Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

David,

-Here's the paragraph you were looking for.
We, therefore, peeled back the sticky tape from the glass slide and exposed the Shroud fibrils to, first, hydrazine vapor and then formic acid vapor. Irradiation with longwave UV then showed several red fluorescent spots indicative of the presence of a porphyrin species on the Shroud fibrils. We employed the vapor method as we had hoped to take a microspectrum of the con*verted material to establish that it was specifically protoporphyrin IX. Unfortunately, the sticky tape was severely etched by the formic acid treatment and be*came optically intractable. Thus we were unable to provide this absolute final confirmation of the identity of the blood area material.

Sloppy science, no proper planning of the testing. All this shows is the presence of a porphyrin which could (and probably is) from plant material such as chlorophyll, not evidence of blood.

 

[Dinwar]

Sloppy science, no proper planning of the testing. All this shows is the presence of a porphyrin which could (and probably is) from plant material such as chlorophyll, not evidence of blood.

With as sloppy as the protocol was, how do we know it wasn't from the sticky tape?

 

[Garrette]

David,

-Here's the paragraph you were looking for.
We, therefore, peeled back the sticky tape from the glass slide and exposed the Shroud fibrils to, first, hydrazine vapor and then formic acid vapor. Irradiation with longwave UV then showed several red fluorescent spots indicative of the presence of a porphyrin species on the Shroud fibrils. We employed the vapor method as we had hoped to take a microspectrum of the con*verted material to establish that it was specifically protoporphyrin IX. Unfortunately, the sticky tape was severely etched by the formic acid treatment and be*came optically intractable. Thus we were unable to provide this absolute final confirmation of the identity of the blood area material.


--- Jabba

I wanted to emphasize the highlighted part (highlighting is mine). Note the ease with which the deception is inserted into that wording, "absolute final confirmation," as if anything up to that point was confirmation of any kind. It isn't, at least not in regard to the presence of blood. As has been repeatedly pointed out, even if porphyrin is present, it need not have blood as its source, or even as its most likely source.

But the researchers want to make it sound as if the tests make it 99% certain there is blood though they have done nothing of the sort.

This, Jabba, is exactly the kind of deception in which the Sindonologists engage, and explains -- at least on my part -- the occasional lack of patience shown in dealing with them.

Skeptics are sometimes blunt to the point of rudeness, but Sindonologists are liars to the point of false civility. I have long ago decided which is more honest and honorable.

 

[catsmate]

With as sloppy as the protocol was, how do we know it wasn't from the sticky tape?

Good point, did they do any control testing?

I wanted to emphasize the highlighted part (highlighting is mine). Note the ease with which the deception is inserted into that wording, "absolute final confirmation," as if anything up to that point was confirmation of any kind. It isn't, at least not in regard to the presence of blood. As has been repeatedly pointed out, even if porphyrin is present, it need not have blood as its source, or even as its most likely source.

But the researchers want to make it sound as if the tests make it 99% certain there is blood though they have done nothing of the sort.

This, Jabba, is exactly the kind of deception in which the Sindonologists engage, and explains -- at least on my part -- the occasional lack of patience shown in dealing with them.

Skeptics are sometimes blunt to the point of rudeness, but Sindonologists are liars to the point of false civility. I have long ago decided which is more honest and honorable.

Exactly. There are other, more plausible explanations, for the presence of a porphyrin, such as chlorophyll.

 

[abaddon]

Good point, did they do any control testing?


Exactly. There are other, more plausible explanations, for the presence of a porphyrin, such as chlorophyll.

Thus we were unable to provide this absolute final confirmation of the identity of the blood area material.

I don't like the implied assumption that there even is a "blood area".

 

[Slowvehicle]

Welp:

I have a .PDF of the Bucklin article, thanks to a sympathetic librarian who was willing to originate a bit of mild chicanery. If anyone wants a copy, PM me with an e-mail address and I will send it to you.

Turning to the article, surprise! It is completely credulous, thin on research and sources, fat with stated conclusions.

From p. 33: "Prior to 1978, nearly all studies of the Shroud of Turin were based on photographs...As a result of those studies, there has been general agreement among medical investigators that there are blood deposits on the cloth." There is no citation for the "general agreement, nor are the "medical investigators" identified. From that point on, any mark in question is assumed to be, and referred to as, "blood".

From p. 33: "It is quite obvious that there is no relationship of the body imprint and the bloodstains". No citation, ans the author never deals with the implication that the "bloodstains" are, therefore, not from the "body image".

