Home > Blood Studies, News & Views > A Guest Posting by Yannick Clément: Two Quotes About the Blood

A Guest Posting by Yannick Clément: Two Quotes About the Blood

May 29, 2013

imageFollowing an interesting exchange on the blog concerning the question of the color of the blood on the Shroud, I would like to share with everyone two very important and relevant quotes concerning the question of the authenticity of the blood that is on the Shroud.

The first one come from Al Adler’s book “The Orphanes Manuscript” and was written by Dorothy Crispino: “On the 10th of June (1997), Adler saw the Shroud for the first time. It was, for him, an awesome experience. It was a recognition, by sight, that, as he had been demonstrating in tireless experiments, the Shroud could not be a painting. (Adler said:) “When they unrolled the Shroud… Just look at it! It takes two seconds… This is no painting! That blood is blood!”

And the second quote come from Pierre Barbet’s book “A Doctor at Calvary” (personal translation): “(On the 15th of October 1933), I saw the Shroud in full daylight, without any glass interposition, at a distance of less than 1 meter, and I suddenly felt one of the most intense emotion of my life. Because I saw, at my surprise, that all the images of wounds had a color clearly different than the whole body (image) and this color was that of a dried blood that had soaked the cloth. It wasn’t, like it is for the rest (of the image), brownish stains on the Shroud reproducing the relief of a corpse. The blood itself had stained the cloth by direct contact and this is why the images of wounds are positives while the rest is negative. The exact tint was difficult to define… but the general aspect was that of red (carmin mauve, said Mr. Vignon, following the thought of Antoine Legrand), more or less faded depending of the wound: more accentuated for the side (wound), at the head, at the hands and at the feet; paler, but very perceptible, on the numerous scourge wounds… But the surgeon understood, without any doubt, that this was blood that had soaked the cloth…”

So, in the end, I think these two quotes coming from true blood experts that have seen the Shroud in person in Turin (Barbet even saw it in sunlight) are well enough to understand that the question of the supposedly unusual color of the blood on the Shroud is really secondary… The fact that these two experts have immediately recognized, with some surprise and even with some shock in both cases, that these stains cannot have been made of anything else than blood is what really matter when it comes to the blood issue! And what is really important to note is the fact that, in both cases, these two blood experts didn’t made any mention of a problem concerning the color of the blood when they saw the Shroud with their own eyes of expert and recognized immediately that the blood on the cloth is really blood! Their first reaction in front of the Shroud is very telling because, in both cases, the color of the blood was not an issue that could have made them doubt if these stains were really made of blood or not! Truly, what they saw was evident for them: it was real blood… In other words, if the color of the blood they saw was as unusual as some think, they would never have made this kind of instant conclusion that the stains are really made of blood!

So, when you add the fact that Adler and, indepedently in Italy, Baima Bollone, have both scientifically proved that these stains are made of real blood, surely primate and probably human, then there are no question about the fact that what appears to be blood on the Shroud is really blood, no matter his color! Again, that’s what really matters in the end.

On that subject, it is very interesting to read this other quote from Barbet’s book (published in 1950): “Of course a rigorous scientific proof that these stains are blood would need physical or chemical tests… but since it is proven that the other images (note: he refers to the body image) are not manmade, that this Shroud contained a corpse, can these traces of wounds, so riches in details as real as unexpected, could be colored by something else than blood?”

Since it has been scientifically proven since that time that the blood is real blood, I think Barbet, following his previous comment, would have easily conclude that such a blood, in the context of a real burial cloth that really contained the corpse of a crucified man, cannot be anything else than real human blood… I think we can easily forget about the possibility that it can be baboon’s blood!

I think it’s fair to conclude that the question of the authenticity of the blood on the Shroud has been answered since a long time! All the rest (like the question of the color of the blood) are details that cannot be taken (even by honest skeptics) as being potentially able to prove the contrary of what has already been proved, i.e. that the blood could be anything else than real human blood.

Final note: It is important to also keep in mind that most of this blood is not made of whole blood but is made of exudates of blood clots that were humid enough to stained the cloth. This had a huge impact on the shape and texture of the bloodstains on the cloth and who knows if this could not also had some impact on the resulting color of these bloodstains on the cloth? Anyway, no matter if this had an impact on the color or if the color is really redder than normal, the most important thing to understand, once and for all, is that what has stained the Shroud cannot be anything else than real human blood and this scientific fact represent a huge problem for anyone who wants to demonstrate that this relic is in fact a human creation, probably made during Medieval time! That’s what matters the most concerning the blood that is present on the Shroud…

  1. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 7:52 am

    Re blood as red/carmin mauve/brown (depending on lighting), YC wrote “if the color of the blood they saw was as unusual as some think, they would never have made this kind of instant conclusion that the stains are really made of blood!”. The true fact is both Adler (a chemist & biochemist) and Barbet (a surgeon) were used to study fresh or relatively fresh blood NOT aged/archaeological blood. And the blood they saw on the TS was in (almost) no way different from what they used to see.

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 8:31 am

      Max, if what you said about Adler and particularly about Barbet was true, they would not have been able so easily to recognized that the bloodstains on the Shroud were not due to fresh blood shed in liquid form but were due to exudates of blood clots that were still humid enough to stained the cloth or, for many others that were shed long before the death of the Shroud man, had become humid again most probably because of the damp environment of the tomb and especially inside the Shroud. Concerning this last and important point, you must remember, as Barbet told us in his book, that a dead body can emit water vapor a long time after death…

      So, honestly Max, I really think you misjudge the expertise of Adler and Barbet when it come to recognize what is a bloodstained that come from exudates of humid blood clots…

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      May 29, 2013 at 9:11 am

      Methinks Yannick you totally missed my point. I am not telling at all their observation was wrong in se (it is blood alright). I am just saying, to the sole exception of the Turin Shroud blood, both Barbet’s and Adler’s had NEVER before studied any other aged/archeological blood that I know of. That’s all and it is the true fact whether you like it or not.

      • Yannick Clément
        May 29, 2013 at 10:34 am

        That doesn’t mean for one second that they cannot recognize ancient bloodstains made from exudates of blood clots on a cloth! The fact that, in front of the Shroud for the first time in their life, they both IMMEDIATELY recognized that the stains could not have been made of anything else than blood is the most important fact to note. That’s not banal.

  2. May 29, 2013 at 8:02 am

    Agreed, Yannick. Very strong argument that I have never heard explained away.

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 8:32 am

      Thanks a lot Andy. I hope you will read my newest post too (#4 below)…

      • Yannick Clément
        May 29, 2013 at 10:36 am

        Now it can be found at #7!

      • Yannick Clément
        May 29, 2013 at 10:37 am

        Oups… #9! Sorry! He he !

  3. Yannick Clément
    May 29, 2013 at 8:26 am

    If you really want to reflect a bit more on the so-called “blood is too red” issue, here’s an interesting quote from Barbet’s book, which is the only other comment I found in his book about the color of the blood (personal translation): “All these bloody imprints have a very special coloration, which differs from the bistre of the body (image). They are carmin, a little bit mauve. More or less intense and dark depending of the wounds…”

    I think this particular quote proves that Barbet was well aware of the fact that the blood on the Shroud showed a somewhat unusual color (particularly in daylight or under another source of UV light) but, at the same time, this particular color did not seemed to have bothered him at all when he saw it in sunlight in Turin and immediately conclude that these stains could not have been made by anything else than real blood! I think this is enough to conclude that, for Barbet, this particular color (when the blood is seen in sunlight or under another form of UV lighting) did not represented any problem at all regarding the question of the authenticity of the blood on the Shroud, which seems to indicate that he probably had a perfectly natural explanation for it. Effectively, even though he was a real devout Catholic and he cleverly noted that the bloodstains and the body image do not seemed to have been disturbed by the extraction of the body before he could decay inside the cloth (which he saw as a great sign of the Resurrection on the Shroud), Barbet always thought that the bloodstains and the body image had been formed on the cloth by totally natural mechanisms… So, concerning the “special coloration” (Barbet’s words) of the blood, what was the natural explanation of Barbet? No one knows since he never, as I known, talked publicly about that. But one thing’s for sure: The simple fact that he didn’t talked about that in his writings is a good clue that this color never was an issue for him. Or else, it is evident that he would have described the problem in his book and, knowing Barbet, he would have tried to give it a proper scientific explanation.

    Personally, I think the most rational explanation for this carmin mauve (other authors said carmin red) color of the blood (when it is seen in sunlight or under another form of UV lighting) remains the one described by Alan Alder concerning the presence of a level of bilirubin much higher than normal in the traumatised blood of the Shroud man, because, as jesterof told us recently on this blog, it is a proven fact that bilirubin in blood act like a “brightening agent” when it is put under sunlight or another source of UV light. Note that if this explanation for the color of the blood is the correct one, it fits perfectly in the context of the Shroud of Turin, which is the real burial cloth of a highly traumatized and crucified man (note: this is the main scientific conclusion of the STURP team)…

  4. Kelly Kearse
    May 29, 2013 at 8:43 am

    Yannick,

    Nice post, nice summary-enjoyed reading this

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 10:35 am

      Thank you Mr. Kearse!

      My goal was only to set the record straight versus what matter the most versus the blood issue. This was of course written in the footsteps of our recent exchanges on the so-called problem of the reddish aspect of the blood.

  5. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Yannick, but for the fact you totally overlooked the fact, to the sole exception of the Turin Shroud blood, both Barbet’s and Adler’s had NEVER BEFORE studied any other aged/archeological blood, it is a nice post anyway.

  6. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 9:16 am

    Typo: both Barbet and Adler

  7. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Reminder for Yannick: archaeological blood is NOT everyday blood. Besides neither Adler nor Barbet were forensic archaeologists or archaeological bloodstain pattern analysts. That can make quite a difference in observations of the same blood.

  8. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 9:31 am

    Neither Barbet nor Adler were even forensic medical examiners or palaeopathologists.

  9. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 9:39 am

    You know “I think I see” normal blood stuff…

  10. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 9:41 am

    …normal everyday blood stuff.

  11. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Yannick you wrote Barbets said “All these bloody imprints have a very special coloration” while telling us “the question of the supposedly unusual color of the blood on the Shroud is really secondary”. Really?

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 10:39 am

      After exchanging a lot with jesterof, I consider the color of the blood on the Shroud to not be that unusual IN THE CONTEXT OF A HIGHLY TRAUMATIZED BODY WHO STAINED THE CLOTH.

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 10:42 am

      Also, what I wanted people to realize is the fact that Barbet was aware that the blood was somehow different than a “normal” blood but because he never addressed that issue in his book, it’s easy to understand that he never consider it as a problem. Or else, be sure that he would have talked about that in length in his book. In other words, the color of the blood was not something that could make him prudent in his claim that the blood on the Shroud is real blood coming naturally from the blood clots of a crucified man.

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 29, 2013 at 1:34 pm

        This is an over-simplistic interpretation (again) of Barbet’s opinion by YC!

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 29, 2013 at 1:36 pm

        …unless YC thinks Barbet was himself over-simplistic when it comes to interpret aged/archaeological blood.

  12. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 9:58 am

    Maybe for a geographer…

  13. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Yannick you also wrote: “these two blood experts didn’t made any mention of A PROBLEM concerning the color of the blood when they saw the Shroud with their own eyes of expert and recognized immediately that the blood on the cloth is really blood!”. Really? Didn’t Barbet wrote: “The exact tint was DIFFICULT TO DEFINE… but the general aspect was that of red (carmin mauve, said Mr. Vignon, following the thought of Antoine Legrand)”?

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 11:01 am

      If the color would have been problematic for Barbet, he would have addressed that issue in his book. He did not. To me, that’s very telling and I wanted that people realize this telling fact.

  14. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 10:19 am

    Yannick you also wrote: “The fact that these two experts have immediately recognized, with SOME SURPRISE and even with SOME SHOCK in both cases, that these stains cannot have been made of anything else than blood” is very telling there was more than they thought should have met their eyes…

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Not at all Max… I think that simply mean that both were very surprise that the stains were so easy to define as real bloodstains, while a lot of skeptics around them were constantly saying that those stains were made of paint!

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 29, 2013 at 11:34 am

        This not a convincing argument. Far from it! The fact remains “The exact tint was DIFFICULT TO DEFINE”. (Reminder for YC difficult here can mean problematic) and “All these bloody imprints have a VERY SPECIAL coloration” . Can you really read Barbet?

  15. Hugh Farey
    May 29, 2013 at 10:35 am

    Bilirubin bilirubin bilirubin… Bilirubin is orange. It is not red. or carmine. Or mauve. Miller and Pellicori described the blood under UV light as “highly absorbing. No colour.” The bloodstains do not fluoresce under ultraviolet light. This either means that as a ‘brightening agent’ bilirubin is not present, or that bilirubin, if present, is not a ‘brightening agent.’

    Barbet, Yannick’s blood expert, immediately identified the bloodstains as blood, but of a very special colour. This suggests that although the colour was not distinctive enough to outweigh the other evidence leading to a conclusion of blood, it was not ‘normal.’ This may have been because centuries old blood doesn’t look like the ‘normal’ blood he was used to, or that the blood has had something else added to it. Barbet, I am sure, had he been pressed to say what the cause was of the distinctive colour, would have been happy with a vague hope that under some circumstances blood can stay red for longer than ‘normal.’ Subsequent investigation has yet to demonstrate that that is the case for blood which is hundreds of years old.

  16. Louis
    May 29, 2013 at 10:35 am

    Kelly and Jesterof, I appreciate the interest and dedication both of you have shown in studying the characteristics of the Shroud, however allow me to make a suggestion. Go to the books first, for the time taken with comments over here is more than could be taken in reading the books. You will be in a better position to comment when this done. To give you an example, I have not seen anyone interested in making a serious study, for instance, of Greek philosophy, relying on commentaries, Internet material and blog comments before reading Plato and Aristotle.

    All the best.

  17. Kelly Kearse
    May 29, 2013 at 11:11 am

    Louis :
    Kelly and Jesterof, I appreciate the interest and dedication both of you have shown in studying the characteristics of the Shroud, however allow me to make a suggestion. Go to the books first, for the time taken with comments over here is more than could be taken in reading the books. You will be in a better position to comment when this done. To give you an example, I have not seen anyone interested in making a serious study, for instance, of Greek philosophy, relying on commentaries, Internet material and blog comments before reading Plato and Aristotle.
    All the best.

    Thanks for the suggestion-actually, I hope my ignorance is not too apparent here, but I’ve read most of the major Shroud books in discussion: Barbet, Wilson, Heller & Adler, Rogers, Adler’s Orphaned Manuscript, Zugibe, Marino, de Wesselow, Chase (has Heller & Adler interview @ back), Meachum, others – maybe I’ve missed some major points? I am always open to learning all that I can-would welcome any particular titles/articles you think would be worth reading more closely. The commentaries, Internet material and blog comments are part of it, but I would consider the original articles (and certain books as well) the fundamental sources-the blog simply provides an opportunity for ongoing exchange

    I believe think there is a big time value in discussing facts, observations that are not from Shroud literature but that can be applied to it-that have been gained through reading/experience due to various backgrounds/career, etc.

    I’m sure it’s evident that often my position in commenting is rather free flowing, similar to thinking out loud-I spent much of yesterday evening’s discussion typing on the ipad while enjoying a cigar out on my deck-it was a particularly pleasantly cool evening. Right now I am typing on a laptop at an undisclosed location. Clearly, a serious study does involve more time in reading & reflection, yes I appreciate that. But, I also think such “brainstorming” and exchange is also valuable, it will often trigger thoughts (good or bad, I suppose) that may not occur otherwise.

    I do appreciate your point, and I think maybe you might also be saying use your time wisely-read what will be of most benefit-will keep this in mind

    All the Best to You as Well

    • Louis
      May 29, 2013 at 12:29 pm

      Kelly, nice to see that you have been reading some good material, while also enjoying a cigar. It kept me wondering how many of these you smoke every day, whether you are like Churchill or John Kennedy, but my guess is that you are like your countryman,the great statesman, when it comes to smoking.

      It is always good to also read some Shroud history and Wesselow has written a good book arguing why the image can not be a painting, exception taken when he comes to reconstructing New Testament history. Unfortunately the idea of the Shroud being one reason for the belief in Jesus’ resurrection circulating among the first disciples arose in the realm of Shroud studies and the art historian went even further by claiming that it was displayed in the Temple! It only demonstrates absolute ignorance about Jewish customs, particularly during that period, and you can sure that Josephus would have something to say about that and we would know that it was not only James the Just but many others were thrown down from that building’s high walls. It looks like Wesselow’s book helped choose the title of the recently launched book about the “linen god”.

