time to hear of the results of the other two labs. Subsequently, the journal 
Nature reported that `the results of radiocarbon measurements in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a 
calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of A.D. 
1260-1390... . These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin 
is mediaeval.' [Nature, February 16, 1989, p.614] Even before the data was officially reported to the 
proper Church authorities, there were leaks in the media. Sox, who was privy to the tests in Zurich, 
anticipated the publication of the results by producing a program for the BBC which aired on July 27, 
1988. The program, originally entitled Verdict on the Shroud, was surreptitiously renamed Threads 
of Evidence when the results were not forthcoming. The following month, on August 26, the headline 
for London's Evening Standard was `The Shroud of Turin is a Fake.'" (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of 
Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.131)

"When rumors of forgery reached Turin, it provoked the ire of Gonella. He complained, `If any 
researcher has spoken, it means that he took the trouble to verify which of the three samples delivered 
to each of the three laboratories came from the Shroud.' We had trusted them; now we are 
disillusioned.' [Il Giorno, September 6, 1988] Contrary to Tite's protocol letter which stated the labs 
would not communicate with one another, he acknowledged that the `results from each testing centre 
have been circulated to the others with a proposal for a coordinated date on the Shroud from the 
samples....' [Shroud News, October 1988, p.7 ] Years later it was reported that the Arizona laboratory 
had produced eight different measurements rather than the four mentioned in the Nature report. [Van 
Haelst, R., "Radiocarbon Dating the Shroud of Turin: A Critical Review of the Nature Report," p.7]" 
(Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.132)

"The report by the 21 scientists was finally made public in the journal Nature, February 16, 1989, five 
months after the announcement of the test results was made. Standard scientific procedures call for a 
critique of the data through peer review; this was not followed in this case. On October 14, 1988, the 
day after Cardinal Ballestrero issued his press release, the British Museum held its own press 
conference. Seated at table were Tite flanked by Hedges and Hall. Behind them on a blackboard was 
written the estimated date: `1260-1390!' The non-professional addition of the exclamation mark is an 
indication of their unrestrained jubilation over the results." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case 
for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.133)

"There is other ample evidence that the C-14 test was fraught with breaches of protocol. For example, 
two outsiders were present at the labs, namely, Gove in Tucson and Sox in Zurich. ... It was well known 
that Gove and Sox were not favorably disposed toward the probable authenticity of the Shroud. 
Professor Gove admitted in his book: `I had a bet with Shirley [his secretary] on the shroud's age-she 
bet 2000 ± 100 years old and I bet 1000 ± 100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy 
boots.' [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics 
Publishing: Philadelphia PA, 1996, p.265] Wolfli was quoted in an interview as saying: `Knowing the 
shroud's history, I didn't believe it was two thousand years old, and the test confirmed my opinion.' 
[Reader's Digest (Australian ed.), October 1989] Sox had his negative book on the Shroud published 
two weeks in advance of the official scientific publication and vehemently denounced the idea of 
himself taking `the entire blame' for any leaks. [La Stampa, September 24, 1988]" (Guerrera, V., "The 
Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, pp.133-134)

"Another individual who seems to have been eager to profit from the Shroud verdict was Hall. A major 
British newspaper reported that he had planned to obtain a large grant for his laboratory by selling his 
story of the test results to a Sunday newspaper. [Shroud News, June 1988, p.11] When questioned 
about press leaks, Hall replied: `So it was `leaked' by the press ... in the States long before the 
newspaper stories started here.... Everyone was resigned to it being a fake long before the 
announcement. In this sense it was out of the bag from the very beginning.' [The Tablet, January 14, 
1989, p.37] It was alleged that he received at least £100,000 from ITV for notifying them of the C-14 
dating prior to its official pronouncement. [La Stampa, August 8, 1988.] On Good Friday, March 25, 
1989, 45 businessmen and influential people had given Hall £1 million as a token of appreciation for his 
work and particularly for establishing that the Shroud was a medieval forgery. [The Daily Telegraph, 
March 25, 1989, p.7 ] Hall used the money to create a new chair of archaeological science and was 
succeeded later that year by none other than Dr. Tite. In an unexpected letter to Gonella dated 
September 14, 1989, Tite declared: `I am writing to put on record the fact that I myself do not consider 
that the result of the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud shows the Shroud to be a forgery... . I 
myself have always carefully tried to avoid using the word forgery in discussing the radiocarbon dating 
of the Shroud.' [Shroud News, No. 55, October 1989, p.4]" (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A 
Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.134)

"In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from 
the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth's production lay between A.D. 1260 and 1390 
with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its 
chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity 
of the sample. Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a 
much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely 
coated with a yellow-brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the 
sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample 
was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for 
determining the true age of the shroud." (Rogers, R.N., "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud 
of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Nos 1-2, 20 January 2005, pp.189-194).

"Ian Wilson was born in 1941 and educated at Emanuel School, Wandsworth, and he graduated in Modern 
History from Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1963. His previous books include The Turin Shroud, Holy 
Faces, Secret Places, The Columbus Myth, Undiscovered, and Shakespeare: The Evidence. Since 
1995 he and his wife have lived in Brisbane, Australia." (Wilson , I., "The Bible Is History," Regnery: 
Washington DC, 2000, rear inside flap).

"Ian Wilson was born in London and educated at Emanuel School and Magdalen College, Oxford, where he 
read history. An interest in the Shroud that developed in the 1960s led, in 1973, to his having the 
opportunity to examine the cloth closely over a three-day period; five years later, his The Shroud of Turin 
became a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic. Among his other books are Jesus: The Evidence (1984) 
and The Evidence of the Shroud (Michael O'Mara Books, 1986), and he was co-author of the BAFTA 
Award-winning BBC TV documentary about the Shroud, The Silent Witness. He and his wife Judith now 
live near Brisbane, Australia, and as recently as March 2000 he was among thirty experts specially invited to 
Turin to discuss future researches into the Shroud. On this occasion he was again allowed a prolonged 
closeup examination of the cloth." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," 
Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, rear inside cover)

"Ian Wilson was born in London in 1941. He was educated at the Emmanuel School and in 1963 received an 
honours degree in history from Magdalen College, Oxford. He first became interested in the Turin Shroud 
during his early career in newspapers. This interest led to the publication, in 1978, of his best-seller, THE 
SHROUD OF TURIN. He also co-authored the award-winning BBC TV programme SILENT WITNESS. Ian 
Wilson's other books include JESUS: THE EVIDENCE (1984), described by the GUARDIAN as 'vivid and 
gripping.' He lives with his wife and two sons near Bristol." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild 
Publishing: London, 1986, rear inside cover. Emphasis original)

"Born in London. in 1941, Ian Wilson was educated at Emanuel School, Wandsworth, and Magdalen 
College, Oxford, where he graduated in modern history in 1963. During his early career he became deeply 
interested in the Turin Shroud, and articles based on his researches led to a commission to write a book on 
the subject. Published in the UK and US in 1978, this became a worldwide bestseller. Simultaneously he co-
authored a television documentary on the Shroud, The Silent Witness, which received wide acclaim and 
won the BAFTA award for TV documentary films. The Bible: The Evidence is among his future projects. 
(Wilson, I., "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, 1996, rear cover)

"In terms of religion, STURP members belong to various Protestant churches or are Roman Catholics, Jews 
or even agnostics. However, what they have in common is that each one is the type of person who is 
challenged by puzzles and `unsolvable mysteries,' and is unwilling to believe that any problem can stump 
him for long. When chemist Ray Rogers joined the organization, he was quoted by Cullen Murphy in 
`Shreds of Evidence,' published by Harpers in 1981, as having said, `Give me twenty minutes, and I'll have 
this thing shot full of holes.' That was several years ago. As this seemed to be a common opinion among 
members of STURP, they soon began to feel the need to observe and to study the Shroud at first hand, and 
they took steps toward that end. Of particular assistance in convincing the former king and owner, as well as 
the Archbishop of Turin, to have a showing with permission to run a series of sophisticated, nondestructive 
tests, were two priests: American Father Adam Otterbein, C.S.S.R., president of the Holy Shroud Guild, and 
Italian Father Peter M. Rinaldi, S.D.B., his vice president. Fr. Otterbein is a former professor of theology at 
Mount Saint Alphonsus Redemptorist Seminary in Esopus, New York, and Fr. Rinaldi is a Silesian priest 
who served for many years in Port Chester, New York, and now serves under the Archbishop of Turin. Fr. 
Rinaldi first saw the Shroud in 1933 as a young seminarian in the Duomo in Turin, and he witnessed Barbet's 
identification of the reddish stains on the cloth as blood. Partially through the efforts of these two religious 
men, in July, 1978, when the Shroud was once again shown to the public, time was reserved for members of 
the STURP committee." (Adams, F.O., "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Patrick Walsh 
Press: Tempe AZ, 1982, pp.94-95. Emphasis original)

"THE year 1978 marked the 400th anniversary of the Shroud's transfer from Chambery to Turin. To celebrate 
this occasion, the newly-appointed Archbishop of Turin, Anastasio Ballestrero, through the diplomatic 
efforts of Fr. Peter Rinaldi, a Salesian priest stationed in New York, had the Shroud exposed for public 
veneration from August 27-October 8. Following this exposition, over forty scientists from Italy and America 
were given five days to carry out non-destructive tests on the Shroud. The thirty-plus members of the 
American group known as the `Shroud of Turin Research Project,' or STURP, were headed by Dr. John 
Jackson and Dr. Eric Jumper, two United States Air Force captains and physicists. The team brought with 
them seventy-two crates of equipment. The group was composed of specialists from different disciplines: 
Donald Lynn headed a group from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of Pasadena, including Jean Lorre, and 
Donald Devan from the Oceanographic Services, Inc., of Santa Barbara. Bill Mottern, from the Sandia 
Laboratories, led the team of specialists who carried out a series of radiography exams of the Shroud with 
the following group from Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories: Robert Dinegar, Donald and Joan 
Janney, Larry Schwalbe, Diane Soran, Ron London, Roger Morris, and Ray Rogers who took various sticky 
tape samples of dust particles from the surface of the Shroud. Joseph Accetta from Lockheed Corporation 
coordinated the group that inspected the Shroud with infrared rays. Roger and Marion Gilbert from the Oriel 
Corporation of Connecticut examined the light spectrum emitted by fluorescence beneath ultraviolet 
lighting." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, pp.60-61)

"Also participating in the examination of the Shroud were Steven Baumgard and John German from the U.S. 
Air Force Weapons Laboratories; Robert Bucklin, medical examiner; Joseph Gambescia, chairman of 
medicine at St. Agnes Medical Center in Philadelphia; Rudolph Dichtl from the University of Colorado; Ken 
Stevenson from IBM; Thomas D'Muhala from the Nuclear Technology Corporation; and Thomas Haverty 
from Rocky Mountain Thermograph. Photographers included the following: Ernest Brooks, Vernon Miller 
and Mark Evans from the Brooks Institute of Photography in Santa Barbara, CA; Barrie Schwortz; and Sam 
Pellicori, an optical physicist from the Santa Barbara Research Center. Dr. Max Frei, the Swiss botanist and 
criminologist who had taken pollen samples back in 1973, attended as well. In addition, a small group of 
Sisters of St. Joseph was present. The Sisters' services were utilized to unstitch a portion of the protective 
cloth which had been added to the Shroud in 1534 so that a mini-vacuum could extract some dust particles. 
Sample threads were also taken from different areas of the Shroud." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A 
Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.61) 

"More importantly, the single most significant conclusion of STURP was that the Shroud image cannot 
possibly be a painting. Two of STURP's members, Rogers and Schwalbe, state for the team: `The primary 
conclusion is that the image does not reside in an applied pigment. The reflectance, fluorescence, and 
chemical characteristics of the Shroud image indicate ... some cellulose oxidation/dehydration process.' 
[Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin," Analytica Chimica 
Acta, 135, 1982, pp.3-49, p.44] Naturally speaking, some form of drying, aging (advanced decomposition) 
process has occurred on the image." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the 
Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, p.29).

"A chemist who worked on testing of the Shroud of Turin says new analysis of the fiber indicates the cloth 
that some say was the burial linen of Jesus could be up to 3,000 years old. The analysis, by a scientist who 
was on the original 1978 team that was allowed to study tiny pieces of the cloth, indicates the shroud is far 
older than the initial findings suggesting it was probably from medieval times, and will likely be seized on by 
those who believe it wrapped the body of Jesus after his crucifixion. ... Raymond N. Rogers, a retired chemist 
from the University of California-operated Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said in a 
telephone interview Friday from his home. `The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are 
real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder 
reported for this time,' about 70 A.D. ... Rogers, whose findings were published recently in the scientific 
journal Thermochimica Acta. Rogers wrote that in 2003, the scientist advising the cardinal of Turin, where 
the shroud is kept, provided him with pieces of thread taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was 
distributed for dating. The American chemist said he decided to analyze the amount of vanillin, a chemical 
compound that is present in linen from the flax fibers used to weave it. Vanillin slowly disappears from the 
fiber over time at a calculated rate, he said. Judging by those calculations, a medieval-age cloth should have 
had some 37% of its vanillin left by 1978, the year the threads were taken from the shroud, Rogers said. But 
there was virtually no vanillin left in the shroud, leading the chemist to calculate it could be far older than 
the radiocarbon testing indicated, possibly some 3,000 years old. Asked why carbon-dating might have 
been off, Rogers contended that `the people who cut the sample didn't do a very good job of characterizing 
the samples,' that is, taking samples from many areas of the cloth. .... Disputes have flourished over the 1988 
declaration by the scientific team that carbon-dating indicated the cloth came from medieval times. 
Researchers at The Hebrew University has said that pollen and plant images on it put its origins in 
Jerusalem sometime before the eighth century." ("Shroud of Turin could date to time of Jesus, examiner 
says," USA Today, January 29, 2005.

"The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long-believed to have been wrapped around Jesus' body after the 
crucifixion, is much older than radiocarbon tests suggest, according to new microchemical research. 
Published in the 20 January issue of Thermochimica Acta, a peer-reviewed chemistry journal, the study 
dismisses the results of the 1988 carbon-14 dating. At that time, three reputable laboratories in Oxford, 
Zurich and Tucson, Arizona, concluded that the cloth on which the smudged outline of the body of a man is 
indelibly impressed was a medieval fake dating from 1260 to 1390, and not the burial cloth wrapped around 
the body of Christ. `As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the shroud in 1988 was taken 
from a rewoven area of the shroud. Indeed, the patch was very carefully made. The yarn has the same twist 
as the main part of the cloth, and it was stained to match the colour,' says Raymond Rogers, a retired 
chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratories and former member of the STURP (Shroud of Turin 
Research Project) team of US scientists that examined the Shroud in 1978.The presence of a patch on the 
shroud doesn't come as a surprise. The linen cloth has survived several blazes since its existence was first 
recorded in France in 1357, including a church fire in 1532. Badly damaged, it was then restored by nuns who 
patched burn holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing cloth now known as the Holland cloth. ... In his 
study, Rogers analysed and compared the radiocarbon sample with other samples from the controversial 
cloth. `As part of the STURP research project, I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud 
in 1978, including some patches and the Holland cloth. I also obtained the authentic samples used in the 
radiocarbon dating,' Rogers says. It emerged that the radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical 
properties than the main part of the shroud, Rogers says. `The radiocarbon sample had been dyed, most 
likely to match the colour of the older, sepia-coloured cloth. The sample was dyed using a technology that 
began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Mameluke Turks in 1291. `The 
radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about 1290, agreeing with the age determined by carbon-14 dating 
in 1988. However, the Shroud itself is actually much older,' says Rogers. ... Evidence came from 
microchemical tests ... These revealed the presence of vanillin in the radiocarbon sample and in the Holland 
cloth, but not in the rest of the shroud. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a 
chemical compound of plant material including flax, and levels decrease and disappear with time. It is easily 
detected on medieval linens, but cannot be found in the very old ones, such as the wrappings of the Dead 
Sea scrolls. `A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300 and 
3000 years old,' Rogers writes. According to Tom D'Muhala, the president of the American Shroud of Turin 
Association for Research, the new chemical tests produced `conclusive evidence'. `They indicate that the 
linen shroud is actually very old, much older than the published 1988 radiocarbon date,' D'Muhala says. ... In 
1988, the Vatican approved carbon-dating tests. Three reputable laboratories concluded that the shroud was 
medieval, dating from 1260 to 1390, and not a burial cloth wrapped around the body of Christ. But since then 
a growing sense that the radiocarbon dating might have had substantial flaws emerged among shroud 
scholars. The history of the cloth has been steeped in mystery. It has survived several blazes since its 
existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a mysterious fire at Turin Cathedral in 1997." 
(Lorenzi, R., "Turin shroud older than thought," ABC/Discovery News, 26 January 2005.

