Home > Blood Studies, Science > A Guest Posting: Ten Questions for Alan Adler by Kelly Kearse

A Guest Posting: Ten Questions for Alan Adler by Kelly Kearse

June 3, 2013

10+ Questions that I would ask Alan Adler

image

In the light of several recent discussions involving various Shroud investigators, I decided to jot down several specific questions that I would ask Dr. Alan Adler if given the opportunity to have a face to face discussion with him.  I tried to limit my questions to 10 main points of interest. Of course, Adler "is not here to defend himself", but he doesn’t have to-at least not to me.  The intent of this posting is not to represent a type of cross-examination, far from it-this posting merely models a focused discussion with specific questions from someone who is seeking to increase their understanding. These are the questions I would have. Yours, of course, may be different.  And the answer to one question may naturally spawn three more.  But that’s how discussions move forward.  If you’re old enough to remember the lines, "I asked Bobby Dylan.  I asked the Beatles…"; well, in this discussion exercise, I am asking Alan Adler-or at least pretending to. Of course, others may eavesdrop on this imaginary conversation and contribute as they choose-that of course, is the point.  

First, allow me to say that it is truly an honor & privilege to have this opportunity. I have followed your work with great interest-my background is in immunology & cell biology, the blood typing studies are what first seriously caught my attention about the Shroud. I am not a blood ‘specialist’; my questions may appear somewhat detailed at times, and at others, rather naïve. I hope that is okay. I appreciate this opportunity and thank you again for your time.

1. In your article “The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud”, published in 1986, you wrote: “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 not given in the standard references, which is a solution spectrum of blood. This is one of the problems in trying to look in the literature for references to compare the results to.” It is somewhat surprising that the literature is rather limited relative to the spectra studies of blood that is not in solution. Besides the oxidation of hemoglobin to methemoglobin in dried (aged) blood, what are the other major differences in the spectra of blood in solution versus dried blood? Also, what are the major differences in the spectra of freshly dried blood (2-3 days old) versus blood that is years, even several decades (or more) old?

2. In the same article, you mention that “In a film of hemoglobin there is a conformational change; it no longer remains in the “met” form but goes to the para-hemic form. Can you distinguish for me, exactly what the difference is between the structure of the para-hemic form and the met form? Is the para-hemic form an opened ring form of hemoglobin that has begun the breakdown process, or does this refer to the position of an attached group shifting its location on the ring (ortho, meta, para like we learned in organic chemistry years ago)? Or is the term “para” in reference to paramagnetic, a species that contains unpaired electrons? Forgive me if this question is very basic, but when I search the terms on the internet, most of the references that come up are the sentences from your article. I’ve also thumbed through various physiology and physical chemistry texts but so far, have struck out. Can you draw me a diagram or give me a reference that has a picture of the two structures? Also, what drives this conformational change-does this result from the dehydration of the blood as it dries into a film?

3. In the same article, it is said that “It is known now that there is a certain species which will spontaneously go to the para-hemic form if there is not enough turnover in the spleen and the liver to process the blood fast enough”. This sounds like a relatively recent observation. The word that confuses me the most here is “spontaneously”, is this a type of isomerization that is occurring here? Is there a specific enzyme that catalyzes the change? Is this independent of the oxidation state of hemoglobin?

4. Also in the 1986 article, it states “We found a spectrum that was characteristic of only one known group of compounds-the so-called high-spin, high-iron porphyrins. What we were seeing is the breakdown products of hemoglobin-bilirubin and biliverdin. There is an extraordinary high bilirubin count, almost as high as the methemoglobin” Just to clarify, this is methemoglobin (deoxygenated hemoglobin), all or most of which exists in the para-hemic form, not the typical met-form? Also, what is the relative proportion of bilirubin and biliverdin that is observed?

5. What exactly is meant by “high-iron” porphryins? High spin refers to the electron configuration, that this conformation has the maximum number of unpaired electrons available, but what does the term “high-iron” denote? Is this in reference to Fe-containing porphyrins to distinguish them from other porphyrins (which contain a ligand other than Fe being bound), or is there another significance?

6. In the 1986 article, you state “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.” Relatedly, in the 1998 Shroud Symposium held in Dallas, TX, in the article “Further Spectroscopic Investigations of Samples of the Shroud of Turin” it says “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. A traumatic clot exudate simulacrum was approximated by mixing 3 drops of blood (finger stick) with three drops of a bilirubin/human albumin diagnostic standard (Sigma Chemical Co.). Dried whole blood, bilirubin, and human hemoglobin samples were employed as controls.” Exactly how much exogenous bilirubin was added relative to the hemoglobin present in the finger stick? How does this compare to what would be considered normal levels? In this article (and others) there is no mention of specific amounts-[I have looked through the current Sigma catalog, but was unable to find this particular product-may have been discontinued]. Also, was the majority of hemoglobin used in these experiments (finger stick) in the deoxygenated form? Finally, did you ever spot such samples onto cloth (linen) and evaluate if the red color persisted over time?

