Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

Iknow! From the Holy prepuce!!!!

Which one?

It has been dealt with. It's a fake.

Yup. Even most of the members of STURP (the pro-authenticity group) didn't accept there was evidence of blood.
Anyway this blood nonsense has been covered in the previous Jabba/shroud thread.

Summary of McCrone's examination, more details in his book Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud (well worth reading; detailed and through). In brief artists's pigments were found on the cloth, blood residue was not.
His (peer reviewed) article 'The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's Pigment?' (note: large PDF), was published in Accounts of Chemical Research in 1990.
He also published four other peer-reviewed papers on his examinations of the shroud; they are uniformly dismissive of it's authenticity.
McCrone also carried out one of the first attempts to recreate the shroud using techniques of ~1350. Which Jabba repeatedly denies ever happened.


Now, to preempt Jabba and prevent more time being wasted, here are the usual shroudie claims regarding blood and the reality,

“By spectroscopic and chemical tests (conversion of heme to a porphyrin), we have identified the presence of blood in the alleged blood areas of the Shroud of Turin.” (John Heller and Alan Adler, 1980, p. 2742)

Reality: Untrue. Even Heller and Adler accept that their test in this paper was inconclusive, since all they did was prove the presence of a porphyrin, of which there are many in nature, including plants. In a second paper, they were deceived by false positive reactions to the presence of iron and protein in the alleged blood pigment and binder. Walter McCrone’s specific tests for blood were all negative, as were the tests of earlier unbiased Italian investigators. All these facts have been pointed out to shroudies and are usually ignored or handwaved.

“The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.” (STURP Summary)

Readlity. Not even remotely true. There is no hemoglobin, serum albumin, or blood of any kind on the Shroud. The supposed blood is composed mainly of vermilion and red ochre pigments. The proteins and albumin detected by STURP are from boiled parchment and possibly egg used as binder in the tempera pigment.


Summary: apologies for the formatting but I feel this needs to be emphasised.
All competent, properly-conducted microanalytical tests for blood or hemoglobin on the Shroud have been negative.

[Thanks to Steven Schafersman for his excellent work in collecting and collating information on the shroud.]

 

[Aepervius]

- In this thread, I will try to show that the preponderance of evidence greatly favors the existence of appropriate blood (on the Shroud of Turin), and in the right places.
- I do this for three reasons. I think that,
1) Actually effective debate requires a constant narrowing of focus – otherwise, we just go in circles. If we start out with a sub-sub-issue within the larger Issue of the Shroud’s authenticity, we won’t need as much narrowing.
2) Showing such preponderance of evidence for appropriate blood on the Shroud, and in the right places, would be a big step towards showing that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity.
3) Showing that, and spreading the word, would be quite useful.
--- Jabba

It could be drenched in blood , gore, organs, and bit of bones. It would not change a bit that the rest, the "man" figure , is a piece of art initially done as a fake relic, a veritable industry throughout the middle age, and known for a fake by the competent authority of the epoch.

BTW, You don't understand that presence of blood don't demonstrate the blood is 2000 year old right ? The blood (if ever demonstrated there is any, which up to now was not really done) could have come in any time, especially knowing the tumultuous history of that piece of cloth. Like for example when the nun tried to rescue it from some fire, could have cut themselves. Et voila 16th century blood. Or somebody in 19th century not even noted in history. Like a cleaning man/woman.

Ha, anyway why I am not surprised that in the many weeks you have been now, the shround debate has not advanced from a step from the point it was BEFORE you came to this forum. No new data. Same old rethoric on woo side.

 

[pakeha]

@catesmate1-Bookmarked for reference. Thanks!
"The proteins and albumin detected by STURP are from boiled parchment and possibly egg used as binder in the tempera pigment."

Possibly, indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera

 

[Aepervius]

Guys! Everybody! World! I have evidence of a pink-and-purple dragon who lives in my garage.

Be sure to debate at length irrelevantr detail, like for example if that dark brown stain is blood from the dragon, or rust, or even old oil.

 

[Lowpro]

<Made me sad to snip for brevity, because it's so damned awesome>

Summary: apologies for the formatting but I feel this needs to be emphasised.
All competent, properly-conducted microanalytical tests for blood or hemoglobin on the Shroud have been negative.

[Thanks to Steven Schafersman for his excellent work in collecting and collating information on the shroud.]