"In Memoriam, Alan D. Adler, 1932-2000 Alan D. Adler, 68, renowned porphyrin chemist and professor 
emeritus of chemistry at Western Connecticut State University, died June 11, 2000, at his home in West Redding, 
Connecticut. Al received his B.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Rochester in 1953 and his Ph.D. 
degree in physical chemistry seven years later from the University of Pennsylvania. His career began at Penn, 
where he joined the faculty as an assistant professor of molecular biology. In 1967, he joined the staff of the New 
England Institute in Ridgefield, Conn., holding the concurrent posts of professor, senior staff scientist, and 
chairman of the Chemical Sciences Division. He joined Western Connecticut State in 1974 and four years later 
cofounded its biochemistry program. Al's interdisciplinary work dealt mainly with the biophysical chemistry of 
porphyrinic materials but he also carried out photovoltaic studies of porphyrin films and mechanistic synthetic 
studies of heme proteins in nitrite-pollution problems. His landmark synthesis of tetraphenyl-porphyrin in 1967 
can fairly be said to have paved the way for the great variety of porphyrin research that followed. Because of his 
extensive porphyrin studies and encyclopedic knowledge, he was considered an authority on blood chemistry. In 
1977, Al agreed to do a `weekend's worth' of analysis on a controversial religious artifact, the Shroud of Turin. 
The initial short-term project became a career interest, lasting more than 20 years and taking him around the world 
as a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project and as an ACS Tour Speaker on the subject. Though he 
formally retired from the university in 1992, Al continued to teach biochemistry through the spring of 2000. In 
addition to his teaching and research, he was active in several organizations, including the American Chemical 
Society, American Institute of Chemists, the American Physical Society, the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, the American Association of Clinical Chemists, the American Society for 
Photobiology, and Sigma Xi. He joined ASP in 1972. Over the years, Al was very generous in sharing his samples 
and his knowledge with a large number of people working on various aspects of porphyrins. His passing was 
acknowledged at the First International Conference on Porphyrins and Phthalocyanines held in Dijon in June 
2000. He should have been there!" (Connolly, J., "In Memoriam, Alan D. Adler, 1932-2000," American Society for 
Photobiology Newsletter, Vol. 30, No. 2, Summer, 2001)

"IN MEMORIAM The American Shroud of Turin Assocciation for Research (AMSTAR), announces with deep 
regret the death of Dr. Alan D. Adler on June 11, 2000 and Donald J. Lynn on October 14, 2000. Both were 
founding board members of the American Shroud of Turin Assocciation for Research (AMSTAR), a scientific 
organization dedicated to conducting research in connection with the Shroud of Turin. Dr. Adler was an 
internationally renowned chemist and an acclaimed expert on porphryns, a component of human blood. Dr. 
Adler's research proved that the blood-stained areas on the Shroud are human blood. Dr. Adler was involved in 
sindonological research for many years, particularly in the area of conservation of the Shroud. However, his 
encyclopedic knowledge extended to virtually every scientific discipline. His death leaves an inestimable void in 
sindonological research. Dr. Adler served on the Conservation Commissions of both Cardinal Saldarini and 
Archbishop Poletto. He was a member of ACS, APS, AAAS, NYAS, HSS, American Assn of Clin. Chem., 
American Soc. Photobiol. and Sigma Xi. Donald J. Lynn worked for many years at the prestigious Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory (TPL) in Pasadena, California. He was a supervisor in the Image Processing Laboratory where his 
primary areas of concentration were digital image processing and image analysis. It was his expertise in these 
areas which proved that the Image on the Shroud of Turin has no directionality, thus proving the Image is not a 
painting." (Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings 
of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.v. Emphasis original)

"BY FAITH, I am a Christian; specifically, a Southern Baptist. By profession, I am a scientist; specifically, a 
biophysicist. By genesis, I am a New Englander, with all the skepticism and conservatism of the breed. All 
this being the case, I have always felt that relics are nothing but flummery from the Dark Ages. In 1978, I had 
never heard of the Shroud of Turin, let alone seen a picture of it. When I did, I was surprised. I thought I 
would see something analogous to all the paintings and statuary of Jesus that I had ever seen. I had viewed 
Oriental portrayals of Christ in Japan and China, and black ones in Africa, a host of medieval and 
Renaissance forms in Florence and elsewhere in Europe, as well as Byzantine and modern versions. This 
was different. It was anything but artistic. In addition, everything was reversed. Its images were like 
photographic negatives, with black and white, left and right, reversed. The cloth was also very bloody, with 
the "nail holes" in the wrong place; they were in the wrists, not in the palms. There were large scorch marks 
and burn holes down both sides of the fabric. The man was nude, his hands folded over the groin. I did not 
know at the time that the photograph I was looking at had been enhanced; the actual images were so faint 
that they could not be seen from up close, but only at a distance of about one or two yards. Yet if one was 
too far away, they faded into the background of the cloth. I could not imagine a more unlikely object for 
veneration. Then I was shown photographic negatives of the Shroud, which made the human images 
become positive. This helped considerably by showing a man in a way familiar to our perception. However, 
now the blood was negative, or white, which detracted from the whole. To say I was still unimpressed would 
be an understatement. About a month later I read a report by Dr. Robert Bucklin, the deputy coroner and 
forensic pathologist of Los Angeles County. Dr. Joseph Gambescia, a pathologist in Pennsylvania, 
concurred in the findings. Forensic pathologists specialize in causes of violent death, and it was this report 
which first caused my eyebrows to rise a bit. I have, tucked far away in my background, an M.D., though I 
do not use it much. I had also spent eight years on the faculty of Yale University School of Medicine: two in 
pathology and six in internal medicine. The forensic report said (with some translation from the medical 
jargon): Irrespective of how the images were made, there is adequate information here to state that they are 
anatomically correct. There is no problem in diagnosing what happened to this individual. The pathology 
and physiology are unquestionable and represent medical knowledge unknown 150 years ago. That, I 
thought, is a remarkable statement." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: 
Boston MA, 1983, p.1-2. Emphasis original)

"John H. Heller received a doctorate in medicine from Case Western Reserve. He taught internal medicine 
and medical physics at Yale, and later established the New England Institute, for research in biophysics and 
chemistry. In 1983 he published a book, Report on the Shroud of Turin, that remains the very best popular 
scientific account of the Shroud. He died just before this book went to press. Alan D. Adler received a 
doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania, where he later taught molecular biology. He is now emeritus 
professor of chemistry at Western Connecticut State University. His chief work is in the field of biophysical 
chemistry. Since 1978 both scientists had been deeply involved in chemical and biophysical research on the 
Shroud of Turin." (Case, T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: 
Cincinnati OH, 1996, p.47)

"Case: Neither of you were original members of STURP, the Shroud of Turin Research Project composed 
mostly of American scientists, who investigated the Shroud in 1978, nor did you make the trip to Italy with 
the team. However, Dr. Heller's 1983 book, Report on the Shroud of Turin, is far-and-away the best piece 
of scientific writing I have read on the subject. What first piqued your interest in the Shroud? Dr. Heller: 
It's a mystery. It's an unanswered question that should lend itself to scientific verification. I read the article 
by Barbara Culliton in Science. Where she was talking about the physics of miracles. [Science, vol. 201, 
21 July 1978]" (Case, T.W., "Interview with John H. Heller and Alan D. Adler," "The Shroud of Turin and the 
C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, p.51. Emphasis original)

"The blood on the Shroud has been identified by the late Dr. John H. Heller as being mammalian, primate 
and probably human. Dr. Alan D. Adler, a research chemist who worked with Dr. Heller at. the New England 
Institute, even declared: `It is as certain that there is blood on the Shroud as it is that there is blood in your 
veins. The marks on the shroud are of exuded blood, belonging to a man who was tortured and crucified. It 
cannot be from the 14th century, but is much older and far more consistent with what we know of the 
crucifixion of Christ.' [New York Daily News, June 12, 1997] Professor Pier Luigi Baima Bollone reported in 
the, journal Sindon that by use of fluorescent antibodies he has demonstrated the presence of human 
globulins in the Shroud bloodstains, a fact confirmed by Adler and Heller. [Sindon, December 1981] 
Whereas the bodily images have a mist-like quality with no sharp lines, the bloodstains are richer and darker 
in color and have more precise lines. They also have a `halo effect' typically suggestive of the separation of 
blood and serum, which happens after the heart has stopped." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud 
of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.65-66. Emphasis original) 

"Accordingly, for a second opinion the thirty-two sticky-tape samples were passed to the now late Dr John 
Heller of Connecticut, a professor of internal medicine and medical physics at Yale University, and to 
Heller's long-time colleague, research chemist Jewish-born Dr Alan Adler of Western Connecticut State 
University. Analysing under the microscope the very same sticky tapes that McCrone had studied, Heller 
and Adler specifically tried to find the iron oxide that both sides, from their different perspectives, were 
already agreed was present. They quickly found it, but the immediate surprise to them was that it was quite 
exceptionally pure. As they were already aware, most artists' pigments tend to be contaminated by 
impurities. Accordingly, they began badgering museums to be allowed to study their ancient textiles, 
immediately finding that these, too, often exhibited the same chemically pure iron. As they gradually 
determined, the answer to where this iron came from probably lay in the fact that when flax is retted, that is, 
soaked in water, during the linen manufacturing process, it draws up into itself iron, along with calcium and 
strontium, as trace elements from the water. As Heller and Adler reasoned, at the time of the 1532 fire this 
very fine iron probably migrated from where it had been taken up within the fibres and became washed to 
the edges of where the fire-dousing water had been splashed on the cloth. This was why it showed up at 
these edges under the X-rays and from there, with the Shroud's repeated handling, became lightly 
distributed all over the cloth. But they felt adamant that wherever this iron came from, it was not responsible 
for what the eye sees as the Shroud's body image. What, then, in Heller's and Adler's judgement could have 
created this image? After studying the body image under any and every variety of magnification, they came 
to the firm conclusion that it derived from nothing at all that had been added to the Shroud, in the manner 
that any conventional artist would have used. For instance, when they applied the tests for proteins by 
which McCrone claimed he had been able to identify an artist's use of a tempera binding medium, they found 
no evidence for such proteins. Instead, the impression they gained was that the image derives from 
something taken away. Thus, if high magnification photographs of body-image fibres are studied, some of 
these actually appear to show an eating away of the fibres, as if they have been aged, or degraded 
significantly more than their non-image-bearing counterparts... . STURP's Ray Rogers described the image 
just resting on the tops of the fibrils, and as there are fibrils in the off-image areas that look exactly like those 
that make up the image itself, this: `... suggests that what we are dealing with is some change in the 
chemistry of the cloth itself. It has been aged. For some reason, the fibrils that make up the image got older 
faster than the rest of the fabric.' [Rogers, R., in Sox, D., "The Shroud Unmasked," Lamp Press: Basingstoke 
UK, 1988, pp.67-8]" (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred 
Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.80-81) 

"On one level it can be said the Shroud has passed everything thrown at it. Perhaps, it is more accurate to 
say the relic has defied an imposing battery of testing - certainly more than enough required to expose fakes 
on art and archaeology. Saint Louis Museum's `Etruscan Diana' and the Metropolitan Museum's colossal 
terracotta warriors were quickly dismissed to the basement after thermoluminescence examination. The wax 
bust of `Flora', once attributed by Berlin to Leonardo da Vinci, was shown by Josef Riederer in 1984 to 
contain a synthetic organic acid which was not produced until 1883. Often it takes no more than X-rays to 
unmask a forged painting. According to John Heller, STURP spent `between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific 
man-hours' on studying the Shroud. Their efforts were described as `an unparalleled adventure through time 
and microspace.' The list is formidable: photography - visible, ultraviolet, infrared (some 5000 photos); 
computer image enhancement; topographic imaging; multispectral analysis; mathematical image analysis; 
low energy Xradiography; X-ray fluorescence; reflectance spectroscopy - ultraviolet, visible, infrared; 
thermography; microdensity; macroscopy; microscopy - polarization, fluorescent, phase contrast, electron; 
biostereometry; laser microprobe Raman spectroscopy; electron energy dispersive spectroscopy; 
microspectrophotometric transmission spectra; plus over 1000 chemical experiments to determine the nature 
of all image and blood marks. [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin: Boston MA, 
1983]" (Sox, H.D., "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: 
Basingstoke UK, 1988, pp.66-67)

"What STURP discovered was that fibrils from the body image area show a light yellow colouring only on 
the very topmost surface of the threads. The colouring had not diffused or soaked into the threads and had 
left no deposits between the threads as would be expected if pigments had been painted on. One STURP 
examiner, Samuel Pellicori, a spectroscopist of the Santa Barbara Research Centre, proposed a hypothesis 
that the body image was formed by the darkening over time of body oils, sweat or spices used for the burial. 
That would, of course, be an image formed by contact. But the image shows details where a cloth could not 
have touched, so image formation was back to square one. Somehow the cellulose of the linen was altered. 
Ray Rogers, who has always been low on conjecture and high on candour says the image just rests on the 
tops of the fibrils, and that there are fibrils in the off-image areas that look exactly like those that make up the 
image itself. That suggests that what we are dealing with is some change in the chemistry of the cloth itself. 
It has been aged. For some reason, the fibrils that make up the image got older faster than the rest of the 
fabric.' By `aging', Rogers meant water loss. The flax has been dehydrated, and he concludes: `I think that 
everyone in STURP concurs that the image is just degraded cellulose; that there's actually nothing `on' the 
linen. But there's no consensus on how the cellulose was degraded.' [Murphy, C., "Shreds of Evidence," 
Harper's Magazine, November 1981, pp.42-65] The blood markings are another matter. Whereas the yellow 
stain of the body image is found only on the top fibrils of threads, the `blood' spread through the threads 
and was trapped in the crevices. Removal of the backing cloth had indicated it had penetrated all the way 
through the linen. The radical difference between the two images has, of course, been clear since Pia's 1898 
photographs with the blood areas showing white and the body like a negative." (Sox, H.D., "The Shroud 
Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, 1988, pp.67-68) 