      Giorgio promised to upload material on Father Rinaldi and Dr.McCrone on the HSG website, so we should have more interesting material to read soon.

      Best.

  18. Yannick Clément
    May 29, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Message concerning Max’s critics : Barbet noted that the color of the blood was somewhat more red (or more bright under the sun) than what was common for ancient bloodstains, but he really seemed to have seen it as an issue at all. In other words, it’s very probable that Barbet thought that the blood on the Shroud was more red than normal, but at the same time, not too red to be authentic. I think this summarize pretty well what he seemed to have think and you know what? I THINK HE WAS RIGHT, especially when we consider the fact that these bloodstains came from a highly traumatized man and were most certainly showing a level of bilirubin and other substances much higher than normal when they were formed on the cloth.

    • Hugh Farey
      May 29, 2013 at 11:56 am

      Not bilirubin. Bilirubin isn’t red. It can’t make things “more red.”

      • Yannick Clément
        May 30, 2013 at 8:29 am

        If we believe Adler, bilirubin compounds varies between orange and red color…

      • Yannick Clément
        May 31, 2013 at 8:33 am

        I correct myself here because I was not right on the target. I came back to Adler’s book, and here’s the real truth about the color of bilirubin related to the color of the Shroud blood: “You now mix bilirubin which is yellow-orange with methemoglobin in its para-hemic form which is an orangey-brown and you get blood which has a red color.” This is a quote from Adler’s paper “The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud”, which he wrote in 1986 .

      • Hugh Farey
        May 31, 2013 at 9:00 am

        I’m familiar with the quote, Yannick, but Adler did not, as far as I know, actually attempt this rather wishful experiment, and am certain that if he had, he would not have arrived at a red mixture. He was clutching at straws at this point, and I think hoped that the red colour would somehow arrive by a colour additive process rather than the subtractive process with actually occurs.

      • Yannick Clément
        May 31, 2013 at 10:44 am

        Hugh (and others), watch for a new guess comment of mine that I hope Dan could post today. In it, I give 2 long quotes from Adler’s book on that particular subject and I think you and others will like to comment them. Personally, I don’t see any reason to doubt Adler’s conclusion because it fits perfectly with the context of a real burial cloth of a crucified man and also, it offer a rational explanation for why the bloodstains are more bright and red under the sun… This is by far the simpliest explanation that fits perfectly in the context of the Shroud. As jesterof said many times, the only real remaining question that need to be answered is how the bilirubin have managed to be preserved inside the bloodstains for so long. And on this question, I think that this can be due to a combination of many biological factors, like these: 1- the fact that these stains are dry. 2- the fact that they were made of exudates of blood clots instead of whole blood. 3- the historical fact that the Shroud has almost always been kept in some kinds of containers, which prevent the stains to be exposed to open-air and sunlight, which could have seriously degraded the bilirubin over time.

  19. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 11:44 am

    It is your personal assimption. Barbet, as a surgeon, clearly has seen numerous dried and old blood stains. Not centuries old, obviously, but your statement about a surgeon seeing only fresh blood is wrong.

  20. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Yannick, too bad you rely too much on bilirubin (as you most misleadingly did for the Jospice mattress) and just keep overlooking a few other (additional?) possibilities in terms of archaeological blood intensifiers (such as light or pre-mordanting, carbon monoxide etc) that could ALSO account for the ARCHAEOLOGICAL red (carmin mauve) blood as far as the TS is concerned.

  21. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    BTW Yannick, It does seem you have the knack for distorting other’s opinion (whether mine, Barbet’s or others’). Methinks your own interpretation of Barbet’s words is far from reliable.

  22. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    You wrote: “Barbet noted that the color of the blood was somewhat more red (or more bright under the sun) than what was common for ancient bloodstains, but he really seemed to have seen it as an issue at all.” Shall I repeat Barbet was a surgeon. He was neither an archaeological blood pattern analyst, nor a forensic archaeologist, or a forensic medical examiner or a palaeopathologist. In other words, neither Barbet’s nor Adler’s opinion were truly qualified as far as aged/archaeological blood is concerned.

  23. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    Ok, it was blood. However bilirubin just cannot in se account for the blood colour on the TS. There is something else (if ever there is bilirubin).

  24. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Ok, it was blood. However bilirubin just cannot in se account for the blood colour on the TS. There is something else (if ever there is bilirubin).

    Why not? If the color change is only upon UV exposure it IS bilirubin

    • Hugh Farey
      May 29, 2013 at 12:31 pm

      Miller and Pellicori (Ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the Shroud of Turin, Journal of Biological Photography, 1981) say that the the blood does not fluoresce. UV exposure makes no difference to the colour of the blood. It isn’t bilirubin.

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      May 29, 2013 at 12:42 pm

      Barbet wrote: “in full daylight, without any glass interposition, at a distance of less than 1 meter (it looked like) a dried blood that had soaked the cloth. IT WASN’T like it is for the rest (of the image), BROWNISH stains on the Shroud reproducing the relief of a corpse.” When seen indoor (under lighting and with glass interposition), it doesn’t look ORANGE either, but carmin mauve. I saw the TS twice. Once (in 1998) I was standing nearly two meters away.

  25. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Hugh Farey :
    Not bilirubin. Bilirubin isn’t red. It can’t make things “more red.”

    That is not the point. The color is not “more red” it is changing upon exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure as clearly witnessed by Lagrand, it is standard old brownish without it. Bilirubin is uv sensitive.
    It was demonstrated in experiment by Italian group of researchers – can’t post a link ( writing from the phone) but it was provided by Louis in the other thread

  26. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    Hugh Farey :
    Miller and Pellicori (Ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the Shroud of Turin, Journal of Biological Photography, 1981) say that the the blood does not fluoresce. UV exposure makes no difference to the colour of the blood. It isn’t bilirubin.

    It does not have to fluoresce. It changes color – not immediately, but after or after some time.

    It is one set of researchers against another ones :-)

  27. Louis
    May 29, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Jesterof, any fresh hands on examination of the relic does not seem possible now, so our hands should be crossed to see if the archdiocese of Turin will release the more than a thousand microphotographs in its possession. These will help a lot.

    Best.

  28. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    Louis :
    Jesterof, any fresh hands on examination of the relic does not seem possible now, so our hands should be crossed to see if the archdiocese of Turin will release the more than a thousand microphotographs in its possession. These will help a lot.
    Best.

    That sure will help as would some uniformity in terminology. However, the latter is not going to happen

  29. Yannick Clément
    May 29, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Message for jesterof : Please read this post of mine: https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/25/an-important-and-highly-informative-guest-posting-by-paul-maloney/#comment-35230

    I’ll wait for your answer! THANKS!

  30. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    Max, why do you keep insisting it has to look orange? It is not pure bilirubin dried :-)

    Even the icterus of the skin differs from person to person as a subjective color perseption with the same amount of bilirubin in blood.

    The researchers who tested the color change of blood stains after irradiating it with UV light tested the blood wth only 2-4 times higher than normal levels of bilirubin, not 500

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      May 29, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      Jester, I do agree, it JUST CANNOT BE PURE BILIRUBIN DRIED (I already wrote there is something else if ever there was bilirubin!).
      Now you wrote it was BROWNISH without exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure: “The color (…) is changing upon exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure as clearly witnessed by Lagrand, it is STANDARD OLD BROWNISH WITHOUT IT.” The only snag is I saw it myself carmine mauve in situ cathedralis torinensis NOT just brownish! Would you be so kind as to you give me Legrand’s exact quote AND account for the carmine mauve colour, please?

  31. Kelly Kearse
    May 29, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    jesterof :

    Hugh Farey :

    Not bilirubin. Bilirubin isn’t red. It can’t make things “more red.”

    That is not the point. The color is not “more red” it is changing upon exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure as clearly witnessed by Lagrand, it is standard old brownish without it. Bilirubin is uv sensitive.
    It was demonstrated in experiment by Italian group of researchers – can’t post a link ( writing from the phone) but it was provided by Louis in the other thread

    jesterof,

    here’s a comment I made a couple of days ago (May 27) regarding the referenced images:
    Nothing new to add, just think it reiterates the point.

    1. In the link provided by Louis (Faccini article), when I look at those images, which are a computerized processing of the TS image, they appear very brownish to me, as well, absolutely, though, to be honest, to my untrained eyes, it looks as though the contrast is dialed way up here, more than in some other photographs. This is one of the problems, I suppose, that how an image is enhanced, contrasted, photograph can influence the perception of color. I bring this up not to disagree, just wanted to comment that, I too, see the stains in these images as quite brownish.”

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 6:34 pm

      I think that, based on Legrand’s testimony, we can conclude that the bloodstains on the Shroud are much redder and brighter when they are put under the light of the sun. And based on Ray Rogers’ description of the color of these stains when they are seen away from sunlight (i.e. “quite red”), along with my own judgement after looking at the picture of the Shroud taken by Durante in 2002 (they seem to me as being a mix between brown and carmin), I think it’s fair to say that these bloodstains are still probably a bit redder than normal ancient bloodstains when they are seen in a closed room, away from the light of the sun. So, can we agree to say that these stains are much redder than normal under the sun and still a bit redder than normal when they are seen away from sunlight? And also, can we agree that the way these bloodstains changes color under the sun can well be due to the presence of a very high level of bilirubin in the blood that was able to be preserved until now because of an unknown factor (or factors)? I think this can be a pretty fair conclusion concerning the color of these stains…

  32. Hugh Farey
    May 29, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Thanks for mentioning that, Jesterof. I’m not sure what paper Louis was referring to but http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p04.pdf describes an experiment involving blood with extra bilirubin added, which turned bright red after six hours of exposure to ultraviolet light. It is suggested that UV radiation turns bilirubin into lumirubin and isolumirubin, but these are both yellow. I should like to know what chemical change makes bilirubin bright red before I found this paper wholly convincing.

  33. Kelly Kearse
    May 29, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    Louis :
    Kelly, nice to see that you have been reading some good material, while also enjoying a cigar. It kept me wondering how many of these you smoke every day, whether you are like Churchill or John Kennedy, but my guess is that you are like your countryman,the great statesman, when it comes to smoking.
    It is always good to also read some Shroud history and Wesselow has written a good book arguing why the image can not be a painting, exception taken when he comes to reconstructing New Testament history. Unfortunately the idea of the Shroud being one reason for the belief in Jesus’ resurrection circulating among the first disciples arose in the realm of Shroud studies and the art historian went even further by claiming that it was displayed in the Temple! It only demonstrates absolute ignorance about Jewish customs, particularly during that period, and you can sure that Josephus would have something to say about that and we would know that it was not only James the Just but many others were thrown down from that building’s high walls. It looks like Wesselow’s book helped choose the title of the recently launched book about the “linen god”.
    Giorgio promised to upload material on Father Rinaldi and Dr.McCrone on the HSG website, so we should have more interesting material to read soon.
    Best.

    Louis,

    About 2 a week. I dip snuff like a madman, though*

    *kidding

    Right on the money about Wesselow’s book in my opinion-the part dealing with Shroud’s, background, physical characteristics: well-written, a nice overview. The other portions???

    Just how does an image on a cloth enjoy a fish breakfast? Very carefully, I suppose.

    • Louis
      May 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm

      Great, Kelly, I knew you would get the point. Right now my thoughts are on a news item that appeared just a few minutes ago and, fortunately, has kept your country’s Congress leaders worried about the fate of (Arab) Orthodox Church clerics in Syria.
      Archdeacon Fatha’ Allah Kubboud was killed and Archbishops Boulos Yazigi and Yohanna Ibrahim, captives, are in great danger. We can be sure about one thing:their faith is not sustained by relics. But, given the increasingly sceptical (Western) world, all must be done to make research on the Shroud more accurate and therefore convincing. Therefore your (and Jesterof’s) expertise is most welcome.

      Best.

  34. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Hugh Farey :
    Thanks for mentioning that, Jesterof. I’m not sure what paper Louis was referring to but http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p04.pdf describes an experiment involving blood with extra bilirubin added, which turned bright red after six hours of exposure to ultraviolet light. It is suggested that UV radiation turns bilirubin into lumirubin and isolumirubin, but these are both yellow. I should like to know what chemical change makes bilirubin bright red before I found this paper wholly convincing.

    Yes, that is tve one.
    Forgive me, but you are repeatedly making the same mistake – stating the color of singled out bilirubin as yellow or orange. But is not pure bilirubin which stained the cloth!!!! It is blood with higher than normal levels of bilirubin which stained it – we do not know how much of bilirubin was in the blood but even a modest increase will change the color of the blood after UV exposure.

    2Yannick – I answered in that thread

    • Hugh Farey
      May 29, 2013 at 1:41 pm

      Yes, I follow that. However, anybody with a paint pallette can discover that adding something yellow or orange to something brown doesn’t make it red. If the brown blood stains really do change colour to bright red after exposure to bright light, then although UV radiation may be responsible, the change is not a purely optical one but a chemical one, which must be explained in terms of one of the components of the bloodstains, possibly bilirubin, turning into something else. This has not been explained satisfactorily.

  35. May 29, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    This is blood not dye pallette. You are not adding something to brown – it waas already there when it was red. And you can not state it changes color to “bright red” – the description of the color varies and it is very subjective. What is bright for you might not be so bright for me.
    I do not dispute there might be something else – blood of a tortured person will have a lot more, than just bilirubin and hemoglobin.

    This is from the article, but it does not say if those were fresh stains or dried onesv – that would be interesting.

    From these decals we obtained three sets of samples with increasing
    concentration of bilirubin: one was maintained as it was, one was aged 10
    hours in a stove at the temperature of 120°C, and one was exposed to
    ultraviolet radiation (365 nm) for 6 hours and kept under continuous
    observation.
    The visual examination of the two first sets of samples was not able to
    catch any colour change on the many different concentrations of bilirubin.
    The visual inspection was confirmed by a spectrographic examination. In
    the third set of sample the blood stains of all decals, after 6 hours of
    irradiation, took a bright red colour.

  36. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    The something else could be an external heating source in se (in the course of a Judean ritual in the shape of fumigation/burning aromatic aloetic woods/myrrh, some CARBON MONOXIDE could have been liberated along with smoke).

  37. Hugh Farey
    May 29, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    A later article, at http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bachm/BRILLAN2.PDF by Brillante, Fanti and Marinelli, tends to discount bilirubin in favour of carboxyhaemoglobin. I don’t know how stable carboxyhaemoglobin is, but at least it’s red.
    I’m sorry I can’t state that colour becomes “bright red.” May I assume that Goldoni et al. couldn’t state it either, as my words are taken directly from their paper, and quoted by you in the post above this one.

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 3:40 pm

      Quote: “A later article, at http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bachm/BRILLAN2.PDF by Brillante, Fanti and Marinelli, tends to discount bilirubin in favour of carboxyhaemoglobin.”

      This paper was done by Fanti and his gang, right? Next paper please!

  38. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 29, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    Just in case Jesterof could miss my #49 rely:
    Jester, I do agree, it JUST CANNOT BE PURE BILIRUBIN DRIED (I already wrote there is something else if ever there was bilirubin!).
    Now you wrote it was BROWNISH without exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure: “The color (…) is changing upon exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure as clearly witnessed by Lagrand, it is STANDARD OLD BROWNISH WITHOUT IT.” The only snag is I saw it myself carmine mauve in situ cathedralis torinensis NOT just brownish! Would you be so kind as to you give me Legrand’s exact quote AND account for the carmine mauve colour, please?

  39. Kelly Kearse
    May 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Hugh Farey :
    A later article, at http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bachm/BRILLAN2.PDF by Brillante, Fanti and Marinelli, tends to discount bilirubin in favour of carboxyhaemoglobin. I don’t know how stable carboxyhaemoglobin is, but at least it’s red.
    I’m sorry I can’t state that colour becomes “bright red.” May I assume that Goldoni et al. couldn’t state it either, as my words are taken directly from their paper, and quoted by you in the post above this one.

