Home > Blood Studies > The Orphaned Manuscript and the Color of Blood

The Orphaned Manuscript and the Color of Blood

June 1, 2013

imageYannick sends this along for consideration:

Here’s two very relevant quotes from Adler’s book “The Orphaned Manuscript” about the color of the blood, which I would like jesterof, Mr. Kearse and other “specialists” to comment, especially when it comes to what Adler said about the bilirubin level found in the blood samples he analyzed…

The first quote come from the article “The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud”, which Adler wrote in 1986: “The next test we did was to take micro-spectrum photometry on the non-birefringent red-coated fibrils from the Shroud. It was obvious that the spectrum it produced did not match the spectrum of methemoglobin, at least as it is given in the standard references, which is a solution spectrum of blood. But in a film of hemoglobin there is a confirmation change; it no longer remains in the “met” form but goes to the para-hemic form. It is known now that there is a certain species which will spontaneously go to the para-hemic form if there is not enough turn-over in the spleen and the liver to process the blood fast enough. We found a spectrum that was characteristic of only one known group of compounds – the so-called high-spin, high-iron prophyrins. So instead of being wrong, the spectrum peaks were in the right place. What we were seeing was the breakdown products of hemoglobin – bilirubin and biliverdin. And one began to make sense out of all this. There is an extraordinary high bilirubin count, almost as high as the methomoglobin. Now how does one account for such a high bilirubin in a person? One possibility is that the person had a severe malaria, but this does not seem very likely. But a torture, scourging and crucifixion leading to shock – that would produce a tremendous hemolysis. In less than 30 seconds, the hemolyzed hemoglobin will run through the liver, building up a very high bilirubin content in the blood. If that blood then clots, the exudate forms, and all the intact cells with hemoglobin stay behind, only the hemolyzed hemoglobin goes out along with the serum albumin which binds the bilirubin. So what one ends up with on the cloth is an exudate which has an enhanced bilirubin index with respect to the hemolyzed hemoglobin. 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.

In fact, we have been able to simulate this spectrum in the laboratory by the process described above. This very strongly suggests that the blood stains are of a man who was severely beaten. No one would have ever dreamed, when we first started doing the analysis, that the chemistry would provide corroborating evidence to what the pathologists concluded long ago about the Shroud figure. The blood has no cells, is very low in potassium, and has the right colour and composition for the blood of a man who was severely flogged and crucified. This is entirely consistent with the forensic evidence.”

And here’s the second quotes, which come from the article “Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Blood Stains”, which Adler wrote much later, in 2000 (just before his death): “In traumatic shock, as would be experienced under flogging and crucifixion, red blood cells lyse and the released hemoglobin is both bound up in haptoglobin-hemoglobin aggegates (a brownish denatured methoemoglobin color) and also degraded by enzymatic action in the liver to bilirubin which is also bound up in protein complexes, mainly with albumin (a yellow orange color). When such blood is shed and then clots, the exudate will contain these protein bound complexes and aggregates with an expected range in non-uniform color from red to orange, while most intact cells will remain in the clot. A simulation of such a traumatic blood exudate prepared from laboratory chemicals as a control matches the appearance and properties of this class of test objects. However, a simulated artistic paint pigment mixture of iron oxide and mercuric sulfide in a gelatin binder does not make such a match. Thus the chemical testing not only supports the forensic conclusion that the blood marks are derived from contact of the cloth with clotted wound exudates (note: this was first described by Pierre Barbet, in the 1930s I think), but that the shed blood was from someone who suffered a traumatic death as depicted in the images.”

Comment from me: After reading these quotes of Adler, the first conclusion that came to my head is the real possibility that the formation of both the body image and the bloodstains on the Shroud can well be due, at least partially, to the highly traumatic state of the Shroud man’s body when it was placed inside the Shroud… I have a sense that this very particular state of the Shroud man’s body could have had huge impact, not only on the formation of the body image, but also on the resulting coloration of the blood, by causing a dramatic increase of the bilirubin level in it. After reading everything Adler and Rogers wrote about the Shroud, I came to this conclusion and, honestly, I really think this idea that we cannot understand the real nature of the blood, as well as the real nature of the body image, if we forget the fact that the corpse who was placed in the Shroud was a highly traumatized corpse, as some very good chances to be true.

I also think these two quotes from Adler’s paper gave us, among other things, an interesting clue concerning the question asked by jesterof the other day about why the bilirubin has been able to be preserved in the blood for so long. Effectively, Adler told us that the very particular blood transfer that occurred on the cloth came from exudates of humid blood clots instead of coming from whole blood in liquid form (a nuance by the way that Zugibe never seemed to have fully understood or else he would never have proposed his “theory” about the washing of the corpse) and that such a form of blood transfer have caused the formation of bloodstains which have AN ENHANCED BILIRUBIN INDEX. I think this particular part of Adler’s paper can give us at least part of the solution concerning jesterof interrogation… One thing’s for sure: If we believe Adler’s conclusion, the very particular kind of blood transfer that occurred on the Shroud really HAD A HUGE IMPACT on the bilirubin that was trapped inside the bloodstains (on its particular nature and also, I think, on its high level). I really think that this particular blood transfer mechanism can well be the major cause of the reddish coloration of these stains that we still can observed today, particularly when they are placed in sunlight or under another source of UV light. I think this kind of transfer could have helped to “stabilise” the bilirubin (which is normally an unstable compound) inside the bloodstains.

