Proof that art experts are not always right
Dramatic Irony Award In Blogging:
It should go without saying that scientists aren’t always right. Neither are art experts. In 1978, chemist Walter C. McCrone, a leading expert on art forgeries McCrone performed radiocarbon tests on the shroud and concluded that the burial cloth wasn’t old enough to be the real thing. But other scientists disagreed. Raymond Rogers, Science Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, dated the shroud to the 1st century, saying that the material that McCrone carbon dated was not the original fabric, but rather a part of the shroud that had been rewoven after a fire in the Middle Ages.
Of course, Walter McCrone never “performed radiocarbon tests on the shroud.” Nor did Rogers date the shroud to the 1st century. So it turns out, neither are art experts always write while righting blogs posts about writing wrongs.
Pictured, Walter McCrone looking right.
Shroud of Turin
Related
INTRODUCTION: Examine the Shroud of Turin interactively
15 Minute Video: Russ Breault explains his take on the Shroud of Turin.
TEDx Talk: Barrie Schwortz, an Orthodox Jew, educating Christians about the Turin Shroud.
Stats for This Blog
- 3,709,014 views
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
Recent Comments
- Dan on Thank You, Everyone
- daveb of wellington nz on Thank You, Everyone
- Louis on Thank You, Everyone
- Damian Ruhomwa on The Definitive Word on 3D from OK?
- Colin Berry on Thank You, Everyone
- daveb of wellington nz on Thank You, Everyone
- Dan on Watertight Evidence
- Dan on Thank You, Everyone
- Louis on Thank You, Everyone
- Colin Berry on Thank You, Everyone
Recent Posts
- Thank You, Everyone
- Watertight Evidence
- Allusions
- Important New Paper on the Carbon Dating Samples
- Jesus, the XX Male
- David Rolfe’s Website
- SSG Member Wants to Know
- Why Didn’t I Think of That
- ‘Tis the Season: An Unusual Way to Sell Shroud-Based Art Of A Sort
- That Book That Keeps on Giving
- Where to Get Shroud-Based Art for Christmas
- New Presentation by Russ Breault
- Searching for Papers
- The Blood is Red Because
- A Must Read Regarding the Othon de la Roche Hypothesis
Paper: Banding on the Shroud of Turin, by Hugh Farey (DISCUSS)
Paper: The Scorch Hypothesis: New Experiments, by Thibault Heimburger (DISCUSS)
Paper: DNA Analysis and the Shroud of Turin: Development of a Shroud CODIS, by Kelly P. Kearse
ROGERS’ MAILLARD REACTION HYPOTHESIS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL BY ROGERS HIMSELF by Thibault Heimburger
THE TURIN SHROUD BODY IMAGE: THE SCORCH HYPOTHESIS REVISITED by Thibault Heimburger
Categories
- 2010
- 2015
- 3D
- Akiane Kramarik
- Archaeology
- Art
- Article
- Biblical Evidence
- Books
- Challenge
- Comments Promoted
- Conference
- Conspiracy Theory
- Critical Summary
- Crowdfunding
- Event
- Exhibition
- Flagrum
- Guest Posting
- Hacking
- Heaven is for Real
- History
- How do we know
- Humor
- Kelly Kearse
- Lectures
- Movie
- News & Views
- Obituary
- Off Topic
- Paper Chase
- Pareidolia
- People
- Presentation
- Press Coverage
- Quotations
- Radio and Podcasts
- Reader Inquiry
- Science
- Science and Religion
- Shroud Marketplace
- St Louis 2014
- Sudarium
- Teaser of the Day
- Television
- Theology
- Tinfoil Hats
- Tools
- Topic for Today
- Tweet
- Uncategorized
- Video
- Wikipedia Content
Keepers
Blogroll
Archives
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
She can be forgiven for linking McCrone to the C-14 tests, he did call for the tests to be done. But as an art critic, the most important part of the article is the last half. She skillfully counters McCrone’s attribution of two paintings now in Florida, one to DaVinci and the other to Raphael. She challenges his assessment based on her intricate knowledge of both artist’s style and technique. She is not the only one to question McCrone’s judgement in the realm of art. This is important because in the world of chemistry he carries high credentials yet where he inserted himself into art authentication, many seriously question his methodology and expertise. This article is just one example.
I think Russ is quite right. Walter McCrone was a skilled microscopist, and his microscopical observations should be taken seriously, even if he is later proved mistaken. If his attributions of the disputed paintings were based on particle analysis, then they mean something, even if the style of the paintings is untypical. I think Joan Altabe misrepresents what McCrone deduced about the paintings he was given to study (and incidentally, the gist of this article first appeared in the Sarasota Herald Tribune of 12 Feb 2001, so it must be a slow news week). The reader is directed to the Sarasota Herald Tribune of 24 October 1992, where a more balanced article may be found. They can also try http://www.deringconsultants.com/portfolio/leonardos-christ-among-doctors/ which considers McCrone’s findings correct – although the site is the owner’s, so not necessarily balanced.
Altabe does not give the title of the disputed Raphael, so it is difficult to research, but a similar dispute also arose about The Three Ages of Man by (perhaps) Giorgione, which is easier to find. Try https://archive.org/stream/stormypetrel199369113ogle/stormypetrel199369113ogle_djvu.txt
There is no doubt that Walter McCrone was his own worst enemy in his field. He was often overconfident and abrasive, and excited strong feelings, both favourable and unfavourable, depending on whether he supported a view or not. None of this should overwhelm his genuine, detailed, accurate, microscopy, which must be taken on its own merits, even if the conclusions one draws from it are not the same as his.
Is this a shocking revelation? Forgive my incredulity, but scientists are merely human.
“Of course, Walter McCrone never “performed radiocarbon tests on the shroud.” Nor did Rogers date the shroud to the 1st century. So it turns out, neither are art experts always write while righting blogs posts about writing wrongs”.
Guilds archive strongly differs from that conclusion. At first, what was believed C14 tested was the The Sudarium of Oviedo in Mons. Ricci’s possession during the infamous journey with McCrone to Dr. Raes. However, Further archives concluded that in fact in all probability, McCrone was successful obtaining The Shrouds threads and tested it in Germany.
Either case, it’s hear say. But on the other hand, no one here can definitely claim that McCrone didn’t conduct a C14 test.
May be…
Then, perhaps, Art experts are not always right
(but this can be a worrying idea…).
But …
Here a simple question:
Has Mc Crone never worked for such an
institution as the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York?
At least, we have to see what Marco Leona
director of scientific research of
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
(and … do you remember the past message
about SERS?) can do with non-destructive
and microanalytical techniques…
Here the past international conference,
the meeting: “TECHNART 2015”
(Catania, April 27 – 30, 2015)
= Non-destructive and microanalytical techniques in art and cultural heritage
>The aim of TECHNART 2015 is to provide a scientific
forum to present and promote the use of analytical
spectroscopy techniques in the field of cultural heritage.
>The conference builds on the momentum of
TECHNART 2013 offering an outstanding and
unique opportunity for exchanging knowledge
on leading edge developments.
>Cultural heritage studies are interpreted in
a broad sense, including pigments, stones,
metals, glass, ceramics, chemometrics on
artwork studies, resins, fibers, forensic applications
in art history, archaeology and conservation science.
Conference topics:
>X-ray microanalysis (XRF, PIXE, XRD, SEM-EDX)
>Confocal X-ray microscopy (3D Micro-XRF, 3D Micro-PIXE)
>Synchrotron, ion beam and neutron based techniques/instrumentation
>FT-IR and Raman microscopy
>UV-Vis and NIR absorption/reflectance and fluorescence
>Laser-based analytical techniques
>Magnetic resonance techniques
>Chromatography (GC, HPLC) and mass spectrometry
>Optical imaging and coherence techniques
>Mobile spectrometry and remote sensing
Link:
https://www.prospecthere.com/event/technart-2015
…Unfortunately no mention of the SERS technique!
Only a generic “Raman microscopy”…