    Here’s a comment from the previous Brother Hirudo thread I wrote in discussion with anoxie about carboxyhaemoglobin:

    “The CO:hemoglobin suggestion is from Baima Ballone (2001), The basis behind it is that since CO is a product of hemoglobin breakdown, and CO binds to hemoglobin with 200x the affinity as does oxygen, the CO remains bound to hemoglobin in the bloodstream, and hence the bloodstains. CO associated with hemoglobin maintains a red color-this is one of the indicators of CO poisoning. CO-containing blood can stay red for over a year if teh tube remains covered (see below comment)

    The spectra data of Adler suggests primarily methemoglobin (deoxygenated hemoglobin) although he does mention that other species may exist-carboxyhemoglobin has a different absorbance than methemoglobin and doesn’t appear to be there to any major extent, although I am by no means very experienced with spectroscopy. Also, in communicating with those who study hemoglobin binding, they estimate that even though CO binding has a much higher affinity than oxygen, such blood would exchange out within a few days at the most when exposed to the atmosphere.

    Although not mentioned by Bollone, CO binding to the free heme group (separated from the hemoglobin polypeptide) has an affinity 20,000x greater than oxygen-it is unknown by me (or several whom I have contacted) if this is superglued in or given in would exchange as well. I do not know, but believe it is not permanently affixed. There would also be the problem of just how many hemoglobin molecules/heme groups would have to be saturated to result in an overall reddish appearance of the blood relative to oxidized species. Just a thought.

    Related to this, I had also considered that a functional group on the cloth may interact with the porphyrin ring, a CO group, such as a carbonyl group, which are prevalent in carbohydrates (glycan coating as a result of Saponaria), but the structural biologists tell me the electron imprint would appear much different to the hemoglobin molecule than carbon monoxide. Just another thought.

    So, you’re right in asking why would there be significant CO associated with hemoglobin-it was just one of the suggestions that was proposed (in 2001) to account for the color, originally by BB.

  40. Yannick Clément
    May 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    Important message for jesterof:

    In the other topic entitled “An Important and Highly Informative Guest Posting by Paul Maloney”, I have written three new message for you and I just want to make sure you won’t pass them by! Here’s the links:

    1- https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/25/an-important-and-highly-informative-guest-posting-by-paul-maloney/#comment-35273
    2- https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/25/an-important-and-highly-informative-guest-posting-by-paul-maloney/#comment-35274
    3- https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/25/an-important-and-highly-informative-guest-posting-by-paul-maloney/#comment-35283

    You’ll see, in these messages, I have put forward some very interesting possible solutions to rationally explain the very probable preservation of the high level of bilirubin in the bloodstains on the Shroud. I just want you to read them and then, to give me your impressions… I’m particularly happy I was able to think about the last one, which I think could present a valid and VERY SIMPLE reason (that is related to the history of the Shroud) to explain the preservation of the bilirubin… I’ll wait for your replies!

  41. Yannick Clément
    May 29, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Important message for Kelly Kearse: I hope you won’t miss my reply to you: https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/25/an-important-and-highly-informative-guest-posting-by-paul-maloney/#comment-35257

    I think you will appreciate this answer from me…

  42. Kelly Kearse
    May 29, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Important message for Kelly Kearse: I hope you won’t miss my reply to you: https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/25/an-important-and-highly-informative-guest-posting-by-paul-maloney/#comment-35257
    I think you will appreciate this answer from me…

    Yannick,

    Didn’t miss it. Do appreciate it

    • Yannick Clément
      May 29, 2013 at 4:35 pm

      My pleasure! There really are tons of good scientific informations about the Shroud and about other subjects related to the Shroud in Rogers book. This is a “must-read” book for anyone interested in the scientific aspect of this relic.

  43. Kelly Kearse
    May 29, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    My pleasure! There really are tons of good scientific informations about the Shroud and about other subjects related to the Shroud in Rogers book. This is a “must-read” book for anyone interested in the scientific aspect of this relic.

    It most definitely is a must-read, together with the Orphaned Manuscript. These are probably the two best scientifically loaded references on the Shroud, particularly in terms of experimentation.

    • Yannick Clément
      May 30, 2013 at 8:28 am

      I agree with one big reserve! DON’T FORGET A DOCTOR AT CALVARY BY PIERRE BARBET!

      But I will forgive you this one because it’s a book written by a frenchman! ;-)

  44. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Just in case Jesterof could miss my #49 rely:
    Jester, I do agree, it JUST CANNOT BE PURE BILIRUBIN DRIED (I already wrote there is
    something else if ever there was bilirubin!).
    Now you wrote it was BROWNISH without exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure: “The color (…) is changing upon exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure as clearly witnessed by Lagrand, it is STANDARD OLD BROWNISH WITHOUT IT.” The only snag is I saw it myself carmine mauve in situ cathedralis torinensis NOT just brownish! Would you be so kind as to you give me Legrand’s exact quote AND account for the carmine mauve colour, please?

    I wote it obviously as a conclusion form the facts described by the involved in direct observation of the Shroud themselves.
    I never saw the Shroud in vivo :-)Did I understand you correctly, that you personally saw it?
    I do not have Legrand’s quote, I first read about the whole issue ( that it was Legrand who saw the Shroud in 1931 and then later and expressed surprise ) 3 days ago when I went by that ling which Louis posted. I have always wondered about that speculation of “too red” or “too bright” and thought it was from the STURP time( and myself was wondering why was it connected to bilirubin), but when I read there Legrand’s surprise it became obvious that if the color enhancement happened upon UV exposure, than bilirubin IS the answer, becasue it is the only probable component in the blood which is reactive to light ( probable as a result of the torture)

  45. jesterof
    May 29, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    The something else could be an external heating source in se (in the course of a Judean ritual in the shape of fumigation/burning aromatic aloetic woods/myrrh, some
    CARBON MONOXIDE could have been liberated along with smoke).

    CO is not stable

  46. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 9:48 am

    To Jesterof: The true fact is carbon monoxide (CO) in conjunction with a mordanting image formation process can also act as blood intensifier.

  47. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Correction: the true fact is carbon monoxide (CO) in conjunction with mordanting (to account for the bloody image formation process) can also act as blood intensifier.

  48. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 9:52 am

    I mean bloody body image formation process.

  49. jesterof
    May 30, 2013 at 11:26 am

    Max Patrick Hamon :To Jesterof: The true fact is carbon monoxide (CO) in conjunction with a mordanting image formation process can also act as blood intensifier.

    If it does not as time passes. The image formation has nothing to do with amount of CO in the blood stains NOW or upon first viewing of the by modern scientists..

    I know CO and it’s interactions with Hgb all too well.
    It’s affinity is thousands time stronger, but it does not stay there forever.

  50. jesterof
    May 30, 2013 at 11:26 am

    if it doesn not DISSOCIATE from Hgb molecule – for some reason that part of the phrase was cut off

  51. jesterof
    May 30, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Max, as I recall the image color was never referred as unususlly bright, neither was it ever considered blood-related

    Those are the stains which are brightening upon UV light exposure.
    CO IS a brightening fsctor, even in not high concentration ( empirically – 3-5% will be enough for the blood appear brighter)

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      May 30, 2013 at 12:48 pm

      Reminder for Jesterof: Besides the blood being red in bright sunlight, the Turin Sroud body image, seen under a certain angle and light, is IRIDESCENT (as a translucent straw yellow impression). This observation is totally consistent with a light/pre-mordanting image formation process (whether or not any carbon monoxide liberated along with fumigation smoke were trapped “there for ever” in the process).

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 30, 2013 at 2:10 pm

        Even bilirubin could have been trapped in the process (as far as a light/pre-mordanting is concerned).

  52. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    Jesterof you wrote: “I never saw the Shroud in vivo :-)Did I understand you correctly, that you personally saw it?”. Yes. I did see it twice (once I was even standing nearly two meters away from the relic).

  53. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    Actually I saw it three times (twice in 1998 standing 15-20m away; then 2-6m away + once in 2010 standing 8-10m away)

    • Yannick Clément
      May 30, 2013 at 2:30 pm

      Just a quick fact: Barbet saw it once in 1933 at less than 1 meter away in the sunlight, which gave his observation (concerning the bloodstains particularly) much more credibility than yours Max, from a pure scientific standpoint… This is just a fact that I wanted to point out.

  54. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    YC, can you scientifically demonstrate or even just tell me what’s wrong with my observations, PLEASE?

    • Max Patrick Hamon
      May 30, 2013 at 2:50 pm

      BTW YC, did you personally see the TS?

    • Yannick Clément
      May 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      Nothing. I just wanted to point out the fact that I prefer to trust Barbet judgement concerning the bloodstains he saw live in Turin instead of you for the reason I mentioned above (he was much closer than you), along with these two other reasons: 1- There was no glass frame over the Shroud when Barbet saw the relic and 2- Barbet is an expert concerning blood and you’re not.

      I don’t say this to punch you Max. I just wanted people to know the reality…

  55. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    Reminder for YC: fallacious examples of using the appeal to authority are countless.

  56. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    (this does not mean Barbet’s observation is wrong anyway. Actually I still quite miss YC’s point in recurring to Barbet’s authoritative argument!).

  57. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    Is it because I am French (as he would put it himself)?

    • Yannick Clément
      May 30, 2013 at 3:46 pm

      Not at all. It’s because you’re not a blood expert like he was. As simple as that monsieur! ;-)

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 30, 2013 at 6:08 pm

        YC wrote: “you’re not a blood expert like he (Barbe) was”.

        Reminder for YC:

        1/As a professional cryptologist I currently apply cryptology to both criminology and archaeological images and got very familiar with BOTH archaeological and forensic bloodstain pattern analysis.

        This reminds me you already were IN DENIAL of one of my previous observations of the TS:

        On March, 12, 2012 I wrote: “in the 1990′s I first did detect “a strange thing” in the Shroud face region from a full length Shroud photography (an observation which was later confirmed, in 1998, when I visually observed with my own eyes the Shroud on the 1998 exhibition “in situ catedralis torinensis)” namely “a faintly lighter discoloration vast circular area all around the Shroud face as THE VISUAL FACT/ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE left by the Holy Face Holy Mandylion reliquary vast circular central opening.”

        NOW this observation was ALSO CONFIRMED by Avinoam Danin in may 2011 and then by several of Thierry Castex’s 2011 3D reconstructions)

        (Since Barbet was not an archaeological image cryptanalyst, he just missed it).

        2/The blood on the TS is ARCHAEOLOGICAL not EVERYDAY pathological or forensic blood (Shall I endlessly repeat it?)!

        Is a surgeon an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst/expert? NOT AT ALL!
        This shortcoming can make a world of a difference when it comes to observations/examinations of bloodstains a nearly 2000 years old linen cloth!

        To Jesterof & Louis: I do agree though observations made in situ textilis or sub vitro can also make a world of a difference. Reminder though: glass is still currently used to forensically/scientifically observe/analyse blood tissues.

        The fact also remains an archaeological image/imprint/decal/sign/mark professional cryptanalyst maybe more perceptive than a surgeon when it comes to analyse ARCHAEOLOGICAL bloodstain patterns on an ancient piece of cloth.

  58. jesterof
    May 30, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Reminder for Jesterof: Besides the blood being red in bright sunlight, the Turin Sroud
    body image, seen under a certain angle and light, is IRIDESCENT (as a translucent straw yellow impression). This observation is totally consistent with a light/pre-mordanting image formation process (whether or not any carbon monoxide liberated along with fumigation smoke were trapped “there for ever” in the process).

    I have never touched the issue of the image. I have no idea how was it formed, but I do not think it is connected to the blood

  59. jesterof
    May 30, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Jesterof you wrote: “I never saw the Shroud in vivo :-)Did I understand you correctly, that you personally saw it?”. Yes. I did see it twice (once I was even standing nearly two
    meters away from the relic).

    No, “in vivo”means “live”, in reality( as an opposite to “in vitro” which literally meant in the glass, but usually is referred to something viewed on a glass slide, in a glass jar, etc) It menas I never saw the Shroud except the photos and screen.
    Sorry for the confusion

  60. Louis
    May 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    You are on the right track, Jesterof, the two things are different

  61. jesterof
    May 30, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Max, so did you observe any kind of “carmine-mauve brightness”?

    And did you know before you saw it already about the others perception of the color or you viewed it before anybody’s else description?

  62. Yannick Clément
    May 30, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    Again, here’s a request for jesterof: Please go read this comment of mine here: https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/25/an-important-and-highly-informative-guest-posting-by-paul-maloney/#comment-35362

    This is a reply from me versus the three interesting answers you gave me concerning some personal hypotheses I’ve thrown to you on the question of what have cause the preservation of the bilirubin for so long inside the bloodstains… I think you’ll appreciate this post and I hope you will give me a reply. Thanks again! Very interesting to read your comments…

  63. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    To Yc, Jesterof and Louis:

    YC wrote: “you’re not a blood expert like he (Barbe) was”.

    Reminder for YC:
    1/As a professional cryptologist I currently apply cryptology to both criminology and archaeological images and got very familiar with BOTH archaeological and forensic bloodstain pattern analysis.
    This reminds me you already were IN DENIAL of one of my previous observations of the TS:
    On March, 12, 2012 I wrote: “in the 1990′s I first did detect “a strange thing” in the Shroud face region from a full length Shroud photography (an observation which was later confirmed, in 1998, when I visually observed with my own eyes the Shroud on the 1998 exhibition “in situ catedralis torinensis)” namely “a faintly lighter discoloration vast circular area all around the Shroud face as THE VISUAL FACT/ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE left by the Holy Face Holy Mandylion reliquary vast circular central opening.”
    NOW this observation was ALSO CONFIRMED by Avinoam Danin in may 2011 and then by several of Thierry Castex’s 2011 3D reconstructions)
    (Since Barbet was not an archaeological image cryptanalyst, he just missed it).

    2/The blood on the TS is ARCHAEOLOGICAL not EVERYDAY pathological or forensic blood (Shall I endlessly repeat it?)!
    Is a surgeon an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst/expert? NOT AT ALL!
    This shortcoming can make a world of a difference when it comes to observations/examinations of bloodstains a nearly 2000 years old linen cloth!
    To Jesterof & Louis: I do agree though observations made in situ textilis or sub vitro can also make a world of a difference. Reminder though: glass is still currently used to forensically/scientifically observe/analyse blood tissues.
    The fact also remains an archaeological image/imprint/decal/sign/mark professional cryptanalyst maybe more perceptive than a surgeon when it comes to analyse
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL bloodstain patterns on an ancient piece of cloth.

    • Louis
      May 30, 2013 at 6:41 pm

      Max, I only commented that the body and blood images were two different things

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 30, 2013 at 6:54 pm

        Yes and no as most likely BOTH were subjected to the same image formation process with two different responses though: one positive as blood and the other negative as body. It is first and foremost the image left by a bloody corpse not just that of a blood image or just that a body image.

  64. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Correction: “left by either by the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion or that of the Holy Hemation/Sindon “.

  65. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    If the TS blood was lightly mordanted (reminder: mordanting is a blood intensifier), this could account for the blood still looking bright red in full daylight…

  66. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 30, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    The true fact is according to lighting, the linen cloth can look either yellow ivory or whiter or yellowish green and the blood on it either pale brown/mauve, carmin brown/mauve, bright carmin/carmin brown mauve or even just… dark brown. Thus one can even be reminded of the 4 horse colours as mentioned in the Book of Revelation…).

  67. Louis
    May 30, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    Max, in #95 you say you that in 1998 you detected a “strange thing” which was the “faintly lighter discoloration of the vast circular area all around the Shroud face” which had something to do with “the Holy Mandylion reliquary’s vast central circular opening.” Professor Danin saw the Shroud from a distance of around 4 feet during the Round Table in Turin and showed Cardinal Poletto only the plant images he detected and there was no mention of any discoloured area, which according to you, he was only able to see and confirm in May 2012. Why do you think this happened?

  68. jesterof
    May 30, 2013 at 9:50 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Yes and no as most likely BOTH were subjected to the same image formation process
    with two different responses though: one positive as blood and the other negative as body. It is first and foremost the image left by a bloody corpse not just that of a blood image or just that a body image.

    OK, you got me all confused here.
    I understand that you may have some other valid points to add about the examination of the old archaeological blood vs dry stains of relatively fresh one.
    Please, do not be so defensive, I, personally, never equated the two, but it would be very interesting to find out some crucial points of difference – if you can name a few, please.
    I do not doubt your authority, I am really interested – it is easier for somebody familiar with the issue to put it concisely for others than for those uneducated “others” filter tons of irrelevant information on the web.
    At least that is the way I see those discussions.

