Religion

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)

68. Sorry, but I provided no such thing

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 05:55 PM

Jul 2013

It has been explained to you how a protein-based medium was used to produce the image. And if you had bothered to read even superficially about the things you ignorantly criticize, you would know that McCrone identified particles of vermillion pigment on the shroud, not traces of elemental mercury. And btw, dry-process vermillion (you have no idea what that is either, do you?) is not "extracted" from cinnabar, it is produced by grinding the mineral (which is mercuric sulfide) to a fine powder.

So no, it is not simply the presence of mercury that we're talking about, it is actual pigment particles, so there is no connection whatsoever to early photo processes.

Even on something so simple and basic, you are out of your depth, okasha. You keep repeating the same talking points over and over, as if they weren't completely at odds with the facts, and tossing in ad homs at every opportunity. As noted, tactics just like a creationist.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Shroud of Turin [View all] refrescanos Jul 2013 OP

They HAVE to lie about it Politicalboi Jul 2013 #1

Who is "they?" okasha Jul 2013 #11

Just a guess... Lordquinton Jul 2013 #14

Do not have cable but I keep hearing how "The History Channel " is rewriting history lunasun Jul 2013 #58

Science in the hands of religionists defacto7 Jul 2013 #2

It's a painting skepticscott Jul 2013 #3

Yes, exactly right. JNelson6563 Jul 2013 #4

I don't know what it is but there's no paint on it. rug Jul 2013 #6

It's anatomically incorrect muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #7

And the head is 5% disproportionate. rug Jul 2013 #8

Rug is correct that it's not painted. okasha Jul 2013 #13

Rug is wrong, as usual skepticscott Jul 2013 #16

Not to say you're wrong again, scottie, but the term here would be brunaille, not grisaille. rug Jul 2013 #17

Do some real research, ruggie skepticscott Jul 2013 #22

Lol, lovely talking to you again, as always. rug Jul 2013 #29

In other words, you have nothing but blather skepticscott Jul 2013 #41

The only time I'm surrounded by blather is when you go off on one of your usual tangents. rug Jul 2013 #51

Paint.... schmaint AlbertCat Jul 2013 #27

You know, if you would clear your mind of preconceived notions every so often, you'll do better. rug Jul 2013 #30

Yes, more idiots trying to be relevant skepticscott Jul 2013 #42

He's down to sputtering and name-calling. okasha Jul 2013 #46

Why so adamant? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #49

I' glad to see you approach the study of unusual phenomena with an open mind. rug Jul 2013 #50

I' glad to see you approach the study of unusual phenomena with an open mind. AlbertCat Jul 2013 #65

I agree WolverineDG Jul 2013 #28

It is a remarkable artifact. okasha Jul 2013 #35

Poor okasha skepticscott Jul 2013 #44

While what you describe edhopper Jul 2013 #66

Actually, your excitable friend okasha Jul 2013 #67

Sorry, but I provided no such thing skepticscott Jul 2013 #68

The problem isn't missing works edhopper Jul 2013 #70

In all likelihood, she knows better skepticscott Jul 2013 #71

What's questionable, ed? okasha Jul 2013 #74

You really think edhopper Jul 2013 #75

No, I was not referring okasha Jul 2013 #76

Follow up. okasha Jul 2013 #79

There is zero evidence for photographic processes before the 19th century. Warren Stupidity Jul 2013 #80

Before I go further edhopper Jul 2013 #9

Not yet. But I'm pretty sure there's no paint on it. rug Jul 2013 #12

Discredited? Hardly skepticscott Jul 2013 #15

Discredited, totally. rug Jul 2013 #18

Just for starters, okasha Jul 2013 #19

McCrone received skepticscott Jul 2013 #24

Belief is stronger edhopper Jul 2013 #25

Belief in what, ed? okasha Jul 2013 #36

it's not a painting edhopper Jul 2013 #38

Good. We agree that it's not a painting. okasha Jul 2013 #45

He did it back in the 80s edhopper Jul 2013 #47

Assuming the picture on the cover of his book okasha Jul 2013 #60

Of course you ignore the fact skepticscott Jul 2013 #61

Let me check your list, scottie . . . . rug Jul 2013 #39

And of course you can back this up with facts skepticscott Jul 2013 #23

That book is to chemistry what Dan Brown is to history. rug Jul 2013 #31

More ignorant, hand-waving dismissal skepticscott Jul 2013 #40

Yes, a link to a chemical journal is a hand-waving dismisal. rug Jul 2013 #52

Since you haven't read McCrone's book skepticscott Jul 2013 #63

Lol! "wouldn't have understood it if you did" rug Jul 2013 #64

I went to Turin back in the 70's to see this thing... damyank913 Jul 2013 #5

I never believed it had anything to do with Jesus. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #10

I prefer the Spear of Destiny, a far more legitimate relic: dimbear Jul 2013 #20

We could of course build an ark... uriel1972 Jul 2013 #21

Good evidence that religion is a scam... MellowDem Jul 2013 #26

Lol, lol, lol. rug Jul 2013 #32

I want to get something straight edhopper Jul 2013 #33

I do believe you're reasonably literate, ed. okasha Jul 2013 #34

i am not clear edhopper Jul 2013 #37

The simple, straightforward answer is no. okasha Jul 2013 #43

OK, so you don't think it's a painting. trotsky Jul 2013 #48

See my post 35 okasha Jul 2013 #53

Unfortunately that is not visible to me due to the way DU's ignore feature works. trotsky Jul 2013 #55

Yes, but can't do it till back to regular okasha Jul 2013 #56

That short version will do just fine, thanks. trotsky Jul 2013 #57

My whole dispute with the person okasha Jul 2013 #59

Your reasons were uninformed skepticscott Jul 2013 #62

I saw a show on that Marrah_G Jul 2013 #69

Very. okasha Jul 2013 #72

I'd love it! Marrah_G Jul 2013 #73

The person who made the photograph okasha Jul 2013 #78

thank you :) Marrah_G Jul 2013 #81

This. Lint Head Jul 2013 #54

The history channel is so full of lies it ought rurallib Jul 2013 #77