I really think also that a blood expert should analyse this hypothesis in deep under proper lab conditions, because it seem that a major part of the solution concerning the very probable preservation of the bilirubin inside the bloodstains until this day could lie right there, along with the very probable historical fact that the Shroud was almost constantly kept and preserved inside different kinds of containers, which greatly helped the bilirubin inside the bloodstains to avoid to get exposed to open-air, sunlight and any other source of UV light.

Now, I’ll wait for jesterof, Mr. Kearse and any other blood specialist to tell us what they think of these particular quotes from Adler’s book, especially when it comes to the presence of a very high bilirubin content in the blood that he claimed to have been able to scientifically demonstrate? I would also like to hear you about my hypothesis concerning the particular blood transfer from exudates of blood clot, which could be one of the major causes of the good preservation of the bilirubin inside the bloodstains until this day (which is, in my mind, probably the main cause of the brightness of the color of the blood when it is exposed to sunlight or to another form of UV light)…

Cover photo from publisher Cantalupa (Torino) : Effatà Editrice, 2002 via Google Books

Categories: Blood Studies
  1. June 1, 2013 at 6:51 am

    Execellent posting Yannick.

    One thing though, be careful not to entangle the blood issue with the image issue. There is so much speculation about the image “transfer” mechanism that all turns out to be wrong. One thing I belive can be stated as a FACT: the image has nothing to do with the blood. They just happen to be from the same body but the processes creating the “blood” stains are well documented.

    Not so the image. We have the result and we have the subject but the process that transferred the body image to the cloth is simply unkown and perhaps, for the time being, unknowable.

    (By the way, I first saw that dichotomy between the iamage and the “transfer” mechanism in John Heller’s memoir. He was the one who recruited Adler for the Shroud study.)

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 5:21 pm

      Interesting post but that’s my own profound intuition! I really have a sense that both the bloodstains and the image are due to the interraction of a dead and tortured body with the burial linen cloth, even though we agree on the fact that both came from different mechanisms… That’s why, on the contrary to most of you and just like most of the Christians prior to STURP’s failure to find a proper explanation to the body image formation), I have a deep sense that both the bloodstains and the body image we see on the Shroud are directly related, not to the Resurrection of Christ but to his Passion and death!

      Important note: It’s not because the bloodstains and the body image were formed by 2 separate and different kind of processes that both “images” are not directly related to the presence of a dead and beaten corpse inside the Shroud! This is a very rational hypothesis since both “images” are part of the same general picture of a tortured and crucified man!

  2. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 9:04 am

    The true archaeological fact is the bloody body to cloth transfer mechanism implies two phases (a tightly wrapped-up/compressed bloody body within a watery solution in-soaked long inner burial cloth and a front and back less tightly compressed long inner burial sheet as the latter shrank up and got somewhat taut again through a drying out ritual).

  3. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 9:13 am

    There is nothing supernatural about it.

  4. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 9:20 am

    Reminder: the TS blood is “re-dried re-moistened dry blood” (mixed with desert dust, other bodily fluids, ancient linen carbohydrates + alkaline solution + some Jerusalem earth dirt).

  5. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 9:22 am

    Typo: “archaeological re-dried re-moistened dry blood”.

  6. June 1, 2013 at 11:15 am

    What are your EXACT questions, Yannick?

    Can you formulate them 1) 2) 3)?

    It looks like ( for me) that you do not understand the question yourself or do not understand what others might be asking, because you keep repeating the same postulates you’ve mentione before and which have been answered already.

  7. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 11:54 am

    By way of comment on the previous thread on blood, I wrote: “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”.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 5:33 pm

      I’m not biased on the subject of the blood Max, I just follow the conclusions reached by real experts on the subject like Barbet and Adler… That’s all. I think both of them are the ones who understood the bloody imprints better than anyone else in all the Shroud scientific world. Of course, since both are dead for a long time now, it’s very easy for anyone (especially those who deny the fact that the Shroud is a real burial cloth and also those who are members of the supernatural fringe of the Shroud world) to put almost every one of their conclusions in great doubt by making all sorts of intellectual and scientific twists and turns. But the fact remains: The conclusions reached by these two honest scientists complete each other and show that the bloodstains are most certainly real traumatic bloodstains of a real crucified man and that even their unusual color (especially when seen in sunlight) are most probably directly related to the highly traumatic state of the corpse… I just want to defend their conclusions against both groups, i.e. the anti-Shroud gang and the supernatural fringe of the Shroud world… Nothing more, nothing less.

  8. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    Most likely, the bilirubin was trapped via a (light/pre-) mordanting process that also could account for the body image formation process. BOTH blood imprints and body image were subjected to the same stickin-unsticking process but with a different response due to their very different nature and according to two slightly different phases or body-to-cloth configurations.

  9. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    On March 16, 2013 at 7:35 pm (#21 Reply): “Bilirubin is neither the problem nor the solution, just probably one part of the whole equation.” Can YC read me?

    BTW, how many (bio)chemists have been able to replicate Adler’s findings so far? What about an independent confirmation (as YC would put it to others but NOT to himself or late Adler)?

  10. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    Final remark: Adler’s finding (which still needs to be independently confirmed) doesn’t prove beyond the shadow of a rational doubt the TS man’s bloody body was not purified in accordance with an ancient (Judean) burial practice. Far from it as It can also prove quite the opposite actually!