    So back to the quoted message – Max, can you, please, elaborate a bit, what do you mean? that bllod over the body emitted some of it’s substances and together with some of the other forces ( just speculating) formed the image of the body?
    Because the blood stains are the result of direct contact with the body.

    Your remark about the lighter head part due to the Oviedo head scarf is very interesting. Would like to learn more as well – from you.

    Thanks in advance

  69. jesterof
    May 30, 2013 at 9:56 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    If the TS blood was lightly mordanted (reminder: mordanting is a blood intensifier), this could account for the blood still looking bright red in full daylight…

    That is all we talk about here – from different angles. I call it stabilizer/fixator/preservant, you call it mortantor – but essentially it is the same process for the result

    Can you tell us by what was it mordanted in your opinion?

  70. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 9:53 am

    Jesterof, re (light/pre-)mordanting of both blood and body fluids onto the Turin Shroud as the most likely image formation process:

    The fact is eminent forensic medical examiners (e.g. Zugibe and a few others) do think the TS man’s body was “washed” one way or another. Reminder: the Hebrew word taharah means “purification” in terms of “dressing/wrapping in shrouds”, “washing”, “drying” and “anointing” as core procedures.

    Reminder in the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s: Because the women had to abide by the Halakha (Judean religious law), anointing was not performed though as they were not allowed to grind solid/granulised spices to make spicy oily perfumes after sunset on Sabbath (even had the grinding been initiated before sunset). Hence Yeshua’s body was not anointed on his burial.

    Because the TS man’s shed innocent blood was to be buried with his body, the latter was not washed as carefully as a non bloodied corpse, thus implying the very long burial (inner) sheet (known today as the TS) could have been used as part and parcel of the speedy purifying and drying ritual to save time and funeral items.

    The only snag here is no matter how talented the forensic medical examiners are/were (from Bucklin to Zugibe or Baima-Bollone or Cameron), they are neither palaeopathologists nor forensic archaeologists familiar with ancient Judean funerary customs, practices and rites or archaeological bloodstained pattern analysts and just could not reach a consensus when it came to the “washing or no washing issue”. Besides they were only working from lifesize Turin Shroud negative/positive photographs not from a real corpse.

    In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s, both archaeologically and forensically speaking, it is most likely though the body was speedily but ritually “purified” and dried out in a most specific way (that of the Second Temple period Judeans) so as to bury “the shed (innocent) blood” with the corpse and abide by the Halakha.

    In order to achieve this and “purify” flies’s eggs/larvae, dust, dirt, blood and other body fluids, the Judean buriers could have soaked the long (inner) burial linen sheet in an alkaline solution.

    On March 16, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. (#5 Reply) and 7:35 p.m. (#21 Reply): I wrote:

    “As far as the archaeological bloodstain pattern analysis is concerned:
    – Natural mordanting of dry blood remoistened with aqueous alkaline solution along with drying through myrrhic-aloetic (wood aloe) fumigation could account for:
    – The aged bloodstains still “looking fresh” today when seen in full day on the long inner burial cloth as if the blood had just been shed the day before. Mordant is known to be used for INTENSIFYING STAINS e.g. in cell or tissue preparations
    – Potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal. Now it is well known gelatine is a breakdown product of collagen. The true fact is low temperature (55°-85° C) alkali gelatinisation of starch residuals present in the ancient linen cloth could be a possible factor as bubbling very fine printing paste to be taken into account in the Shroud image formation process.
    – Bilirubin is neither the problem nor the solution, just probably one part of the whole equation as it could have been trapped (along with carbon monoxide?) during the image formation process.
    – Most likely dust, dirt and body fluids should be found in the very impurity layer that makes up the body image.”

    Jesterof, you also wrote: “Your remark about the lighter head part due to the Oviedo head scarf is very interesting. Would like to learn more as well – from you.” Methinks you missed my point or got rather confused. I was only referring to the mark left by the reliquary vast circular central opening either of the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion or that of the Holy Himation/Sindon once kept in Constantinople.

    Best,

    Max

    • Louis
      May 31, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Max, see # 104

  71. Yannick Clément
    May 31, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Max wrote : “The fact is eminent forensic medical examiners (e.g. Zugibe and a few others) do think the TS man’s body was “washed” one way or another.”

    The dead body of the Shroud man was never washed the way Zugibe explained or else, there would have been a lot of smudge caused by the oozing of liquid post-mortem blood he described, especially in the region of the back where there was an intensepressure on the cloth because of the body weight. Adler proved that the bloodstains are not made of the kind of oozing post-mortem blood described by Zugibe but from exudates of blood clots, which explain why there is no smudge of blood on the cloth and why all the bloodstains shows a very good mirror image of the blood clots that were on the skin of the Shroud man. Barbet explain this very well in great details in his book and if someone doesn’t understand this very important particularity of the bloodstains on the Shroud, he will never understand anything related to the blood issue…

    In other words, Adler confirmed Barbet’s conclusion concerning the fact that the bloodstains were made of exudates of blood clots and not of an oozing of post-mortem blood in a liquid form, as proposed by Zugibe. This distinction is crucial to understand the question of the blood on the Shroud and this prove, beyond any reasonable doubt that the body of the Shroud man was never washed, which is a data that fits perfectly well with the Gospel accounts.

  72. Yannick Clément
    May 31, 2013 at 11:30 am

    Additional note : Zugibe’s hypothesis of the washing of the body was mainly driven by a desire to explain why there are scourge marks on the Shroud while these wounds had most probably stop to bleed for hours before the Shroud man’s body could be placed inside the Shroud. In fact, I know by experience that this is a false problem! Effectively, some years ago, I cut myself on the forearm with a tree branch and the wound looked pretty much like on the scourge wounds on the Shroud for the shape and the dimension. I let it dry completely without putting any bandage on it. Then, I forgot about it for approximately 5 hours. And then, I had the nice idea to verify Barbet’s hypothesis concerning the transfer of the blood on the Shroud, i.e. coming in many cases from exudates of dried blood clots, whom surfaces had become humid again, most probably because of the water vapor released by the corpse. For such an experiment, I simulated the moistening action of the water vapor on the dried clots by putting some saliva on-top of the dry wound and then, I placed a kleenex over it and applied a weak pressure on the wound. Guess what? I obtained a nice mirror imprint of my wound on the kleenex with absolutely no smudge, very much like the scourge marks we can see on the Shroud! From that day on, I knew that Barbet was right on everything that is related to the blood transfer that occurred on the Shroud. Then, I knew that every bloodstains on the Shroud were not caused by some post-mortem bleeding in liquid form after a vigorous washing, as proposed by Zugibe, but by exudates of still humid blood clots or exudates of dried blood clots that were able to get moistened again, probably because of the water vapor released by the dead body (except maybe, as Barbet told us, for a probable post-mortem bleeding in the feet area because there was probably an oozing of blood from the holes in the feet that never closed on a dead body – and not because of a washing of the feet).

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 11:35 am

      Most important conclusion to draw from my personal experiment: It is still possible to produce a nice mirror imprint of a dry wound on a fabric, even more than 5 hours after the drying has been completed, as long as there is enough moistening at the surface of the wound. Note also that at least a weak pressure seemed to be necessary to get a nice mirror imprint of small wounds like a scourge wounds we see on the Shroud.

      Final note: the simple fact that there are halos of serum around almost every scourge wounds on the Shroud is enough to understand that Zugibe’s hypothesis is incorrect because if he was right, the oozing of post-mortem blood that would have occcurred after the vigorous washing of the corpse would never have produced these sort of halos of serum that are easy to detect under UV fluorescence light.

  73. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 11:58 am

    To YC, I wrote: “The only snag here is no matter how talented the forensic medical examiners are/were (from Bucklin to Zugibe or Baima-Bollone or Cameron), they are neither palaeopathologists nor forensic archaeologists familiar with ancient Judean funerary customs, practices and rites or archaeological bloodstained pattern analysts and just could not reach a consensus when it came to the “washing or no washing issue”.

    This ALSO applies to Adler (a biochemist) and Barbet (a surgeon), just in case YC, a geographer, would keep ignoring it.

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm

      The conclusion that the Shroud was not washed is not coming from a geographer but from an expert in blood, i.e. Adler! He he !

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 31, 2013 at 12:41 pm

        YC, how do you mean “not washed” and how do you mean “washed”, I’ll very much like to know as far as a 1st c. CE burial is concerned (if ever you got the idea behind it)?

        You wrote: “The conclusion that the Shroud was not washed is not coming from a geographer but from an expert in blood, i.e. Adler! He he !” This doesn’t mean at all the body was not ritually purified.

        I use here the term purified (not “washed”) in terms of “wrapping in shrouds”, “long inner burial-sheet in-soaking with alkaline solution”, “drying via fumigation”.

        Now could YC (relying or not on Adler) account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal?

        These two signals tend to prove the body was purified in accordance with ancient (Judean?) burial customs whether YC like it or not

      • Max Patrick Hamon
        May 31, 2013 at 12:45 pm

        Typo: wrapping in CLEAN shrouds

  74. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Most obviously YC, a geographer, just cannot discriminate between old archaeological blood and dry stains of relatively fresh one while telling you he is speaking in the name of “Science” and “Truth”…

  75. Yannick Clément
    May 31, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    Before someone else say it, I will say it myself : No, Adler never said publicly that Zugibe was wrong and that the Shroud man’s body was not washed before he was placed inside the Shroud. BUT.. What he did meant exactly this! Effectively, Adler proved that Barbet’s hypothesis concerning the blood transfer on the Shroud (coming from exudates of blood clots and not of complete blood in liquid form) was correct. So, in the light of this confirmation of Barbet’s hypothesis, it’s pretty easy to conclude that Zugibe’s idea is incorrect since it is totally incompatible with Barbet’s hypothesis! I don’t think I need to say more, except that my own little experiment can be seen as one more piece of evidence to support Barbet’s conclusion, while it shows that there is no problem for wounds that are dried for a long time, like the scourge wounds probably were at the time of the entombment, to produce a mirror bloody imprint on a piece of cloth if there is enough moistening at their surface… Zugibe thought that it was impossible for the scourge wounds that have been dried for a long time to produce a good imprint on the cloth if they were not washed. My own experiment proved that his assumption was incorrect. All it is needed is some humidity over the dried wounds.

  76. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    YC, CAN YOU ASWER MY QUESTION PLEASE OR CAN’T YOU?” namely “could you account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal?”

  77. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    or can “your” Adler?

  78. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    BTW I am neither promoting Zugibe’s nor Bucklin’s hypothesis, I am just telling what my thesis is… Cannot you read me?

  79. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    YC, shall I repeat: “The ONLY SNAG here is no matter how talented the forensic medical examiners are/were (from BUCKLIN to ZUBIGE or Baima-Bollone or Cameron), they are neither palaeopathologists nor forensic archaeologists familiar with ancient Judean funerary customs, practices and rites or archaeological bloodstained pattern analysts and JUST COULD NOT REACH A CONSENSUS when it came to the “washing or no washing issue”.

  80. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Can you demonstrate my thesis about the TS bloodstains is wrong in terms of potassium giving only a weak signal while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving a strong signal? This is the whole point here.

  81. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    Please don’t you hide behind Zugibe’s opinion to misleadingly write up as if it were mine and I am wrong. My thesis has nothing to do with Zugibe’s (just in case you hadn’t noticed yet).

  82. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Don’t you mix oranges and apples for a change.

  83. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    … OR no conflicting observations with Adler or Barbet shall be allowed by Yannick Clément.

  84. May 31, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    YC, CAN YOU ASWER MY QUESTION PLEASE OR CAN’T YOU?” namely “could you account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal?”

    Thanks, Max fot the answer.

    If the pt is alcalotic ( blood pH is higher than normal) than it is usually accompanied by hypokalemia as there is an exchanhe of H and K ions. However I am not sure the same process can be attributed to blood stains – in alive person hypokalemia is RELATIVE – the K concentration is lower in plasma as K is pushed into the cells, but if one lyses the cells the total amount of K is going to be balanced – because it will come back from the cells into the plasma ( together with all other ingredients of the cell). In a bloodstain yoiu have both cells and plasma components, so amount of potassium is unchanged( because it is a summary of plasma potassium and cell potassium).
    Please explain why do you make this conclusion – hypokalemia in the stain proves the alcalotic washout of the cloth.

    And what does hydroxiproline has to do with this? some amount of hydroxiproline is always present in the blood stream ( as a metabolyte of collgaen) it may increase upon certain conditions, but how is it related to the alcaline solution?

    Thanks.

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 2:41 pm

      Adler had already an answer for this lack of potassium and it was because most of it would have been stayed inside the clot and have not been released in the exudates that have stained the cloth…

  85. jesterof
    May 31, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Most important conclusion to draw from my personal experiment: It is still possible to produce a nice mirror imprint of a dry wound on a fabric, even more than 5 hours after the drying has been completed, as long as there is enough moistening at the surface of the wound. Note also that at least a weak pressure seemed to be necessary to get a nice mirror imprint of small wounds like a scourge wounds we see on the Shroud.
    Final note: the simple fact that there are halos of serum around almost every scourge wounds on the Shroud is enough to understand that Zugibe’s hypothesis is incorrect because if he was right, the oozing of post-mortem blood that would have occcurred after the vigorous washing of the corpse would never have produced these sort of halos of serum that are easy to detect under UV fluorescence light.

    WHY? what does washing of the body has to do with the postmortem sipping of the bodily fluids from the wounds?
    Bodily fluids IS plasma practically speaking ( I mean interstitial fluid, mucous, sweat, tears, pleaural fluid, abdominal transsudate and so on) with specific additions and variations depending on the fluid. But they all can produce halos and fluorescence.
    Most certainly the fluid from the thoracic cavities was an interstitial fluid with some blood diluted in it – the crucified man is dying from lung edema and left ventricular failure, which is certainly depicted in the Gospels as well ( the soldier spearing the lungs and probably the pericardial sac as well)

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 2:39 pm

      Adler confirm that the bloodstains were made of exudates of blood clots like Barbet described. Not of an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood like Zugibe described and that would have been a result of a vigourous washing that would have taken out the dried blood clots.

      Seriously, Zugibe’s hypothesis is totally incompatible with Adler’s findings. If Zugibe’s was right, Adler would have found traces of complete blood and not of exudates of blood clots. This is completelly different… And the halos of serum around the bloodstains have first been described by Barbet and come from the retraction of the blood clots as they dried. Dr. Lavoie showed that the kind of halo of serum on the Shroud most probably came from that kind of process and he find that he could obtain better results in a vertical position. Again, this is even more confirmation of Barbet’s hypothesis against the one proposed by Zugibe…

      Do you pretend that if the bloodstains would have been produced by an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood as Zugibe proposed (at least for the scourge wounds), Adler would have find the very same kind of blood material he found in his samples and would have made an error by thinking that these bloodstains came from exudates of blood clots? This seem ridiculous to me. Again, I cannot believe that an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood would have given the same kind of result Adler have found and described as coming from exudates of blood clots.

  86. Yannick Clément
    May 31, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    And by the way, this simple FACT that there is no smudge of blood on the cloth should be enough for anyone with a brain that works allright to understand that Zugibe’s hypothesis is incorrect. The oozing of post-mortem blood he described following the washing of the dried wounds produce LIQUID BLOOD! How in the world can you obtain mirror images of wounds with LIQUID BLOOD? It’s IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD. And Barbet talk in length about that in his book. No way a liquid blood could have produced the very precise mirror images of scourge wounds we see on the Shroud. ONLY EXUDATES OF HUMID BLOOD CLOTS COULD HAVE PRODUCED THIS. And the truth is this: Exudates of humid blood clots is not the kind of result we would obtain if we would washed away the dried blood clots on a corpse, as it was described by Zugibe… On the contrary, what you would get is an oozing of LIQUID BLOOD that would have immediately produced a lot of smudge on the cloth, the minute the body would have been laid in the Shroud, especially in the back region. THERE ARE NO SMUDGE LIKE THAT ON THE SHROUD.

  87. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    YC waiting for you answer without you mentioning Zugibe. Is that possible?

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 3:33 pm

      I mention Zugibe because he’s the one who proposed a forensic hypothesis that made a direct link between a washing of the corpse and the scourge marks and maybe others bloodstains on the cloth.