"Since on McCrone's own arguments one would expect blood image to contain more coloring than body 
image, I questioned him on this point in personal correspondence and received a surprisingly candid reply: 
`I have to confess that those numbers aren't as precise as one would like to have them. They were obtained 
by looking at the individual tapes and judging whether the degree of yellow color of the fibers constituted 
yellowing over and above the amount present ... even in the control areas [i.e. those areas with no image-
I.W.]. It was often pretty difficult to make this decision, and for this reason the number should not be 
interpreted as anything like exact. They could easily vary by 20% or 30%.' Suddenly one comes face to face 
with the realization that McCrone's seemingly precise statistics in support of his arguments are nothing of 
the kind. He has simply estimated numbers, understandable when the eye is trying to distinguish shades of 
yellow, but nonetheless unacceptably unscientific. The consequent justification for questioning his 
interpretations increases further when it is realized that the McCrone/STURP dispute is not about the actual 
presence of iron oxide, which STURP readily acknowledges is abundant on the Shroud, but (a) its precise 
nature in any one sample and (b) its relevance as a contributor to specific forms of the various images seen 
on various parts of the cloth." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, 

"Once the intransigence of McCrone's views was realized, the individuals invited by STURP to address 
themselves to these questions were physician Dr. John Heller of Connecticut's now defunct New England 
Institute, and more impressively, ebullient chemistry professor Dr. Alan Adler of Western Connecticut State 
University. Of Jewish parentage, and a noted specialist in the heme and porphyrin components of human 
blood, Adler became associated with the Shroud project at Heller's instigation, initially anticipating that the 
work might take him a mere couple of days. As time progressed, he found himself undertaking more than a 
thousand separate tests on the Shroud's body and blood image chemistry. As reasoned by Adler, McCrone 
looked down his microscope and pronounced only on the basis of optical criteria. But the only true way to 
understand the nature of the Shroud body and blood images is to study their chemical reactions under a 
variety of chemical treatments." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, 

"An obvious key feature of interest was those particles reliably identified by Dr. McCrone as iron oxide. As 
soon as the complete set of tape samples had been received from McCrone and Rogers, Adler scoured them 
for definite iron-oxide specimens that he could subject to special study. He found that the principal areas 
from which they derived were the edges of the lozenge-shaped stains from the water used to douse the 1532 
fire. Interestingly, it was precisely those stains, altogether more insignificant than those of the body and 
blood images, that did show up under the X radiographs. So what were particles of iron oxide doing in 
these regions? Every test that was applied, for birefringence (double refraction), pleochroism (transmission 
of different colors in different directions), etc., as well as chemistry, confirmed that the particles were indeed 
iron oxide. But, as study with an electron microscope quickly revealed, there was something unusual about 
them. They were exceptionally pure. Artists' pigment iron oxides from the Mediterranean, whether medieval 
or more recent, tend invariably to be contaminated by elements such as manganese, nickel, and cobalt. But 
the Shroud iron oxide was chemically pure to a level of 99  percent. So how had it been formed? As this 
initially baffled both Heller and Adler, Heller began badgering museums for the loan of cloth specimens of 
known antiquity, obtaining in this manner a Coptic gravecloth datable to around A.D. 350, some Egyptian 
burial linen of the mid second millennium B.C., along with a piece of three-hundred-year-old Spanish linen 
owned by his wife. As Adler soon discovered, all exhibit the "chemically pure" iron, along with calcium, 
which the X-ray fluorescence similarly had detected on the Shroud. Why should this be so? Extensive 
browsing through textbooks on how linen is produced provided the-answer. Linen derives, of course, from 
the plant flax, which, after cutting, undergoes a series of preparations for linen making, one of which is a 
fermentation process called retting, involving a long period of soaking in large outdoor vats or bodies of 
water. There is a very strong, characteristic smell during this process, but the crucial feature is its chemistry. 
As everything ferments away, bar the flax's key component, its cellulose, an exchange process occurs 
between that cellulose and the water environment in which it finds itself. The three metals abundant in 
natural waters that most commonly exchange with cellulose are iron, calcium, and strontium, exactly as 
found  Shroud and the other old linens. Herein lay the explanation for why the Shroud iron is so pure. 
It derives from an entirely natural process. As proof that this was what occurred, Heller and Adler found 
tiny iron-oxide "cannon-balls," sometimes inside the bamboo-like structure of the linen fibrils, where no 
artist could possibly have placed them. The migration of ions at the time of the 1532 fire, coupled with the 
heat, would have naturally produced the iron-oxide particles seen at the water-stain margins. These would 
then have translocated all over the cloth during the repeated folding and unrolling that occurred every time 
the Shroud was exhibited." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, 
pp.89,91. Emphasis original)

"At this point, I decided to carry out some gedankenexperiments. A favorite ploy of Albert Einstein's, 
gedankenexperiment literally means `thought experiment.' One attacks a problem by setting up a series of 
events and constraints, and then solves the problem in one's head, rather than in the laboratory. By a series 
of flukes, Einstein had been my unofficial undergraduate adviser. Once or twice every year, I would travel 
from Yale to Princeton to seek counsel. On one of those occasions Einstein told me that I should always 
remember that a gedankenexperiment requires a very small research budget." (Heller, J.H., "Report on the 
Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.200-201)

"To the team who had been to Turin McCrone's findings simply did not make sense, so they were very 
relieved when a second opinion, from the Yale University chemist Dr John Heller and the Jewish-born blood 
expert Dr Alan Adler, produced completely different interpretations. As Heller and Adler showed, McCrone 
was correct that the Shroud indeed has iron oxide particles scattered across its surface. And, like him, they 
too found particles of vermilion and other artists' pigments. But they were emphatic that neither of these 
materials was responsible for the Shroud's `body' and `blood' images. The artists' pigments, for instance, are 
random, and quantitatively distributed no more strongly in the image than the non-image areas. Their 
presence is easily explained as mere strays left on the Shroud's surface from the sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century practice of pressing freshly painted artists' copies against it to give them special holiness. Several 
painted copies of the Shroud bear inscriptions attesting to their having been deployed in this way, as in the 
case of one in Toledo worded: `This picture was made as closely as possible to the precious relic ... at 
Chambéry [i.e. the Turin Shroud] and was laid upon it in June 1568.'  [Leone, D., "El Santo Sudario en 
Espana," Biblioteca Sindoniana: Barcelona, 1959, pp.47-56] According to Heller's and Adler's analysis, 
[Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin: Boston MA, 1983] and consistent with the 
'on-site' observations, the Shroud's fibres which represent the `body' image have no identifiable substance 
added to them that might be responsible for this image. It is as if they have simply been degraded, or `aged', 
at those places where the imprint appears, in much the same manner that newspaper turns yellow when 
exposed to strong sunlight, except that the `yellowing' has occurred selectively, at strengths relative to the 
(theoretical) body's distance from the cloth at any one point." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin 
Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.73-74)

"As Dr Adler continues to argue, [Adler, A.D., "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and 
Physical Characteristics," Symposium "The Turin Shroud, past, present and future," Turin, 2-5 March 2000] 
in the wake of Heller's death and having been granted a relatively recent direct viewing of the cloth to 
facilitate conservation recommendations, `the body' image areas are superficial in the extreme, lying only on 
the very top of the Shroud threads. They do not penetrate the cloth, nor do they exhibit any capillarity or 
absorptive properties. They are more brittle than their non-image counterparts, as if whatever formed them 
corroded them. They are uniform in coloration, they are not cemented together, neither are they `diffused' as 
they would be if they derived from some dye or stain. They do not `fluoresce' or reflect back any light. Most 
emphatically, they are not made by pigment contact." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The 
Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.74)

"As further noted by former Kodak technician Kevin Moran of Belmont, North Carolina, who has recently 
been able to make direct studies of body image on the sticky tapes taken by Dr Max Frei: `Since the linen 
fibres are some 10 to 30 microns in diameter and appear as smooth fibre optics, the section where the 
darkened [i.e. image] fibre meets the clear [i.e. nonimage] fibre looks like a precision line formed on a modern 
semiconductor. [Moran, K.E., "Microscopic Observations on the Max Frei 1978 Samples," private 
communication, 25 June 1995] This is something completely outside any conceivable technology, medieval 
or modern." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara 
Books: London, 2000, p.74)

"As for the `blood' stains, according to Heller's and Adler's studies these derived from genuine clotted 
wounds, and they pass eleven different diagnostic tests, enabling them to be pronounced to be true blood 
in any court of law. Blood constituents such as proteins, albumen, haem products, and the bile pigment 
bilirubin (on which Adler is an acknowledged expert) can all be determined to be present. One remarkable 
feature noted by Adler is that where blood occurs in the same region as body image, the cloth fibres lack 
body image characteristics below the bloodstain, suggesting that the blood was on the cloth before the 
body image-making process began. [Adler, A.D., "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Blood 
Stains," in "The Turin Shroud, past, present and future," Symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000] That is hardly 
the way any artist might be expected to work." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The 
Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.75)

"Characteristically, throughout the last two decades McCrone has firmly stuck to his original verdict, even 
to the extent of self-publishing a book on his findings. [McCrone, W., "Judgement Day for the Turin 
Shroud," McCrone Research Institute: Chicago IL, 1996] Yet, despite this, not even those otherwise most 
convinced of the Shroud's fraudulence have come forward in his support. For instance, although he 
accurately predicted, years in advance, the date that the radiocarbon dating would find for the Shroud, the 
radiocarbon-dating scientists declined to beat a congratulatory path to his door. He has also seen his 
greatest glory, his highly publicized debunking of the Vinland Map, overwhelmingly overturned by higher-
tech methods than his own [Cahill, T.A., et al., "The Vinland Map Revisited: New Compositional Evidence 
on its Inks and Parchment," Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 59, 15 March 1987, pp.829-833] - resulting in the 
Map's owners, Yale University, formally reinstating it as genuine after all. Not least, when the professional 
artist Isabel Piczek tried applying to clean, untreated linen small squares of canvas that she had recently 
painted using typical Renaissance-period pigments, she found that sub-micron-sized iron-oxide particles 
easily became transferred and were just like those that McCrone claimed to be the Shroud's image. [Piczek, I., 
"Is the Shroud a Painting?," in Upinsky, A.A., ed., "Actes du Symposium Scientifique International, Rome, 
1993," Francois-Xavier Guibert: Paris, 1995, p.266] All in all, McCrone's interpretations now have little going 
for them." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: 
London, 2000, pp.75-76)

"Back in their laboratory at the New England Institute, Dr John Heller and his colleague, research chemist Dr 
Alan Adler, the late Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut State University, examined under a 
microscope the spectrum of visible light transmitted from their sticky-tape samples of reddish brown-stained 
fibrils. Their results suggested that haemoglobin was a component of the colour. To further test their 
evidence they removed iron from the samples in an attempt to isolate a component of blood called porphyrin 
which, if present, would fluoresce red under ultraviolet light. This test revealed porphyrin - another sign that 
the stains are blood. Their further examination produced a particularly intriguing result After removing 
pieces of blood from the fibres, Adler saw that the fibres were white, not yellow, as were the rest of the 
fibres of the linen This meant the blood stains were on the Shroud before the image was formed, and there is 
no image in the area of the bloodstains - the blood somehow impeding the image formation, protecting the 
Shroud from the image- making process. [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin 
Co: Boston MA, 1983]" (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 
2006, pp.122-123)

"Dedicated to the memory of John H. Heller, whose curiosity was aroused by the phrase `physics of 
miracles' in a 1978 Science article; whose exacting chemical analysis proved that the Shroud image could not 
be a forgery; and who passed into the hands of God on December 13, 1995. Requiescat in pace" (Case, 
T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, pp.4-5)

"Recently, the most vocal advocate of the painting theory, and perhaps the best known among modern 
Shroud skeptics, is microscopist Walter McCrone. After examining fibril samples from the Shroud, McCrone 
announced his opinion that an artist had painted the body image by using an iron oxide (Fe2O3) pigment 
(called red iron earth pigment or jeweler's rouge) suspended in a gelatin binding medium. He further asserted 
that mercuric sulfide pigment, usually called red vermilion, was added to the blood mark areas. [McCrone, 
W.C. & Skirius, C., 1980, "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' I," Microscope, Vol. 28, 
pp.105-113; McCrone, W.C., 1980, "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' II;' Microscope, Vol. 
28, pp.115-128; and McCrone, W.C., 1981, "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' III," 
Microscope, Vol. 29, pp.19-38] This or any other painting theory, however, is not supported by the data 
gathered through STURP's rigorous testing. As we will see in this chapter, McCrone's suspect methods 
have hurt the cause of science- and not just in the case of the Shroud. In fact, the theory that any painting 
medium or technique could be responsible for the extraordinary images contained on the Shroud seems 
impossible." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological 
Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.47-48)

"Finally, there is no clear evidence of any pigment on the Shroud, although here there is some disagreement. 
The STURP team, using microscopic, chemical laser microprobes, concluded that the Shroud shows no trace 
of `any of the expected dyes, stains, pigments, or painting media.' [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics 
and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, A Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, 
Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49, p.14] A sometime member of the team, however, concluded otherwise. Walter C. 
McCrone, who is one of America's most respected forensic microanalysts, reported finding 
submicrometersized particles of iron oxide throughout the image area, but not on the clear area of the 
Shroud. [Nickell, J., 1983, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, pp.119-125] 
This ferric oxide, McCrone concluded, was residue of a rouge, similar to today's Venetian Red, that was used 
by ancient and medieval painters. Two other investigators, John Heller and A.D. Adler, conceded the 
presence of iron on the Shroud, but flatly disagreed with McCrone's analysis. According to Heller and 
Adler, a microspectrophotometer showed that most of the iron was blood porphyrin. A small percentage of 
the iron occurred in iron oxide, they reported, but the iron oxide was not a pigment: it occurred throughout 
the Shroud on the periphery of water stains, and must have resulted from the 1532 fire at Chambery. [Heller, 
J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic 
Science Journal, Vol. 14, pp.81-103] However the iron oxide particles are to be explained, it is agreed that 
they did not `produce' the image. In his recently published Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, Joe Nickell 
emphasizes the iron oxide, and upon it builds his case that the Shroud was forged in the fourteenth century 
by an artist who used a printing procedure. Nickell's observations deserve to be taken seriously, even 
though they rest on rather limited experiments. (Nickell, who once was a resident magician at the Houdini 
Magical Hall of Fame, has assembled his own `panel of scientific and technical experts' to challenge the 
conclusions of the STURP team.) It is therefore noteworthy that even Nickell excludes the possibility that 
the image was painted, and concedes that `ferric oxide contributes less than about 10 percent to the overall 
image intensity." [Nickell, 1983, p.133]" (Drews, R., " In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its 
History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, 1984, pp.16-17)

"A LEADING skeptic of the Shroud's authenticity is Dr. Walter McCrone, a microanalyst from Chicago. 
McCrone gained international notoriety in 1974 for his study of the Vinland Map kept at Yale University. 
Briefly, the map was said to have been drawn by a monk from the Upper Rhine in the fifteenth century. The 
map indicated that it pre-dated Columbus' voyage. McCrone tested twenty-nine microparticles from the 
document and concluded that while the parchment was from the Middle Ages, the map was fraudulent 
because the ink consisted of anatase (titanium oxide, a synthetic pigment) which was not developed until 
the early twentieth century. In 1987, his conclusion was challenged by a group of scientists led by Dr. 
Thomas Cahill at the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the University of California at Davis. Employing a 
nondestructive technique called PIXE (particle induced X-ray emission), Cahill concluded that the ink of the 
Vinland Map contains only slight traces of titanium, which can be found in other genuine medieval 
documents. In fact, an authentic Gutenberg Bible (15th century) actually showed greater amounts of 
titanium than the Vinland Map. At a symposium held at Yale University Press on February 10, 1996 which 
was devoted to a discussion of the expanded version of the original book on the map, The Vinland Map 
and the Tartar Relation, Dr. Cahill said: `There is nothing about the chemistry or morphology of the Vinland 
Map that in any way makes it stand out from any of the parchments of that period that we have analyzed.' 
[Wilford, J.N., "Disputed Medieval Map Called Genuine After All," The New York Times, February 13, 
1996] Dr. Wilcomb E. Washburn, the Director of American Studies at the Smithsonian Institution in 
Washington, who wrote the introduction to the new book, concurred: `I think the evidence is clearly on the 
side of authenticity.' [Ibid]" (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford 
IL, 2000, pp.66-67. Emphasis original)