  11. jesterof
    June 1, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    the “blood expert” can be referred only to forensic pathologist or archaelogic pathologist but not to a physician, since hematologist is usually not the person who knows how to distinguish blood from other fluids on the surfaces , but the one who is an expert in diagnosing and treating blood dyscrasias and blood oncology.
    The ability to recognize blood and it’s patterns of staining/drying in most operative room physicians and/or other medical specialists connected to body cutting is mostly empirical and should not be referred as “blood specialist”
    Blood as it’s functions/abilities is a part of anatomy/physiology/clinical medicine so some of it’s properties should and is known to all doctors – therefore it is virtually immediatelly obvious for somebody with medical degree that putting the conclusions of Adler vs Zugibbe and anybody else considering blood stains and the origins of them as contradictory ( serum from clots vs serum or plasma from blood) as artificial.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      I really hope you will read carefully these 2 comments of mine jesterof :

      1- https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/29/a-guest-posting-by-yannick-clment-two-quotes-about-the-blood/#comment-35754
      2- https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/29/a-guest-posting-by-yannick-clment-two-quotes-about-the-blood/#comment-35760

      Also, I want to comment 2 parts of your comment, which are “the “blood expert” can be referred only to forensic pathologist or archaelogic pathologist but not to a physician” and “The ability to recognize blood and it’s patterns of staining/drying in most operative room physicians and/or other medical specialists connected to body cutting is mostly empirical and should not be referred as “blood specialist””

      Reply from me: If what you said was true my friend, than can you explain to me how a small “physician” like Barbet could have reached so many conclusions about the bloodstains (some being totally incompatible with Zugibe’s own conclusions on the subject) that were independently confirmed later on by a true expert in blood like Alan Adler?

      It’s not because someone is a pathologist (like Zugibe) that, automatically, that means that he’s a genious and that he could only be right about every issue regarding the bloodstains on the Shroud and, conversely, that someone who’s “only” a physician” (Barbet was a surgeon by the way) cannot understand better these very particular bloodstains than some pathologists!!! Thinking that way is very condescending versus a very professional and honest surgeon like Pierre Barbet who made tons of lab experiments to understand these bloodstains properly and who knew the difference (on the contrary of many people in the Shroud world including Zugibe as it seems to me) very well between a stain coming from exudates of humid blood clot (most of the bloodstains on the Shroud were formed with this kind of process, including all the scourge wounds) and a stain made of post-mortem blood in liquid form (Zugibe’s hypothesis concerning the scourge wounds)…

  12. jesterof
    June 1, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Yannick Clement :
    I think this kind of transfer could have helped to “stabilise” the bilirubin (which is normally an unstable compound) inside the bloodstains.

    what particular transfer mechanism are you talking about? If there is an elevated level of bilirubin in the whole blood then plasma part ( or as you call it serum) will have bilirubin as well – people who have jaundice often have yellowish tears and saliva ( yeas, those bodily fluids are based on on the plasma composition)

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm

      I think I was clear about that. The very particular transfer of the blood was first described by Barbet in his book and was independently confirmed by Adler later on and it is this one (which account for the vast majority of the bloodstains): A transfer of exudates of still moistened or, in other cases like the scourge marks, of re-moistened blood clots and not a transfer coming from liquid blood (post or pre-mortem), except probably for some stains in the feet area which came from a post-mortem blood flow from the still opened holes of the feet (Barbet’s conclusion). I hope it is clear for you now.

  13. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 1, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    Reminder: As far as the TS image is concerned, on one hand, the bloody body image is first and foremost readable as old archaeological bloodstain patterns and thus shall be studied in the light of a specific burial by an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst. On the other hand, forensic PALEAOpathology is a quite different approach. It aims at determining the cause and manner of any death that is violent, unusual or untimely. Both fields of expertise though can merge when it comes to identify a wound pattern that can be matched to a weapon, any other sharp, cutting, piercing objects or blunt instruments.

  14. Kelly Kearse
    June 1, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    It looks like ( for me) that you do not understand the question yourself or do not understand what others might be asking, because you keep repeating the same postulates you’ve mentione before and which have been answered already.

    This x 5

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 5:47 pm

      It’s not because I don’t have all your diplomas that I’m dumb… And since I follow closely Adler and Barbet’s conclusions about the bloodstains, I think this comment of you (which is based on another comment of jesterof) can be seen as a critic against these 2 great researchers that are much greater and important than you will probably ever be my friend. Seriously, I don’t think that saying that most of the bloodstains come from exudates of blood clots, that the body wasn’t washed vigorously and that a very high level of bilirubin is most probably the best explanation for the reddish aspect of the color of the blood (all of these conclusions can be easily drawn from Barbet and Adler’s wrintings) can be seen as “not understanding the question” of the bloodstains that we see on the Shroud.

  15. Kelly Kearse
    June 1, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    On March 16, 2013 at 7:35 pm (#21 Reply): “Bilirubin is neither the problem nor the solution, just probably one part of the whole equation.”

    This

    The number of variables that may exist is significant, even within the relatively few experimental systems that have been mentioned.

    For example, in the experiments by Goldini where samples with increased amounts of bilirubin were treated with uv light, there is the additional variable(s) that the cloth used in this set of studies was treated with aloe, myrrh (& sweat). Any affect that such compounds may have on the system (positive or negative) is unknown. One cannot simply dismiss this by saying that because Rogers did not find any evidence for such compounds (aloe & myrrh) on the Shroud, this must be irrelevant. Is it just bilirubin or bilirubin plus? Experimentally, one does not know.

    There is also the report that neutron bombardment followed by subsequent exposure to uv results in the persistence of red coloration, irregardless of amount of additional bilirubin.
    This is an experimental observation-just as supernatural beliefs should be fastened in the back pocket, so should any preconceived bias against certain investigators or theories-It works both ways-focus on the data at hand. Neutron bombardment could disrupt association of certain inhibitory substances or facilitate the aggregation of certain proteins, mimicking what’s observed in other systems. Or it could be totally unrelated.

    In the saponin system, there is the reported result that the red color persists. The molecular basis for this observation remains to be determined. As jesterof (Mahoney thread, comment # 184) and myself (Mahoney thread, comment #119), have questioned, it is unknown if this effect is unique to saponin or is also observed under other lysis conditions. This would require further experimentation. As mentioned in comments #163,169 of the same thread, relative to certain other detergents, saponin is quite efficient at disrupting cell membranes and perhaps increasing aggregation of specific proteins that could be important in such observations. An additional variable is the method used for saponin extraction-different conditions yield different results. To effectively evaluate these effects, such conditions would have to be normalized.

    Together with Adler’s results, this could all be a case of true, true, and unrelated. Or it could be that there is some cross-talk/application between the results. It is too early to tell-there is no one size fits all here-more experimentation would be needed, variables would have to be experimentally defined & controlled . Otherwise, it’s too easy for it to turn into an apples & oranges game. Be careful about oversimplifying things by blurring the line between observation & proof.

  16. Ron
    June 2, 2013 at 12:47 am

    Bare with me folks, I haven’t been keeping up lately and may mention thoughts here that have been mentioned before. The question of whether billirubin by itself, or as part of some combined chemical reaction being responsible for the reddish colour of the blood found on the Shroud is a daunting one. Recently, and several times actually, Yannick Clement has questioned why the blood found on the Sudarium (proposed back of the head area) does not have the same colouring as the blood found on the Shroud and hense has questioned the authenticity of the Sudarium in doing so. This line of questioning along with a couple of comments made in this post has sparked a thought in my mind; Could it be possible that because the Shroud and Sudarium may have been ‘processed’ differently be the cause for this fact? Maybe the specific way the Shroud linen was processed and it’s specific chemical properties, along with a reaction to the billirubin enhanced-blood could be the reasoning? Therefore explaining the non-reddish blood found on the Sudarium. Thoughts? …

    Thanks,

    Ron

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 5:53 pm

      Here’s my opinion Ron: If the Shroud was really washed with saponaria and not the Sudarium, this can be a possible explanation. Another one could be that the Sudarium was much more exposed to UV light (like the sun), which could have greatly help to remove the bilirubin that could have been originally trapped inside the bloodstains (because we know for a fact that UV light is very bad for the bilirubin that can be found inside a bloodstain)… Along with these 2 possible explanations, there could be tons of other potentially good explanations since we still unsure of what lead to the preservation of the bilirubin inside the bloodstains on the Shroud.

      And don’t forget also one other true possible and very simple explanation: The Sudarium could have been in contact with a different traumatized and bloody head than the Shroud!!! ;-) Much more comparative analyses of both cloths would be necessary to learn more about the kind of relation (or non-relation) between these cloths.

  17. Kelly Kearse
    June 2, 2013 at 6:59 am

    Ron :
    Bare with me folks, I haven’t been keeping up lately and may mention thoughts here that have been mentioned before. The question of whether billirubin by itself, or as part of
    some combined chemical reaction being responsible for the reddish colour of the blood found on the Shroud is a daunting one. Recently, and several times actually, Yannick Clement has questioned why the blood found on the Sudarium (proposed back of the head area) does not have the same colouring as the blood found on the Shroud and hense has questioned the authenticity of the Sudarium in doing so. This line of questioning along with a couple of comments made in this post has sparked a thought in my mind; Could it be possible that because the Shroud and Sudarium may have been ‘processed’ differently be the cause for this fact? Maybe the specific way the Shroud linen was processed and it’s specific chemical properties, along with a reaction to the billirubin enhanced-blood could be the reasoning? Therefore explaining the non-reddish blood found on the Sudarium. Thoughts? …
    Thanks,
    Ron

    I would agree: comparing the two like that is as straightforward as it may seem-too many (unknown) variables could exist, both before & after the cloth received blood. The most straightforward test to determine the relationship of the two cloths, if doable, is DNA analysis, especially mitochondrial DNA. Even though the blood on both cloths appear to be the same blood type, AB, this is still circumstantial, it doesn’t prove they wrapped the same person. The only solid conclusion that could be made in such tests is if the blood types were different. It’s an interesting point to be raised, but in my opinion, I don’t think you can go by just the coloring-the appearance of the blood is not just a function of the blood composition in of itself, but also the physical & chemical properties of the cloth before/after the blood stained it.

  18. Kelly Kearse
    June 2, 2013 at 7:02 am

    Typo! is not as straightforward

  19. Kelly Kearse
    June 2, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    It’s not because I don’t have all your diplomas that I’m dumb… And since I follow closely Adler and Barbet’s conclusions about the bloodstains, I think this comment of you (which is based on another comment of jesterof) can be seen as a critic against these 2 great researchers that are much greater and important than you will probably ever be my friend. Seriously, I don’t think that saying that most of the bloodstains come from exudates of blood clots, that the body wasn’t washed vigorously and that a very high level of bilirubin is most probably the best explanation for the reddish aspect of the color of the blood (all of these conclusions can be easily drawn from Barbet and Adler’s wrintings) can be seen as “not understanding the question” of the bloodstains that we see on the Shroud.

    Yannick,

    It’s not a matter of being dumb-it’s just a matter of trying to understand exactly what you talking about. You throw something like this out there-a mega block of quotes post-I am not sure where you want to slice the cake-there’s a lot that could be talked about-and that has already been talked about-If you going to invite someone by name to comment, tell them specifically which parts you want them comment on-when you ask for my impressions, it is difficult to make a sweeping statement to cover specific points.

    A critic against these 2 researchers, really? Totally unsure how you connect the dots there.

    Much greater and important than I will probably ever be? My friend? This is warranted? Wow.

  20. Kelly Kearse
    June 2, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    I do have some comments related to specific findings of Adler’s that I have put together. Rather than add them here, I submitted to Dan as a separate post

  21. Yannick Clément
    June 2, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    Mr Kearse, please read this new post of mine: https://shroudstory.com/2013/05/29/a-guest-posting-by-yannick-clment-two-quotes-about-the-blood/#comment-35777

    All the quotes I gave from Adler and Barbet were mainly done in order to see if we can agree on the general conclusion that I’ve reached and that is mainly based on Adler and Barbet’s conclusions…

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 6:37 pm

      oups… here’s the last sentence again: All the quotes I gave from Adler and Barbet were mainly done in order to see if we can agree on the general conclusion that I’ve reached (and that I described in this particular comment) and that is mainly based on Adler and Barbet’s conclusions…

  22. Yannick Clément
    June 2, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Question from Mr. Kearse : Much greater and important than I will probably ever be?

    Answer: Concerning Shroud science, most probably, yes. Sorry but these are two of the greatest Shroud researchers of all time when it comes to the question of the bloodstains and I seriously doubt that you could bring on a lot of new solid conclusions about these stains since there not seem to be much blood samples from the Shroud left to analyse!

  23. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    I think I was clear about that. The very particular transfer of the blood was first
    described by Barbet in his book and was independently confirmed by Adler later on and it is this one (which account for the vast majority of the bloodstains): A transfer of exudates of still moistened or, in other cases like the scourge marks, of re-moistened blood clots and not a transfer coming from liquid blood (post or pre-mortem), except probably for some stains in the feet area which came from a post-mortem blood flow from the still opened holes of the feet (Barbet’s conclusion). I hope it is clear for you now.

    but the scourge wounds usually do not have clots – by the very nature of the wound.

    that’s why I’ve told you that you will have a clear clots from the thorn wounds and from the crucifixion sites – because blood clots usually form where the whole blood flows, it is not usually forming as a whole blood clot in the other types of wounds.

    Have you ever scratched your knees after a fall in the childhood? those surface scratch wounds would not produce a blood clot ( as you would get from the thin scratch by a knife) it would rather be a a yellowish scab( because it would be mostly plasma involved) – and the marks from those will be different if you transfer the to the cloth.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:21 pm

      I really think you’re wrong about that jesterof. My own experience with the scratcing from a tree branch proved that you’re wrong. The scratch was enough to makes blood comes to the surface but not enough to create a blood flow out of the wound. In the end, the result was a blood clot that looks very similar to the scourge marks we see on the Shroud! And I think you forget one important facts: the Roman flagrum were made of dumbell metal balls and were not used to caused an important bleeding (like the common flogging instruments used by other people) but to inflict a maximum pain in order to remove the strength of the victim so that he cannot offered any resistance to his crucifixion. Since my experience, I’m more convinced than ever that the scourging of the Shroud man did not produced a lot of bleeding but instead, they produced a lot of contused wounds with some superficial bleeding (pretty much like the wound I get from the tree branch) and this superficial bleeding eventually clotted and dried. Then these clots were re-moistened and left a Mirror imprint on the cloth. That’s Barbet’s conclusion and I agree totally with him. Note that a more intense bleeding with some blood flows was probably caused by the leather tongues of the whip but, in this case, the blood flows doesn’t seem to have been able to transfer on the cloth, probably because they were washed away by the intense sweating of the crucified man (my guess).

  24. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    just ti add – the scourge wounds will have intradermal, subdermal hematomas and superficial scratching of the skin, some will have ripping of the skin all the way, some won’t – those vary in the traumatic effect they produce over the body and therefore the fluids coming from these wounds will be different combinations of blood and plasma.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:27 pm

      Because they were caused by metal balls (and based on my own experience of a wound caused by a tree branch that really looked like a scourge wound on the Shroud), there’s no reason for me to expect that most of these scourge wounds caused a important blood flow out of the wounds, except, as I said, for the leather tongues of the whip and it is truly possible that these blood flows were completely (or in good part) washed away later on when the Shroud man was on the cross, which would easily explain why only the blood that had filled the scourge wounds created by the metal balls stayed there and were able to eventually leave mirror imprints on the cloth… All this is truly rational to me and it follows closely what Barbet said in his book.

  25. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    Kelly Kearse :

    Yannick Clément :

    It’s not because I don’t have all your diplomas that I’m dumb… And since I follow closely Adler and Barbet’s conclusions about the bloodstains, I think this comment of you (which is based on another comment of jesterof) can be seen as a critic against these 2 great researchers that are much greater and important than you will probably ever be my friend. Seriously, I don’t think that saying that most of the bloodstains come from exudates of blood clots, that the body wasn’t washed vigorously and that a very high level of bilirubin is most probably the best explanation for the reddish aspect of the color of the blood (all of these conclusions can be easily drawn from Barbet and Adler’s wrintings) can be seen as “not understanding the question” of the bloodstains that we see on the Shroud.

    Yannick,
    It’s not a matter of being dumb-it’s just a matter of trying to understand exactly what you talking about. You throw something like this out there-a mega block of quotes post-I am not sure where you want to slice the cake-there’s a lot that could be talked about-and that has already been talked about-If you going to invite someone by name to comment, tell them specifically which parts you want them comment on-when you ask for my impressions, it is difficult to make a sweeping statement to cover specific points.
    A critic against these 2 researchers, really? Totally unsure how you connect the dots there.
    Much greater and important than I will probably ever be? My friend? This is warranted? Wow.

    This.

  26. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    Yannick Clément :

    Because they were caused by metal balls (and based on my own experience of a wound caused by a tree branch that really looked like a scourge wound on the Shroud), there’s no reason for me to expect that most of these scourge wounds caused a important blood flow out of the wounds, except, as I said, for the leather tongues of the whip and it is truly possible that these blood flows were completely (or in good part) washed away later on when the Shroud man was on the cross, which would easily explain why only the blood that had filled the scourge wounds created by the metal balls stayed there and were able to eventually leave mirror imprints on the cloth… All this is truly rational to me and it follows closely what Barbet said in his book.

    your own experience? have you been scourged or have you been scourging someone to observe the wounds?

    those were the blunt wounds with heavy object – those by definition produce very variable type of wounds and will have ripping of the skin, obviously to produce bleeding, by mostly hematomas and secondary whipping of the plasma, not whole blood.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:58 pm

      My own experience proved that your skin can be scartched by some object, that the wound can be filled with blood and that, at the same time, there can be no blood flow at all. If the wound is only superficial (remember that the scourge wound were cause by metal BALLS, not metal claws like in the movie of Mel Gibson!), then it is truly possible that some blood could come to the surface without any blood flowing out of the wound. That’s what my own experience proved.

  27. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 7:46 pm

    which as a result would not produce blood clots as seen with the wound with whole blood flow.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:59 pm

      By saying this, you completely contradict Barbet, Adler and Lavoie. Are you aware of this?

  28. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 7:49 pm

    OK, here you go

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21351412

    just to look into what am I talking about ( the first link on the web by blunt trauma)

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 7:59 pm

      My own experience proved that your skin can be scartched by some object, that the wound can be filled with blood and that, at the same time, there can be no blood flow at all. If the wound is only superficial (remember that the scourge wound were cause by metal BALLS, not metal claws like in the movie of Mel Gibson!), then it is truly possible that some blood could come to the surface without any blood flowing out of the wound. That’s what my own experience proved.

      • Ron
        June 5, 2013 at 11:19 am

        Yannick this is not the first time you have referenced the “Mel Gibson” movie and the flogging…You seem to think the ‘balls’ used on a flagrum would be perfectly round and smooth such as a ball bearing, …this is far from actuality and in actuality these balls would be in high probability, very crude renditions of a ball, meaning; sharp pits and edges along their circumference, not to mention they also used mutton bone on the throngs. This means there would be extensive bleeding and multiple contusions. You seem to want to downplay the intensity of the scourging and it’s devistation on the human body, just remember how scourging using the flagrum was described in ancient times;…The cruelist of all tortures.

        R

      • Yannick Clément
        June 5, 2013 at 11:42 am

        All I know is that the dumbbell shaped things that were at the end of each tongues of the 2 flagrums used were able scratch the skin enough to produce lacerated wounds in the same dumbbell shape with some bleeding and that it is these clotted wounds which eventually left a very precise mirror imprint of themselves on the Shroud, thanks to the particular kind of blood transfer described by Barbet, i.e. from exudates of humid blood clots.

  29. Yannick Clément
    June 2, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    And even if there were some light blood flows that came out of the scourge wounds, these could have been easily washed away by the intense sweating of the crucified man while he was on the cross. In such a context, I don’t why jesterof, you don’t believe that some blood could have been left inside these wounds to fill them, which could have lead to the formation of blood clots with a dumbell shape like the ones we see on the Shroud. To me, these particular wounds don’t present any problem at all when it comes to think of the way they were formed on the cloth…

  30. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    My own experience proved that your skin can be scartched by some object, that the
    wound can be filled with blood and that, at the same time, there can be no blood flow at all. If the wound is only superficial (remember that the scourge wound were cause by metal BALLS, not metal claws like in the movie of Mel Gibson!), then it is truly possible that some blood could come to the surface without any blood flowing out of the wound. That’s what my own experience proved.

    LOL

    Yannick, scratching own skin is not the same as scourging. read the ling I’ve provided. There other forensiic artiles on the web as well

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 8:15 pm

      How can you be so sure that a Roman scourging would cause an important bleeding? LOL too.

      What my experience proved is that a superfical scratching of your skin can formed the clotted wound with the same kind of dumbell shape wound we see on the Shroud and that such a clotted wound can easily left a good mirror imprint of itself on a piece of fabric if there is enough moistening over it, even in the case this clotted wound as been dry for several hours (more than 5 hours in the case of my experience).

      For a so-called scientist, I’m somewhat “offended” by the fact you don’t seem to give any credit at all to my observation, simply on the base that I wasn’t scourged like the Shroud man and I don’t have the tons of diplomas you sure have… I think you should be more open to what I have to say about that.

      • Yannick Clément
        June 2, 2013 at 8:22 pm

        Forget my first sentence. I understand now that you think that there was no bleeding at all after the scourging but only hematomas instead… I hope I understand you correctly this time. But the rest of my comment is still valid.

  31. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    I don’t why jesterof, you don’t believe that some blood could have been left inside these wounds to fill them, which could have lead to the formation of blood clots with a dumbell shape like the ones we see on the Shroud. To me, these particular wounds don’t present any problem at all when it comes to think of the way they were formed on the cloth…

    because blood-filled wounds( hematomas) is NOT THE SAME as blood clots.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm

      Again, my experience PROVED (I saw it and believe me, this is not bullshit) that a superficial scratching of your skin can be filled with blood, that this blood can stayed there without causing any blood flows, that this can produce a blood clot and, later on, that such a blood clot can produce on a piece of fabric the kind of dumbell shape imprint we see on the Shroud. If that happened to me that way, I don’t know why this would be impossible that it could have happened the same way for the Shroud man after his scourging with metal balls (which could easily have produced the same kind of superficial scratching as the tree branch that caused my wound)!

  32. jesterof
    June 2, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Yannick Clément :
    Again, my experience PROVED (I saw it and believe me, this is not bullshit) that a superficial scratching of your skin can be filled with blood, that this blood can stayed there
    without causing any blood flows, that this can produce a blood clot and, later on, that such a blood clot can produce on a piece of fabric the kind of dumbell shape imprint we see on the Shroud. If that happened to me that way, I don’t know why this would be impossible that it could have happened the same way for the Shroud man after his scourging with metal balls (which could easily have produced the same kind of superficial scratching as the tree branch that caused my wound)!

    your experienc does not prove anything as scratching is not equal to a blunt wound of scorge device

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 8:33 pm

      Ok, now you pretend to know exactly what kind of injury can be caused by a Roman flagrum? How pretentious you are dude.

    • Yannick Clément
      June 2, 2013 at 8:35 pm

      You would be willing to swear on the Bible that a scourging done with a Roman flagrum could never cause some scratching of the skin that can be filled with blood in order to produce the well-defined dumbell-shape imprints we see on the Shroud, pretty much like I saw in my own experience? That’s completely ludicrous.

  33. Yannick Clément
    June 2, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    Question: How can we get the very well-defined dumbell shaped imprints of the scourging if there were no blood clots on the skin when the Shroud man was placed inside the Shroud? You really believe an hematoma of the skin with no blood clot can produced these dumbell shaped wounds? How could that be? I never read this before. That’s really a premiere…

  34. Yannick Clément
    June 2, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    As one last comment from me for tonight, I would like to ask again the question you can find at the end of my guess comment above: Now, I’ll wait for jesterof, Mr. Kearse and any other blood specialist to tell us what they think of these particular quotes from Adler’s book, especially when it comes to the presence of a very high bilirubin content in the blood that he claimed to have been able to scientifically demonstrate? I would also like to hear you about my hypothesis concerning the particular blood transfer from exudates of blood clot, which could be one of the major causes of the good preservation of the bilirubin inside the bloodstains until this day (which is, in my mind, probably the main cause of the brightness of the color of the blood when it is exposed to sunlight or to another form of UV light)…

    I know Mr. Kearse will ask Dan to post a reply on the blog (this is great). Now, I still wait for jesterof and others to give me their thoughts about these 2 quotes from Adler.

  35. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 3, 2013 at 6:29 am

    Adler NEVER considered a Second period Temple puriyfing & drying ritual scenario (implying the use of alkaline solution coupled with (myrrhic-)aloetic fumigation) could account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal. Now these two signals tend to prove the body could have been purified in accordance with an ancient (Judean) burial custom/practice (see 2 Chronicles 16:14 – 21:19 Targum and my TS man’s burial reconstruction).

    In the case here under study, Second Temple period speedy tahara in terms of wrapping in shrouds, purifying & drying out was an act of ultimate kindness to honor the deceased who died a violent death. It shall not be mistaken with careful physical cleansing Jewish/Judean ritual of a NON-bloody body.

    The true archaeological fact is there is more than one way by which blood could have become depleted of key ingredients if one considers the bloody body purifying & drying ritual scenario, which Adler clearly did not (crucifixion being an implicit assumption in all his discussion at the expense of specific burial practices, rites and customs). His shortcomings and partial view do show as far as archaeological bloodstain pattern analysis is concerned.

  36. Yannick Clément
    June 3, 2013 at 8:24 am

    Here’s a message principally addressed to jesterof (but which can be also helpful for others): To come back some more on the subject of the formation of the scourge marks on the Shroud, here’s a part of Barbet’s book in which he talks about that (personal translation): “We need to add that only the hits that produced an ABRASION (of the skin) or a CONTUSED WOUND have left an imprint (on the cloth). All other hits that only produced a bruise did not left any traces on the Shroud. EVERY WOUNDS HAVE THE SAME SHAPE, which is like a little dumbbell of 3 centimeters. The two circles represent the tin balls; the intermediary bar is the trace of the tongue.”

    Here’s another one about the bloodstains: “On the Shroud, there is no blood flow; there are only imprints of clots; these clots represent the portion of the blood that clotted on the skin…”

    And another one: “Every blood images of the Shroud are imprints of fresh clots or clots that have been soften by the water vapor that is normally released by a corpse for a pretty long time.”

    I think these short quotes from Barbet’s book, along with the observation reported by Miller and Pellicori that the scourge marks shows very fine scratch-like marks that are not visible to the naked eye and that almost every scourge marks are surrounded by a halo of serum (which, in the mind of Barbet, cannot have been caused by anything else than a clot retraction), gave us some clues about the way many scourge wounds have been able to left a mirror imprint on the cloth… Effectively, all these observations and conclusions show that, in order to leave the kind of very precise imprints we see on the Shroud, the scourge wounds must have been filled with clotted blood which became humid again well after their drying (or, less probably, which were able to stay humid all along the crucifixion).

    I think there are two very compelling pieces of evidence that exist on the cloth which strongly suggest that Barbet was correct about the fact that the scourge marks on the Shroud were all caused by exudates of humid blood clots. Here they are: 1- ALL the imprints show the SAME PRECISE SHAPE. 2- Almost every scourge wounds are SURROUNDED BY A HALO OF SERUM.

    Conclusion: These wounds must have been formed by the same process (it’s impossible that two different processes could have produced stains with the same very precise shape) and, in order to left an imprint on the cloth, some blood must have come at the surface of these wounds and must have clotted there. All this strongly suggest that the process known as a transfer from exudates of blood clots, as described by Barbet and confirmed by Adler, is the one that can explain the best the presence of the scourge marks on the cloth. It’s pretty evident that any other transfer process (like the one described by Zugibe of an oozing of post-morten liquid blood or the other one described by jesterof related to hematomas) would never have been able to form bloodstains with the same kind of very precise shape and borders as we can see on the Shroud and Miller and Pellicori would not have been able to detect the kind of halos of serum on their UV fluorescence photos.

    Question: What have caused bloody wounds like that? Did a round metal ball the way we assume there was at the end of the tongue could have caused such wounds? Or is it due to the fact that the surface of these tin balls was somewhat irregular? Or is it due to the fact that there were no metal balls at all at the end of the leather tongues of the flagrum but only animal bones (this is an historical fact that such animal bones could have been used at the end of these tongues)? It’s hard to say, but one thing’s for sure: A lot of scourge hits have been able to cause an abrasion of the skin that was important enough that small portions of the skin were surely cut open and filled with blood. Or else, as Barbet said, there would only be some kind of bruises on the skin that would not have been able to leave any imprint on the cloth… In the abstract of the paper about injuries by blunt objects that was given by jesterof yesterday, there is one forensic term in there that, I think, is the best to describe the kind of wounds that were present on the skin of the Shroud man when his corpse was placed inside the Shroud and this term is “Contused lacerated wounds”. I really think this kind of wound is what was present on the skin of the Shroud man after his scourging and such a bloody wound was showing the same kind of precise dumbbell shape that we can see on the Shroud… The small bloody wounds have eventually clotted and, because of a re-moistening of their surface, they were able to leave a very good mirror imprint on the cloth. I really think Barbet and Adler would think the same…

    • Yannick Clément
      June 3, 2013 at 10:50 am

      Just a correction for my previous comment: I used the term “tin balls” two times while you should read “lead balls” instead. Sorry…

  37. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 3, 2013 at 10:31 am

    In the hypothesis the TS man’s is Yeshua’s, Barbet’s shortcomings and partial view do also show as far as archaeological bloodstain pattern analysis is concerned. E.g. re the off-elbow bloodstain. Forensically the latter may be described as a passive pattern or, to be more accurate, an altered gravity trail drop pattern left by free falling drop produced from stationary source: most probably stiff rigid body resting in extra height (on two raised stones within the cave-tomb funerary ante-chamber?) and laid on its right side, which implies the body had been prepared for burial (taharah or “ritual purification”). The off-elbow bloodstain is archaeological blood to be studied first and foremost in the light of a Second Temple period Judean burial ritual. This is not mere pathological blood. Barbet totally missed it.

  38. jesterof
    June 3, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    Yannick Clément :

    I think there are two very compelling pieces of evidence that exist on the cloth which strongly suggest that Barbet was correct about the fact that the scourge marks on the Shroud were all caused by exudates of humid blood clots. Here they are: 1- ALL the imprints show the SAME PRECISE SHAPE. 2- Almost every scourge wounds are SURROUNDED BY A HALO OF SERUM.

    he very issue that ALL of the imprints are THE SAME PRECISE SHAPE actually proves Zugibes’s theory of washing the body before the burial almost perfectly.
    I’ll let you figure it out – WHY.
    Hint:
    It does not conflict with the mechanism of transfer

    :-)

    • Yannick Clément
      June 4, 2013 at 11:10 am

      Read again please: PRECISE shape… With an oozing of liquid blood, how in the would can you get that kind of perfectly bordered scourge marks (with even some tiny scartch-like marks) on a cloth, especially in the back region where there was an important body weight pressure without causing any smudge?

      You must still believe in Santa Claus… And how in the world can you get everywhere clot retraction halos of serum with Zugibe’s hypothesis of an oozing of liquid blood? Again, this is impossible to get perfect halos like that, except from a transfer of exudates of blood clots. Barbet knew this. Adler knew this. It seems like Zugibe and you don’t.

  39. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 4, 2013 at 8:00 am

    Addendum: 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 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 somehow get taut again back and front through shrinkung up). Reminder: To his buriers and (secret) disciples Yeshua was no am ha-arets (“average citizen) but a prominent figure.

  40. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 4, 2013 at 8:04 am

    Typo: (and the long inner burial sheet somehow got taut again back and front through shrinking up)

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