Did the bloodstains really precede image formation on the Shroud of Turin?
A couple of days ago Dr. Collin Berry made a rather significant comment and you ignored it completely. Instead you mocked his ideas about the blood stains being touched up over the years by well meaning monks. This does not make for dialog that arrives at the truth, which you say you want. What Dr. Berry wrote was:
As I’ve said before, the view, nay dogma, that the bloodstains were imprinted before the body image arrived rests on somewhat token and insubstantial evidence based on a single spot test with proteolytic enzyme on a microscope slide. I have to say that I am not in the least bit surprised that a STURP finding that provides a pro-authenticity answer should be instantly and uncritically accepted without anyone ever suggesting that independent confirmation is desirable by other workers using other methods. For my part I have used Shroud Scope to look closely at areas where there are both blood and body images. Not only do I see superimposition, but am fairly confident that where there is superimposition in patches where blood image has flaked away, leaving just a pinkish background, the body image (greyish on my adjusted contrast/brightness settings) is BENEATH the pink, not on top. If you had two rubber stamps, one with grey ink, one with pink, would you not be able to discern the order in which they had been applied by judging which colour was more or less superficial and dominant? (paragraph reformatted by me)
Okay; I’m not ignoring it. But what he wrote above seems to have been added as an after-the-fact postscript to a posting he published earlier. I don’t make a habit of re-reading posts just to see if they have been changed. Here is the full posting for everyone to read: Did blood-sucking leeches help to establish – at least in some eyes – the ‘authenticity’ of the Shroud of Turin?