"Although Dr. McCrone was not part of the STURP team that examined the Shroud in Italy, Ray Rogers, the 
chemist from Los Alamos, provided McCrone with thirty-two sticky tape samples that he had taken from the 
surface of the Shroud during its examination in 1978. McCrone began to study the tape samples on 
Christmas Day 1978. He discovered a small quantity (not more than 10 milligrams) of iron oxide. The mixture 
was a combination of red and yellow pigment particles. Since this was found only on the blood areas of the 
Shroud, McCrone concluded that it was red pigment used by an artist. He postulated that the discoloration 
of the fibers could have been caused by the aging of that paint medium. [McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day 
for the Turin Shroud," Microscope Publications: Chicago IL, 1997, p.100] He then demonstrated how the 
paint could have been applied to the cloth without leaving any traces of brush strokes. Dipping his finger in 
powdered jeweler's rouge, he applied it to a piece of paper until there was little left on his finger; then he 
transferred that to a piece of linen. [Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine," Barnes & Noble Books: New 
York, 1995, p.48] The STURP team did not accept McCrone's conclusions, because he did not take their 
findings into consideration, for example, that iron oxide is basically rust, which can be found in many forms 
of dust. Dr. Jackson made note that it was not surprising to find iron oxide in the blood areas of the Shroud 
because iron is a component of blood. Furthermore, the particles could have spread to other areas of the 
Shroud by the repeated folding and unfolding of the cloth throughout the centuries." (Guerrera, V., "The 
Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, pp.68-69)

"Another test conducted by McCrone was the amido black test. [McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the 
Turin Shroud," Microscope Publications: Chicago IL, 1997, p.103] This is a reagent that stains protein-based 
media. While the amido black test proved positive for the blood-mark areas, it was inconclusive in 
demonstrating that a protein medium, such as tempera, was used for the body image. Other scientists 
caution that the amido black test is unreliable because it can also stain cellulose, thereby giving a false 
reading." (Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.69)

"In 1981, STURP held a meeting at Connecticut College in New London. McCrone, who had resigned from 
STURP in 1980, was invited to attend, but declined to participate. He later remarked: `I believe the shroud is 
a fake, but I cannot prove it.' [ McCrone, W.C., in Murphy, C., "Shreds of Evidence," Harper's Magazine, 
November, 1981, pp.42-65, pp.54-55] During the presentation, Dr. Adler was asked to comment on 
McCrone's claim that there was no blood on the Shroud. Adler referred to a chart of the blood tests that he 
and Dr. Heller had performed and remarked: `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, 
and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!' [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," 
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.216] McCrone's theory was dismissed by the use of X-ray 
fluorescence and visible light examination of the Shroud as well as microchemical tests. These studies 
showed that there was not a sufficient amount of iron oxide on the cloth to account for the least 
enhancement of the image. [Morris, R.A., Schwalbe, L.A. & London, J.R. "X-Ray Fluorescence Investigation 
of the Shroud of Turin," X-ray Spectrometry, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1980, p.40] The STURP team concluded that 
the iron oxide evidence was `irrelevant to the image formation process.'" [Schwalbe L.A. & Rogers, R. N., 
"Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, , pp.3-49, p.39]" 
(Guerrera, V., "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, 2001, p.69. Emphasis 

"During these studies, a number of published reports appeared which detailed the work of Walter McCrone, 
a former STURP member. A world-renowned micro-analyst, McCrone announced that he had discovered red 
ocher (iron oxide and vermilion) and gelatin or collagen tempera on the Shroud, which he believed indicated 
that the Shroud's image was either painted or at least touched up by this substance. [Angier, N., 
"Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Discover, October 1982, pp.54-60, p.60; McCrone, W.C. & Skirius, C., 
"Light Microscopical Studies of the Turin 'Shroud'," The Microscope, Vol. 28, March-April, 1980, 
pp.105-112] His claim directly opposed the findings and stand of STURP and other reports such as Heller's 
above. Consequently, one report challenged Heller and Adler to publish their findings in response to 
McCrone. [Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin," Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 
1982, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.37-56, p.49] So although STURP scientists found no pigments, paints, dyes, or stains 
on the Shroud, [Press Release, The Shroud of Turin Research Project, 8 October 1981; Murphy, C., "Shreds 
of Evidence," Harper's, November, 1981, pp.42-65, p.56] several of them began work on McCrone's 
specific challenge. Heller and Adler, who did some of the main work, reported that `There was not enough 
iron oxide or vermilion to account for one painted drop of blood, let alone all the gore on the Shroud.' [Heller, 
J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.194] STURP scientists 
tested and rejected McCrone's claims. The stage was set for a debate, and one was planned for the 1981 
meeting of the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences. McCrone, Heller, and Adler were invited and hoped 
that the issue would be resolved. But McCrone did not go, so the confrontation did not occur. [Heller, 1983, 
pp.205, 213]. Later McCrone was quoted as saying, `I believe the shroud is a fake, but I cannot prove it.' 
[McCrone, W.C., in Murphy, 1981, pp.54-55]." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the 
Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.120-121) 

"Dr. Walter McCrone, a noted microanalyst with his own research laboratory, Walter C. McCrone 
Associates, Inc. in Chicago, Illinois noted the presence of some flecks of iron oxide on the Shroud and 
reached the conclusion that this was some sort of paint. McCrone had an international reputation from his 
discovery of the Vinland Map forgery. In 1957, an American book dealer found a map apparently dating from 
the fifteenth century and copied from an earlier Viking map, showing parts of North America. Speculation 
arose that the Vikings beat Columbus to North America by some 500 years. Walter McCrone received the 
map for Yale University and studied it, only to discover in 1974 that the ink contained anatase (titanium 
dioxide), which had only been invented in the 1920's. He declared the map a forgery. However, as is pointed 
out by Picknett and Prince [Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?" HarperCollins: New 
York NY, 1994, pp.52-56], McCrone's findings have been called into question. In 1987, physicists at the 
University of California examined the map using a method of particle induced X-ray emission and found only 
minute amounts titanium - more than 1,000 times less than that claimed by McCrone, which, as they point 
out, one would expect to find in medieval ink. Perhaps the Vinland Map is genuine after all." (Iannone, J.C., 
"The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, p.179) 

"More importantly, McCrone's judgment regarding the Shroud was further called into question. McCrone 
had not been with the team that examined the Shroud first hand, and he claimed that the pigment Venetian 
red, made by grinding iron oxide into a powder, was solely responsible for the Shroud image. However, the 
S.T.U.R.P. scientists who examined the cloth directly reported that, while there were some isolated flecks 
on parts of the cloth, these flecks had nothing to do with the formation of the images. It was pointed out 
that often in the long history of the Shroud other paintings would be laid over the Shroud to somehow 
sanctify such paintings and that this process left an occasional microscopic trace of paint or pigment on the 
cloth. In addition, chemists noted that some flecks could have been from the blood. With the folding and 
rolling up of the Shroud over the years, some flecks of iron oxide from the blood could easily have fallen on 
other parts of the Shroud. Other specialists noted that iron oxide is involved in the manufacture of the linen 
itself, specifically in the retting process or soaking in water containing iron." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery 
of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.179-180)

"In spite of the clear evidence that the cloth cannot have been painted there are some, including one very 
eminent scientist, who feel it must have been, and their case is proved by the carbon-dating. The scientist is 
Dr Walter McCrone, and his reputation is so high that further examination of the evidence for the cloth's 
having been painted should be examined, particularly in view of the publicity which was given to his 
opinions. The amulet showing the first exhibition dated from 1357 indicates that the Shroud must have been 
forged before that. The charge of forgery is based on a letter from the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis. He 
was concerned because the cloth was being venerated by people in his see, although he was sure it had 
been painted. A predecessor in his post had investigated it. D'Arcis wrote to his pope, Clement VII, about it 
in 1389. His letter includes the following. `The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of 
Troyes ... set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter ... Eventually, after diligent inquiry 
and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth 
being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously 
wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of the law, 
seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings 
against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They seeing their 
wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it 
hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year. ["Memorandum of Pierre 
D'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, to the Avignon Pope Clement VII, 1389," Thurston, H., transl., in "The Holy 
Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, C1, 1903, pp.17-29] Strong evidence, and if the cloth 
really was painted, this would have happened just before the first exhibition." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud 
Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.45-46. Emphasis original)

"Some qualifications have been expressed about the letter which should be borne in mind. The Bishop wrote 
it in a very angry mood. Permission to exhibit the cloth in Lirey, about twelve miles from Troyes, had been 
obtained from the papal legate instead of from him, the bishop. The reason is not known, but it may well 
have been because of the previous animosity between the canons and the bishop, so that he would have 
played any card he could to defeat them. His description of his predecessor's actions seems surprising, 
since the former bishop gave his confirmation of the establishment of the church in Lirey on 28 May 1356, 
bestowing his unqualified and lavish blessings. This would have been after his discovery that the cloth 
venerated there was a forgery! Note also that the Pope, in response to Bishop d'Arcis' letter, did not stop 
the exhibition, but insisted on two occasions that the bishop remain `perpetually silent' on the matter, on the 
second occasion threatening excommunication. Another reason may have been the crowds drawn to Lirey. 
Troyes Cathedral gained a considerable revenue from collection boxes put beside its relics, as well as the 
general collections. Among these relics were some obtained from the loot of Constantinople, including 
remains of St Helen of Athyra, a fragment of the True Cross, the skull of St Philip, the arm of St James the 
Great and a dish used at the Last Supper. The year the letter was written by the Bishop was 1389, when 
funds were badly needed for the restoration of the upper nave of Troyes Cathedral after a collapse. The 
Bishop may well have been looking with envy at the large numbers of pilgrims being drawn to Lirey, a 
humble collegiate church not far away, to see the Shroud exhibited there. [Dreisbach, K., Letter to British 
Society for the Turin Newsletter, No. 25, April/May 1990] If the former bishop did locate an artist who 
claimed to have painted the Shroud, there is a possibility that he had painted one of the other shrouds that 
were venerated in Europe at the time rather than the Turin Shroud. He would have copied it from the Shroud 
in that case; most fakers did." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], 
Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.46-47)

"The letter quoted is not the only reason why many historians say the cloth must be a fake. They also 
deduce this because for many centuries before the fourteenth its location is not precisely known. To a 
scientist that is no proof whatsoever that it cannot be genuine. If an old pot is dug up, a painting found in 
an attic, an ancient scroll in a Jerusalem bazaar, the items are examined by experts scientifically. If, as a result 
of the most careful tests, the pot is pronounced to be Roman, the painting an unrecorded Rembrandt, the 
scroll one from the Essene community beside the Dead Sea, no one says, `They can't be! We have no idea 
who the owners have been for centuries. They have no history whatsoever. Therefore they are fakes!' 
Similarly if some painted linen hangings are found in 1894 which appear medieval, back to the period when 
artists painted only on wood or walls, and the experts are sure they are painted by Guido da Siena, their view 
is accepted without question. The same standards apply to the Shroud: examine the material, analyse the 
marks on it, and let the cloth tell its story." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable 
Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, 1995, p.47)

"It is interesting that Dr Walter McCrone should be the scientist who is doubting the authenticity of the 
Shroud, for he was involved in a classic examination of a similar kind some years ago [Sox, H.D., "The Image 
on the Shroud," Unwin: London, 1981, p.20]. In 1957 an American book dealer bought from an Italian 
bookseller in Barcelona a. map, known as the Vinland Map. It was apparently drawn by a monk from the 
Upper Rhine during the fifteenth century, and it showed that Leif Ericson visited America about 500 years 
before Columbus. It was most authentic in appearance, and wormholes in it exactly matched those in two 
well-known medieval documents, suggesting that it had been bound with them. After Yale. University 
bought it, they sent it to the British Museum for non-destructive testing, and it was found that the map did 
not quench fluorescence under ultra-violet light as the other two documents did. So the map was sent to Dr 
McCrone for further testing. Removing less than a microgram he discovered evidence indicating that while 
the parchment was genuinely of medieval date, the ink contained a synthesised pigment, anatase, not 
developed until about 1920. The map, he claimed, was a fraud." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: 
The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.47-48. Emphasis original)

"And now Dr McCrone was claiming the Shroud image was painted. What was the evidence? Dr McCrone 
was able to study 32 tape samples brought back by the STURP team from the 1978 examination. The tapes 
had been pressed against the cloth in many different places, including unaffected linen background, scorch 
areas, body-marks and blood-marks. As a result of his examination, he was soon saying that the Shroud 
image has two constituents: uniformly coloured linen fibres and iron particles. The nature and origin of the 
coloured fibres was unknown, but the iron oxide was a mixture of red and yellow pigment particles (pure 
Fe2O3 and hydrous Fe2O3 respectively). None of the control samples, where there was no image, showed 
these red particles, whereas all the blood-mark ones did, as well, as two-thirds of the body-mark ones. He 
concluded that there was a direct correlation between Fe2O3 particle concentrations and image areas, and 
suggested that they had been intentionally added during the past 200 years. To demonstrate how the iron 
oxide would have been applied to the cloth without any of the directional indications that are obtained with 
brush strokes, McCrone rubbed his finger in some powdered jeweller's rouge, transferred it to a piece of 
paper until there was very little indeed left on his finger, and then used that to apply to a piece of linen [Sox, 
H.D., "The Image on the Shroud," Unwin: London, 1981, p.34]. His claim caused considerable opposition 
from the STURP team and Turin. He did not retract in the least, but gave a clear description of his methods 
and findings, and revealed further conclusions. The iron oxide particles were now reckoned much more like 
the artist's pigment known as Venetian or Indian red than the jeweller's rouge. Not only that, but they were 
very closely attached to the fibres, sometimes in clumps within a transparent gel. Applying the agent amido 
black, he obtained a fine blue stain round these clumps of oxide. This indicated that a protein material had 
been used as a weak medium, a tempera made from collagen. As he found this on the body-mark and blood-
mark areas, he concluded it must have been put there by man. To account for the three-dimensional 
information, Dr McCrone suggested that the artist tried to portray a shroud rather than a portrait of a man, 
so formed the image by working from the contact points where the cloth would have touched the skin. In 
conclusion Dr McCrone stated: `Our work now supports the two Bishops and it seems reasonable that the 
image was painted on the cloth shortly before the first exhibition, about 1357. It is, however, possible that 
the image and/or the cloth is at least as old as about 1350; that it was done by an artist and that if all iron 
earth pigment plus tempera medium were removed there would be no image on the "Shroud".'" (Hoare, R., 
"The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.48-49)