 

[Ladewig]

The entire thing's a laugh, but the specific part I linked to before is at 35:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRK_sVokZxM.) The fact that you even entertained taking that idea seriously made me ...

Yikes!

That is a fascinating and bizarre approach. When skeptics point out that if the fabric draped over the body, then the image could not look like the one on the Shroud, the believers respond "yes, that's right. Only God could have held the burial shroud absolutely taught without actually touching the Body.

I'm speechless.

 

[dafydd]

Iknow! From the Holy prepuce!!!!

http://theholyprepuce.tumblr.com/post/7489780082/the-rings-of-saturn-are-the-holy-foreskin-of

 

[Olowkow]

..... If it is blood, why would it be from Jesus? Where are you going to get a specimen of his DNA?

No problem. Just abscond with some transubstantiated Mogen David from a Catholic communion.

 

[autumn1971]

What the hell is "appropriate" blood? Are you going to prove it's the blood of Jesus?

Well, it's cells would be haploid, of course.

Or at least it would need to have a female karotype, being from a cloned female.

 

[kerikiwi]

- As I get a chance, I'll roll out those excuses here.

So, you have an excuse for not rolling out excuses. There's just no time.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Is there anything to show it wasn't draped over a dead body in the 14th century?

It wasn't draped over any dead bodies, there's no side-marks. Of any part of the body, not even the nose.

 

[Montag451]

If you are going to paint a european image of the crucifixion on a piece of cloth of course you are going to show blood in the expected places, wouldn't look right without it. Probably even us blood for the look!

So having a shroud that looks like people expect it to look from art and literature is somehow proof that it isn't fake?

I wouldn't be in any way surprised that there might be blood on the shroud, but it proves nothing. Until you prove it is 2000 years old, and the blood is from someone called Jesus and he was the son of god then you have nothing but guesses and belief.

 

[Tricky]

But it's not going to still be there visibly as blood 2000 years later

Not unless it's magic blood. Type OMG Positive!

 

[AdMan]

Not unless it's magic blood. Type OMG Positive!

 

[tsig]

- First of all, tell me why you guys think that the members of STURP, as well as other scientists, presenting (what they call, at least) evidence and arguments for Shroud authenticity, are all a bunch of religious bigots. Give me citations and numbers.
--- Jabba

Because they deny the validity of the carbon 14 data.

 

[Giordano]

- Not to worry, I'll get around to it.

- Appropriate blood means human blood, but it also means blood exudate, serum contraction rings, chemistry of a severe beating, and probably more.
- When you see how appropriate the blood is, you'll see that it couldn't have been painted on the Shroud.
- And, the only hands on scientist except the carbon dating team to discount authenticity was Walter McCrone, who also insisted that there was no blood on the Shroud and the Shroud was a painting.
- There is more.

- I will slowly roll out the evidence for those claims.
- Guys coming from my other thread won't believe that I'll ever roll out the evidence, but I have lots of "excuses" for being so slow over there. As I get a chance, I'll roll out those excuses here.

--- Jabba

Perhaps you have a marvelous proof of this, but it is too large to fit the margin of the page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_Last_Theorem

Believe me, you are not building suspense- just disbelief...

 

[Kid Eager]

yet another thread saying that evidence will come along - but of course it doesn't.

At the risk of repeating myself, even *IF* there was blood on the cloth, all it establishes is that there is blood on the cloth. You first have to pass the hurdle of demonstrating that there *IS* blood.

Next, you need to reconcile the mismatch between the image on the cloth and the actual image that would result, were it the facial imprint of a burial cloth - the two are not alike. Ergo, it is impossible that the cloth be a burial cloth imprint.

Then, you need to jump the double hurdle of historical provenance and C14 dating both putting the appearance of the cloth in the 14th century.

Your time starts now....

 

[Marduk]

why would it be from Jesus? Where are you going to get a specimen of his DNA?

from the Vienna Lance ????

 

[autumn1971]

Ya know, I've heard that executed men frequently ejaculate. Gimme an hour with the shroud and a laptop with a wifi connection, and I can prove that there's semen on the shroud.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

A little brief searching showed me lots of canvases with blood on them. Here's one representative site, with some suprisingly well done and less-gory-than-I-expected pieces.

http://www.kommiekomiks.com/blood-intro.htm

Does the presence of blood on these canvases make them supernatural?