catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
No, see, to be consistent you have to use the Eucharistic wine. You know--a blood sample.
Blood's better, sure, but P.Z. Myers already has a sizable stock of consecrated wafers he'd probably donate.
davefoc
Philosopher
I don't think I'm going to make the effort to document this but my opinion is that the "blood" of the shroud has been shown to not consist of blood. The recent posts in this thread might make a casual reader think the opposite, but the evidence is very strong that the "blood" is paint.
A few arguments on this from memory:'
1. Real blood stains don't look like images of people bleeding. Presumably a crucified individual would be covered in various body fluids including blood which would make for a pretty messy pattern of stains all over a cloth that was wrapped around them. If the corpse was cleaned off before the cloth was wrapped around it, then the crucified individual would be dead and presumably their heart wouldn't be beating to pump out more blood.
2. The standard tests for blood failed to find blood. Other chemical tests were done that allegedly found chemicals of blood but these chemical tests would also be positive for chemicals in the paint that McCrone argued was used for the "blood".
3. The trace element analysis failed to find some elements of blood. To be candid, I haven't followed the arguments and counter arguments here but just using the X-ray fluorescence results that I listed earlier in this thread calcium levels weren't elevated in the "blood" sample areas. More importantly I think, elevated levels of chlorine (from blood salt) weren't found.
4. There was DNA testing done on some threads alleged to be of the shroud, but finding DNA on the shroud is proof of nothing. Human DNA would be expected to exist on the shroud, There is no evidence it was related in any way to the "blood"
5. The Catholic encyclopedia shroud article makes a strong argument that even if the "blood" was blood it's not from the first century. At the time when the shroud is first known in the 14th century the colors were reported to be bright. If the "blood" dated from the first century why is it bright in the 14th century after 1400 years of alleged existence and faded to almost complete obscurity only 500 years later?
6. Blood turns black with age. This "blood" has remained red although it is greatly faded as it exists now.
7. McCrone argued that the nature of the iron particles he found was more typical of 14th century paint than blood. Again, speaking candidly I don't remember his arguments very well or what the counter arguments are.
And of course, all of this is moot if one is trying to prove that the Turin shroud is authentic. The existence of real blood, in the shroud's "blood" stains could easily have been placed there by a 14th century artist that used real blood. But the fact that the "blood" is actually paint is strong evidence that the shroud is a fake. Unfortunately, the "blood" issue like every other shroud issue has devolved into discussions pushed by people that are strongly invested in shroud authenticity and not by the pursuit of truth.
When my wife and I were dating, I helped with some of her field work. Got cut (the couch needed repaired, and I'm the one who found that out!) and a few drops of blood got onto a Pelican case holding some equipment. A few months later we had to use the same equipment, and I saw the blood stain again. When I saw it, I was struck by how brown and dull the blood had become. It had started out very red, but over a few months it changed color until it looked no different from any of the other dirt on the thing (I recognized it by shape). I've observed similar things when changing the dressing on various wounds (I tend to get cut relatively frequently...)--old blood doesn't look like blood.davefoc said:
Anything that still looks like blood after a year isn't blood. After a few thousand years it's DEFINITELY not blood.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
And not at that great an age, as my thumbnail can currently attest.
In high school I smashed a fingernail helping my grandmother put together a concrete fountain (put the top part on the bottom one, with the finger in between). It turned all KINDS of funny colors, especially after I helped some younger relatives color Easter eggs. Got some sympathy, though, which was nice. Particularly when it was from the hottest girl in the county...
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I've been scouting the internet myself for sources aboutthe blood claims and it will be interesting to compare notes.
Take after yourself, stomach viruses in the summer are no fun:
I've snipped your excellent post to the point that I thought needs underlining here- the Church accepts the dating of the TS.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
I should remember to apply the proper smiley I guess.
My point was simply that if there were any DNA that matched that of a holy cracker, or the holy wine then it is clear that there is a match, then the shroud must be the Jesus wrapper.
Just in case anyone wonders, I am pretty sure the shroud is just a hoax.
ETA: forgot the smilies.