"The STURP team did not agree at all with Dr McCrone's conclusions, and they were using a very wide 
range of techniques. [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin," 
Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49, pp.11-16] Two members of the team, Heller and Adler, 
studied the fibrils with a microscope as Dr McCrone had done, and their observations were quite different. 
They reported on the modern debris with the fibrils-insect parts, wax, modern synthetic fibrils, red and blue 
silk, wool and felt tip pen dye marks. The red and blue silk fibrils were seen with almost every sample, and 
presumably came from backing cloths with frequent folding and unfolding. As has been mentioned, they 
also found `blood sherds' and `blood flakes' on many of the samples, which were almost indistinguishable 
from the comparably-sized Fe2O3 particles optically, so that the possibility arose of mistaken identity. There 
could have been a dispersion of these blood remains whenever the cloth was folded and unfolded, 
spreading the particles to other areas. [Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud 
of Turin," Canadian Journal of Forensic Science, Vol. 14., No. 3, 1981, pp.81-100] In addition to this, 
painted copies of the Shroud were pressed against the real Shroud to pick up the grace of the original. Some 
Fe2O3 could well have been transferred. (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable 
Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.49-50)

"There were many other tests, and some of Dr McCrone's conclusions were criticised. His amido black test 
had been positive only for the blood-mark areas, for instance, so that there was no clear indication that 
protein-based tempera was on the body image. Nor is amido black the best test, according to others, as it 
stains cellulose so easily that false positive results may occur. The further tests carried out by STURP 
members showed that the discoloration of the yellow fibrils did not came from any likely organic or inorganic 
pigmentation. The STURP team's conclusion that there was no pigment on the cloth was derived from a far 
wider selection of analytical methods, and this was placed against Dr McCrone's clear mastery and superior 
experience in his own field." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], 
Souvenir Press: London, 1995, p.50)

"However, Dr McCrone's authority was decreased recently when the veracity of his 1974 investigation of 
the Vinland Map was questioned. His examination of 29 microparticles removed from the map had suggested 
that titanium-based inks, containing anatase, were used. To test his conclusion a number of scientists at the 
Crocker Nuclear Laboratory in the University of California used a proton milliprobe to examine the map. This 
is a non-destructive method. The high energy proton beam is focused on the thin ink line, generating Xrays, 
and these reveal elements, from silicon to uranium, that are based in the ink. A wide variety in the inks was 
discovered, but the titanium was in very small quantities, far smaller than would be expected had modern 
inks been used. The highest concentration was found not only in the `Vinland' region, but in `Spain', 
`Tunisia' and `Japan'. After comparing their findings with readings taken on genuine old parchments, the 
scientists affirmed that McCrone's interpretation that the Map is a twentieth-century forgery must be 
reevaluated. [Cahill, T.A., et al., "The Vinland Map Revisited: New Compositional Evidence of its Inks and 
Parchment," Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 53, No. 6, March 15, 1987, pp. 828-832]" (Hoare, R., "The Turin 
Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, 1995, p.50)

"There is also the common-sense view in favour of the cloth having been painted, which most people form 
when first hearing of the Shroud. Surely it cannot be two thousand years old, as it is claimed to be? Most 
likely it was painted for some religious purpose in medieval times, when relics were being produced by the 
hundred. Since there were more than forty purported shrouds around at one time, this one is probably as 
false as the rest. However, the arguments against the cloth having been painted, apart from the scientific, are 
remarkably powerful. Some of them are: 1 The painting is so faint that the gradation cannot be seen when 
close enough to paint it. Only by standing some feet back can its effect be seen. 2 The anatomy of the body 
is perfect, right down to small details like the separation of serum from blood. It is unlikely that an artist even 
now would paint with such accuracy. 3 The blood-marks were caused by real blood. Also the fibres 
underneath them are not stained yellow. The blood-marks were therefore applied to the cloth first and 
prevented the body-stains from appearing there. An artist would have applied the blood-marks last. 4 No 
medieval artist would have been able, nor did he have any reason, to paint a negative image which would 
give a perfect positive on reversal centuries later when photography enabled this to be seen. 5 A medieval 
artist would have used a brush, and the direction of the brushmarks would be detectable with a microscope. 
No directions of brushmarks can be seen. 6 No painting has the three-dimensional information revealed by 
the VP-8 Image Analyser. 7 A European artist would not have troubled to obtain linen that could only have 
been made in the Middle East, and which had pollen on its surface from long exposure there. 8 The places 
and directions of the stains must have resulted from details of crucifixion not known by medieval artists. 
(The position of the nail wound, no sign of thumbs ....) 9 Medieval painters, and indeed nearly all painters 
up to the middle of the nineteenth century, worked from outlines [Wilson I., "The Turin Shroud," Gollancz, 
1978, p.10], whereas the Shroud contains an extraordinarily soft gradation from image to background. 10 
Assuming that the painting must have been a religious one and represented the shroud of Jesus Christ, until 
comparatively recently artists have always painted Jesus with a halo and wearing a loincloth. 11 Medieval 
paints would have cracked on folding and would have changed nature close to the heat of the 1532 fire. 12 
The material appears to support itself fairly stiffly between the knees, hands and abdomen, and across the 
hollow between the chest and chin. On the other hand, there is more contact widthways around the arms, 
legs and body. The drape is stiffer lengthways, along the warp, than widthways, along the weft. To a 
materials expert [Tyrer, J., "Notes upon the Turin Shroud as a `Textile'," General Report and Proceedings of 
the British Society for the Turin Shroud, Autumn 1979-Summer 1981, p.29] it would be astonishing for an 
artist to represent drape so correctly. 13 The presence of dirt where the bottom of the foot is represented is 
an unlikely touch of realism for a painting. 14 An artist would have painted thumbs as well as fingers, but 
none are visible an the Shroud. If a nail is hammered between the wrist bones of an amputated arm in the 
place indicated by the blood-stains, the thumb is drawn across the palm and would be invisible from the 
back of the hand. 15 One last point. The author has managed to trace only one painting of the period made 
on linen rather than wood. This is the Lenten hanging in the Siena Pinacoteca ... It was painted by Guido da 
Siena, probably in the 1270s. The three sections are the Transfiguration, The Entry into Jerusalem, and 
The Raising of Lazarus. ... However, note the haloes, the sharp outlines, the incorrect anatomical 
dimensions. ...The case rests. As the arguments stand at the moment, those who maintain that the cloth 
could not have been painted seem to have a far stronger case." (Hoare, R., "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: 
The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, 1995, pp.51-53)

"The [Vinland] map had been purchased in 1957 by Laurence Witten, a rare book dealer in New Haven, 
Connecticut who had obtained it from an Italian bookseller living in Barcelona. Yale purchased it from 
Witten and after some questioning by historians of the university it was decided to have the British 
Museum carry out nondestructive tests on the map. The only negative feature of the museum laboratory's 
analysis was that the Vinland Map was not quenching the vellum fluorescence under ultraviolet light as did 
the other two documents. Infrared analysis later indicated there was no iron in the ink of the map as well. A 
recommendation was made for more detailed scientific testing and Yale employed McCrone Associates. 
Minute samples of ink particles were removed by an extremely fine point needle which had a small ball of 
rubber cement near the tip. As McCrone explained, `To avoid damaging the vellum, the needle was held 
below 20 degrees to the map surface and drawn backward rather than pushed toward the point'. The total 
weight of all the samples McCrone removed was much less than a microgram. Following the basic 
microscopic analysis of single parchment fibres, McCrone turned to the Transmission Electron Microscope 
which indicated the presence of anatase pigment particles - and this had not been synthesised until the 
1920s. That clinched matters for most experts and McCrone got a great deal of lucrative publicity from his 
discovery. When the verdict was given, Witten was reluctant to accept it. `Either the map was genuine, as I 
believe, or someone with an extraordinary confluence of talents which really pass the belief of all of us 
forged it, and for God knows what reason." [The Observer, 27 January 1974]" (Sox, H.D., "The Image on 
the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, 1981, p.20)

"McCrone sometimes wonders why people continue to bring maps and paintings to his laboratory for 
authentication, since `our record is not very good ... very seldom do we find them to be authentic.' Most of 
McCrone's day to day work is less exciting. Although his company has been employed by art galleries 
around the world and you can see a supposed Rembrandt in his office, the bulk of the activity at the South 
Michigan Avenue laboratory is for business. Detecting asbestos in talcum powder, discovering the cause of 
contaminated mayonnaise and printing ink creating green specks on white dinnerware is the normal fare. 
McCrone promotes his `think small' concept as a way of saving industry thousands of dollars. After 
receiving a doctor of philosophy degree from Cornell University, McCrone worked at the Illinois Institute of 
Technology for twelve years. He started his own research company, McCrone Associates, in 1956. In the 
early 1960s, McCrone became increasingly interested in teaching the methods of microscopy and 
ultramicroanalysis, and today devotes most of his time to classes in America and England. " (Sox, H.D., 
"The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: 81, p.20)

"News of McCrone's investigation on the Vinland Map and interest in carbon dating caught the attention of 
several Britons and Americans interested in the Turin Shroud, and it was thought that he might be useful in 
further investigations on the relic. This was early in 1976 when it was evident that the Turin commission 
results were hopelessly non-conclusive. Their report seemed to be asking more questions than it answered. 
In the autumn McCrone became associated with ill-fated efforts to get the Shroud carbon dated. Although 
he is not a carbon dating expert, his laboratory has been in close contact with the laboratories which were 
perfecting new methods of dating small samples. McCrone and I travelled to Belgium in November to look at 
two samples which had been removed from the Shroud in 1973. I had tracked them down as being in the 
possession of Dr Gilbert Raes of Ghent who had analysed the texture qualities of the linen. The Turin 
authorities seemed unconcerned that they had remained in Belgium and were surprised that they could be 
used to carbon date the relic. After this was brought to their attention, however, they demanded the samples 
be returned to Turin and they were locked up in the sacristy of the cathedral." (Sox, H.D., "The Image on the 
Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, 1981, pp.21-22)

"The New Mexico conference of 1977 placed carbon dating at the top of priority tests it recommended and 
the proposals were presented in Turin months later. McCrone had been seen at New Mexico as the best 
person to oversee the carbon dating situation, and he was to be supported in this pursuit by Vatican 
sindonologist, Msgr Giulio Ricci and his secretary. Unknown to the Turin authorities the three met secretly 
with King Umberto in Geneva the day following the presentation of proposals. Ricci had hoped that the 
King's known willingness to have carbon dating performed would persuade Turin to release the samples. It 
didn't and McCrone's association with this attempt `tainted' him in the eyes of those preparing future tests 
on the relic. This marked the beginning of a continuing disassociation of McCrone from the eventual testing 
of the Shroud. Unfortunately, McCrone could not have known that Ricci's effort was a personal affair with 
no blessings from Turin, and the authorities had no intention of carbon dating the Shroud. The reaction was 
bad - some suggested that McCrone's interest in the Shroud was far from being `selflessly scientific' and 
one Turin newspaper went so far as stating that his Chicago lab `stood to gain millions of dollars from his 
involvement of analysing the Shroud.' In all of this, it seemed no one was remembering that the New Mexico 
conference had strongly backed McCrone's proposals to carbon date and carry out valuable microanalytical 
analyses in the future testing." (Sox, H.D., "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," 
Unwin: London, 1981, p.22)

"Subsequently, a critic who was not a participant at Turin, Dr. Walter McCrone of Chicago, made some 
microscopic evaluations of surface material samples from the Shroud and, largely utilizing the public press, 
claimed to find paint traces on the Shroud and labeled it a medieval fake painted by an artist. He claimed that 
the body image is due to an iron oxide earth pigment bound with an age-yellowed animal protein binder that 
had been painted onto the cloth, and that the blood marks are attributable to a mixture of iron oxide pigments 
and vermilion (mercuric sulfide) in this same binder. That critic's views are not consistent with the 
conclusions of the STURP scientists, and the Heller/Adler team has categorically disagreed with him. 
Spectrochemical and other tests (such as microphotography, x-ray fluorimetery, ultraviolet fluorescence 
photos, and direct microscopy on the Shroud at several hundred magnification) of both the Shroud and 
control pieces of linen by S. F. Pellicori have convinced him that this critic's claims of iron oxide as a causal 
factor for the Shroud's body image are unsound [Pellicori, S.E., "Spectrochemical Results of the 1978 
Investigation," Sindon, XXIII/30, Centro Internazionale di Sindonologia, December 1981]. ... The claim of 
Walter McCrone-for the presence of `an iron oxide earth pigment bound with an age-yellowed animal protein 
binder' was conclusively disproven in every particular. For one thing, protein was found only in the 
bloodstain areas of the Shroud, and definitely is not present as a pigment binder in the body image areas. 
Moreover, Heller/Adler found blood residues, other than hemoglobin and protein (that is, bile pigments), in 
the bloodstain areas of the Shroud. Conversely, they found no significant levels of any substance that 
could have been the residue of organic or inorganic paint pigments, or of stains or dyes. Perhaps the most 
conclusive finding in their extended study relates to the presence of iron residues: The only heavy 
concentration of iron is in the bloodstain areas, where it should be if the stains indeed are blood. Significant 
concentrations of iron are in the water stain margin areas-again, where it should be expected. Throughout 
the entire Shroud, and for all three of the control samples of old linen, a significant but uniform deposit of 
`covalently bound' iron is found. Again, this is not surprising: Since antiquity, the technique in 
Mediterranean countries for making linen from flax included an extended period of soaking and fermenting 
(called `retting') while the flax is submerged in large outdoor vats of water. ...And the clincher of the 
Heller/Adler study of iron concentrations is the strong and clear conclusion that no iron, in any form or 
combination, was found in the body image areas of the Shroud except at the same levels as found in the 
nonimage areas, and specifically, that no iron oxide residues are found in the image areas. ... Moreover, by 
the use of chemical and spectroscopic testing techniques (in addition to microscopic examinations), Heller 
and Adler demonstrated that McCrone's specific claims for the presence of paint residue were prematurely 
and erroneously made with insufficient data-that no materials on the Shroud can scientifically be claimed as 
paint, dye, or stain residues. ... With negligible notice in the news media, Walter McCrone later accepted the 
refutations of the STURP scientists and in a press release dated September 20, 1980, he retracted his 
adversary position and acknowledged that the presence of microscopic particles of iron oxide on certain 
portions of the Shroud `does not prove the Shroud to be a fake.' [Holy Shroud Guild newsletter, February 
1981]." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House 
Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, pp.138-141. Emphasis original)

"Most of the experiments conducted by the STURP team were designed to detect artificial pigments-inks or 
dyes-on the image. The results were negative, except in the view of one member of the team, Dr. Walter 
McCrone. He received a good deal of publicity in the months after the testing by claiming not only that he 
had found and identified the paint that made up the image, but also that he had worked out the actual 
method used by the forger. (The qualification `that made up the image' is important: there is no dispute that 
there are microscopic traces of pigment on the Shroud. It is known to have been in contact with painted 
copies, which were often held against it to "sanctify" them.)" (Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: 
How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, 

"Walter McCrone was a microanalyst with his own research company, Walter C. McCrone Associates, Inc., 
based in Chicago. His method of identifying substances was to study them under high magnification and 
sometimes to supplement that with chemical tests. He was involved in the forensic work of many criminal 
cases and often consulted by art dealers about the authenticity of their objets. An independent, even 
abrasive character, McCrone seemed to revel in controversy and publicity." (Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The 
Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 2006, 
Reprinted, 2007, pp.72-73)