  88. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    YC BTW on January 30, 2013 at 8:24 a.m. (#5 Reply), I wrote:

    “MOST LIKELY the bloodstains are re-dried aged RE-MOISTENED dried bloodstains strongly suggesting the burial sheet was first moistened or in-soaked with aqueous alkaline solution (e.g. ashes, Jerusalem limestone dust and/or urea residues mixed with pure living water/collected rainwater). Note: Jerusalem limestone dust mixed with water can gelatinized starch. Then the moistened/in-soaked burial cloth could have been subjected to a low temperature accidental/providential thermal imprinting process (e.g. ritual fumigation and/or corpse hyperthermia).” Can you really read me? I very much doubt so.

  89. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    Just mention the names Wilson or Zugibe (even if you are far from blindly agreeing with the former or the latter), and YC goes mad!

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 3:34 pm

      You forget Fanti and Jackson! ;-)

  90. Max Patrick Hamon
    May 31, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    YC, BTW why don’t you try just to mix fresh human oxygenated/non oxygenated blood with other bodily fluid and an aqueous alkaline solution, moisten or soak a piece of linen in it and have the moistened/soaked cloth dry out via low temperature fumigation and see what happens before passing TOTALLY irrelevant comments on my thesis?

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 3:36 pm

      Max, your idea is much too complicated to explain what, in my mind, really happened 2000 years ago… The simpliest solutions are very often the right ones.

  91. Yannick Clément
    May 31, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    All I said here today concerning the hypothesis of Zugibe vs the one of Barbet was just me trying to make realize people some crucial facts:

    1- Barbet though that the body had not been washed prior to his entombment and that almost every bloodstains on the cloth came from exudates of blood clots that were a) very recently formed, so they were still humid enough to stained the cloth directly or b) very old and dried but that became re-moistened because of the water vapor emitted by the corpse. And the fact is that Adler’s findings are totally consistent with Barbet’s hypothesis.
    2- Barbet though he could seen some very pale halos of serum with his own eyes but cannot prove this. But in his mind, this was totally logical in the context of the Shroud man, since halos of that nature were normally formed around dried blood clots during what is called the clot retraction process that happen during the drying of the clot with expulsion of serum around the clot. Pellicori and Miller of STURP have showed that Barbet was right about the presence of these serum halos and Adler also confirmed this with his analyses.
    3- Barbet was very specific about the FACT that the bloodstains on the Shroud, because of their particularly precise shapes, could not have been formed by liquid blood, except maybe for some stains in the region of the feet. He said that any drop of liquid blood inside the Shroud would have produced preferential direction in the new formed stain that would have been easy to noticed on a linen cloth with an herringbone weave like the Shroud, while there are none. It’s also easy to assume that many smudges of blood would have been formed. There’s no doubt that this is what would have happened if Zugibe’s hypothesis was correct.

    For all these reasons, I think we can forget the idea of Zugibe and understand that Barbet’s hypothesis concerning the particular form of blood transfer on the Shroud is most probably right.

    In the end, is it possible that there was a gentle washing of the corpse that didn’t removed the blood clots and help these clots to get re-moistened so they could be able to left mirror images of themselves on the Shroud? I think this is a possibility but I prefer by far the one proposed by Barbet because it’s more simple and rational in the context of an hasty burial…

  92. jesterof
    May 31, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Adler had already an answer for this lack of potassium and it was because most of it would have been stayed inside the clot and have not been released in the exudates that have stained the cloth…

    that’s mot an answer. Plasma also has potassium level and it should be elevated in a patien with so many traumatic experiences ( because he’ll be acidotic, not alcalotic – pH of the blood would drop)

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      But that’s not the conclusion of Adler who completely followed the idea of Barbet, and not Zugibe. That’s my point.

  93. jesterof
    May 31, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Adler confirm that the bloodstains were made of exudates of blood clots like Barbet described. Not of an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood like Zugibe described and that would have been a result of a vigourous washing that would have taken out the dried blood clots.
    Seriously, Zugibe’s hypothesis is totally incompatible with Adler’s findings. If Zugibe’s was right, Adler would have found traces of complete blood and not of exudates of blood clots. This is completelly different… And the halos of serum around the bloodstains have first been described by Barbet and come from the retraction of the blood clots as they dried. Dr. Lavoie showed that the kind of halo of serum on the Shroud most probably came from that kind of process and he find that he could obtain better results in a vertical position. Again, this is even more confirmation of Barbet’s hypothesis against the one proposed by Zugibe…
    Do you pretend that if the bloodstains would have been produced by an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood as Zugibe proposed (at least for the scourge wounds), Adler would have find the very same kind of blood material he found in his samples and would have made an error by thinking that these bloodstains came from exudates of blood clots? This seem ridiculous to me. Again, I cannot believe that an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood would have given the same kind of result Adler have found and described as coming from exudates of blood clots.

    Yannick, those two hypothesis do not have to contradict each other. I can’ ttell about the clots, but that there WOULD BE sippage postmortem from the wounds I can almost guarantee you. It is always present, especially with so many wounds – not everything will dry.

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 4:34 pm

      Adler never linked his finding with post-mortem bleeding in the way described by Zugibe but with exudates of humid blood clots like it was described by Barbet. Those two hypotheses are very different…

  94. jesterof
    May 31, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    Seriously, Zugibe’s hypothesis is totally incompatible with Adler’s findings. If Zugibe’s was right, Adler would have found traces of complete blood and not of exudates of blood clots. This is completelly different…

    Yannick, as a person who is very far from medicine and trauma you seem not to understand that serum from the retraction of the blood clots is going to be the same serum that is sipping from the wounds post-mortem….it is NOT going to be whole blood sipping from the wounds post-moretm, and from some of the wounds it was NOt the whole blood before death as well
    WHY one HAS TO contradict the other is beyond me…

    • Yannick Clément
      May 31, 2013 at 4:38 pm

      I understand that there is a separation of blood and serum in post-mortem blood. I have read that somewhere… But nevertheless, the oozing of post-mortem blood described by Zugibe is in liquid form and complete, which is, evidently, very different than exudates of humid blood clots. Adler was totally convinced from the results he obtained that Barbet’s hypothesis concerning the blood transfer was the correct one.

      Also, don’t forget that the precise shape of the bloodstains on the Shroud is only compatible with exudates of humid blood clots and never with an oozing of fresh post-mortem blood in liquid form the way it was described by Zugibe. That’s the most compelling evidence, among many other things I talked in my previous posts, that Barbet was right and not Zugibe…

  95. jesterof
    May 31, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    But that’s not the conclusion of Adler who completely followed the idea of Barbet, and not Zugibe. That’s my point.

    either you are paraphrasing it wrong or the conclusion is wrong.

  96. jesterof
    May 31, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    I understand that there is a separation of blood and serum in post-mortem blood. I have read that somewhere… But nevertheless, the oozing of post-mortem blood described
    by Zugibe is in liquid form and complete, which is, evidently, very different than exudates of humid blood clots. Adler was totally convinced from the results he obtained that Barbet’s hypothesis concerning the blood transfer was the correct one.

    Yannick, the nature of most of those wounds is such that they are not oozing whole blood in the alive state, and we are talking about post-mortem.
    The scourge marks would not ooze whole blood, the side wound won’t ooze whole blood, the whole blood might have been oozing form the thorns wounds and crucifixion wounds – but others won’t.

    Yannick Clément :
    Also, don’t forget that the precise shape of the bloodstains on the Shroud is only compatible with exudates of humid blood clots and never with an oozing of fresh post-mortem blood in liquid form the way it was described by Zugibe. That’s the most compelling evidence, among many other things I talked in my previous posts, that Barbet was right and not Zugibe…

    They might be talking about different sites. There are plenty of wounds and they are not all the same – so some might be oozing the blood, most will ooze the plasma, some will ooze the serum from clots.

    Unless they all described the same particular site with opposed theories I do not see them being conflicted at all

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 4:53 pm

      Jesterof, with all the respect I have for you as a scientist, I think you should read more carefully Zugibe’s hypothesis about the washing of the body that eventually lead to the formation of the scourge marks on the cloth. Here’s the paper in which he describe his hypothesis: http://shroud.com/zugibe2.htm (important note: Zugibe published his paper in 1989, well after Adler had released his findings about the very particular nature of the blood, i.e. that most of it came not from a post-mortem bleeding in liquid form but from exudates of blood clots, just like it was described by Barbet, which is very different than what Zugibe thought).

      I also think you should read carefully the part of Barbet’s book in which he described the particular kind of blood transfer that, in his mind, occurred on the Shroud in order to cause the vast majority of the bloodstains we see on the cloth. Note that, for Barbet, there are only some bloodstains in the feet area that could have been formed by a drop of post-mortem blood in liquid form inside the cloth after the body had been placed there. For Barbet, all other bloodstains came from the same particular transfer mechanism, i.e. from exudates of still moistened or, in other cases, of re-moistened blood clots. Note also that, for Barbet, these last ones got probably re-moistened by the water vapor that is normally released for some time by a dead body…

      After this reading of Zugibe and Barbet’s writings, I think you should read again carefully my long new post: https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/29/a-guest-posting-by-yannick-clment-two-quotes-about-the-blood/#comment-35754

      Only after this, I dare you to say to me that Adler’s conclusions were not an independent confirmation of Barbet’s conclusions and a challenge against Zugibe’s own hypothesis of the washing of the body…

  97. Louis
    June 1, 2013 at 9:38 am

    Max, I am still waiting for your comments in reply to what I posted on 30 May, # 104.

  98. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 11:49 am

    Ok Louis,
    the fact is I am professionally very busy at the moment and the thread was sort of spoiled by YC’s received and most biased ideas (as the latter does seem totally enable to discriminate between: 1/nearly 2000 years’ old archaeological blood vs. dry stains of relatively fresh one; 2/a biochemist and an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst; 3/a surgeon and a forensic palaeopahtologist) to say nothing of his pathologically irrelevant “hypergraphic” comments on Zugibe’s opinion (as the latter’s voice as forensic expert was just one among several others) and his shameless knack for distorting or ignoring others’ interpretation while having the dead speak (e.g. Adler, Rogers and Barbet) through recurring ad nauseam to “the silence argument”.

    So back to your post # 104. You wrote:

    “Max, in #95 you say you that in 1998 you detected a “strange thing” which was the “faintly lighter discoloration of the vast circular area all around the Shroud face” which had something to do with “the Holy Mandylion reliquary’s vast central circular opening.” Professor Danin saw the Shroud from a distance of around 4 feet during the Round Table in Turin and showed Cardinal Poletto only the plant images he detected and there was no mention of any discoloured area, which according to you, he was only able to see and confirm in May 2012. Why do you think this happened?”

    On March 10, 2012 at 10:14 am (#21 Reply), that is more than a year ago, I already wrote: “in the early 1990′s I first did detect “a strange thing” in the Shroud face region FROM A FULL LENGTH SHROUD PHOTOGRAPHY (an observation that was later confirmed, in 1998, when I visually observed with my own eyes the Shroud on the 1998 exhibition (“IN REALITY SUB VITRO”) in situ catedralis torinensis)”.

    Now on March 10, 2012 at 8:47 pm (#27), I also wrote:
    “The STURP team (and Ray Rogers) kept standing too close to the Shroud to see the circular discoloration around the face. You have to back up from 15 to 30m to really see it. … (This is) not just a matter of “personal opinion”. Just ask any open-minded Shroud researchers do the experiment and most if not all will see it… This is a visual FACT recorded by different photographic pocedures (orthochomatic, traditional silver and extensive digital).” Danin detected it from a highly contrasted full length Shroud photograph in 2011 and not by standing at a distance of around 4 feet. One has to really back up 15-30m to really see it as I saw it in reality sub vitro in situ cathedralis torinensis. The same circular discoloration around the TS face also shows on Thiery Castex’s TS image full or half length 3D reconstructions.

    In reality sub vitro in situ cathedralis torinensis, you can just miss it if you stand either to close or too far from the relic.

  99. Louis
    June 1, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    Many thanks Max, you are right about the forensic experts and Dr.Bucklin also has to be taken into account.

    Your comment on the circular discolouration around the face is extremely important for me because today itself I will be posting an old Shroud interview-article on the Internet and mention is made of the Mandylion and there will be be more on this topic soon. Why don’t you write a paper on your observations?

  100. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Please Louis, bear in mind the circular discoloration around the face can be that left either by the table-reliquary vast central circular opening either of the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion OR that of the Holy Face of the Holy Himation/Sindon.

  101. Louis
    June 1, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    Please explain further Max, this is a bit mind boggling to me, particularly what is meant by “table-reliquary”. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the Mandylion/Image of Edessa was the folded, face-only form of the Shroud?

  102. jesterof
    June 1, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    Discoloration is a very wide term. What do you actually mean? A halo-like around the face, the face being of a different coloring than the other cloth? Darker or lighter?

    the Mandylion has the stains which coincide with the on on the Shroud ( the back of the head) as I recall. So if there is a discoloration around the face, does it mean that the Mandylion was not covering the face, just the Shroud ( as your hypothesis)?

  103. Louis
    June 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Some scholars say they have seen something like a halo around the Shroud face, but if the TS in its folded, face-only version really was the Mandylion then the discoloration would be due to what was and was not covered by the Mandylion frame. The observations should be more clear, whether stated in a paper or not. That is why Max has been requested to explain further.

  104. Yannick Clément
    June 2, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Here’s an answer to jesterof skeptical posts against my statement that Adler’s conclusions about the blood can be seen as a total and independent confirmation of Barbet’s own conclusions, as well as a solid argument against Zugibe’s hypothesis that the Shroud man’s body was vigorously washed prior to be placed inside the Shroud and that it is because of this washing that we can see scourge marks on the cloth:

    Here’s one important quote from the conclusion of Barbet’s book “A Doctor at Calvary” concerning the bloodstains on the Shroud (personal translation): “Let’s come back to the formation of these bloody images. I think I have been able to demonstrate a certain number of facts. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN SUCH BEAUTIFUL IMAGES, WITH BORDERS AS PRECISE AS THOSE ON THE SHROUD, WITH ANY COLORING LIQUID, NOT EVEN LIQUID BLOOD.”

    Note: I think Zugibe should have read this part of Barbet’s book more carefully. By doing so, he would never have proposed the hypothesis of a vigorous washing of the corpse being able to remove the clots in order to produce an oozing of fresh post-mortem blood in liquid form that would have caused the formation of the scourge marks on the cloth.

    Ok, here’s the rest of Barbet’s quote: “There are on the Shroud almost no images of blood flows, like it is represented by painters. On the other hand, there’s no need to think that the corpse, emptied during the transfer of the body (note: from the place of execution to the tomb), could have emitted notable quantities (of blood) in the Shroud. Every bloody images of the Shroud are then decals of fresh clots (note: like the most recent blood flows from the feet and wrists and the post-mortem blood flow from the side wound) or clots that have been softened by the water vapor (note: like all the scourge marks, which were most probably completely dried for a long time when the Shroud man died), which is normally released by a corpse during a pretty long period of time. These portraits of clots are very natural, of a startling truth, up to their most tiny details (note: the UV fluorescence analysis done by Miller and Pellicori of STURP proved that Barbet was right about that when they noticed the very precise details, invisible to the naked eye, present in the scourge marks). These can only have been caused by nature, which has formed them on the skin and then, transferred them on the sheet. These are perfect reprints of natural clots. No artist could have been able to imagine them in all their meticulousness, before back off in front of insurmountable difficulties of execution.”

    Comment from me: I can say honestly that I’m more convinced than ever that what Barbet said in this part of his book is right on the target versus the reality of the bloodstains on the Shroud. And why do I am so much convinced that Barbet was right? Simply because this come from an honest medical expert who knew what he was talking about and, more importantly, because most of his most crucial conclusions about the bloodstains (especially the conclusion that the vast majority of these stains have not been formed by liquid blood but by exudates of moistened or re-moistened blood clots) have later been scientifically and independently confirmed by Adler and Baima Bollone.