Even if the dating is 1st century, there is blood, it is a dead body wrapper, it looks like everyone's image of what Jesus must have looked like, even if, all the above, you still need DNA to prove it was his blood.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
The Blood
- The following list of 20, are the CLAIMS I have made about the blood on the Shroud. #11 is especially important in that in order to paint the stains, the artist would have to paint the serum clot retraction rings -- that he couldn’t see without modern technology -- around all the wounds.
- Don't worry about the other claims for now, I just wanted to sort of put #11 "in context."
- We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud, and that it was not painted there.)
1. A team of Italian scientists and clergy studied the Shroud in 1973. Part of their scientific findings was that what appeared to be blood on the Shroud was not blood. That finding, however, was later challenged — and, that challenge was never answered.
2. Since that time, only one scientist who has actually studied the Shroud itself, or sticky tapes taken from the Shroud, (Walter McCrone), has agreed with the Italian finding.
3. That scientist’s discussions regarding the validity of that finding place his own credibility into doubt. And, since that time, that scientist has accrued several more strikes against his methods and objectivity.
4. The two involved scientists who have most studied the blood issue, have unequivocally concluded that what appears to be blood on the Shroud is in fact blood. Numerous other involved scientists since that time have agreed.
5. The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
6. The two main forensic pathologists (Frederick Zugibe and Robert Bucklin) that have studied the Shroud claim that the stains are real blood.
7. In recent years, The Skeptical Enquirer has paid two scientists to examine those tests and conclusions. For most of those tests, they were able to show how a chemical that COULD reasonably have been in the ‘blood stains’ COULD have produced false positive results for blood. Though, for two of the tests, they had no explanation.
8. Numerous articles claiming blood have been peer-reviewed; only one of the articles claiming otherwise has been thusly reviewed.
More specifically:
9. Arterial blood can be distinguished from venous blood and according to STURP, these distinctions are evident on the Shroud, and exist in the right places.
10. The different examples of blood flow have appropriate shapes.
11. All the wounds (150 or so), photographed, enlarged and studied under a microscope, show the slightly depressed centers, raised edges and serum characteristic of the “syneresis” occurring when blood clots form and then retract. This cannot be seen with the naked eye.
12. The scourge marks also show the unmistakable shape of the roman flagrum used in the first century.
13. There are indications of still bleeding wounds and whole blood on the shroud.
14. Apparently, the ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image.
15. There is a second image on the back of the cloth with no stain in-between, whereas the blood stains go through the cloth. The two images are extremely superficial.
16. The characteristics of the fire and water damage support a blood interpretation, rather than a paint interpretation.
17. The very red (versus brown) ancient blood stains make sense.
18. There are no brush strokes or directionality in the alleged blood stains.
19. The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud.
20. The iron oxide (appropriate for real blood) found on the Shroud is much too pure to be pigment from paint.
- From http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
“That these are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring (25) agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth (1,2,3). It is clear that we can explain the presence of the blood images on the cloth consistent with their alleged origin. Note that any attempt to explain the formation of the body images must take these properties of the blood images into account. One cannot simply say that the blood images were painted on afterwards. One would need a constant supply of fresh clot exudates from a traumatically wounded human to paint in all the forensically correct images in the proper nonstereo register and then finally paint a serum contraction ring about every wound. Logic suggests that this is not something a forger or artisan before the present century would not only know how to do, but even know that it was required.”
- 25)Miller and Pellicori, J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981).
- So far, I haven't been able to access this paper.
Pakeha,
- The following list of 20, are the CLAIMS I have made about the blood on the Shroud. #11 is especially important in that in order to paint the stains, the artist would have to paint the serum clot retraction rings -- that he couldn’t see without modern technology -- around all the wounds.
- Don't worry about the other claims for now, I just wanted to sort of put #11 "in context."
- We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud, and that it was not painted there.)
1. A team of Italian scientists and clergy studied the Shroud in 1973. Part of their scientific findings was that what appeared to be blood on the Shroud was not blood. That finding, however, was later challenged — and, that challenge was never answered.
2. Since that time, only one scientist who has actually studied the Shroud itself, or sticky tapes taken from the Shroud, (Walter McCrone), has agreed with the Italian finding.
3. That scientist’s discussions regarding the validity of that finding place his own credibility into doubt. And, since that time, that scientist has accrued several more strikes against his methods and objectivity.
4. The two involved scientists who have most studied the blood issue, have unequivocally concluded that what appears to be blood on the Shroud is in fact blood. Numerous other involved scientists since that time have agreed.
5. The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
6. The two main forensic pathologists (Frederick Zugibe and Robert Bucklin) that have studied the Shroud claim that the stains are real blood.
7. In recent years, The Skeptical Enquirer has paid two scientists to examine those tests and conclusions. For most of those tests, they were able to show how a chemical that COULD reasonably have been in the ‘blood stains’ COULD have produced false positive results for blood. Though, for two of the tests, they had no explanation.
8. Numerous articles claiming blood have been peer-reviewed; only one of the articles claiming otherwise has been thusly reviewed.
More specifically:
9. Arterial blood can be distinguished from venous blood and according to STURP, these distinctions are evident on the Shroud, and exist in the right places.
10. The different examples of blood flow have appropriate shapes.
11. All the wounds (150 or so), photographed, enlarged and studied under a microscope, show the slightly depressed centers, raised edges and serum characteristic of the “syneresis” occurring when blood clots form and then retract. This cannot be seen with the naked eye.
12. The scourge marks also show the unmistakable shape of the roman flagrum used in the first century.
13. There are indications of still bleeding wounds and whole blood on the shroud.
14. Apparently, the ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image.
15. There is a second image on the back of the cloth with no stain in-between, whereas the blood stains go through the cloth. The two images are extremely superficial.
16. The characteristics of the fire and water damage support a blood interpretation, rather than a paint interpretation.
17. The very red (versus brown) ancient blood stains make sense.
18. There are no brush strokes or directionality in the alleged blood stains.
19. The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud.
20. The iron oxide (appropriate for real blood) found on the Shroud is much too pure to be pigment from paint.
- From http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
“That these are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring (25) agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth (1,2,3). It is clear that we can explain the presence of the blood images on the cloth consistent with their alleged origin. Note that any attempt to explain the formation of the body images must take these properties of the blood images into account. One cannot simply say that the blood images were painted on afterwards. One would need a constant supply of fresh clot exudates from a traumatically wounded human to paint in all the forensically correct images in the proper nonstereo register and then finally paint a serum contraction ring about every wound. Logic suggests that this is not something a forger or artisan before the present century would not only know how to do, but even know that it was required.”
- 25)Miller and Pellicori, J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981).
- So far, I haven't been able to access this paper.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Let's assume that all of this is true. So what?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It demonstrates that as far as 14th century forgeries go, the shroud isn't too bad a job.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
The Blood
- The following is from http://shroud.com/zugibe2.htm.
Forgetting all of the other wounds, no one would argue that the scourge wounds were made and clotting begun several hours prior to death. Moreover, most forensic experts agree that the Man of the Shroud shows evidence of rigor mortis because of the bent knees and absence of a neck, therefore indicating that the crucified was dead for some time before being taken down from the cross. Thus, according to the studies of Lavoie's group, these perfectly defined wounds should not have transferred at all. Yet many of the scourge wounds on the Shroud of Turin are extremely distinct corresponding to dumbbell shaped wounds. Even if the clots from these wounds satisfied the time and moisture criteria postulated by Lavoie's group, the shape of the scourge wounds including the bloody areas around the wounds would be indistinct and extremely variable in size and shape depending on the depth of the wound, the angle of the wound, the amount of blood flow, the flow pattern and whether or not clothing was adherent to the wounds. Moreover, even if the dripping sweat of the crucified softened some of the dried blood in areas just outside these wounds, only indistinct and variable-shaped impressions would result. However, if the body was washed, the dried blood around the wounds would be removed causing an oozing of bloody material within the wounds resulting in the production of relatively good impressions of the wound. In order to test this hypothesis, pieces of linen and paper towels were gently touched (not pressed) against wounds from accident victims who lived for several hours following the accident. Relatively no impressions were made. This was repeated after the wounds were rinsed with water and allowed to soak on the wounds for several minutes. Only indistinct bloody impressions were made. The wounds were then washed and this procedure tried again. This resulted in reasonably good impressions of the wounds ( Fig. 1 ).
--- Jabba
Dave,
- The following is from http://shroud.com/zugibe2.htm.
Forgetting all of the other wounds, no one would argue that the scourge wounds were made and clotting begun several hours prior to death. Moreover, most forensic experts agree that the Man of the Shroud shows evidence of rigor mortis because of the bent knees and absence of a neck, therefore indicating that the crucified was dead for some time before being taken down from the cross. Thus, according to the studies of Lavoie's group, these perfectly defined wounds should not have transferred at all. Yet many of the scourge wounds on the Shroud of Turin are extremely distinct corresponding to dumbbell shaped wounds. Even if the clots from these wounds satisfied the time and moisture criteria postulated by Lavoie's group, the shape of the scourge wounds including the bloody areas around the wounds would be indistinct and extremely variable in size and shape depending on the depth of the wound, the angle of the wound, the amount of blood flow, the flow pattern and whether or not clothing was adherent to the wounds. Moreover, even if the dripping sweat of the crucified softened some of the dried blood in areas just outside these wounds, only indistinct and variable-shaped impressions would result. However, if the body was washed, the dried blood around the wounds would be removed causing an oozing of bloody material within the wounds resulting in the production of relatively good impressions of the wound. In order to test this hypothesis, pieces of linen and paper towels were gently touched (not pressed) against wounds from accident victims who lived for several hours following the accident. Relatively no impressions were made. This was repeated after the wounds were rinsed with water and allowed to soak on the wounds for several minutes. Only indistinct bloody impressions were made. The wounds were then washed and this procedure tried again. This resulted in reasonably good impressions of the wounds ( Fig. 1 ).
--- Jabba
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I will.
As seems to be the case with all investigations carried out by shroud believers this one starts with the conclusion that we're looking at genuine 'scourge wounds' and works backwards from there.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
The Blood
1) The blood was not painted on.
2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.
3) Then, if the Shroud is somehow a forgery, and was forged within the time frame indicated by the carbon dating, someone had to be deliberately crucified for a piece of art and by an artist that knew how to produce the imprint.
4) In other words -- surely, the carbon dating is wrong.
--- Jabba
Squeegee,
1) The blood was not painted on.
2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.
3) Then, if the Shroud is somehow a forgery, and was forged within the time frame indicated by the carbon dating, someone had to be deliberately crucified for a piece of art and by an artist that knew how to produce the imprint.
4) In other words -- surely, the carbon dating is wrong.
--- Jabba
You were asked for sources, not for a list of your own assertions. Ah, here's one! Thanks.
But wait, what's this?
So, it's back to square one, as they say.
#4 doesn't follow. We're talking the MIDDLE AGES here, Jabba--a time period that's infamous for its brutality. I mean yeah, they weren't curcifying people every day, but Christians other than Jesus have been crucified.
#4 is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Blood on the shroud--even blood matching the descriptions of Christ's wounds in the Bible--does not prove that the shroud is Jesus' burial cloth. All it proves is that someone recieved the wounds Christ is said to have recieved. And considering this is the most widely known torture ON THE PLANET, this is hardly an unlikely situation.
Question for you, Jabba: How were the nails put into the feet? Which direction, which general area of the foot, etc?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Maybe it's blood and maybe it got on the shroud other than by painting.
Anything more is simple assertion on your part.
Possibly, but those exist in the 21st century so this is hardly evidence for a 1st century origin for the shroud.
You have no way of knowing this.
Balderdash.
In other words, the wounds don't match up with the body image, therefore it is real.From Jabba's linked Adler paper in Post #2530 said:
In other words, we provide no controlled demonstration of this experiment and offer only one replica of a photo, which shows only that the wound's shape can be transferred if the attempt is made in the same manner an artist would attempt it, and does not show anything at all about the transfer of serum, the latter being key to the entire argument; therefore, the shroud is authentic.From Jabba's quoted text in Post #2534 said:
- Status