"The case that established his international reputation and brought him to the attention of the Shroud world 
was his unmasking of the `Vinland Map' forgery. In Barcelona in 1957 an American antiquarian book dealer 
found a map, apparently dating from the fifteenth century and copied from an earlier Viking one, which 
showed parts of North America. For years there had been speculation that two tenth-century Norse sagas 
telling of the discovery and colonization of an unknown land to the west were in fact describing America. 
This would mean that the Vikings had beaten Columbus to it by more than five hundred years-and the 
Barcelona discovery seemed to be proof of this at last. At first sight it appeared to be genuine: wormholes in 
it matched those in two books of known fifteenth-century provenance, indicating that the map had once 
been bound between them (a common practice of the time). Yale University bought the map in 1965, but after 
some historians had expressed doubts about its authenticity, the university decided to bring in Walter 
McCrone. He removed particles of the ink and examined them under an electron microscope. His conclusion, 
announced in 1974, was that the ink contained a substance, anatase (titanium dioxide), that had been 
invented only in the 1920s. The map was therefore a forgery. The case brought McCrone international 
publicity, and it was this that led Ian Wilson to approach him about the possibility of applying his 
techniques to the Shroud." (Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," 
[1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, p.73)

"Ironically, serious doubts have recently been raised about McCrone's debunking of the Vinland Map. 
[Cahill, T.A., et al., "The Vinland Map Revisited: New Compositional Evidence on Its Inks and Parchment," 
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 59, June 1987, pp.829-833] In 1987 physicists at the University of California 
examined the map using a well-tried technique for analyzing chemicals, particle-induced X-ray emission, and 
found that the ink contained only minute amounts of titanium-less than one thousandth than that claimed 
by McCrone-which one would expect to find in medieval ink. It appears that the Vinland Map is genuine 
after all, but (perhaps predictably) the finding has been almost completely ignored by the academic historical 
world, even though, before McCrone's announcement, archaeological discoveries in Newfoundland had 
proved that the Vikings had indeed discovered the New World. This case is interesting because of the 
insight it offers into McCrone's character. He dismissed the University of California's results as mistaken. 
Contrary to the detachment supposedly exhibited by scientists, he appeared to take its findings as a 
personal attack, writing to the California team that their work was `the first shot in a declaration of war.' 
[Shoemaker, M.T., "Debunking the Debunkers: The Vinland Map," Strange Magazine, No. 3, 1988, p.24]" 
(Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York 
NY, Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, pp.73-74)

"Despite his field of expertise, McCrone's interest in the Shroud initially centered on the possibility of 
carbon-dating it, and it was to this end that he first began to work with STURP However, in 1977 he made an 
independent approach to King Umberto II to try to get permission for the tests, which effectively 
antagonized both the custodians in Turin Cathedral and STURP itself-and as a result, he was banned from 
the tests when they did take place. [Sox, H.D., "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," 
Unwin: London, 1981, p.22] After the 1978 STURP tests he was given access to the samples of threads that 
had been taken back to the United States, examining them first under a conventional microscope before 
turning to the more powerful electron microscope. His conclusions were extremely provocative and 
profoundly distasteful to the believers: he claimed he had found artificial pigment-paint-on the threads taken 
from the Shroud. And predictably, although challenged by all the STURP team and the Italian scientists 
present at the tests, McCrone received more publicity than all of them put together." (Picknett, L. & Prince, 
C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 
2006, Reprinted, 2007, p.74)

"His final conclusion was that the samples contained a pigment known as Venetian red, which was made by 
grinding iron oxide into a powder. He claimed that this alone was responsible for the Shroud image. The 
ground pigment would have been mixed with a liquid medium for application; his chemical tests revealed the 
presence of a protein, collagen, that he interpreted as being just that medium. To reinforce these 
observations, he got an artist, Walter Sanford, to reproduce the Shroud face using the same materials, with 
tolerably good results, although nowhere near the quality of the original. ... The dispute between McCrone 
and the rest of STURP turns on two questions: the origin of the particles of iron oxide on the threads and 
whether or not they were responsible for the creation of the image. Iron oxide-ordinary rust-is one of the 
most common substances on Earth. It is present in dust, so it is hardly surprising that it was found on the 
Shroud. But from ancient times it has been ground down by artists as pigment; McCrone's opinion was that 
the particles were of a shape and size that indicated they had been ground, and that they were present in too 
great a concentration to be due to accidental contamination. It was not the presence of iron oxide that was 
disputed by the STURP scientists (chiefly the biophysicist John Heller and the chemist Alan Adler) but 
rather McCrone's belief that it actually created the image that led to their disagreement. So they tested it 
without resort to microscopy to see if it was present in sufficient quantities to account for the image. X-ray 
fluorescence scans during the 1978 tests had revealed traces of iron, but there was no detectable difference 
in its density between the image and the nonimage areas-although there was more in the bloodstains. 
[Morris, R.A., Schwalbe, L.A. & London, J.R., "X-Ray Fluorescence Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," 
Journal of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp.40-47] Several suggestions 
were made to account for the iron oxide; it could have come from the blood, spreading across the cloth due 
to years of folding and rolling. On the other hand, it could have been a byproduct of the manufacture of the 
linen itself (probably the most plausible explanation) [Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., "A Chemical Investigation 
of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp.81-103], or 
it could have been due to atmospheric contamination. In view of these objections, STURP declined to 
include McCrone's two papers in its final report." (Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da 
Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, pp.74-75)

"The tests that McCrone had used to detect the protein medium were criticized on the grounds that they 
produce false positive results when used on cellulose, a component of linen. Alternative tests were tried by 
Adler. They failed to find protein in the area of the body image; although, again, they did in the blood areas. 
[Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., "Blood on the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 16, August 1980, 
pp.2742-2744] Many harsh criticisms have been leveled at McCrone's method and conclusions. Most 
cynically, some have pointed out that, of all the STURP team, he was the only one to have benefited 
financially from the tests-due to the publicity generated for his research company. Others have noted that 
his papers were published only in his own journal, The Microscope, whereas other members of STURP 
published theirs in independent peer-reviewed journals, thus fulfilling a major criterion of scientific 
respectability: that all papers have to be examined and the results confirmed by a panel of experts before 
being accepted for publication." (Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled 
History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, pp.75-76)

"Of all people, we admit to some fellow feeling for McCrone. ... Even so, it has to be admitted that his work is 
open to serious question. To start with, McCrone produced figures showing the number of particles of iron 
oxide present in the image areas compared to those in the nonimage areas. [McCrone, W.C. & Skirius, C., 
1980, "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' I," Microscope, Vol. 28, pp.105-113] They 
appeared to indicate that there was much more iron oxide in the image than elsewhere on the cloth, 
supporting the idea that it was the result of faking the image. However, he made no distinction between the 
particles from the body image and those from the blood, having concluded that the difference was due 
simply to the amount of pigment applied. However, this is an oversimplification: the blood has many other 
different characteristics, most of which cannot be explained in this way. When John Heller pointed out that 
the number of iron oxide particles quoted by McCrone, even on the image area, was so low that an image 
made by them would be too faint to be seen, McCrone's response was that, in that case, `there must be more' 
[Sox, H.D., "The Image on the Shroud," Unwin: London, 1981, p.39] Ian Wilson also challenged McCrone's 
published data, pointing out that they appeared to contradict the scientist's own conclusions by saying that 
there was less iron oxide on the blood image threads than on those of the body image. McCrone admitted 
that the apparently precise numbers of particles he had given previously were in fact estimates. [Wilson, I., 
"The Evidence of the Shroud," pp.87-88] The most reasonable conclusion is that McCrone was wrong. In 
any case, there are good logical reasons against the Shroud being a painting. For example, the 1532 fire 
would have made the paint crack, and the subsequent dousing it received would have caused water damage 
that could be compared to that of other paintings. History has shown that the image, unlike any known 
painting, is not changed by either fire or water." (Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci 
Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, pp.75-76)

"After McCrone, the leading propainting voice is that of the American Joe Nickell. He is a private 
investigator and a member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal 
(CSICOP), a scientific pressure group that campaigns against belief in any form of paranormal phenomena. 
In 1983 he published Inquest on the Shroud of Turin (revised in 1987), in which he proposed his own 
method for reproducing the Shroud image. [Nickell, J., "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: 
Amherst MA, 1987, pp.101-106] Nickell soaked a cloth in hot water and then pressed it over a bas-relief 
statue. When dry, the cloth was fitted closely over the statue's contours. He then rubbed the cloth with 
powdered pigment of the type suggested by McCrone (although before he read McCrone's hypothesis he 
had tried powdered myrrh and aloes). He claimed that the result is an image that looks very like that of 
Shroudman. It has a similar negative effect but no three-dimensional quality. It must be said that Nickell's 
results, like those produced by Walter Sanford under McCrone's direction-although more recognizable in 
negative-are nowhere near as impressive as the Shroud, even though both attempts were produced by 
modern artists deliberately trying to create a negative image. Although they were much more familiar with 
negatives than any medieval artist would have been, the hypothetical early hoaxer managed to outdo them. 
Nickell's suggestion has been criticized for being too convoluted for any putative medieval artist and as 
having no parallel in art of that period. Cesar Tort also points out that Nickell cites McCrone's work in 
support of his own. In fact, apart from the link with iron oxide pigment, McCrone's method is totally 
incompatible with Nickell's; McCrone believed he had found evidence that the pigment had been applied as 
liquid paint. [Tort, C., Letter, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 56, July 1990; Sox, 
H.D., "The Image on the Shroud," Unwin: London, 1981, p.88] Although they do reproduce some of the 
characteristics of the Shroud image, neither McCrone's nor Nickell's method-nor that of any other technique 
yet suggested-is satisfactory, and both researchers have been forced to deny or belittle the significance of 
some of the Shroud's features, such as the negative effect. Techniques other than painting have been 
proposed. One idea is that the scorchlike effect was created by heating a life-size metal statue and wrapping 
the cloth around it. But the end result, once again, is a distorted and bloated image. Others have suggested 
that the image was the result of block printing using clay and yellow ocher, or that it was drawn in red chalk. 
None of these works-although the last two ideas invoke Renaissance, not medieval, techniques." (Picknett, 
L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, 
Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, pp.76-77. Emphasis original)

"McCrone and others contend that I have ignored strong arguments for human artifice, but suggestions 
that the image might be a painting, rubbing, or print have been thoroughly disproved by the recent 
analyses. It is established that the visible body image does not reside in a pigment, ink, or other coloring 
agent and that it has distinctly different characteristics from the bloodstains. My dismissal of McCrone's 
claims is more than amply justified by the battery of Commission and STURP tests. Even Mueller, Nickell, 
and Schafersman now accept the STURP interpretation of the image as a cellulose degradation product, but 
McCrone still insists that it is a water-color painting with a layer of pigment. Not only are the iron oxide and 
other possible pigment particles present only in trace levels far below the visible range, but their 
identification, origin, and distribution pattern are disputed. Heller and Adler (1981:93) identify three types of 
iron compounds on the Shroud - cellulosic and heme-bound iron and Fe2O3, the latter concentrated in the 
water stain margins and possibly derived from either of the former, from airborne dust, or from contact with 
jewellers' rouge on glass. Further, Riggi (cited in Heller and Adler 1981:97) found no evidence under electron 
microprobe of the mineralogical contaminants (Mn, Co, Ni, A1) invariably associated with iron-earth 
pigments of medieval artists, nor did Heller and Adler find such impurities in microchemical testing. The few 
isolated examples of undisputed paint particles, e.g. cinnabar, are completely consistent with dust 
deposition. Indeed, among the millions of particles on the Shroud surface, it would be surprising not to find 
traces of pigment, as the Shroud has been copied at least 60 times." (Meacham, W., "The Rape of the Turin 
Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: 
Morrisville NC, 2005, p.45)

"Even if one ignored the very compelling evidence to the contrary and granted McCrone's interpretation of 
the iron particles and protein, all one could conclude would be that minute traces of a solution or ointment 
containing pure haematite are present in the body imprint. This is of course a far cry from proving the image 
to be a painting. As STURP responded to McCrone's first pronouncements, "microscopic observations do 
not exist in a vacuum" (quoted in Sox 1981:61). McCrone is somewhat like Mearns's little man who `wasn't 
there again today.' He declined at least two invitations to discuss his findings in the multidisciplinary 
framework of STURP; he has declined invitations to present his work at scientific congresses. He did not 
follow the STURP `covenant,' which he signed, to publish in peer-reviewed scientific literature. And, as he 
admits, he has not responded in print to the arguments of Heller and Adler, Pellicori, Riggi, and Schwalbe 
and Rogers on the physics and chemistry of the image. He has abandoned his earlier claims of a synthetic 
iron oxide (post-1800) in the image and of a pigment enhancement of the genuine image." (Meacham, W., 
"The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and 
Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 2005, pp.45-46)

"I should interject at this point that the established facts as reviewed above are more than sufficient to 
refute the medieval-clever-artistry hypothesis. A forger could have obtained a Middle Eastern cloth, 
could have used some primate blood (and serum), and could have depicted the body in flawless 
anatomical detail, and the pigment could have disappeared, leaving a faint dehydration image - but that all 
of these unprecedented circumstances should have coalesced in the production of a single relic is virtually 
impossible to imagine. And yet, there are much greater problems in the `viable hypothesis of image 
formation' trumpeted by Mueller and Nickell." (Meacham, W., "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How 
Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 
2005, p.46. Emphasis original)

"Apart from McCrone, the skeptics have moved on to a more refined position not dependent on the 
identification of any pigment in the cloth, i.e., that the cellulose degradation was produced by a paint or 
coloring material formerly present. It should be noted that the earlier vaporgraphic theory could be 
resurrected with the same logic: that a reaction of bodily vapors occurred with a sensitizing material on the 
superficial fibers of the linen only or was provoked by sunlight, all evidence of the initial reaction now 
having `evaporated, been washed away, or otherwise disappeared' Because the Shroud is unique, every 
hypothesis of image formation must involve a set of unique conditions, and none can be rejected on this 
basis alone. Body imprints are invariably distorted, as Mueller remarks, just as paintings and rubbings 
invariably contain pigment layers (and distortion in three-dimensional projection). The new hypothesis of a 
`post-pigment image' has a certain built-in immunity, like postulation of an ancient occupation in regions 
where artifacts would not have survived. Clearly, to be testable and viable, the hypothesis must derive from 
or at least not conflict with the known elements of 14th century art. This it manifestly fails to do." 
(Meacham, W., "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly 
Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 2005, p.47)

"In addition to the four unprecedented features described above, there is no rubbing from the entire 
medieval period that is even remotely comparable to the Shroud, nor is there any negative painting. Nickell's 
wet-mold-dry-daub technique was not known in medieval times, according to art historian Husband (cited in 
Sox 1981:88), and even that technique fails to reproduce the contour precision and three-dimensional effect, 
the lack of saturation points, and the resolution of the Shroud image. The bas-relief used would have been 
far more accurate than any example of 14th century wood carving or sculpture known; even later carvings 
by 15th / 16th century masters of bas-relief do not have the fine detail of wounds and postures which would 
translate into the undistorted three-dimensional projections of Tamburelli, confirmed as accurate 
anatomically by the forensic pathologist Zugibe (1982:169-76). Similarly, even the blood flows painted in the 
greatest 14th century works of art are not at all comparable to those on the Shroud." (Meacham, W., "The 
Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," 
Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 2005, p.47)

"There are many more flaws in the `powerful case' for medieval artifice, and I must beg the reader's 
forbearance for what must begin to seem like the whipping of a very dead horse. There is no medimarks of such realism (radiation and fine detail) or correspondence to the Roman 
scourge. The nude figure of Christ is extremely rare, unheard of in an object for public veneration, and 
Shroud copyists generally saw fit to correct it. The wrist-nailing is unique, according to art historian McNair 
(1978:35): `I have studied hundreds of paintings, sculptures and carvings of Christ's crucifixion and 
deposition, from the 13th to the 16th centuries, and not one of them shows a nail wound anywhere but in the 
palm of the hand.' Depiction of a non-circlet crown of thorns covering the head is extremely rare. The Shroud 
is unlike any 14th century or earlier artist's conception of the deposition and wrapping in linen. The 
portrayal of the face is extremely close to the Byzantine style, as Whanger has shown. It is clear, therefore, 
that clever artistry simply cannot be stretched to cover such a wide range of extraordinary circumstance, 
Innovation, even at genius level, is bounded by the cultural context and cannot diverge therefrom to the 
extent that the Shroud contradicts the 14th century milieu. From this massive conflict between the Shroud 
and medieval art I believe there can be only one conclusion - that the Shroud image belongs to the 1st 
millennium, with the corollary that it is the imprint of a body. These conclusions should now be considered 
well-documented archaeological judgements, approaching the level of certainty if normal standards are 
applied, especially since they agree exactly with the evidence from medical studies." (Meacham, W., "The 
Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," 
Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, 2005, p.47)

"STURP took samples of the Shroud's topmost fibers using small strips of Mylar tape which were pressed 
tightly against various portions of the cloth. Every part of the Shroud and every type of image was 
represented. Raymond Rogers proposed that these be sent to the eminent microanalyst Walter Cox 
McCrone. McCrone did his undergraduate work and earned his Ph.D. at Cornell University. His very long 
entry in the 1997 edition of Who's Who in America claims that, among his many achievements, he 
"proved" that the Shroud of Turin is a painting. He was sixty-two years old in 1978, the founder and director 
of his own research company in Chicago, Walter McCrone Associates. He edited the multi-volume The 
Particle Atlas, which dealt with substances as they appear under the microscope. A few years earlier he 
had created a stir by declaring as a modern forgery a map of Vinland (the area of America explored by the 
Vikings) that was alleged to date from the Middle Ages. (Since then further Studies on the map have led 
other experts to question McCrone's conclusion. [Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing 
Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.55])" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most 
Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: 
Huntington IN, 1999, pp.87,89)

"Because of his experience in working with historical artifacts, McCrone was invited to work with STURP. 
He attended the first meeting in Albuquerque in 1977, and there he expressed his belief that the Shroud was 
a painting. At the time, however, most of the other scientists in attendance agreed with him, and therefore 
his opinion was not controversial. McCrone did not accompany the group to Italy, nor did he have, then or 
ever, physical contact with the Shroud. He received, however, the thirty-two samples of Shroud fibers that 
STURP had collected and, after studying them, said that the yellow coloring on the cloth was due to age, 
[Nickell, J., "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, 1987, p.135] but that the image 
was colored with red ochre and vermilion paints. He said he had separated the tapes into two groups: (1) 
those with pigment on the fibers, and (2) those without. The areas where there was pigment were the areas 
on the body image and the apparent bloodstains. The blank areas of the Shroud were free of pigment 
particles. Elaborating, he contended: (1) the Shroud image was due to artists' pigments, because the only 
colored substances presented in all image areas (twenty-two tapes) and absent in the other areas (ten tapes) 
were pigment particles; (2) the pigments on the tapes of the image were hydrated red particles which derived 
from two artists' pigments, known as red ochre (iron oxide) and vermilion (mercury sulfide); (3) an artist used 
the two pigments to paint the Shroud: the body image was painted with red ochre, the blood images with red 
ochre and vermilion. [McCrone, W.C., "Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' IV," The Microscope, 
McCrone Research Institute: Chicago, May 1986, pp.77-96, p.84] McCrone identified the pigments by means 
of `polarized light microscopy.' [McCrone, 1986, p.77] Performing a test with what is known as `amido black,' 
he observed blue staining from fibers from the image areas, which, he said, confirmed the presence of 
protein, which would have been a sign of a paint binder. [Scavone, 1989, p.57] Such findings, he asserted, 
`prove that the Shroud is a painting probably executed in the middle fourteenth century. ` [McCrone, 1986, 
p.77] The painter, along with the red ochre and vermilion, also used gelatin as a collagen tempera 
medium.[McCrone, 1986, p.77] He said that he also tested for blood with the benzidine test used by Frache 
in 1973 and a test for fluorescence after treating the fibers with H2SO4, and came up with results that were 
`completely negative for blood.' [McCrone, W.C., "Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' IV," The 
Microscope, McCrone Research Institute: Chicago, May 1986, pp.77-96, p.85]" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud 
of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our 
Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, pp.89-90)

"McCrone insisted, correctly, that there were many shroudlike paintings in the fourteenth century. To create 
the Shroud of Turin, the painter, McCrone said, prepared a diluted watercolor paint and used a watercolor 
brush to apply `successive drops to build the desired intensity' of color. `He studied the New Testament of 
the Bible and earlier paintings of Christ. He then tried to imagine just how a shroud might look. It would not 
be a typical portrait based on light and shadow. He must have considered a dark tomb with a cloth in 
contact with the body. If he then formed the image based on contact points between the Shroud and body 
he would have darkened the brow, bridge of the nose, mustache, beard, cheekbones, hair, etc. Then, as an 
artist, he would shade the image intensities aesthetically into non-contact areas. In doing so, he, in effect, 
assigns image density values equivalent to cloth/body distance. This would explain the appearance of the 
Shroud image, and, as well, STURP's 3-D image construction. Even more important, a photographic negative 
of such a painted image would automatically appear to be a true positive image.' [McCrone, 1986, pp.91-92] 
Art historians have almost unanimously challenged McCrone's claim that there were many paintings in the 
fourteenth century that were similar to the Shroud. There were, in fact, reproductions of the Shroud itself, 
but to most art experts, those which have been described or reproduced all seemed to look like ordinary 
paintings. However, it was common that, after a copy of the Shroud was executed, the artist would touch the 
fabric of the original Shroud with the reproduction, as a sort of blessing. This would easily account for the 
small amount of artists' pigments, such as vermilion, that were found on the cloth. [Scavone, D.C., "The 
Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.57]" (Ruffin, C.B., "The 
Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial 
Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, p.90)

"Members of STURP were angered because there had been an agreement that no articles would be 
published until all findings could be discussed. [Scavone, 1989, p.58] They were also concerned because 
McCrone's findings were not consistent with their own. Ian Wilson wrote that `variation in iron content 
could not be correlated to any of the variations seen in the Shroud's body image coloration. Exactly the 
same deduction was evident from the absence of any observation of body and blood image in the Shroud x-
radiographs. Since whenever quantities of iron oxide sufficient to be visible to the human eye are daubed 
onto a piece of cloth, they show up under [x-ray fluoroscopy], ... the only reasonable inference is that 
whatever is responsible for the Shroud body and blood images cannot be iron oxide.' [Wilson, I., "The 
Mysterious Shroud," Doubleday: Garden City NY, 1986, p.89] McCrone was present when STURP met in 
California at the Brooks Institute of Photography at Santa Barbara. When he announced that the body 
images had been made by red iron-oxide earth pigments, Pellicori found that he could not believe him. `I've 
measured the spectrum of iron oxide dozens of times,' he said to a colleague. `The color's totally wrong for 
what he's claiming. Based on spectrophotometry and the x-ray fluorescence findings, there's no way that the 
Shroud images are composed of iron oxide.... He's wrong.' [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," 
Houghton-Mifflin: Boston, 1983, pp.139-140]" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date 
Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 
1999, pp.90-91)

"McCrone continued, arguing that the iron oxide had been applied by a finger, and that the image was a 
finger painting. (Later he would abandon this idea and insist that the iron oxide was suspended in a water 
solution of animal gelatin. [Heller, 1983, p.154])He said he had observed `snow-fencing,' where the iron oxide 
had piled up on one side of the fibers. He finished by saying that the `blood' on the image was also made up 
of iron-oxide paint. Heller later wrote, `Slide after slide was projected on the screen, with McCrone pointing 
out red spots on the fibers, and stating that they were typical red iron earth pigments. I was bewildered. 
Here was a particle expert claiming that a) the images were the result of iron-oxide red paint and that b) the 
`blood' was iron oxide, too. This was completely at odds with the data presented by the x-ray fluorescence 
team, who saw no increase of iron signal between image and non-image areas, but only where there was 
blood. It was at variance with what Don Lynn had found in his image analysis, as well as the Gilberts' 
analysis that the images had a spectrum similar to the light scorch areas. It also left the 3-D aspect of the 
images unaccounted for.' [Heller, 1983, p.140]" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date 
Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 
1999, p.91)

"Asked why he was sure that the red dots he observed were iron oxide, McCrone replied, `Experience.' 
Asked if he had treated them chemically, his answer was, `I didn't have to.' When asked to reconcile his 
findings with the other studies, McCrone simply said, `They must be wrong.' To a query as to how his iron-
oxide paint theory reconciled with the negative image and the 3-D information, he answered, `Oh, any 
competent artist could have done that.' When one of his colleagues exclaimed, `Do you mean you just 
looked through your microscope and, without doing specific tests for iron oxide, can proclaim it a painting?' 
McCrone confidently replied, `Yes.'" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of 
All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, pp.91-

"After that McCrone walked out of the meeting and never again attempted to defend his findings - on which 
he continuously insisted - before the STURP team. Most scientists publish their findings in journals that 
have review boards that are fully knowledgeable about the subject, but McCrone published only in his own 
journal, The Microscope. In it he wrote several years later, `I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to 
convince the STURP scientists of the above facts. I attributed this (and still do) to their lack of background 
in microscopy, small particle identification, pigments, and paintings. I have spent the last fifty years in just 
those areas. I expected the scientific world to accept my conclusions. Instead, no one has volunteered to 
agree with me and most writers have either ignored or contradicted my findings.' [McCrone, W.C., 
"Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' IV," The Microscope, McCrone Research Institute: Chicago, 
May 1986, pp.77-96, p.77] After `seven years of `turning the other cheek,' ` he complained, `I am now willing 
to trade `an eye for an eye'... because I see no sign of acceptance of the fact that the Shroud is a painting.' 
Noting that at least thirty other scientists had disputed his conclusions, he went on to offer that `the 
complete rejection of my work and my conclusions is bewildering and increasingly frustrating.' The only 
way he could account for its rejection was this: `As a few of the more influential of the group [of scientists] 
decided ... that the Shroud had to be real, the others followed blindly - a form of mob psychology. They 
closed ranks and assured the world that I am wrong and the Shroud is real. Even scientists who do not 
believe in the Shroud's authenticity dispute McCrone's findings. One writer asserted, `The difficulty with 
McCrone's theories is that none of the scientists with access to the samples from the Shroud itself has been 
able to confirm McCrone's findings by experimentation.' [Wild, R.A., "The Shroud of Turin: Probably the 
Work of a 14th Century Forger," Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. IX, No. 2, March/April 1984, p.38] " 
[McCrone, 1986, pp. 92-93]" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the 
Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, pp.91-92)

"In 1996, McCrone, now an octogenarian, privately published Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud, in 
which he forcefully reiterated his belief that the Shroud is a painting and that the cloth contains no real 
bloodstains. Calling the members of STURP `pseudoscientists,' [McCrone, W.C., `Judgment Day for the 
Turin Shroud,' Microscope Publications: Chicago, 1996, p.306] he accused them of `bad research' and `in 
certain cases, deceit.' [McCrone, 1996, p.322] He attacked the research of the long-dead Frei by quoting the 
curious reasoning of Steven Schafersman, a professor of geology at Miami University of Oxford, Ohio. 
Schafersman insisted that the Swiss scientist's pollen data `can be most reasonably explained by human fraud 
because the only other possible explanations are that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, that a miracle 
occurred, or both. Since we are pretty certain that the Shroud is not authentic and that miracles don't occur, 
human deception is the only explanation remaining.' [McCrone, 1996, pp.302-303]" (Ruffin, C.B., "The 
Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial 
Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, p.92)

"McCrone went on to say that Rinaldi, also by then deceased, `was convinced the `Shroud' is a painting but 
... held out against all of my arguments because of his feeling that `the simple faith of many good people 
may be somewhat shaken by this turn of events.' [McCrone, 1996, p.325] ... I know from personal experience 
that Father Peter believed that the Shroud was authentic. After meeting him for the first time, I wrote in my 
diary on July 27, 1990 `Fr. Rinaldi, who is 80, was very warm and friendly. He talked about his researches and 
his belief in the miraculous nature of the Shroud. [The members of STURP] all believe that the Radio Carbon-
dating was done in an invalid way. He is searching for the opportunity to have new tests done. He seems to 
believe very strongly in the authenticity of the Shroud.'" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-
To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: 
Huntington IN, 1999, pp.92,176)

"Near this time [April 1980], McCrone agreed to publish his results within the framework of the STURP 
association. Like all the examiners, he had signed an agreement with the project which included a `covenant 
not to disclose' - no articles or talks were to be given before October 1980 without the permission of the 
Review Committee, which had been set up under the chairmanship of Eric Jumper. The committee had the 
power to approve papers ready for publication in scientific journals. A full `Project Report' was anticipated 
by October 1980 which hopefully would present a cohesive appraisal. McCrone dutifully presented his two 
papers in April to the committee for review. They were refused the Shroud of Turin Research Project's 'seal 
of approval' on several grounds. The first cited was a `philosophical point'. The intention for publishing 
papers had been set out in the August 1979 newsletter: `... to publish technique and result papers to include 
hard-fact observations without extensive interpretation'. According to the committee, `Conclusions dealing 
with processes must wait for a summary paper which attempts to synthesise all observations into a single 
most probable conclusion. This conclusion, then, must be compatible with all the pertinent observations. 
Contrary to your apparent belief, you are part of a team; microscopic observations do not exist in a vacuum. 
The very tone of your papers presents your work as the last and only word on possible hypotheses of how 
the image on the Shroud was formed'. The committee admitted that `there is no question that there are some 
small (submicron) red particles everywhere on the Shroud. These appear in abundance in the blood area. 
They do not, however, appear in any statistically large number in body-only areas ... By statistically large 
numbers ... large in comparison to off-body and off-blood control samples. In fact, there are many examples 
of these control areas having far more red particles than the body-only areas'." (Sox, H.D., "The Image on 
the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, 1981, p.61) 

"Dr. Rogers sent these thirty-two tapes, each labeled to note the point on the Shroud which it touched, to 
Dr. Walter McCrone, world-famous microscopist ... He achieved international fame by discovering that a 
famous, supposedly ancient, map of Vinland was a forgery. The Vinland Map was thought to be a 
fourteenth century map proving that the Vikings had come to the North American continent about 150 years 
before Columbus. Yale University, which owned the map, invited Dr. McCrone to study it microscopically. 
Among the inks and pigments used to make this map, McCrone discovered titanium oxide which, he knew, 
was only developed as a synthetic black dye in the twentieth century. Therefore, he concluded the map 
could not have been drawn before the twentieth century and could not possibly have been made by 
Vikings. (Recent investigations have proven that Dr. McCrone may have been wrong about the Vinland 
Map. The inks used in the very first printed books by Johannes Gutenberg in the fifteenth century were 
found to contain titanium oxide in a natural form. This means that the ink used on the Vinland Map could 
indeed have derived from the fourteenth century. McCrone's conclusions are outdated by this new 
information.)" (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego 
CA, 1989, pp.54-55. Emphasis original)