    On this subject, here’s a very important quote from Adler’s book “The Orphaned Manuscript”: “Although they sometimes differ on certain matters, all of the medical forensic examinations of the blood images are in agreement that they were EXUDATES FROM CLOTTED WOUNDS transferred to the cloth by contact with a wounded human male body consistent with the historic descriptions given for the Crucifixion of Christ. This conclusion is also consistent with the computer imaging evidence (note: from a study done by Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline of STURP)… Enzymatic removal of the blood from a blood coated fiber reveals that the blood got on the cloth first and therefore protected the blood covered areas of the cloth from the image forming process. ALL THE MICROSCOPIC, CHEMICAL, SPECTROSCOPIC, AND IMMUNOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THESE IMAGES, NOT ONLY BEING EXUDATES FROM CLOTTED WOUNDS, BUT THOSE OF A MAN WHO SUFFERED SEVERE TRAUMA PRIOR TO DEATH, EXPLAINING THE RED COLOR OF THE BLOOD AT THE MICROSCOPIC LEVEL.” Note: Again, if Zugibe could have taken good note of this part of Adler’s book, he would never have proposed his hypothesis about a vigorous washing of the body that have removed the dried clots on the skin of the Shroud man producing an oozing of post-mortem liquid blood… The sum of scientific evidences reported here by Adler (along with the fact that it is impossible for liquid blood to produce the very precise shape of the bloodstains we see on the Shroud) is not at all consistent with Zugibe’s hypothesis.

    Now, let’s get back to Adler’s quote: “Proposed mineral compositions simulating blood are not consistent with these various measured chemical and physical parameters. 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 (note: this is not at all the same thing as an oozing of post-mortem liquid blood and serum from an open wound) agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers (note: Adler talks about Vignon and Barbet) on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth. It is clear that we can explain the presence of the blood images on the cloth consistent with their alleged origin.”

    I hope everyone is able to realize now that Barbet and Adler’s conclusion concerning the bloodstains are different and irreconcilable versus Zugibe’s hypothesis of a vigorous washing of the corpse that would have been the primary cause of the formation of the scourge marks on the cloth! It’s one or the other. We cannot hold both conclusions together… Personally, I am totally convinced that Zugibe’s idea was incorrect and that it is Barbet and Adler who were right about the particular kind of blood transfer that lead to the formation of most of the bloodstains we can see on the Shroud, including the numerous scourge marks. I’m also more and more convinced that Adler’s explanation for the reddish aspect of the bloodstains is the most probable that exist. And as jesterof said the other day (and I agree with him): the only question that remains unanswered for the moment concerning the particular color of those stains is why the bilirubin, which is normally an unstable compound, have been preserved inside the bloodstains for so long, up until now, thus producing a redder (brighter) color than normal, especially these stains are seen in sunlight.

    Concerning this question, as jesterof also said on the blog, there are tons of natural causes that can be potentially good to explain the preservation of the bilirubin until this day, starting with the simple fact that the bloodstains on the cloth are dry and that they were caused by exudates of humid blood clots instead of liquid blood, along with the possible presence of saponaria residues on the cloth that could also have played an important role in this preservation of the bilirubin, etc., etc… I hope this will help some people around here to see more clearly what is the real truth concerning the blood on the Shroud! And please, don’t forget my own little experiment of blood transfer, which proved that it is very easy to produce a mirror image of a wound that has been dry for several hours on a piece of fabric, as long as enough moisture is present on its surface and a small pressure is put on the fabric. I really hope this observation of mine (I which I could have taken pictures of this, but I swear to God I only tell the truth) can help some people to understand that there is nothing strange or supernatural about the fact that the scourge marks are those of wounds that were probably dried for a pretty long time when the Shroud man died on the cross…

  105. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Yannick here you go again.

    The whole point of my remarks ( not in hostile manner, btw, I do not expect everybody to grasp immediately on something I know professionally, or see it in a different light, because that’s why there is so much training ) were that your point of proving by quotes from one research that the other was wrong is a mistake because you do not take into account that that particular person was referring just to one aspect, not touching the other knowingly, because he is talking ONLY about something he addressed, and he knows the others also know that untouched matters are untouched because they did not address it.
    May I cal this approach of yours corpuscular, whereas it should be continuous?
    We already agreed on the issue of bilirubin/UV exposure and why the amount of bilirubin will be increased.

    I believe you on your experiment. I do not dispute Barbet or Adler or whoever.

    But I honestly can not understand WHY do you think the description of the halo from a plasma from a blood clot could would contradict the same plasma (as a description of fluid flawing from the side wound)?
    I already asked this question – when you are talking about the description of ht stains by Barbet/Adler and telling that those contradict what Zugibe is writing – are you talking about the same stains? or you think that Zugibe is wrong in his assumption of the body being washed, because then there won’t be any retracted clots left?
    But there could be – the body could have been washed not in a way you expect – to wash away all the clots, but it could have been just moistening them, not washing away.

    On the issue of washing/not washing I think one would benefit more listening not to “blood experts” but those who know the ancient Jewish burial customs and with taking into account that it was Friday evening.
    The approach to all the possibilities should be complex – and we might want to listen what Max tells us on this – because his approach might have the valuable touch to all the discussion.
    Though, honestly, I do not see contradiction where YOU see it.

  106. Yannick Clément
    June 2, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Quote: “But I honestly can not understand WHY do you think the description of the halo from a plasma from a blood clot could would contradict the same plasma (as a description of fluid flawing from the side wound)?”

    Answer: Because of the very precise shape of most of the bloodstains that cannot have been made with an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood like it was described by Zugibe (this is particularly true concerning the very precise details not visible to the naked eye that Pellicori and Miller saw on their UV fluorescence photos of the scourge wounds). Adler and Barbet were very clear about the fact that these stains (not only the scourge marks but most of every other bloodstains as well) came from exudates of humid blood clots, which is totally different than bloodstains made of liquid blood.

    Quote: “when you are talking about the description of ht stains by Barbet/Adler and telling that those contradict what Zugibe is writing – are you talking about the same stains?”

    Answer: Of course I am talking about the very same stains, which are the scourge marks. Zugibe thought that they were caused by an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood after the removal of the dried clots by a vigorous washing while Barbet (and also Adler) conclude that these stains were made of exudates of blood clots that were still humid enough (Adler) or that became re-moistened thanks to the release of water vapor by the corpse (Barbet), so they could leave the kind of precise mirror imprints of themselves on the cloth. Both hypotheses are incompatible. It’s one or the other… We cannot hold both together, sorry. One must be wrong here: Zugibe or the Barbet-Adler tandem.

    Quote: “But there could be – the body could have been washed not in a way you expect – to wash away all the clots, but it could have been just moistening them, not washing away.”

    Answer: This idea sound very irrealistic to me for many reasons. The main argument against that is the fact that there is absolutely no smudge of blood that would have been caused by an oozing of post-mortem blood in liquid form, particularly in the region of the back, which would certainly have happened if only a few clots would have been removed thanks to the washing (which, in my mind, would have certainly happened in a few places, even if the washing would have been done very mildly). Also, the simple fact that dirt have been found in the region of the heels and knees is another strong argument agains the idea of a washing (whether it be a gentle or a vigorous washing). Effectively, I don’t see the Jews of Jesus time (who were very meticulous normally) leaving evident traces of dirt on very exposed body parts like the knees… Finally, if the Shroud is the genuine shroud of Jesus, the idea of a washing has to be seen in contradiction with the Gospel accounts of an hasty and incomplete burial because of the arrival of the Sabbath and Passover feast. Along with these strong arguments, I’m sure that if I think about it for some time, I will come up with some more arguments… But the 3 I just bring you are solid enough to understand that a gentle washing of the body is unlikely…

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:39 pm

      Complementary comment: In the case of ancient wounds like the scourge wounds, my own experience proved that such ancient clotted wounds could easily produced mirror imprints on a piece of fabric as long as there is enough moistening over them. And to explain such mostening, I think Barbet’s hypothesis concerning the very probable release of water vapor by the corpse if the most rational we can find. Note that if this is correct and water vapor was truly released by the corpse very soon after death, I think it is fair to also assume that some other molecules (of lactic acid or urea for example) could have been present inside of this vapor that could well have taken part in the body image formation process… As I said in my last guess posting, it is far from being dumb to think that the bloodstains, as well as the body image, can both have been directly caused by the presence of a highly traumatized corpse inside the Shroud instead of a glorious body of light and, if this is correct, then we must see the long Christian tradition that though the body image of a dead Christ to have been caused by his Passion and death as having been right on the target versus the reality of the Shroud…

  107. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    Yannick Clément :

    Quote: “But I honestly can not understand WHY do you think the description of the halo from a plasma from a blood clot could would contradict the same plasma (as a description of fluid flawing from the side wound)?”
    Answer: Because of the very precise shape of most of the bloodstains that cannot have been made with an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood like it was described by Zugibe (this is particularly true concerning the very precise details not visible to the naked eye that Pellicori and Miller saw on their UV fluorescence photos of the scourge wounds). Adler and Barbet were very clear about the fact that these stains (not only the scourge marks but most of every other bloodstains as well) came from exudates of humid blood clots, which is totally different than bloodstains made of liquid blood.

    Yannick !!! do you understand the question?

    “WHY do you think the description of the halo from a plasma from a blood clot could would contradict the same plasma (as a description of fluid flawing from the side wound)?”

    WHERE do I say about the blood?
    You do not understand the difference, don’t you?

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:54 pm

      I have to say that the formulation of your question is not easy to understand for a French speaking quebecer like me. Can you ask it again in more clear terms please? I thought you were pretending that there was no différences between an halo of serum caused by the clot retraction process of blood clotting and an halo of serum caused by an oozing of post-mortem bleeding. In the case of the Shroud, Adler and Barbet were precise about the fact that the halo of serum (which were first described by Barbet and later confirmed by Miller and Pellicori as also by Adler) were caused by the phenomenon known as clot retraction when the clot is in his drying phase on the skin. I have a hard time to believe an oozing of post-mortem blood that would be surrounded by some serum would cause the same kind of bloodstains we see on the Shroud that are surrounded by very nice serum halos. If we believe Barbet and Adler’s conclusions, this kind of serum halo cannot come from anything else than exudates of humid blood clots. And for Barbet, even the big blood flow under the side wound was caused by exudates of a very recent blood clot that was still very humid (because it never got time to dry completely before the body was placed inside the Shroud).

  108. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    Yannick Clément :

    Quote: “when you are talking about the description of ht stains by Barbet/Adler and telling that those contradict what Zugibe is writing – are you talking about the same stains?”
    Answer: Of course I am talking about the very same stains, which are the scourge marks. Zugibe thought that they were caused by an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood after the removal of the dried clots by a vigorous washing while Barbet (and also Adler) conclude that these stains were made of exudates of blood clots that were still humid enough (Adler) or that became re-moistened thanks to the release of water vapor by the corpse (Barbet), so they could leave the kind of precise mirror imprints of themselves on the cloth. Both hypotheses are incompatible. It’s one or the other… We cannot hold both together, sorry. One must be wrong here: Zugibe or the Barbet-Adler tandem.
    Quote: “But there could be – the body could have been washed not in a way you expect – to wash away all the clots, but it could have been just moistening them, not washing away.”

    No, you clearly are NOT. The side wound was mostly pleural fluid and not whole blood – there hardly would be any clots.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:42 pm

      You should say Barbet was incorrect then, not me, because he definately said that the side wound was caused by the same transfer process than the scourge wounds, with the difference that the side wound clot was very fresh and humid when the body reached the tomb… No need in this case to ask for a re-moistening of this big and already very humid clot.

      Question: Have you at least read Barbet’s book? From your answers, I don’t think so.

  109. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    Yannick Clément :

    Quote: “But there could be – the body could have been washed not in a way you expect – to wash away all the clots, but it could have been just moistening them, not washing away.”
    Answer: This idea sound very irrealistic to me for many reasons. The main argument against that is the fact that there is absolutely no smudge of blood that would have been caused by an oozing of post-mortem blood in liquid form, particularly in the region of the back, which would certainly have happened if only a few clots would have been removed thanks to the washing (which, in my mind, would have certainly happened in a few places, even if the washing would have been done very mildly). Also, the simple fact that dirt have been found in the region of the heels and knees is another strong argument agains the idea of a washing (whether it be a gentle or a vigorous washing). Effectively, I don’t see the Jews of Jesus time (who were very meticulous normally) leaving evident traces of dirt on very exposed body parts like the knees… Finally, if the Shroud is the genuine shroud of Jesus, the idea of a washing has to be seen in contradiction with the Gospel accounts of an hasty and incomplete burial because of the arrival of the Sabbath and Passover feast. Along with these strong arguments, I’m sure that if I think about it for some time, I will come up with some more arguments… But the 3 I just bring you are solid enough to understand that a gentle washing of the body is unlikely…

    I GIVE UP :-)

    you do not understand what I am asking and keep repeating the same nonsense – I have never ever even talked about the WHOLE BLOOD oozing or not.

    My whole point that the wounds I am referring to could not have been whole blood at all

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:44 pm

      Zugibe DID thought that the scourge wounds were caused by an oozing of fresh post-mortem blood and this is in total contradiction with Barbet and Adler’s conclusion. I don’t pretend you had the same idea than Zugibe. I just pretend that Zugibe thought the scourge wounds to have been caused by an oozing of liquid blood and I and Adler and Barbet, we all disagree with him. That’s all I say.

  110. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    I have to say that the formulation of your question is not easy to understand for a French speaking quebecer like me. Can you ask it again in more clear terms please? I
    thought you were pretending that there was no différences between an halo of serum caused by the clot retraction process of blood clotting and an halo of serum caused by an oozing of post-mortem bleeding. In the case of the Shroud, Adler and Barbet were precise about the fact that the halo of serum (which were first described by Barbet and later confirmed by Miller and Pellicori as also by Adler) were caused by the phenomenon known as clot retraction when the clot is in his drying phase on the skin. I have a hard time to believe an oozing of post-mortem blood that would be surrounded by some serum would cause the same kind of bloodstains we see on the Shroud that are surrounded by very nice serum halos. If we believe Barbet and Adler’s conclusions, this kind of serum halo cannot come from anything else than exudates of humid blood clots. And for Barbet, even the big blood flow under the side wound was caused by exudates of a very recent blood clot that was still very humid (because it never got time to dry completely before the body was placed inside the Shroud).

    my formulation is as clear as possible in this situation – English is not my first language as well, though it is my professional language

    the point is you are stubbornly talking about whole blood where there won’t be whole blood, mostly plasma

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 8:30 pm

      One thing’s for sure: that’s not what Barbet thought…

  111. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Zugibe DID thought that the scourge wounds were caused by an oozing of fresh post-mortem blood and this is in total contradiction with Barbet and Adler’s conclusion. I
    don’t pretend you had the same idea than Zugibe. I just pretend that Zugibe thought the scourge wounds to have been caused by an oozing of liquid blood and I and Adler and Barbet, we all disagree with him. That’s all I say.

    Forensic pathology course is long behind me but I do not see BOTH can’t be present as a result of scourging wounds – the one which had whole blood bleeding ( ripped skin) will have the barbet clots, the ones which had abrasions of epidermis over subepidermal hematomas will weep the unclotted blood from hematoma

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 8:30 pm

      Where do you see on the Shroud imprints of blood wounds coming from the second kind of injury you described (the hematomas)? All that Barbet saw in the scourge wounds was contused injuries that produced enough bleeding at the surface of the skin to left a Mirror imprint on the cloth (pretty much like the wound of my own experience).

  112. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    error : do not see WHY BOTH can’t be present

  113. jesterof
    June 3, 2013 at 8:43 am

    Yannick Clément :
    Where do you see on the Shroud imprints of blood wounds coming from the second kind of injury you described (the hematomas)? All that Barbet saw in the scourge wounds was contused injuries that produced enough bleeding at the surface of the skin to left a Mirror imprint on the cloth (pretty much like the wound of my own experience).

    Contised injuries produce hematomas mostly not an whole blood bleeding

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 10:43 am

      Unless the contised injury is a “contused lacerate” kind of wound. The abstract of the paper you gave us in reference yesterday talk specifically about this sort of wound and I really think this is exactly the type of scourge wounds that were present on the skin of the Shroud man after his scourging (along with probably hematomas or bruises that didn’t cause any bleeding, which have not left any bloody imprint on the Shroud).

      Please read this new comment of mine: https://shroudstory.com/2013/06/01/the-orphaned-manuscript-and-the-color-of-blood/#comment-35865

      I ask some good questions regarding the kind of ball or bone that could have caused the contused lacerate wounds that we see the mirror bloody imprints on the Shroud… Personally, I think the most rational answer is to assume that there were bones at the end of each leather tongue of the flagrum instead of round and smooth metal balls, because a lot of scourge hits have been able to create small lacerations of the skin in the form of a dumbbell, which got filled with blood and it is these blood clots that eventually left a very precise imprint on the Shroud…

  114. June 3, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    Yannick you may THINK that those are the exact type of woubnds or you may not think they are but you do not have any idea what are you talking about, no offense – but this is obvious by you not even understanding where do you get it wrong.
    A blog design is not the best for lectures in phorensics, sorry.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 1:37 pm

      This is one of the most pretentious message I ever get… I could say many bad things here but I prefer to shut my mouth.