From p. 33: "There is a distinct difference in the color of the body image and the stains representing blood deposits, with a definite carmine-red color in the latter". Dr. Bucklin does not address the fact that blood does not dry to a carmine-red, which is an odd thing for a "pathologist" to gloss over.

Dr. Bucklin's discussion of the "wounds" is superficial and credulous. He purports to demonstrate that the 'wounds" are consistent with crucifiction, even explaining the missing thumb images as the result of typical damage to the median nerve (p. 37).

At no point does Dr. Bucklin address the stylized and unrealistic blood flow patterns, or the fact that the purported "blood flows" which he holds as demonstrating several positions in which the body was held "during the bleeding phase" (p. 37), are supposed to be post-mortem, and that the body would have been washed before burial.

Dr. Bucklin also does not address the issue that the cloth shows no evidence of being "wrapped" around anything.

I found it of particular interest that Dr. Bucklin is able to identify an "area of discoloration" on the nose of the image, "consistent with a bruise" (p. 38).

Also on p. 38 is the description of, and explanation for, a "blood-and-water" stain on the ribcage of the image. Dr, Bucklin concludes that the stain is an indication that the body in the image suffered from congestive heart failure during crucifixion.

The summary, (p.39) is worth quoting:
"This has been an analysis of the medically significant imprints on the Shroud of Turin by a forensic pathologist with suggestions as to theri probable cause. It is a scientific and objective presentation with no direct attempt at correlation between the Shroud imprints and the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion of Christ. However, the author cannot help but comment that a remarkable consistency between the Gospel accounts and the forensic pathologic findings depicted in the Shroud of Turin."

For another take on Bucklin's approac the the cloth, see "An Autopsy of the Man of the Shroud", http://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm

Let me know if you want a copy of the .PDF.

 

[pakeha]

^
Of course I'd love a copy of the PDF, but I'll settle for the opinions of other posters.
" Dr. Bucklin is able to identify an "area of discoloration" on the nose of the image, "consistent with a bruise" (p. 38)."

Not even House could diagnose so convincingly.

 

[catsmate]

I don't like the implied assumption that there even is a "blood area".

Good point, I suppose we should refer to it was the "alleged blood area" in future.

I have a .PDF of the Bucklin article, thanks to a sympathetic librarian who was willing to originate a bit of mild chicanery. If anyone wants a copy, PM me with an e-mail address and I will send it to you.

Thank you, I will do so.

Turning to the article, surprise! It is completely credulous, thin on research and sources, fat with stated conclusions.

Colour me unsurprised.

From p. 33: "Prior to 1978, nearly all studies of the Shroud of Turin were based on photographs...As a result of those studies, there has been general agreement among medical investigators that there are blood deposits on the cloth." There is no citation for the "general agreement, nor are the "medical investigators" identified. From that point on, any mark in question is assumed to be, and referred to as, "blood".

Jabba's used this trick also, referring to "pathologists" without naming names or giving citations.

From p. 33: "It is quite obvious that there is no relationship of the body imprint and the bloodstains". No citation, ans the author never deals with the implication that the "bloodstains" are, therefore, not from the "body image".

Well that admission is interesting, even if Bucklin ignores who it utterly discredits his theory.

From p. 33: "There is a distinct difference in the color of the body image and the stains representing blood deposits, with a definite carmine-red color in the latter". Dr. Bucklin does not address the fact that blood does not dry to a carmine-red, which is an odd thing for a "pathologist" to gloss over.

Hmm, slight bias on his part?

<snip>At no point does Dr. Bucklin address the stylized and unrealistic blood flow patterns, or the fact that the purported "blood flows" which he holds as demonstrating several positions in which the body was held "during the bleeding phase" (p. 37), are supposed to be post-mortem, and that the body would have been washed before burial.

A major omission on his part.

Dr. Bucklin also does not address the issue that the cloth shows no evidence of being "wrapped" around anything.

Another huge problem for the shroud's supposed origin.

I found it of particular interest that Dr. Bucklin is able to identify an "area of discoloration" on the nose of the image, "consistent with a bruise" (p. 38).

That's like the woman who claimed to see the images on coins on the eyelids.

Also on p. 38 is the description of, and explanation for, a "blood-and-water" stain on the ribcage of the image. Dr, Bucklin concludes that the stain is an indication that the body in the image suffered from congestive heart failure during crucifixion.

Again, the simply isn't sufficient data to support this conclusion.

The summary, (p.39) is worth quoting:
"This has been an analysis of the medically significant imprints on the Shroud of Turin by a forensic pathologist with suggestions as to theri probable cause. It is a scientific and objective presentation with no direct attempt at correlation between the Shroud imprints and the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion of Christ. However, the author cannot help but comment that a remarkable consistency between the Gospel accounts and the forensic pathologic findings depicted in the Shroud of Turin."

The bias simply drips from this. Not that surprising as Bucklin was a member of STURP. Though if this is an example of his general standard of work I'd be worried about his work in forensic pathology.

Am I correct in that Bucklin didn't actually have access to the shroud, but rather used life sized photos of it for his "examination"?

 

[catsmate]

^
Of course I'd love a copy of the PDF, but I'll settle for the opinions of other posters.
" Dr. Bucklin is able to identify an "area of discoloration" on the nose of the image, "consistent with a bruise" (p. 38)."

Not even House could diagnose so convincingly.

Well a number of shroudies (Tamburelli, Filas, Whanger and Bucklin) claim that the eyelids of the shroud image show the presence of coins that can be dated to Pontius Pilate's governorship of Judaea.
Utter garbage of course, a mix of wish fulfillment and dodgy image processing. Plus lack of knowledge of numismatics and Jewish burial customs.
Given that Bucklin can see coins where reality says there are none that he can also see bruises isn't surprising. Though even other shroudies don't accept the coins.

 

[zooterkin]

Well a number of shroudies (Tamburelli, Filas, Whanger and Bucklin) claim that the eyelids of the shroud image show the presence of coins that can be dated to Pontius Pilate's governorship of Judaea.
Utter garbage of course, a mix of wish fulfillment and dodgy image processing. Plus lack of knowledge of numismatics and Jewish burial customs.
Given that Bucklin can see coins where reality says there are none that he can also see bruises isn't surprising. Though even other shroudies don't accept the coins.

Did they say "33AD" on them?

 

[catsmate]

Did they say "33AD" on them?

Not quite.


ETA: I've just noticed this interview that James Randi gave. This portion seems to have annoyed a few shroudes:

Because very little of this process – to test paranormal and pseudoscientific claims with the methods of science – is shown by the media, by educators, or by the public. It is easier and simpler to accept every crackpot notion and invoke "political correctness" as a crutch. This is a major reason for the existence of the James Randi Educational Foundation, to challenge the media when they are careless and irresponsible about pseudoscience and the paranormal. I call this the "Oprah Winfrey Syndrome," accepting and promoting any woo-woo notion that sounds "nice" and "comforting" without considering its validity. And, in my opinion, any testable religious claim is a variety of paranormal claim. This includes items such as the Shroud of Turin, weeping icons, and stigmata.

 

[catsmate]

Thanks to the good offices of Slowvehicle I have Bucklin's paper to examine. A quick perusal however shows three things:
1. Bucklin based his examination on photographs.
2. Bucklin, who as a pathologist should know better, parrots the Heller and Adler claims as if they actually show blood.
3. I find no evidence that the article in the 1982 Legal Medical Annual was subject to any peer review.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Thanks to the good offices of Slowvehicle I have Bucklin's paper to examine. A quick perusal however shows three things:
1. Bucklin based his examination on photographs.
2. Bucklin, who as a pathologist should know better, parrots the Heller and Adler claims as if they actually show blood.
3. I find no evidence that the article in the 1982 Legal Medical Annual was subject to any peer review.

1. Yes, he did. Never saw the cloth in person.
2. Yes he does. Blithely assumes blood, wounds, anatomical correctness,the whole nine yards.
3. There was no peer review.

 

[pakeha]

... I've just noticed this interview that James Randi gave. This portion seems to have annoyed a few shroudes:

Priceless, catsmate1, priceless.

...
2. Bucklin, who as a pathologist should know better, parrots the Heller and Adler claims as if they actually show blood. ...

So, with all due respect to the man's career achievements, the paper is worth about the value of one of those coins?

 

[Garrette]

So, with all due respect to the man's career achievements, the paper is worth about the value of one of those coins?

Well, it does provide an image of the man.

 

[catsmate]

So, with all due respect to the man's career achievements, the paper is worth about the value of one of those coins?

The imaginary ones yes, if you has a real one I think it'd be worth a bit.
Yes the "paper" is garbage, no science just wish fulfilling waffle with enough pseudo-science coated on it to full the gullible.

 

[pakeha]

^
Well, that's that, then.
What else do we have on hand?

 

[Giordano]

I had promised to look at some of the primary publications and offer my opinion. Having done so, I can only agree with what has already been stated in this thread and elsewhere: the original publications provide surprisingly little actual data, and reach far, far less solid conclusions, than is typically attributed to them on pro-Shroud sites. For the Heller and Adler Applied Optics 19, 2742 publication:

1. The authors are clearly biased, in that they use the terms blood and blood-stained throughout the paper, whereas the purpose of the paper is, of course, to determine if it is blood or not.

2. The authors compare authentic year-old blood/linen fibers to the “blood”-stained fibers lifted from the Shroud. They note the colors were quite different to the eye. They then perform transmission microspectrophotometry and present the only data that is actually in the paper: a comparison between the transmission spectra of the Shroud stains versus linen with authentic blood. There is, in fact, little or no match between the samples. The authors suggest that the high degree of scattering from the samples made the bands in these transmission spectra less distinct and produced peak shifts; they also imply that the poor match may be due to fire damage to the Shroud. The validity of these hypothetic explanations was not actually tested in this publication. To their credit the authors admit that “this identification is much less positive than desired.”

3. The authors next note that unlike the transmission spectroscopy, reflection spectroscopy shows the iron porphyrin spectra more “more clearly”, although “also distorted.” Oddly the authors do not present this supposedly more convincing reflection spectroscopy data in this paper. Similarly the authors state that x-ray florescence demonstrates the presence of iron in the “blood” areas, but the actual results are again not shown. Instead the authors cite a manuscript “in press” by Morris, Schwalbe and London. It is unclear to me why they would present their poor quality data but omit their more convincing data.

4. Finally the authors then perform a chemical test for porphyrins, which was stated to be positive by eye. Again no actual data was presented: no photographs, no controls, etc. An attempt to obtain a spectrum from the resulting test products, which would have provided a more definitive test of the nature of the alledge porphyrins, was not applied to the Shroud samples for technical reasons. Thus the authors themselves recognized that the characterization was incomplete.

That’s all the evidence presented in this paper: a single figure that demonstrates a very poor match between real blood and the stains on the Shroud. The authors themselves are unwilling to commit to an explicit conclusion that the stains on the Shroud are blood. Yet the pro-Shroud sites repeatedly site this publication as one of the key proofs that the Shroud has blood on it.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the run-down.
It confirms the idea the pro-authenticity proponents build their arguments on wishful thinking more than anything else.

 

[Garrette]

Thanks for the run-down.
It confirms the idea the pro-authenticity proponents build their arguments on wishful thinking more than anything else.

Yes, and no, and I think this is important. I'm going to generalize to make a point; I recognize that there are many types of believers with many types of motivations, but in my experience these three types prevail. I think these categories apply to all forms of belief, not just religious.

The first two types fall within a larger group broadly considered experts among the believer community. The first of these two are the experts who really do try to be honest; their research and analysis and conclusions may be grossly flawed, but they honestly do not see it, either because they are too biased or insufficiently versed in the necessary discipline. Among supernatural believers I would place Montague Keen in this category. For religious believers in general I would place many or even most of the priests in the Catholic Church and at least a large minority of Protestant reverends, pastors, etc. For the Turin Shroud specifically, I am unsure who, if anyone, I would put in this group.

The second of the expert group are those who are knowingly dishonest and misleading. They know their research is bunk; they know their conclusions are invalid; they simply don't care, or at least they care less about the dishonesty than they do about the result of perpetuatiing it. I think at least a few members of STURP fall into this category. Among supernatural believers these people are legion.

Finally, there is the group into which I believe Jabba falls. The true believer who believes because he has been raised in it or emotionally drawn to it and who has presented with the supposedly expert and honest testimony of the people in the first two groups. From Jabba's point of view there is simply no reason to doubt this testimony. The summaries of their evidence comes from people who are acclaimed (even if only within the circles of believers) and is presented convincingly for any layman without specific expertise to counter it. Moreover, any counter-arguments presented by skeptics have apparently been dealt with by the experts and proclaimed to be wanting; plus, when the believer decides to check out skeptical arguments first hand he runs into a barrage of alien thinking that seems to dwell on minutia and arcana without considering the whole picture, not to mention the skeptic approach is so vastly different from that of the believer that it feels rude and bitter, the expected traits of the terminally wrong.

From Jabba's point of view we are not saying he is wrong about the Shroud; we are saying he is wrong about all the people he has trusted and that they are not only wrong but usually intentionally so.

It's an artifact to us; to Jabba it's a system and a worldview.