7. In whole blood, the relative amount of bilirubin present is normalized per blood unit volume, making it straightforward to compare levels between individuals. In dried bloodstains, how does one accurately quantitate or even approximate the relative level of bilirubin present as volume cannot be used for normalization? Several spectroscopy and forensic “experts” I have e-mailed or talked to on the phone have acknowledged that spectroscopy of dried samples is semi-quantitative at best. I have run across a few presentations suggesting that the samples may be weighed and then normalized relative to Fe content, but such techniques involve larger volumes of blood than would be present in tape lift samples or individuals threads, and appear to be in the early stages of development. It is unclear even today if such methods would be sensitive enough to apply to the relative small amounts of blood in your analysis. No specific values or approximate ranges for the relative amount of bilirubin present were ever given in your articles-can accurate values be obtained from the techniques that were in use during these studies? If so, what are the estimated values?

8. In the 1980 article “Blood on the Shroud of Turin”, you state that in reference to the spectra of the Shroud fibrils that “the high degree of scattering from these solid samples makes the visible band shape features less distinct and does produce peak shifts from the solutions spectra. Therefore this identification is much less positive than desired.”

In the 1998 Shroud meeting in Dallas, TX you note that “Hemoglobin exists in lots of states and it’s a real problem on the Shroud to know what some of these states are.” In communicating with several specialists in heme spectroscopy about the spectral profiles (without indicating they were of the Shroud and cropping all identifiable labels on the Figures), the opinion was voiced that “it is impossible to really say what species are present there-the background is too high and the peaks are poorly resolved.” Different scientists have different opinions & viewpoints-I am certainly confident in your ability to identify the sample as blood and in the characterization of blood components, but it sounds as though there are still some large unknowns as to exactly what species might exist. Is it possible for us to look at the spectra of a Shroud sample together (and also a blood simulacra sample) and for you to take me through this, from left to right, peak by peak, and point out the probable identity of everything that is represented there? Is the resolution of biliverdin, bilirubin or other breakdown products more straightforward than various oxidized species of hemoglobin that may be present?

9. In your 1993 article, “Conservation on the Shroud of Turin” you emphasize that “bilirubin can be readily and quickly photodecomposed under a variety of conditions”. Given the relative instability of bilirubin, how do you account for its preservation on the Shroud over a relatively long period of time? Could this be due to aggregation of (high concentrations of) bilirubin in dried bloodstains as opposed to bilirubin in solution? Or some type of chemical bonding/association between bilirubin and the cloth? Thoughts?

10. Growing up, what first stimulated your interest in science? Were you always interested in pursuing a scientific career?

Categories: Blood Studies, Science
  1. Yannick Clément
    June 3, 2013 at 8:30 am

    Thanks Mr. Kearse for this posting! I will read this very carefully… Everything that touch Adler’s science interest me very much since I consider his research as one of the most important that has ever been done on the Shroud, along with those of Barbet, Rogers and some other guys like Pellicori and Jackson (while he was part of the STURP team)…

  2. Yannick Clément
    June 4, 2013 at 10:51 am

    I’ve read your paper Mr. Kearse and I must say that it is too much technical for me! ;-)

    But, from my perspective, I think the question #9 is one of the most important that should be explain by science. The simple fact that the bloodstains on the Shroud show a much brighter and redder color when the cloth is displayed in sunlight is a strong indicator that Adler’s hypothesis versus the very high level of bilirubin in these stains is probably correct. But, as you asked in your question, what has not been answered yet is how an unstable compound like bilirubin have been well preserved for so long? And in my mind, I really think there should be not a single one, but a series of factors that can explain this preservation… I seriously doubt that it is due to one single factor. Just my guess of course.

  3. Angel
    June 6, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    Dr. Alan Adler is deceased; therefore, it would be wiser to direct your questions on blood and hemoglobin to Professor Albert Zink, who has found the oldest blood in Otzi the Iceman, (5300 year old mummy) to be *real* blood.

    Zink used a new procedure to verify Otzi’s blood and perhaps this test or something similar could be performed on the Shroud of Turin blood. Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    “Feeling for blood

    Zink and his colleagues took tissue samples from Ötzi’s arrow wound and from an earlier wound on the mummy’s hand. Using a light microscope, they identified round objects that looked a bit like red blood cells, Zink said. But to be sure, the researchers needed more advanced technology.

    They turned to a device called an atomic force microscope, which works by “feeling” rather than “seeing” an object. The minuscule probe, itself invisible to the naked eye, runs over the object like a needle on a record player. As the probe bumps up and down along the object’s contours, a laser measures the movement. The result is a three-dimensional “tracing” of the object.