      Nevertheless, I want to say that, unlike you obviously, I think I have considered all the most relevant observations and facts before I gave my hypothesis, which is the same as the one proposed by Barbet with one precision, i.e. I think more and more that the flagrum were not made of metal balls but of small bones instead, which could explain more easily the small dumbbell lacerations that were surely there on the skin of the Shroud man, or else, there would have been absolutely no bloody imprints of the scourging…

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 1:46 pm

      I’ll tell you one more time: Please read this new comment of mine: https://shroudstory.com/2013/06/01/the-orphaned-manuscript-and-the-color-of-blood/#comment-35865

      In it, you’ll find very strong argument in favor of Barbet’s hypothesis concerning the formation of the scourge marks imprints which came most probably from exudates of re-moistened blood clots (probably because of the water vapor released by the corpse after death).

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 1:52 pm

      Since my own hypothesis concerning the formation of the scourge wounds is almost 99% based on Barbet’s own hypothesis, do you realize that what you said to me concerning the “fact” that I don’t understand anything on this topic can be also applied to him? This is truly pretentious and even ridiculous…

  115. jesterof
    June 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm

    I have no reason not to agre with this in aprticular:

    “Forgetting all of the other wounds, no one would argue that the scourge wounds were made and clotting begun several hours prior to death.
    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. ”

    But the pattern of the wounds is almost exactly the same – this will never happen if the wounds are inflicted and left alone with blood,m dust, plasma, sweat for a long time prior to death.

    “A forensic evaluation of the crucifixion reveals that every movement during the entire time the crucified was on the cross would have restarted bleeding in the hand and foot wounds. The body unquestionably would have been literally covered with blood because the heart pumps about 4500 gallons of blood through more than 60,000 miles of large and small blood vessels throughout the whole body each day. Instead of the very exact imprints of the wounds, the Shroud would instead bear large indistinct masses of blood over the entire image including the face, arms, hands, feet and trunk. Every practicing forensic pathologist knows that even tiny wounds may bleed profusely during heart activity and observes the end results of bleeding from wounds of practically every type on a daily basis”

    THIS:

    “It is also of importance to note that scourge markings were made many hours prior to removal from the cross so that encrusted clots would have formed in the wounds therefore making it difficult to understand how the scourge marks would have left such precise imprints.”

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 1:43 pm

      The last sentence of your post prove that you never consider seriously my own experience I shared with you! I told you specifically that even after 5 hours after the clotting of the wound, it is EASY TO PRODUCE A MIRROR IMPRINT THAT LOOK VERY MUCH LIKE THE SCOURGE WOUNDS ON THE SHROUD, AS LONG AS THERE IS MOISTENING PRESENT OVER THE BLOOD CLOT!!!

      Hey, I’m no scientist but that doesn’t mean I cannot make clever observations of some natural processes! Zugibe was wrong about the idea that ancient blood clots that have dried for several hours cannot left a mirror bloody imprint on a cloth. I know because my own experience PROVE THAT IT IS TRULY POSSIBLE. If it was possible for me in St-Alexis-des-Monts, Quebec in 2011, why wouldn’t it be possible in the case of the scourge wounds of the Shroud man?

  116. June 3, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    I have already told you that your scratching is NOT the same type of wounds inflicted on the Shroud Man, so they are useless in a sense. I do not doubt you can transfer a wound imprint to a cloth from a clot – that is not the point a t all. The point is your experiment does not prove your thesis – that it is exactly like the scourge wound on th Man of the Shround. Not to mention that it is a SINGLE woubnf on a clean skin in an air-conditioned XXI century environment, not multibple differnet wounds under the scorching sun and with additional tortures involevs.

    I can’t help that you simply do not understand why the differnece in the wounds IS important, as is important the number of those and additional factors.
    If the person states “it looks like a scourge wound” but it is a scratch wound one can’t take it seriously, becasue it is a proof that you do not understand all the confounding factors.

    p.s. you are such a prolific writer that I will just answer your last coment

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 3:41 pm

      Look, Miller and Pellicori of STURP looked closely at the scourge wounds on the their UV fluorescence photos and discovered very fine scartch-like marks that are not visible to the naked eye!

      If there were small animal bones at the end of each leather tongue of the flagrum (this is, by the way, an historical fact that bones like that were sometimes used instead of lead balls), then why would it be impossible to get small contused lacerate wounds on the skin in the shape of small dumbbells? Explain this to me (and to Barbet on his cloud) because I really don’t know how you can totally discard so easily such a realistic and rational possibility!

      And if the very precise scourge wounds that we see on the Shroud didn’t came from exudates of re-moistened blood clots, then what is the “mysterious” transfer process that could have acheive such clear and precise bloody imprints, along with clear serum halos surrounding almost every one of these imprints of wounds, especially in the back region where an important pressure due to the body weight was present??? I think you completely forget the FACT that the scourge wounds of the back are as good and precise as the ones in front of the body (where there was almost no weight pressure on the cloth), along with the FACT that there is no more smudges of blood on the back part of the image as on the front part of the image! Think about that for 2 seconds and I dare you to tell me that these facts could be due to something else than what Barbet and Adler have reported in their writings, i.e. that a vast majority of the bloodstains (that include the scourge marks) are due to exudates of humid blood clots!

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 3:49 pm

      Oh, by the way, my tree branch wound occurred in open-air while I was walking in the woods and I only noticed it several minutes after it happened and was very surprise to see that the blood only filled this kind of lacerate wound without producing any blood flows on my arm! Seriously, it was on my way back home when I noticed it and the clotting process had already begun… And then, I forgot about it for more than 5 hours and then, I had the brilliant idea to verify if the hypothesis of Barbet concerning the transfer of blood on the Shroud from a re-moistening of dried blood clots (especially when it comes to clotted wounds like the scourge wounds that were dried for several hours). I was truly amazed to see that a little bit of saliva on-top of my dried wound and a very mild pressure on a kleenex was enough to produce a very precise mirror imprint of this wounds (which had, by the way, a very distinct shape, almost like a “V”). This kind of result can truly represent what happened to the Shroud man’s body inside the Shroud, except that it was not saliva but water vapor who probably caused the re-moistening in his case… Think about that for a while without any closeness of mind.

  117. jesterof
    June 3, 2013 at 2:40 pm

    “Zugibe was wrong about the idea that ancient blood clots that have dried for several hours cannot left a mirror bloody imprint on a cloth.”

    Zugibe NEVER stated that at all. it seems to me that you do not understand what his point was as well.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 3:30 pm

      Maybe Zugibe thought that the dirt would have covered the clots, but the simple fact that we see those precise images of clots (Barbet’s expression) on the Shroud (with retraction halos of serum for most of them) is enough to understand that this was not the case. Nobody was there at the foot of the cross to see how muddy was the body of the Shroud man! This is pure speculation on the part of Zugibe… And if we believe Barbet, an oozing of liquid blood the way it was described by Zugibe following a vigorous washing would NEVER have caused precise mirror imprints. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE since liquid blood will ALWAYS have a tendency to follow the weave pattern, which is not what we see on the Shroud. On the contrary, what we see on the Shroud, and Barbet was clear about that, are precise mirror imprints that cannot be acheived by anything else than exudates of blood clots. Or else, there would be smudges of blood all over the Shroud, especially in the back region where there was an important pressure due to the body weight…

  118. jesterof
    June 3, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    Read his articles on the site shroud.com. Or refresh them, if you read before.
    maybe you will realize that his theory is right and it does not conflict with Barbet’s mechanism of transferring the imprints.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 5, 2013 at 8:33 am

      This is ludicrous. First Zugibe mention specifically a vigorous washing of the body being able to remove the dried clots. This is the first important difference between his own hypothesis and Barbet. And then, this removal procude an oozing of LIQUID BLOOD ! Right after that, we must assume that the body was placed in the Shroud. Explain to me how an oozing of liquid blood could produced the PRECISE scourge wounds we see on the Shroud, especially in the back region where there was a high pressure due to the body weight without ever producing one single smudge?

      I think you didn’t understood well Zugibe’s hypothesis… Look at the photos he took! This is an oozing of LIQUID BLOOD. Then he used a paper towel to try to reproduce a perfect shaped stain like the scourge marks but he only applied his towel on the oozing VERY GENTLY! This is completely different than the placing of a dead body on a linen shroud, especially for the back region! No gentle pressure there my friend but a very important one that would have certainly produced big smudge. In this context, you can forget any bloodstain with a perfect dumbbell shape! Or else, explain to me how you can acheive this kind of feat!

      • Yannick Clément
        June 5, 2013 at 8:34 am

        Zugibe mention a vigorous washing in contrast to a simple rincing of the body that wouldn’t have removed the dried blood clots. This is all in his paper…

      • Yannick Clément
        June 5, 2013 at 9:23 am

        Correction: Zugibe don’t used the term “vigorous”, but only “washing”. I add this term before “washing” just to differenciate the other term “rinsing” used by Zugibe and make realize that the kind of washing described by Zugibe would have removed the dried blood clots, producing an oozing of LIQUID BLOOD. Again, I repeat the question: How in the world can you obtain very precise mirror image imprints of dumbbell shape wounds on a linen cloth made with an herringbone weave if these wounds are oozing fresh post-mortem blood in liquid form, especially in the back region where there was certainly a high pressure caused by the body weight and how in the world can you avoid to produce smudges of blood (again, especially in the back region) in such a context?

  119. jesterof
    June 3, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    one more remark – stop referring YOUR ideas( or your understanding of somebody’s else ideas) as Zugibe’s, Barbet’s or anybody else.

    I have not had time to check precisely on Barbet – but whatever you attribute to Zugibe ( “vigorous” washing, etc) is clearly your own fantasies.

    I’ve head some time to read his articles on blood today.

  120. Louis
    June 5, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Dr. Zugibe also attributed the Jospice imprint to bilirubin. Well, common sense tells me that if bilirubin can so easily be the cause of well-defined images, with photographic qualities, the we should see this phenomenon everyday.

  121. June 5, 2013 at 10:24 am

    Louis :Dr. Zugibe also attributed the Jospice imprint to bilirubin. Well, common sense tells me that if bilirubin can so easily be the cause of well-defined images, with photographic qualities, the we should see this phenomenon everyday.

    It does not prove or disprove anything. He is a forensic medical examiner, not a ghost chaser :-)
    And him being wrong on Jospice does not change the issue that Yannick does not understand what he is reading and makes conclusions which has nothing to do with the conclusions of the article authors themselves

    • Yannick Clément
      June 5, 2013 at 10:36 am

      [Edited] [C]an you please answer this simple question that I ask you again and again and again and that you always seem to avoid: How in the world can you obtain very precise mirror image imprints of dumbbell shape wounds on a linen cloth made with an herringbone weave if these wounds are oozing fresh post-mortem blood in liquid form, especially in the back region where there was certainly a high pressure caused by the body weight and how in the world can you avoid to produce smudges of blood (again, especially in the back region) in such a context?

      • Dan
        June 5, 2013 at 11:57 am

        Yannick, no need to be insulting.

      • Yannick Clément
        June 5, 2013 at 12:03 pm

        When you get insulted constantly by someone who thinks it takes a Phd to understand any issue about the Shroud, I think every normal human being would react like I do… I don’t think I’m more bad than anyone else here. But I will try to get more polite in the future. By the way, I hope you’ll post soon my other guess post !

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER
        June 5, 2013 at 3:57 pm

        Why not?

        From Zugibe’s book:

        “The controversy as to whether or not the man of the Shroud was washed prior to being placed on the burial cloth has far-reaching significance in terms of authenticity of the TS. The concept that the crucified man was not washed prior to being placed on the Shroud would not be readily acceptable by the forensic pathologist whose expertise also includes studies of antemortem and postmortem bloodflow patterns on fabrics in forensic reconstructions. Acceptance of the hypothesis that the victim was not washed would therefore place the authenticity of the TS in serious doubts”.

        “It is also of importance to note that scourge markings were made many hours prior to removal from the cross, so that incrusted clots would have formed in the wounds, therefore making it difficult to understand how the scourge marks could have left such precise imprints. Every forensic pathologist I have consulted has agreed that the wounds would have caused a large ammount of bleeding and that the body had to be washed, to account for the preciseness of the wounds on the Shroud. On the december 1980 issue of Medical World News, dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist and a former Chief Medical Examiner of New-York City, agreed that if the Shroud is genuine, the body must have been washed. He also added that if the body was washed, there might be some oozing from the wounds”.

        “Therefore, if the body was not washed, there would have been an absence of most of the body image in patchy distribution all over the Shroud because there would have been large amounts of blood all over the Shroud, preventing the image-production mechanism”.

        “During my observations of rabbinic washings in trauma cases, especially in circumstances with sundown rapidly approaching, the rabbis would quickly wash the body, sometimes washing the front of the body and sitting up the body to do the back, initiating blood flows in wounds that were present on the face and the torso. Anything that flowed after the washing was considered unclean blood, and they ould not wash again”.

        Hope that this can help.

        Thibault.

  122. Yannick Clément
    June 5, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Jesterof, if you don’t want to answer my simple question (or if you’re affraid to answer), here’s what Barbet would answer: An oozing of post-mortem liquid blood the way it was described by Zugibe following a washing that would remove the dried blood clots of the scourge wounds would NEVER be able to cause precise mirror imprints in the form of small dumbbells the way we see them on the Shroud. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE since liquid blood will ALWAYS have a tendency to follow the weave pattern, which is not what we see on the Shroud where the borders of every scourge marks are very well defined because these stains were not “disturbed” by the weave of the cloth (that’s why we can easily note their dumbbell shape). Only exudates of humid blood clots can produce these kind of very precise mirror imprints on a cloth.

  123. Louis
    June 5, 2013 at 11:23 am

    Jesterof, You have gone off the point, the discussion is about bilirubin and imprint/image formation, not about ghosts. It is Spiritualism, not Parapsychology, recognised by the UN, that is interested in ghosts. Regarding the rest, it is YC who has a point and what he says is also in keeping with NT accounts,given the little time that was available between the removal of the body on the cross and burial, and, between Dr.Zugibe and these NT accounts, I am inclined to agree with the latter.

  124. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 5, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    To YC: In Ian Wilson’s words, “Only on the view that Jesus was not washed can the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin be upheld”. He based his argument on the scriptural text which states the imminence of the Sabbath after the death of Christ. Because the Sabbath was so near at hand, there simply was not enough time to wash the body prior to burial.”

    As far as the “no washing advocacy” is concerned, YC is an old timer… WILSONIST!

    Re “time that was available between the removal of the body on the cross and burial”, reminder for Louis, YC et al:

    The maximum time-frame for Yeshua’s burial is 4 hours, the minimum time-frame 2 hours-2 hours and a half. Besides, most likely, there were 4-6 buriers involved. Speedy burial, wrapping in clean shrouds, purifying and drying as core procedures could be performed even within the minimum time-frame of 2 hours-2 hours and a half. Wilson, Louis and YC are totally wrong in terms of related archaeoastronomy, Second Temple period time-markers in Hebrew and koine Greek NT exegesis.

  125. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    To Louis and YC, Shall I repeat my post June 4, 2013 at 8:00 am (#63 Reply)?:
    “The very fact the buriers took great care not to disturb the blood is consistent with an ancient Judean/Jewish burial custom in terms of bloody corpse tahara (purification ritual). It has nothing to do with a supernatural event. As a victim of a violent death, his body should be buried with his shed innocent blood. Most likely, the neat haematic cartography resulted from a sticking-gradual-unsticking transfer mechanism implying first the clean long inner burial sheet soaked in a watery solution was compressed widthwise (with shorter dry clean outer shrouds) while taut lengthwise back and front as all parts of the body should be wrapped-up (Naḥmanides, Torat ha-Adam; Inyan ha-hoẓa’ah) and then the tightly wrapped-up bloody corpse was subjected to fumigation (and the long inner burial sheet somehow got taut again back and front through shrinking up). Reminder in the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s: To his buriers and (secret) disciples, Yeshua was no am ha-arets (“average citizen”) but a prominent figure.”
    MOst likely, a shortened tahara (or purification ritual) was performd as ultimate kindness to honor their deceased Master while abiding by the Halakha (Judean religious law).

