Shroud of Turin part 5

Shroud of Turin  part 5

 

The brilliance of the Shroud's forger has blinded some STURP members, but if they were innocent as accomplices to fraud after the fact, then they were awfully stupid. They were silent as well while their colleagues freely tortured the scientific method.

 

Contrary to STURP'S blatant misstatement of fact, the spectrometric results, in the form of spectrograms of the blood areas of the Shroud, do NOT resemble the spectra of blood. They are not very different from that expected for a mixture of iron earth pigment and cinnabar or vermillion (mercuric sulfide). This pigment has a strong absorption band, or region of the visible spectrum where light of a very specific color is greatly attenuated (upon reflection in this case). The so called Sorét band of hemoglobin in blood absorbs in the same region, but it absorbs much more strongly and over a much narrower range of wavelengths. Only a novice or a charlatan could mistake the difference. A competent metal coordination chemist would spot this error instantly.

Yet, whenever STURP scientists have to explain discrepancies in their interpretations with the factual record of their own data they retreat into excuses. STURP vies with creation "scientists" for sheer slipperiness this way.

 

Potassium and sodium shows in their X-ray fluorescence spectrograms of genuine blood-on-cloth. Though the spectrograms obtained in Turin when the Shroud was examined in 1978 were of better quality than those of these standards, the absence of these elements (an essential component of blood) in the Shroud spectrometer output is attributed to "instrumental difficulties" and "electronic noise".

 

Or else somebody idiotically washed the Shroud. Like someone today would dry clean the Mona Lisa or scrub down the "Last Supper" with Comet kitchen cleanser.

 

By examination of STURP's own data it must be concluded that there is no blood on the Shroud of Turin. The opposite conclusion can be made only by selective exclusion of evidence in a knowing, deliberate attempt to subvert the truth.

 

The only way this kind of despicable pseudoscience could ever have been published in various reputable scientific journals is by means of cronyism or worse on the part of certain editors. Such an editor can parcel out candidate papers for publication to as many or as few referees as he pleases. He can even serve as a referee himself.

 

Some of the STURP scientists were well known to the editors of certain journals and to each other. If an editor should give papers to referees who did not recuse themselves because they were close friends of the authors in question or because they were associated, however loosely, with the work involved, a green light for publication from such referees would seem not so surprising.

 

Even at its zenith, when STURP scientists where actively engaged in Shroud investigations, the project was not well known outside of the circle of Shroud fans. If an editor were unaware of the existence or of the large scope of STURP, he might accidentally give papers for review to other members of STURP to referee in a sort of fortuitous, intellectually incestuous impromptu love fest. Something like this certainly happened because most of the papers published by STURP people were perfectly unpublishable, the acme of trash.

 

Tyranny thrives on such lapses by otherwise honest men, so let the editors deny it all. But one thing is certain. They certainly bent over backward not to suppress anything.

 

STURP members used their joint power to suppress one particular unpopular "unscholarly" dissenting view and turned a mere conclave of tinkering pseudoscientific weekend crackpots into a massacre of the truth that will live in infamy. STURP represents one of the great world atrocities of irrationality.

 

In order to carry out their program of selective exclusion of pertinent information, the true believers within STURP were required to submit their findings to the approval of the majority. Dr. Walter McCrone's refusal to soften his reasoning and his insistence on an honest presentation of his own results led him to resign from STURP. Their report would not have given any weight to McCrone's work anyway. So he was better off free of STURP. He could, and did, then publish his results independently.

 

Unwarranted, incredibly vicious attacks on McCrone were aimed at his person and his professional veracity. His conclusions were viewed with such alarm and fervor that denunciations were heard that usually are reserved for the destruction of heretics.

Many STURP members regretted inviting McCrone to participate in the first place. He was, after all, the sole representative of non-Shroud advocates to sit on this self-selected panel. When it was formed, a few STURP members thought it would be a good idea to get some expertise from outside their cozy little group. They thought that since the Shroud was surely genuine anyway, such a person would certainly agree with the majority. STURP's opinion had already reached more than a mere consensus of the genuine Shroud, it was dogma.