    In the case of the mysterious Ötzi contents, an exciting picture emerged: The roundish shapes were indeed red blood cells.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/02/iceman-mummy-holds-world-oldest-blood-cells/#ixzz2VTszq6WH

    Found this information on Professor Albert Zink

    Prof. Albert Zink
    Tel: +39 0471 055 561
    Fax: +39 0471 055 579
    eMail
    Main fields of activity

    – biological and biomolecular anthropology
    – nanotechnologies
    – paleopathology
    – paleoepidemiology
    – forensic studies

    http://www.eurac.edu/staff/azink/default.html

    Best,

  4. June 7, 2013 at 2:07 am

    Yes, it is a great discovery. But…

    1. Ötzi corpse was preserved in exceptional conditions in ice.
    2. What is red is not the complete blood, but cells.
    3 The “red” of Ötzi’s cells isn’t the red of Turin Shroud. You can see here: http://io9.com/5907418/scientists-recover-the-worlds-oldest-human-blood-cells-from-tzi-the-iceman. It is a dark red-brown, not a bright one.

    I don’t know if the new method is really accurate. If so it opens a way to resolve the question about blood or pigments in the Shroud of Turin. May be we ought to wait and see.

    • June 7, 2013 at 2:29 am

      Link to the original article here (Marek Janko, Robert W. Stark and Albert Zink. “Preservation of 5300 year old red blood cells in the Iceman”. Journal of the Royal Society Interface): http://www.mac.cat/Seus/Barcelona/Exposicions/Exposicions-anteriors/OeTZI.-La-momia-del-gel/Darreres-novetats-cientifiques-sobre-Oetzi .

      I’m sorry, the page is in Català. I hope you will find the link easily.

      • Angel
        June 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm

        I found the link, downloaded the PDF file and then got the message, “The file is damaged and could not be repaired.”

        With that in mind, I was unable to read it, but thank you.

        Best,

    • Angel
      June 7, 2013 at 3:49 pm

      David Mo,

      Yes, I understand what you have stated concerning the difference in the colors of the blood of Otzi and the Shroud.

      The dark brown color seen with blood; however, is due only to the oxidation state of iron in the hemoglobin molecule. When iron is deoxygenated, Iron (II) the blood appears as a dark red color. When blood hemoglobin is oxygen rich, Iron (III) the blood is then seen as bright red in color. Now, there may be a difference with aged-blood, such as Otzi’s or the TS blood, or the way it was preserved over time.

      Perhaps, and this is only an opinion, the Shroud was kept in a sealed casket for decades, and then when it was taken out for public viewing, and exposed to air, the color became a brighter red. I don’t believe the Otzi mummy was placed in a vacuum-type environment, but he was preserved in ice.

      Another thought came to mind. When red blood cells are placed in fresh water, they burst, so I would wonder, since the Shroud was exposed to a flood, would the red blood cells still be intact? Carbon dioxide and Carbon monoxide, as well, have an effect on blood cells. A Porphrin chemist would be able to expand on the topic.

      With respect to the new method, even if it isn’t scientifically accurate, Professor Zink may, at least, be able to resolve the problem of the Shroud blood being actual human blood, rather than a painter’s dye.

      The Shroud scientists will have to research the subject.

      Best,

  5. jesterof
    June 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    Angel,

    red blood cells burst ( hemolysis)under other conditions as well – there were plenty while thee Man of the Shroud was still alive and there are also a lot after death

    • Angel
      June 8, 2013 at 12:38 am

      Interesting!

      Yes, more than likely anemia (blood loss), as a result of severe stress, would also have contributed to the hemolytic episode experienced by Jesus, the man on the shroud.

      Best,

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

    Angel :
    Interesting!

    Yes, more than likely anemia (blood loss), as a result of severe stress, would also have contributed to the hemolytic episode experienced by Jesus, the man on the shroud.
    Best,

    His hemolysis was mostly stress-related, IMHO and there also was rhabdomyolysis – because of the stress and severe dehydration. This a breakdown of the muscles and myoglobin which is similar to hemoglobin
    I do not suppose there was a severe anemia due to blood loss, mostly hemolytic
    The hemolysis of erythrocytes doesn’t matter for the color – because the hemoglobin, which is inside the cells pours outside( free in plasma, until it is conjugated n the liver), but it is still the hemoglobin ( and it’s residues and metabolites) which produces the color.

  7. Angel
    June 8, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    Understood and thank you, jesterof, for a fine explanation.

    I found this older article (discourse) on the color of the Shroud blood. Here is an excerpt:

    “Don’t you think the blood on the Shroud seems too red to be so old?”