  126. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    Louis :Jesterof, You have gone off the point, the discussion is about bilirubin and imprint/image formation, not about ghosts. It is Spiritualism, not Parapsychology, recognised by the UN, that is interested in ghosts. Regarding the rest, it is YC who has a point and what he says is also in keeping with NT accounts,given the little time that was available between the removal of the body on the
    cross and burial, and, between Dr.Zugibe and these NT accounts, I am inclined to agree with the latter.

    we were not discussing the test. we were discussing the blood stains and the views of the two researchers on the method of forming them. Upon checking the articles of one of them turns out the interpretation by Yannick which he has been so prolificly posting is totally his own interpretation, not what the author writes. Whatever one or the other author is telling about anything else, including the bilirubin Jospise omrints is irrelevant – one might be right on one issue and wrong on the other. Especially if the “other issue” is not from his area of expertise

  127. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    addition – nowhere in his articles ( on blood) does Zugibe implies about “vigorpus wahsing of the body” – this is a complete confabulation on Yannick’s part as is his confabulation on the part of ” sipping postmortem blood” – in the article I’ve provided, which discusses the issue of the blood imprints and why Zugibe thimks the body was rinsed or washed, though not vigorously )))), and he is right, btw – the uniformity of the imprints could and would not happen if any additional contamination of the surface of the skin, including blood, won’t be removed – one can not get the exact same imprints becasue the sweat, dirt, blood, lymph will mess up everything. If skin surface is somewhat cleaned the blood/plasma clots in the indentitions of the skin formed by flagrum will reamin and leave the similar imrints on the cloth. But the latter can’t be achieved with all other contamination.

  128. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    Yannick Clément :[Edited] [C]an you please answer this simple question that I ask you again and again and again and that you always seem to avoid: How in the world can you obtain very precise mirror image imprints of dumbbell shape wounds on a linen cloth made with an herringbone weave if these wounds are oozing fresh post-mortem blood in liquid form, especially in the back region where there
    was certainly a high pressure caused by the body weight and how in the world can you avoid to produce smudges of blood (again, especially in the back region) in such a context?

    I did and even provided the quotes for explanation. I can’t answer your own fantasies, though. You do not listen to what is being said, you repeat your own conclusions – the issue on “vigorous washing” is just one example.
    You might be passionate about the issue but there is no need to be passionate – it serves you better when you try to think about and read what is written without preconcieved views.There is no feud between Barbet and Zugibe on the clots ( there is on method of crucifixion, but not on this one). Zugibe does not dispute the method of transfer of the clots to the cloth – the clots in the skin indentitions formed by fllagrum. But in order for those imprints to look so alike as they are – the skin surrounding those indentitions with clots should be relatively clean – otherwise the imprints will never be the same.
    And that is the ,main point of Zugibe’s article ( his photographs prove that as well)

    • Yannick Clément
      June 5, 2013 at 1:09 pm

      I don’t think you read the paper of Zugibe with the same eyes than me! Look at the example of transfer he provide us in his paper. The oozing of blood is in liquid form! The washing (by the way I already said that the term “vigorous” was from me to avoid people could think of a simple rising without any wash) proposed by him would REMOVE THE DRY CLOT COMPLETELY and produce an oozing of LIQUID BLOOD. How can you get an oozing of something else than liquid blood if you remove the dry clot of the wound? It’s evident you will get an oozing of LIQUID BLOOD. And Barbet was categorical about that: Except in the region of the feet, there is no bloodstains on the Shroud that were made by a transfer of liquid blood. It’s not me who talk, it is Barbet. This kind of liquid blood transfer proposed by Zugibe would never produce precise dumbbell shape mirror images of scourge wounds, especially in the back region because of the body weight pressure.

      Jesterof, can you, for once, address that issue of the body weight pressure that would without any doubt have produced many smudges of blood and imprecise bloodstains if Zugibe was right about an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood following a washing (forget « vigorous » if you want) of the body just before it was placed inside the cloth? I never read anything from you concerning this important argument of mine…

  129. Louis
    June 5, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Jesterof,OK, you got the point now when you say that “one might be right in one issue and wrong in the other”. It is exactly what had been written on the Jospice imprint that I was contesting. Being a physician, you are in a better position to argue about the body washing, but my suggestion is that you read Barbet first so that you get a more complete picture of what has been published in books so far. Best.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 5, 2013 at 2:24 pm

      That’s the most intelligent comment I’ve read since a week (including my own comments)!

      • Yannick Clément
        June 5, 2013 at 2:25 pm

        Oh, and Louis, don’t forget that Barbet too was a real expert in the field of wounds and bloodstains…

  130. Louis
    June 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Max. the gospels mention just one cloth, no inner Shroud and there is another question that arises, and that is: if so much time was available, what was Marie Madeleine doing at the tomb on Sunday morning?

  131. Louis
    June 5, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    Yannick, any one who read Barbet knows what he was qualified to write about and as I told Jesterof it is important to read him first simply because his book has been very influential in Shroud studies.

  132. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 5, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    Louis,

    In the Gospels the sindon AND additional pieces of linen are mentioned NOT just one. In the talmudic literature, one of the core burial Judean procedures consisted in wrapping the corpse in shroudS NOT “a” shroud. The Hebrew word sovev as sadin refers to the main piece of linen. It is part and parcel of the takhrikhim (Hebrew for “burial shrouds”. Most likely, the long inner burial sheet was the TS.

    Re Yeshua’s burial time-frame: most obviously you missed one of my previous post (April 23, 2013 at 6:56 am (#61 Reply):

    “The true fact is Judean liberal Pharisees were allowed to complete a burial rite on the Sabbath (once initiated) even after sunset if need be to honor the deceased as long as they didn’t move the body. Because the women had to abide by the Halakha (Judean religious law), anointing was not performed though as they were not allowed to grind solid/granulised spices to make spicy oily perfumes after sunset (even had the grinding been initiated before sunset) on Sabbath. Hence Yeshua’s body was not anointed on his burial. Therfore anointing on the third day shall be considered in the light of the ancient Judean tradition of paying a visit to the deceased on the three or seven days immediately following his burial that is to prevent unpleasant smells.

    Besides, Yeshua’s burial as related in the Gospels, doesn’t mean at all that at least four of the five Judean burial core procedures (namely speedy burial, wrapping in shrouds, specific purifying and drying were not completed within a minimum 2 hours-2hours-and-a-half time-frame (i.e. till the apparition of the third star heralding the Shabbath).”

    • Louis
      June 5, 2013 at 5:02 pm

      Max, unfortunately much that is said is just theoretical and we have the Oviedo sudarium, the Manoppello veil, bands to bind the chin, hands and feet and so on included by other scholars. All the groups in mainstream Judaism seem to have been liberal in some way or the other and even some Sadducees are known to have placed coins in the mouths of the dead as payment to Charon for ferrying the souls of the dead across the river Styx. Temple priests are even known to have indulged in witchcraft in order to reach the post of High Priest.

  133. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Louis :
    Jesterof,OK, you got the point now when you say that “one might be right in one issue and wrong in the other”. It is exactly what had been written on the Jospice imprint that I was
    contesting. Being a physician, you are in a better position to argue about the body washing, but my suggestion is that you read Barbet first so that you get a more complete picture of what has been published in books so far. Best.

    I do not need to read Barbet in order to contest Yannick’s distortion what Zugibe said.I do not dispute Barbet’s conclusions and neither does Zugibe ( on the blood imprints of the Shroud left by scourge marks).

    He did not deny the transfer possibility Barbet described, he never wrote about “oozing of postmortem blood” and his conclusion about the possibility of the body being washed exactly because the flagrum imprints are almost exactly the same is correct. And he never described the body washing as “vigorous”

    Everything else is is beyond this particular discussion – I do not intend to cover all the points of difference – one a t atime

  134. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    I don’t think you read the paper of Zugibe with the same eyes than me! Look at the example of transfer he provide us in his paper. The oozing of blood is in liquid form! The
    washing (by the way I already said that the term “vigorous” was from me to avoid people could think of a simple rising without any wash) proposed by him would REMOVE THE DRY CLOT COMPLETELY and produce an oozing of LIQUID BLOOD. How can you get an oozing of something else than liquid blood if you remove the dry clot of the wound? It’s evident you will get an oozing of LIQUID BLOOD. And Barbet was categorical about that: Except in the region of the feet, there is no bloodstains on the Shroud that were made by a transfer of liquid blood. It’s not me who talk, it is Barbet. This kind of liquid blood transfer proposed by Zugibe would never produce precise dumbbell shape mirror images of scourge wounds, especially in the back region because of the body weight pressure.
    Jesterof, can you, for once, address that issue of the body weight pressure that would without any doubt have produced many smudges of blood and imprecise bloodstains if Zugibe was right about an oozing of liquid post-mortem blood following a washing (forget « vigorous » if you want) of the body just before it was placed inside the cloth? I never read anything from you concerning this important argument of mine…

    I suggest you read the article again. If you have any questions on the areas which you do not understand – you are welcome to ask. Zugibe DID NOT CONTEST Barbet’s theory of transfer of the scourge marks at all ( at least not in the article provided, and I did not find other articles on these particular imprints) and did not write about “oozing of the liquid blood” – read the article AGAIN and try to comprehend what is written there.
    He did not even touch it. His postulate ( which is correct) is only about the possibility of the body being washed – and the marks being almost exactly the same is the proof of hist postulate.

  135. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    2Yannick

    To make your refreshing easier I will ct&paste the exact paragraph from Zugibe’s article about the scourge marks so everybody can see that there is no “oozing of liquid postmortem blood” tat all the same as there is no “vigorous washing” :

    “The Scourge Wounds

    If the deceased individual had not been washed, these well-defined wound patterns depicted on the Shroud could not be present. First of all, most of the blood within the scourge wounds of the victim would have been clotted and the blood located both at the periphery and outside of the wounds would have dried long before the victim was placed on the cross.

    According to the experiments of Lavoie et al., a cloth would have to be placed on a moist clot no later than 2 ½ hours after bleeding stopped ( 5 ). In addition, these authors indicate that moistened clots have to be transferred within an hour for a good mirror image transfer to take place.

    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 ). “

  136. Yannick Clément
    June 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Can you read carefully please this quote from the article of Zugibe : “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.”

    Now, can you go in his paper again and look at the Figure 1 please? This picture show the result of a transfer on cloth, which Zugibe pretend is exactly how the scourge marks where formed on the Shroud, following a washing (vigorous enough to remove the dried clot – is it good enough for you now?) of the body.

    After your reading of the quote I give you and the watching of Figure 1, I dare you to say once again things like “(Zugibe) did not write about “oozing of the liquid blood.”

    The reality is this: Zugibe’s hypothesis rely on a washing of the body that would removed the dried blood clots, and this would produced an oozing of post-mortem blood in liquid form which would be responsible for the scourge marks on the Shroud. Look again at Figure 1 and I dare you to say to me that this is not liquid blood that come out of the wound right after the washing. Seriously, having said that, I don’t know how you can understand his hypothesis differently… Or do you think the oozing described by Zugibe would have had enough time to clot (but not to dry completelly) before the body would have been placed inside the Shroud? If this is what you think (honestly, I can’t see anything else), then I’m affraid you’re wrong. Why the Jews who did the burial in haste (if it’s really Jesus) would have lose time (maybe 15 to 30 minutes) before placing the body inside the Shroud after his washing? This is highly speculative (even magical thinking) which doesn’t fit right in the context of an hasty burial, don’t you think? If a ritual washing occurred, no doubt that they would have placed the body inside the cloth right after and, in such a context, the oozing described by Zugibe would have been one in liquid that would have produced indistinct bloodstains with a number of evident smudge, especially in the back region because of the weight of the body… I’ll wait for your explanation. Explain to me what you really think in precise details.

  137. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    and since when BLOODY MATERIAL is a liquid post-mortem blood?

    bloody material can be moistened blood clot inside the wound.

    Learn the terms first.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 5, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      And can you prove to me that a washing of the dry clot will produce an oozing of a moistened blood clot everytime? It’s very hard for me to believe this… In Figure 1 of Zugibe’s paper, the oozing don’t appear to me as a “moistened blood clot” but as an oozing of liquid blood….

  138. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    bloody material is what it is – bloody material, which incorporate anything bloody, clots included.

  139. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Or do you think the oozing described by Zugibe would have had enough time to clot (but not to dry completelly) before the body would have been placed inside the Shroud? If this is what you think (honestly, I can’t see anything else), then I’m affraid you’re wrong. Why the Jews who did the burial in haste (if it’s really Jesus) would have lose time (maybe 15 to 30 minutes) before placing the body inside the Shroud after his washing? This is highly speculative (even magical thinking) which doesn’t fit right in the context of an hasty burial, don’t you think? If a ritual washing occurred, no doubt that they would have placed the body inside the cloth right after and, in such a context, the oozing described by Zugibe would have been one in liquid that would have produced indistinct bloodstains with a number of evident smudge, especially in the back region because of the weight of the body… I’ll wait for your explanation. Explain to me what you really think in precise details.

    No, I think exactly in the same way as Zugibe described – the blood, sweat, dust outside the wounds was washed out and only the hematomas, or clots, or both inside the wounds remained – therefore the shape of dumbbell is retained. Upon laying the body to the Shroud the pressure would cause the imprints to reflect the shape of the wound ( unlike the not-that-exact shape on the Zugibe’s figure).

    If the skin is not washed – there is no way one would have such exact shaped marks in a form of a blood stain appear on the cloth.

    No conflict with what Barbet wrote whatsoever.

  140. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    And can you prove to me that a washing of the dry clot will produce an oozing of a moistened blood clot everytime? It’s very hard for me to believe this… In Figure 1 of
    Zugibe’s paper, the oozing don’t appear to me as a “moistened blood clot” but as an oozing of liquid blood….

    I do not have to prov you anything – I just proved for everybody interested that you have no idea what you are talking about – at all

    • Yannick Clément
      June 5, 2013 at 4:48 pm

      Deleted by Dan Porter

    • Yannick Clément
      June 5, 2013 at 4:49 pm

      Deleted by Dan Porter

  141. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    which Zugibe pretend is exactly how the scourge marks where formed on the Shroud, following a washing (vigorous enough to remove the dried clot – is it good enough for you now?) of the body.

    New confabulations? Zugibe is NOT pretending tha this is exactly the way how the scourge marks were formed he is showing the differnece of the imprint of the wound after washing the dried blood from the skin vs the inability to obtain an imprint when everything was dried

    If you do not comprehend what are you reading it is just a pity.

    Blood clot is not only the dried widely dispersed blood on a skin as well…

    • Yannick Clément
      June 5, 2013 at 4:56 pm

      Deleted by Dan Porter

  142. jesterof
    June 5, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Seems like it’s you mother fucker who don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m sick and tired of being called dumb by someone who look at non-scientists like were dumb…

    If you do not want to be called dumb( and I did not, btw) – do not post dumb conclusions (with a pathos better reserved for other occasions) which have nothing to do with reality and learn the basics first.

    And some basic manners hove to loose with dignity – as well.

    au re·voir :-)

  143. Angel
    June 6, 2013 at 1:42 am

    Yannick states in Quote 38

    “1- the fact that these stains are dry. 2- the fact that they were made of exudates of blood clots instead of whole blood. 3- the historical fact that the Shroud has almost always been kept in some kinds of containers, which prevent the stains to be exposed to open-air and sunlight, which could have seriously degraded the bilirubin over time.”

    ****Angel says: Yannick, wouldn’t the color of the blood be determined by the oxidation state of Iron in the hemoglobin molecule?

    In Iron’s reduced state (deoxygenated, Ferrous, Fe^2+) blood is dark red in color; however, in the oxygenated state, Ferric, Fe^3+) blood is bright red.

    Therefore, oxygenated blood would be bright red only because it has been kinetically oxidized by oxygen in the AIR.

    In a sealed glass container, free of oxygen, where the shroud was held, the blood would appear as a dark red or brownish color.

    So, if one were to look at the Shroud, where it is displayed under a vacuum seal, within a glass container, the blood stains would appear to the observer as dark red or brown, but when the Shroud is removed from this glass casing, and exposed to air, the blood would appear bright red in color.

    The color of the blood is dependent on oxidation state of Iron.

    With ultraviolet blood irradiation, known as photoluminescence, there is an increase in oxygenation of the blood, and therefore the iron in hemoglobin would be in the oxygenated state (Fe^3+) and would appear as bright red in color.

    Just my opinion though.

    Best,

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: