Citat:
Fråga till AI: "is there a consensus among shroud of turin researchers that McCrones theories are wrong?"Svar:
The fairest answer is: McCrone’s specific “painted in red ochre and vermilion tempera” explanation is rejected by most researchers who specialize in the Shroud—but there is no formal, field-wide consensus declaring all his conclusions wrong.
McCrone made several distinct claims:
Iron-oxide particles form the body image.
A collagen/gelatin binder was used.
Vermilion pigment produced the blood areas.
No real blood is present.
Therefore, the Shroud is a medieval painting.
STURP’s published synthesis reached the opposite material conclusion: the body image results from chemical alteration of the linen’s cellulose, rather than an applied pigment. It also concluded that the reddish areas contained blood-related material. Schwalbe and Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta
Heller and Adler independently reported blood indicators using chemical and spectroscopic tests, directly contradicting McCrone’s “no blood” conclusion. Heller and Adler, Applied Optics
The important distinction is that researchers generally do not deny finding iron oxide or occasional pigment particles. They dispute McCrone’s inference that those particles constitute the image itself. Such particles could come from flax processing, environmental dust, historical handling, painted copies, or devotional contact. McCrone and his institute continue to defend his interpretation and provide his publications and evidence, so his position has not disappeared. McCrone Research Institute
Thus:
Among Shroud specialists, especially STURP-associated and authenticity-oriented researchers: there is a strong practical consensus against McCrone’s complete paint theory.
McCrone made several distinct claims:
Iron-oxide particles form the body image.
A collagen/gelatin binder was used.
Vermilion pigment produced the blood areas.
No real blood is present.
Therefore, the Shroud is a medieval painting.
STURP’s published synthesis reached the opposite material conclusion: the body image results from chemical alteration of the linen’s cellulose, rather than an applied pigment. It also concluded that the reddish areas contained blood-related material. Schwalbe and Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta
Heller and Adler independently reported blood indicators using chemical and spectroscopic tests, directly contradicting McCrone’s “no blood” conclusion. Heller and Adler, Applied Optics
The important distinction is that researchers generally do not deny finding iron oxide or occasional pigment particles. They dispute McCrone’s inference that those particles constitute the image itself. Such particles could come from flax processing, environmental dust, historical handling, painted copies, or devotional contact. McCrone and his institute continue to defend his interpretation and provide his publications and evidence, so his position has not disappeared. McCrone Research Institute
Thus:
Among Shroud specialists, especially STURP-associated and authenticity-oriented researchers: there is a strong practical consensus against McCrone’s complete paint theory.
Följdfråga: "what about his theory that the blood is paint?"
Svar:
McCrone’s claim that the apparent bloodstains are merely paint is rejected more decisively than his broader theory about the body image.
McCrone argued that the stains consisted primarily of red ochre and vermilion in a collagen binder, with no actual blood. But Heller and Adler reported several independent indicators of blood-derived material:
heme converted to porphyrin;
characteristic spectroscopic absorption;
proteins including albumin;
bile pigments;
serum-like boundaries visible under ultraviolet light.
Their peer-reviewed paper concluded that blood was present in the sampled “blood” areas. Heller and Adler, Applied Optics
More recent forensic discussion likewise accepts that components consistent with authentic blood—such as hemoglobin, albumin and bilirubin—were detected, while warning that the old tests cannot reliably prove the blood is human, male or type AB. Kearse, Forensic Science International: Reports
The likely explanation for McCrone’s pigment observations is that some pigment particles really are present, but their quantity and distribution are inadequate to account for the stains as a whole. They could represent contamination from historical paintings, handling or later artistic enhancement. One study has even proposed genuine blood with a small amount of added pigment—but not blood areas made purely from paint. Fanti et al., Journal of Cultural Heritage
So the most evidence-based conclusion is:
The reddish areas contain genuine blood-derived material and are not simply painted vermilion and ochre. McCrone’s categorical “no blood, only paint” conclusion is probably wrong. What has not been established is whose blood it was, whether it was human rather than another primate, or when it was placed on the cloth.
McCrone argued that the stains consisted primarily of red ochre and vermilion in a collagen binder, with no actual blood. But Heller and Adler reported several independent indicators of blood-derived material:
heme converted to porphyrin;
characteristic spectroscopic absorption;
proteins including albumin;
bile pigments;
serum-like boundaries visible under ultraviolet light.
Their peer-reviewed paper concluded that blood was present in the sampled “blood” areas. Heller and Adler, Applied Optics
More recent forensic discussion likewise accepts that components consistent with authentic blood—such as hemoglobin, albumin and bilirubin—were detected, while warning that the old tests cannot reliably prove the blood is human, male or type AB. Kearse, Forensic Science International: Reports
The likely explanation for McCrone’s pigment observations is that some pigment particles really are present, but their quantity and distribution are inadequate to account for the stains as a whole. They could represent contamination from historical paintings, handling or later artistic enhancement. One study has even proposed genuine blood with a small amount of added pigment—but not blood areas made purely from paint. Fanti et al., Journal of Cultural Heritage
So the most evidence-based conclusion is:
The reddish areas contain genuine blood-derived material and are not simply painted vermilion and ochre. McCrone’s categorical “no blood, only paint” conclusion is probably wrong. What has not been established is whose blood it was, whether it was human rather than another primate, or when it was placed on the cloth.
__________________
Senast redigerad av bakelsernassmak 2026-09-07 kl. 00:49.
Senast redigerad av bakelsernassmak 2026-09-07 kl. 00:49.