"It was partially on the basis of his experience in working with historical objects that Dr. McCrone was 
invited to join STURP. No one considered it strange that Dr. McCrone initially expected that the Shroud did 
not go back to Jesus' time. Most of the STURP group had felt the same way in the beginning. As time went 
on, however, McCrone became increasingly convinced that the Shroud image was a fourteenth century 
painting. And in 1979, after working with Rogers' tapes, he shocked nearly everyone, including his 
colleagues in STURP, by announcing to the world his findings that the image was indeed, and without a 
doubt, just that: a work by an unknown artist in 1350. ... The first newspaper announcement of McCrone's 
belief that the Shroud was a fake angered the scientists of were tending to prove the authenticity of the 
Shroud. But they had agreed not to publish their articles until all their findings could be discussed and they 
could be absolutely certain about their statements. So far, their findings were opposed to McCrone's." 
(Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, 

"No one could explain how scientists examining the same object could "see" different things on it and arrive 
at totally opposite conclusions. Because of this disagreement the Shroud remains almost as much a mystery 
as ever. But in 1981 all hoped that further study of those 32 tapes might solve the mystery. If McCrone's 
studies could be proved correct, then the Shroud would have to be admitted as a forgery. The key would lie 
in the work of Dr. John Heller and Dr. Alan Adler. It was they who next received the tapes and who would 
examine them in ways McCrone had not thought necessary. McCrone had looked at the contents of the 
tapes under his trusted microscope. He had performed a single chemical test (amido black). - Drs. Heller and 
Adler would do a thorough chemical and microscopic analysis of the fibers on the tapes. They would see if 
blood was present; they would see if the image and the bloodstains were made of different thicknesses of 
red paint. Their results were totally at odds with McCrone's. ... According to McCrone, both image and 
blood were painted with red iron oxide and a protein binder (tempera paint). Adler and Heller (as did other 
members of STURP) found several different kinds of red iron particles. The first type of red particle was 
described as birefringent iron. This is the iron oxide which the STURP tests found evenly distributed all 
over the Shroud. It is present in equal amounts on the image and on nonimage areas. Since the amount of 
this iron is so small that it cannot be seen on the non-image area (the clean background of the Shroud), the 
same amount on the image area is not what the eye sees as an image. This finding was in total disagreement 
with McCrone who found no iron at all on the clean background, some on the image, and lots in the 
"blood" areas." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San 
Diego CA, 1989, pp.55-58)

"A second type of iron on the Shroud was of the non-birefringent type. This is a term which means the iron 
can be of the type found in blood or hemoglobin. Adler found this kind of iron only in the `blood' areas. 
Finally, they found birefringent iron oxide particles (meaning rust or possibly red earth pigment) actually 
embedded in linen fibers. Under magnification, these look like hollow bamboo stalks with iron `cannonballs' 
caught within the tube. This iron oxide was only found in the edges of the water stains from the fire of 1532. 
How, wondered Adler and Heller, could tiny red particles of iron oxide get inside the linen fibers? When 
an artist puts color on a cloth, the particles of color are applied to the surfaces of the fibers. So this red 
iron oxide was not paint. They concluded that the answer to the riddle of the red `cannonballs' inside the 
fibers had to do with two things: 1) the way linen cloth used to be made and 2) the fire of 1532. 1) In order to 
make flax into linen cloth, the flax used to be soaked in a natural body of water, usually a stream or lake, for a 
long time. This is called `fermenting' or `retting' the flax. During retting, two minerals, calcium and iron, are 
attracted to the cellulose (basic material) of the flax. Retting thus explains why the STURP X-rays, described 
in chapter four, showed calcium and iron scattered evenly all over the Shroud linen. 2) During the fire of 
1532 water was poured on the very hot Shroud. Some of the iron which was attached to the flax migrated to 
the edges of the water stains as iron oxide. In this process the red iron oxide particles were `soaked' into the 
cloth and-appear under the microscope as `cannonballs' embedded inside the fibers. McCrone had not 
noted, as Adler and Heller did, that the tapes in question happened to come from a spot on the Shroud 
where a water stain appeared upon the body image. Only the detective work of Adler, who studied the 
ancient techniques of making linen cloth, helped to solve this riddle of the `cannonballs.' He had read about 
the natural attraction of iron and flax atoms during the retting process. It might have been the high 
concentration of iron oxide in the water-stain margin that McCrone had misread as red iron-based paint on 
the image." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego 
CA, 1989, pp.60-61)

"Now Heller and Adler addressed themselves to the body imprint. Recall that the fibers of the Shroud image 
appear reddish to the naked eye but are actually yellow when viewed under a microscope. As Heller and 
Adler wrote, `All known organic dyes and/or stains, both natural and synthetic ... can be extracted 
[removed] by some solvent.' So they applied various solvents, some weak, some very strong, to the yellow 
fibers of the imprint. They found, to their surprise, that the color was not changed and not removed by these 
solvents. Only the strongest bleaches whitened the yellow body-image: This fact seemed to exclude the 
presence of paint." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San 
Diego CA, 1989, p.61)

"Proving whether it was real blood on the Shroud was a fascinating bit of sleuthing by Heller and Adler. 
McCrone, you will recall, sought and found his protein binding material by applying a substance called 
amido black to the fibers on the Shroud tapes. They turned a blue color, proving, he argued, the presence of 
animal or vegetable protein in liquid form to bond the red pigment particles together as paint. McCrone's 
conclusions were refuted when Heller and Adler discovered that amido black also stains ordinary cellulose 
(the chief component of linen) the same blue color. Furthermore, amido black worked even better on linen 
which once had been heated or scorched. In other words, amido black would stain the entire linen Shroud 
blue and is not a specific test for detecting protein." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing 
Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.61-62. Emphasis original)

"The two STURP scientists found another test `specific for protein': fluorescamine. which makes even the 
tiniest traces of protein glow green under ultraviolet light. They found that all the red and orange `globs' 
(groups of particles) on the `blood' tapes glowed green. But `the fluorescamine tests were definitely 
negative on all fibrils away from blood areas.' The iron found in the water-stain edges and the yellow body 
image fibers showed no trace of protein by the fluorescamine tests. Thus they are not associated with 
protein paint binders. Protein, a component of blood, was found only on blood-area tapes. The blood fibers 
also tested positive for albumin, another component of real blood. Albumin was found only in blood fibers 
and in fibers immediately next to blood fibers. As mentioned earlier, all around the bloodstains on the 
Shroud would be the natural serum in which the blood cells flow through the body. When the blood dries, it 
retracts or shrinks back somewhat, leaving an invisible ring or halo of serum around the bloodstain. So it is 
with the Shroud. This serum, then, also tested positive for albumin." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: 
Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.61-62. Emphasis original)

"Next, Adler and Heller tested the `blood' for the substances which give it its red color. These too were 
positively identified in the `blood' fibers. The high percentage of bilirubin (red blood-bile) that results 
from blood clotting is apparently the reason the Shroud blood is so red. As mentioned earlier, this redness 
can still be noticed in the color photographs of the Shroud. The Shroud's blood must thus be clotted 
blood." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 
1989, pp.62-63)

"Finally, the two blood specialists performed a test to determine if the blood was human blood. Antibodies 
in animal blood will attack human blood-albumin, but will not attack animal blood-albumin. And this is 
exactly what happened in the test. Pig, cattle, and horse blood were not attacked by animal antibodies, but 
the Shroud blood was. Adler and Heller concluded that the Shroud blood is definitely human or primate 
(large ape) blood (which, they caution, can sometimes react like human blood). But, as Adler remarked, `That 
is certainly not an ape on, the Shroud.'" (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," 
Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.63)

"When these findings are combined with the findings from observing the Shroud under UV light, the 
evidence seems very strong that the `blood' is real blood and not red ochre earth pigment plus vermilion, as 
Dr. McCrone argued. A further argument against McCrone's theory is that the traces of eleven other 
elements that he found are all elements which are found in whole blood. However, he did not report 
finding any manganese, cobalt, or nickel-three impurities which are always found in red iron earth pigment. If 
the Shroud had been painted, the pigment would have to be an extremely pure form of iron oxide which 
would have been virtually impossible for a medieval artist to distill, and virtually unknown in art history." 
(Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.63. 
Emphasis original)

"But McCrone had another argument. Besides red ochre and vermilion, he had spotted some particles of 
other colors on the Shroud. This convinced him more than ever that the Shroud had been painted, since 
splashes or sprays of color can result from the mere presence of a cloth in an artist's studio. Of course, this 
is not necessarily the case. It is commonly known that the Shroud's image was copied dozens of times by 
artists after 1355. Such tiny amounts of color could have gotten on the Shroud on those occasions. Also it 
is recorded that many of these copies were placed directly upon the Shroud as if to validate them or make 
them more authentic. (In the same way, a book autographed by the author has more value than the book 
alone.) Besides, STURP has argued, the scant amounts of artist colors on the Shroud are hardly enough to 
produce or explain the body's imprint. Traces of colors do not prove the Shroud to be an artist's hoax." 
(Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, 

"In total contradiction of the image being some kind of `photo', the late Dr Walter McCrone, a Chicago-
based world leader in microscopic analysis, brought the controversy back full circle in support of Bishop 
d'Arcis' claim that the image is a `cunning painting'. McCrone was not one of the 1978 STURP team, but team 
member Raymond Rogers had requested him to examine most of the sticky-tape slides that were taken from 
both the image and non-image areas of the Shroud. McCrone found that the image areas fibres were coated 
with what he described as particles of very finely powdered iron oxide. Following this discovery he applied a 
number of tests that showed the presence of some protein-coating medium, which he identified as a collagen 
tempera. He also discovered what he identified as particles of mercuric sulphide, orpiment (used as a 
pigment) and madder, which can be used as a colouring matter. Knowing that iron oxide (in the form of 
yellow and red ochre and burnt sienna), mercuric sulphide (vermilion), orpiment and madder were used by 
artists in medieval times, McCrone concluded that the Shroud must have been `cunningly' painted. 
[McCrone, W.C., "Microscopic study of the Turin Shroud," Newsletter of Analytical Chemistry Divisions 
of American Chemical Society, Spring, 1989] These were his `compelling rational and straightforward 
reasons for saying the "shroud" of Turin was painted with a thin watercolor paint by an artist'. [McCrone, 
W.C., Interview, Chicago Sun-Times, 24 October 1981]" (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour 
Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, pp.169-170)

"The STURP team also had found iron oxide present on the Shroud, as well as calcium and strontium. In the 
body-image areas the iron oxide was present only in trace amounts, except in the bloodstains and the foot 
area, where its presence was significant. Since blood contains iron, this was not unexpected. The high traces 
of iron detected in the area of the soles of the feet, particularly the heel, were identified by optical physicist 
Sam Pellicori as `dirt particles'. When McCrone returned the sticky-tape samples to Raymond Rogers, 
Rogers passed them on to John Heller and his colleague Alan Adler. Under microscopic analysis they found 
that the iron oxide was extremely pure, as if taken up as trace elements from water, along with calcium and 
strontium. Heller and Adler believed these elements could have been deposited on the Shroud from its 
dousing in water after its rescue from the 1532 fire. They determined that the body image had derived from 
nothing that had been applied to the Shroud in the form of artist's materials. They found no evidence of the 
protein that McCrone claimed to have found on the cloth and which he identified as an artist's use of a 
tempera binding medium." (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, 
Australia, 2006, p.170)

"When McCrone returned the sticky-tape samples to Raymond Rogers, Rogers passed them on to John 
Heller and his colleague Alan Adler. Under microscopic analysis they found that the iron oxide was 
extremely pure, as if taken up as trace elements from water, along with calcium and strontium. Heller and 
Adler believed these elements could have been deposited on the Shroud from its dousing in water after its 
rescue from the 1532 fire. They determined that the body image had derived from nothing that had been 
applied to the Shroud in the form of artist's materials. They found no evidence of the protein that McCrone 
claimed to have found on the cloth and which he identified as an artist's use of a tempera binding medium." 
(Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, p.170)

"McCrone never conceded that his conclusions were wrong, but he did make a concession when he later 
addressed the British Society for the Turin Shroud in London [September 11, 1980]: `I am not saying the 
Shroud is not authentic. I am saying that the image area has a lot of iron oxide and a lot of artists' pigment 
associated with it, but I do not know whether the amount of iron oxide present is sufficient to explain the 
entire image.' He was not prepared as a scientist to say the Shroud was a fake, but he did say, 
unequivocally, `There is no chance at all of there being real blood on the cloth'." (Whiting, B., "The Shroud 
Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, p.171)

"McCrone was not entirely wrong about there being artists' pigments on the cloth, for they did appear on 
every tape sample in the form of rose madder or cinnabar, but this is not evidence that the image is the work 
of any artist. Historical records indicate that over 44 painted copies of the Shroud image were produced 
between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Known as True Copies, almost all of these were traditionally 
`sanctified' by being pressed against the original, thereby producing some contact transfer of pigment from 
the copies to the original. These were all labeled as copies and were also dated. Chemical investigations 
have proven that the Shroud's body images are not composed of applied pigment stains or dyes." (Whiting, 
B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, p.171)

"The full, exact text of the Cardinal's communique, as published on 17 October 1988 in the weekly English 
language edition of the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, was as follows: `In a dispatch 
received by the Pontifical Custodian of the Holy Shroud [i.e. Cardinal Ballestrero] on 28 September 1988, the 
laboratories of the University of Arizona, of the University of Oxford and of the Polytechnic of Zurich which 
had conducted the tests for the radio-carbon dating of the cloth of the Holy Shroud, have finally 
communicated the result of their tests through Dr Tite of the British Museum, the co-ordinator of the 
project. This document states that the cloth of the shroud can be assigned with a confidence of 95 per cent 
accuracy to a date between AD 1260 and 1390. More precise and detailed information concerning the result 
will be published by the laboratories and Dr Tite in a scientific review in an article which is in the course of 
preparation . For his part Professor Bray of the `G. Colonetti' Institute of Metrology of Turin, which was 
charged with the review of the summary report presented by Dr Tite, has confirmed the compatibility of the 
results obtained by the three laboratories, whose certainty falls within the limits envisaged by the methods 
used. After having informed the Holy See, the owner of the Holy Shroud, I make known what has been 
communicated to me. In submitting to science the evaluation of these results, the Church confirms her 
respect and veneration for this venerable icon of Christ, which remains an object of devotion for the faithful 
in keeping with the attitude always expressed in regard to the Holy Shroud, namely that the value of the 
image is more important than the date of the shroud itself. This attitude disposes of the gratuitous 
deductions of a theological character advanced in the sphere of a research which had been presented as 
solely and rigorously scientific. At the same time the problems about the origin of the image and its 
preservation still remain to a large extent unsolved and will require further research and study. In regard to 
this the Church will show the same openness, inspired by the love of truth which she showed by permitting 
the radio-carbon dating as soon as she was presented with a reasonable and effective programme in regard 
to that matter. I personally regret the deplorable fact that many reports concerning this scientific research 
were anticipated in the press, especially of the English language, because it also favoured the by no means 
objective insinuation that the Church was afraid of science by trying to conceal its results, an accusation in 
open contradiction to the Church's attitude on this occasion also when she has gone ahead resolutely. 
Turin 13 October 1988 Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero' On the basis of this carefully dispassionate 
communique London's Daily Telegraph, theoretically one of Britain's `quality' newspapers, carried the 
headline `Turin shroud is a forgery, says Catholic Church', followed by a first paragraph `The shroud of 
Turin is not the burial cloth of Christ ... the Roman Catholic Church said in Italy yesterday.'" (Wilson, I., 
"Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.190-192) 


Copyright © 2008-2012, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 30 January, 2008. Updated: 24 January, 2012.

Y> Y> Y> Y> L>