    ‘When a person is cruelly tortured, the blood undergoes a terrible haemolysis, when the haemaglobin literally ‘breaks up’. In thirty seconds, the reaction reaches the liver, which doesn’t have time to deal with it, and discharges a volume of bilirubin into the veins. Alan Adler has discovered a very high quantity of this substance in the blood on the Shroud. It is this substance that, when mixed with methemoglobin of a certain type, produces that vivid red colour. The colour of the blood belonging to the ‘Man of the Shroud’ is chemical proof that, before dying, he suffered terrible torture.’

    http://www.british-israel.ca/shroud.htm

    ***Therefore, bilirubin mixed with methemoglobin is responsible for the bright red color of the Shroud blood, otherwise the blood would have oxidized. Is this correct?

    Best,

  8. jesterof
    June 8, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    Hi, Angel,
    In one of the threads ( I do not remember which one) it was revealed that the color changes upon exposure to UV light – it brightens in a broad sunlight – which will approve the hypothesis of bilirubin being responsible for that,
    But I can not connect methemoglobin to any of possible pathological processes connected to the Passion. It is usually high in some metabolic disorders or upon poisoning with some substances. Why should it be high in the Man of the Shroud is difficult to understand.

    • Angel
      June 9, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      Hi jesterof,

      With respect to methemoglobin, the excerpt below details Alan Alder’s analysis, not mine.

      Discourse excerpt:

      “Don’t you think the blood on the Shroud seems too red to be so old?

      “When a person is cruelly tortured, the blood undergoes a terrible haemolysis, when the haemaglobin literally ‘breaks up’. In thirty seconds, the reaction reaches the liver, which doesn’t have time to deal with it, and discharges a volume of bilirubin into the veins. Alan Adler has discovered a very high quantity of this substance in the blood on the Shroud. It is this substance that, when mixed with methemoglobin of a certain type, produces that vivid red colour. The colour of the blood belonging to the ‘Man of the Shroud’ is chemical proof that, before dying, he suffered terrible torture.”
      http://www.british-israel.ca/shroud.htm

      See the other links below, as well.

      ***Hemolytic anemia is the result of severe blood loss due to trauma.

      Excerpt: “Excessive Destruction of Red Blood Cells (hemolytic anemia): Anemia may also develop related to hemolysis due to trauma, chemical agents or medications (toxic hemolytic anemia), infectious disease, isoimmune hemolytic reactions, autoimmune disorders, and the paroxysmal hemoglobinurias.”
      http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hemorrhagic+anemia

      Excerpt: “Chronic hemolysis leads to an increased excretion of bilirubin into the biliary tract,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemolytic_anemia

      Best,

  9. jesterof
    June 9, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Angel, thank you to bringing that together. However, my point was – why on earth is he mentioning methemoglobin – this one particular hemoglobin can be found in blood only in a person with some specific diseases ( which by description from the Gospels Jesus Christ does not fit) or as a result of poisoning by some external substances.
    It is not a byproduct of any severe trauma, or hemolysis.Bilirubin and it’s origins is a totally different matter – and I have never disputed bilirubin at all ( I am a physician and I have worked in a Critical Care medicine a lot)

    That is why I find it strange that he also mentions methemoglobin and it is never discussed more by anybody

    • Angel
      June 9, 2013 at 9:02 pm

      jesterof, isn’t Methemaglobin a product of severe liver damage?

      I’ve seen methemoglobin also referenced with regard to nitrates and nitrites, found in soil and contaminated drinking water (well water).

      The bacteria in contaminated well water convert nitrates to nitrites. Doesn’t nitrite exposure cause liver damage? Perhaps there is a correlation. Jesus may have been subjected to contaminated soil or water.

      Methemoglobin is also mentioned on Dr. Ed. Uthman’s site, but he doesn’t expand on the subject. Looks like he’s a pathologist and a practicing physician.

      Excert from his site:

      “Look for erythrocyte detritus

      We have previously discussed the fate of destroyed red cells and their component catabolites, such as free hemoglobin, methemoglobin, methemalbumin, bilirubin, and urobilinogen, as well as the specific binding proteins for these catabolites, such as haptoglobin and hemopexin. Laboratory measurement of some or all of these assists in the diagnosis of hemolysis.”
      http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/hemolytic_anemia/hemolytic_anemia.html

      ***Ed Uthman’s homepage states you can email him with specific questions.
      http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/index.html

      I would imagine Dr. Uthman could easily answer this question.

      Best,

  10. Kelly Kearse
    June 9, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    Ex vivo, as blood dries, (Fe 2+) hemoglobin is oxidized to (Fe 3+) methemoglobin.

    • Angel
      June 9, 2013 at 9:07 pm

      Kelly, yes, but in the oxidized state, blood is dark brown and the blood on the shroud was bright red, wasn’t it? Or did the oxidized blood (brown) turn bright red ONLY on irradiation with UV light?

      Best,

  11. jesterof
    June 9, 2013 at 9:43 pm

    Angel :
    jesterof, isn’t Methemaglobin a product of severe liver damage?</

    NO

    • Angel
      June 10, 2013 at 4:30 pm

      jesterof, Thank you.

      Do you know if the increased levels of bilirubin in the Shroud blood weredefined as conjugated bilirubin or unconjugated bilirubin? And if Dr. Adler found high levels of bilirubin, wouldn’t there be jaundice and wouldn’t the liver be responsible for the jaundice?

  12. jesterof
    June 9, 2013 at 9:44 pm

    Kelly Kearse :
    Ex vivo, as blood dries, (Fe 2+) hemoglobin is oxidized to (Fe 3+) methemoglobin.

    Thanks.

  13. jesterof
    June 9, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    Or did the oxidized blood (brown) turn bright red ONLY on irradiation with UV light?

    Best,

    yes. that is the whole point. It is not bright red without UV or sunlight

  14. Kelly Kearse
    June 9, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    In the other threads, there is much discussion about the effects of UV light and interpretation of blood color. Analytically, Adler described methemoglobin-this is expected as blood dries and ages.

  15. jesterof
    June 9, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Angel,

    thee processes you describe are CHRONIC, the stress and it’s result in Jesus’s body were ACUTE, not chronic. There was no time to develop accumulated methemoglobinemia ( which is a possibility if someone is exposed to nitrates/nitrites), but there is no reason to think that’s the issue here.

    Methemoglobin is not a catabolite of hemoglobin. Bilirubin, urobilinogen are. In a normal state as well. Upon stress one has more hemolysis than normal ( there is normal hemolysis of old erythrocytes all the time and myocytes get catabolized as well – those with myoglobin).

    It is a normal turnover in a body – new cells are being produced, old are being destroyed and metabolized – by the liver mostly, but not only.
    If one is in extreme conditions like Jesus Christ was – hemolysis is enhanced and there will be also rhabdomyolysis ( breaking of the muscle).
    The degree of every process is unpredictable as is not very predictable the extent of the impact on the kidneys and liver.
    However, the markers of failure of these organs are going to b present in the bloodstream even in few hours.

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 9:59 pm

      jesterof, the catabolite reference was made by Dr. Ed Uthman, not me.

      Thank you for including the information on rhabdomyolysis.

      Best,

  16. jesterof
    June 9, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    Kelly Kearse :
    In the other threads, there is much discussion about the effects of UV light and interpretation of blood color. Analytically, Adler described methemoglobin-this is expected
    as blood dries and ages.

    yes, I know about UV light ( I’ve participated there). I just keep forgetting that drying of the blood is the process by itself )))) therefore looking at methemoglobinemia as in-vivo process

  17. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 10, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Jesterof, you wrote: “There was no time to develop accumulated methemoglobinemia (which is a possibility if someone is exposed to nitrates/nitrites), but there is no reason to think that’s the issue here.” Really?

    Re nitrates and TS blood colour: Ferric nitrate is a PURPLE crystal. It is used as catalysts and dye mordant. Mordant gives a RED colour. Mordanting takes place under alkaline conditions (e.g. ammonia present in heavy sweating/Red Heifer ashes mixed with water/water mixed with Jerusalem malky stone dust). Now the Jerusalem malky stone dust contains iron oxide and the TS bloody-body-image blood colour can range from carmine RED to carmine MAUVE…

  18. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 10, 2013 at 10:38 am

    Typo; calcium nitrate.

  19. jesterof
    June 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Jesterof, you wrote: “There was no time to develop accumulated methemoglobinemia
    (which is a possibility if someone is exposed to nitrates/nitrites), but there is no reason to think that’s the issue here.” Really?
    Re nitrates and TS blood colour: Ferric nitrate is a PURPLE crystal. It is used as catalysts and dye mordant. Mordant gives a RED colour. Mordanting takes place under alkaline conditions (e.g. ammonia present in heavy sweating/Red Heifer ashes mixed with water/water mixed with Jerusalem malky stone dust). Now the Jerusalem malky stone dust contains iron oxide and the TS bloody-body-image blood colour can range from carmine RED to carmine MAUVE…

    I was talking about IN VIVO time

  20. jesterof
    June 10, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    Angel :
    jesterof, Thank you.
    Do you know if the increased levels of bilirubin in the Shroud blood weredefined as
    conjugated bilirubin or unconjugated bilirubin? And if Dr. Adler found high levels of bilirubin, wouldn’t there be jaundice and wouldn’t the liver be responsible for the jaundice?

    I do not know which type it was, but in case of intravessel hemolysis it would be mostly unconjugated hemoglobin. There is a mnetioning in someones article about 30 seconds, but that is in theory with a healthy liver – it seems to me people tend to think in a laboratory terms in a clear case of a complicated clinicla scenario – therefore I would assume that it would be a mixed type of bilirubin – the one conjugated with hyaluronic acid in the liver and the one which is not.
    It is not the liver responsible for the jaundice it is bilirubin responsible for it. Liver responsibility is it’s conjugation with hyaluronic acid.
    Jaundice is not immediately visible while the levels of bilirubin might be already quite elevated

    • jesterof
      June 10, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      error- glucuronic acid, not hyaluronic

      • Angel
        June 10, 2013 at 7:11 pm

        Yeah, isn’t hyaluronic acid found in those who have osteoarthritis in the knee? Not certain though.

        Best,

    • Angel
      June 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm

      Understood!

      jesterof, I would imagine a significant amount of Nitric Oxide was released into the bloodstream to counteract the effect of Jesus’ massive blood loss. As well, Nitric Oxide is known to be released with any type of physical exertion, as would have been the case with Jesus carrying the crossbeam.

      Inhaled Nitric Oxide reacts with hemoglobin to form Methemaglobin, but if severe stress or physical exertion causes an elevation in Nitric Oxide in the body, wouldn’t such an excess also react with hemoglobin to form methemoglobin?

      What are your thoughts?

      Best,

  21. Angel
    June 10, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    jesterof,

    See hemolysis and high unconjugated bilirubin
    https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/clinpath/modules/chem/tbili.htm

    Best,

  22. jesterof
    June 10, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Angel.
    I do not need to see it in a link. I treat it. :-)
    You seem not to understand that there is a humongous difference between a chronic state ( which hemolytic anemia, for instance is) and an acute hemolysis which is stress and trauma related ( which is not a hemolytic anemia).
    Besides I do not see anything in the link which will condrradict anything I’ve said

    • Angel
      June 10, 2013 at 7:06 pm

      jesterof, you’re the expert!

      I am referencing Methemaglobinemia.

      Jesus may have been exposed to nitrites or nitrates found in either contaminated soil or drinking water. Under these circumstances, iron in the hemoglobin molecule is alterted (Fe^+2, ferrous to Fe^+3, ferric). This is an oxidation process where the color of blood is changed from red to brown.

      Methemaglobin and hemolytic anemia (acute) would result from exposure to nitrates and nitrites, right?

      And don’t Nitrates irritate the liver?

      When the liver is irritated, isn’t there an increase in bilirubin? Didn’t Dr. Adler find an increase in bilirubin?

      Nitrates and Nitrites
      http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts204.pdf

      Best,

  23. Angel
    June 10, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    Jesterof,

    With respect to the bright red color of the Shroud blood, under uv light, it should be noted, porphrin is a tetrapyrrole, just like chlorophyll, and in its oxidized state, it is red and it flouresces. When it is placed under long wave UV light (UV-A), it appears as an intense red color.

    Best,

  24. jesterof
    June 11, 2013 at 11:24 am

    Angel :
    jesterof, you’re the expert!
    I am referencing Methemaglobinemia.
    Jesus may have been exposed to nitrites or nitrates found in either contaminated soil or drinking water. Under these circumstances, iron in the hemoglobin molecule is alterted (Fe^+2, ferrous to Fe^+3, ferric). This is an oxidation process where the color of blood is changed from red to brown.
    Methemaglobin and hemolytic anemia (acute) would result from exposure to nitrates and nitrites, right?
    And don’t Nitrates irritate the liver?
    When the liver is irritated, isn’t there an increase in bilirubin? Didn’t Dr. Adler find an increase in bilirubin?
    Nitrates and Nitrites
    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts204.pdf
    Best,

    Angel,

    There is no medical history of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. One can speculate about exposure to anything but that is just speculation. Kelly already explained the methemoglobin in a DRIED blood, there is no need to speculate about nitriates.
    There are a lot of substances which can cause liver damage, but one has to take the facts into account, not just general possibilities. By the facts described in the Gospels there are no connection to nitrates/nitrites and there is absolutely no reason to assume Jesus had any liver damage or intravascular hemolysis prior to his torture.
    His extreme sufferings due to severe stress and trauma has lasted about 12 hours( if you start at Getsymany) and that is consistent with acute damage to multiple organs and systems causing acute intravascular hemolysis as one part of that damage.

    • Angel
      June 11, 2013 at 7:53 pm

      jesterof,
      While I respect you and agree with a majority of what you’ve stated, all possibilities must be considered, including nitrites, nitrates and nitric oxide, if specific scientific problems related to the Shroud are to be solved.

      Remember, as well, all things were not recorded in the Gospels. Certainly the Gospels did not mention Jesus had a sex chromosome trisomy (XXY), nor did the Gospels mention, in regard to maternal DNA (mtDNA), Jesus had a mutant genetic marker at 150T. What specific genetic disease is associated with that marker?

      While it is probable Methemaglobin was the result of trauma and stress, we are not certain Jesus was deficient in producing the diaphorase enzyme, nor if Jesus had an abnormal hemoglobin variant (Hemoglobin M). Methhemoglobinemia would be the result of either of those mentioned abnormalities.

      Since, Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes was only able to obtain fragmented DNA, there are many things NOT listed in the Gospels that may, in fact, define Jesus.

      Best,

  25. jesterof
    June 11, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    Angel :
    Understood!
    jesterof, I would imagine a significant amount of Nitric Oxide was released into the
    bloodstream to counteract the effect of Jesus’ massive blood loss. As well, Nitric Oxide is known to be released with any type of physical exertion, as would have been the case with Jesus carrying the crossbeam.
    Inhaled Nitric Oxide reacts with hemoglobin to form Methemaglobin, but if severe stress or physical exertion causes an elevation in Nitric Oxide in the body, wouldn’t such an excess also react with hemoglobin to form methemoglobin?
    What are your thoughts?
    Best,

    Why do you think He had a massive blood loos? from where? at the most He lost not more than half a liter of blood, which is not severe blood loss, though it would be a contributing factor to dehydration and shock.

    and where would that MASSIVE nitric oxide come from?

    intracellular release of NO would not produce methemoglobinemia, Inhaled NO causes it very minimally. It is a potent ( and expensive) dilatator of pulmonary vessels smooth muscles, used in neonatology and in trating pulmonary HTN
    Where do you get all those wild ideas?

    • Angel
      June 11, 2013 at 8:19 pm

      Look at the scientific evidence and you will deduce the brutal beating and the enormous loss of blood. As well, remember Jesus was being brutalized by TWO Roman soldiers, each with a flagrum.

      See the link
      http://www.frtommylane.com/homilies/holy_week/shroud_of_turin.htm

      Here is my post, “significant amount of Nitric Oxide,” and “Jesus’ massive blood loss.”

      You have conflated the two statements I made to “and where would that MASSIVE nitric oxide come from?

      I never stated massive Nitric Oxide, but rather massive blood loss.

      Best,

  26. jesterof
    June 11, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Angel :
    Jesterof,
    With respect to the bright red color of the Shroud blood, under uv light, it should be
    noted, porphrin is a tetrapyrrole, just like chlorophyll, and in its oxidized state, it is red and it flouresces. When it is placed under long wave UV light (UV-A), it appears as an intense red color.
    Best,

    yes, I agree

    • Angel
      June 12, 2013 at 12:11 am

      jesterof, I’m elated you agree with me on something. :)

      Best,

  27. Angel
    June 12, 2013 at 12:03 am

    jesterof says: “Why do you think He had a massive blood loos? from where? at the most He lost not more than half a liter of blood, which is not severe blood loss, though it would be a contributing factor to dehydration and shock.

    ***Angel says:

    “jesterof, in regard to the scourging, Jesus received 60 lashes (120 wound marks) that are detailed on the Shroud of Turin.

    Below is an excerpt from Doug Leatherman, MD, on Jesus’ massive blood loss:

    “There is much disagreement among the authorities as to the scourging. This was a Roman, not a Jewish, custom. The hands were tied high to a tree or post. A whip was made of a short wood handle and heavy leather straps bearing usually the sharp bones of sheep knuckles or lead balls on the ends.

    The Jews forbade more than forty lashes (thirty nine was the maximum allowed), but the Romans did not have this limit. The scourging was usually carried out by a Roman soldier. The whip was brought down upon the bare back, cutting the skin first; then as the beating progressed, the muscles were laid bare, bruised and bleeding with marked loss of blood. In a significant number of instances this was enough to kill a man. Ribs were broken, nerves exposed. Again and again, down came the whip until either death or unconsciousness occurred. Both venous and arterial bleeding occurred. Large deep, dark, bruised surfaces began to appear. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long shreds. The whole area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue.”

    http://www.churches-of-christ.net/tracts/job004u.htm

    Here is an image of the flagrum that was used on Jesus’ scourging. Note the metal balls attached to the leather whip.
    http://www.indyprops.com/pp-flagrum.htm

    Therefore, a massive blood loss from 60 lashes would be an understatement. As well, Jesus’ scourging was thoroughly detailed in Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ.”

    Best,

    • Hugh Farey
      June 12, 2013 at 10:49 am

      The dorsal image of the shroud by itself utterly refutes the idea that Jesus was flogged to the extent that “the skin of his back is hanging in long shreds” or anything like it. Nor does crucifixion result in massive blood loss, as the nails effectively block the holes they make. Scalp wounds bleed quite well, but nothing like enough to provide a “massive blood loss.” I agree with jesterof.

      • Angel
        June 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm

        Hugh Farey,

        Then I disagree with you and jesterof.

        You’ve both failed to recall Jesus was also bleeding from the nose and mouth, as evidenced on the Sudarium of Oviedo (head napkin.).

        Comparative study: See top of page 3

        http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf

        Best,

  28. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Angel : jesterof says:
    “Why do you think He had a massive blood loos? from where? at the
    most He lost not more than half a liter of blood, which is not
    severe blood loss, though it would be a contributing factor to
    dehydration and shock. ***Angel says: “jesterof, in regard to the
    scourging, Jesus received 60 lashes (120 wound marks) that are
    detailed on the Shroud of Turin. Below is an excerpt from Doug
    Leatherman, MD, on Jesus’ massive blood loss: “There is much
    disagreement among the authorities as to the scourging. This was a
    Roman, not a Jewish, custom. The hands were tied high to a tree or
    post. A whip was made of a short wood handle and heavy leather
    straps bearing usually the sharp bones of sheep knuckles or lead
    balls on the ends. The Jews forbade more than forty lashes (thirty
    nine was the maximum allowed), but the Romans did not have this
    limit. The scourging was usually carried out by a Roman soldier.
    The whip was brought down upon the bare back, cutting the skin
    first; then as the beating progressed, the muscles were laid bare,
    bruised and bleeding with marked loss of blood. In a significant
    number of instances this was enough to kill a man. Ribs were
    broken, nerves exposed. Again and again, down came the whip until
    either death or unconsciousness occurred. Both venous and arterial
    bleeding occurred. Large deep, dark, bruised surfaces began to
    appear. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long shreds. The
    whole area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue.”
    http://www.churches-of-christ.net/tracts/job004u.htm
    Here is an image of the flagrum that was used on Jesus’ scourging.
    Note the metal balls attached to the leather whip. http://www.indyprops.com/pp-flagrum.htm
    Therefore, a massive blood loss from 60 lashes would be an
    understatement. As well, Jesus’ scourging was thoroughly detailed
    in Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Best,

    one won’t loose blood massivel from the
    scourging. At most it would be half a liter – which I am being VERY
    generous about. Scourging is very painful and stressful, but it is
    superficial trauma with no major blood vessels involved, whith
    coagualtion cascade activated immediately after the first scourge,
    \ the picture described does not match the markings on the Shroud –
    if the skin would be torn off in big stripes as Dr leatheman
    describes, there should be the appropriate markings on the Shroud –
    we instead do have almost the same type of bell-shaped wounds which
    are not compatible with above described picture. but even if the
    picture would be as described, there won’t be “massive blood loss”
    becasue that trauma is superficial and as I’ve already said the
    defense mechanisms of the body would already been activated.
    Clearly, the person theorizing about “massive blood loss” after
    superficial dermal injury has never been in the operating room. On
    a side note – what is “massive” in your description? how much is
    “massive”?

  29. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 11:45 am

    not “massive blood loss”.

    Angel :
    jesterof, I’m elated you agree with me on something. :)
    Best,

    I agree with you on many things – you just seem to miss on which ones. I agree on bilirubin ( though I do not agree it is from hemolytic anemia), I agree it is bilirubin upon UV light exposure which is causing brightening of the colors.
    I do not agree that methemoglobinemia can be caused by free radicals, becasue ther won’t be enough of them to cause it, and I do not agree on a water exposure theory – but I explained why :-)

    ================

    Mel Gibson’s movie actually describes the picture very accurately. it is very bloody, but it is NOT massive blood loss,
    if one knows what is the distinction of massive blood loss.

    • Angel
      June 12, 2013 at 4:19 pm

      jesterof,

      When you state Jesus lost, at most, one liter of blood, you are assuming only external bleeding, as seen with the naked eye, and failing to recognize blood loss from internal bleeding.

      I would conclude Jesus lost, at least, half his blood supply.

      Excerpt:

      “What is internal bleeding?

      While the general public understands that internal bleeding means bleeding that can’t be seen on the outside of the body, medical personnel tend to use terms that describe precisely where inside the body the bleeding is found. The internal bleeding may occur within tissues, organs, or in cavities of the body including the head, chest, and abdomen. Examples of other potential sites of bleeding include the eye, lining tissues of the heart, muscles, and joints.

      http://www.medicinenet.com/internal_bleeding/article.htm

  30. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Hugh Farey :
    The dorsal image of the shroud by itself utterly refutes the idea that Jesus was flogged to the extent that “the skin of his back is hanging in long shreds” or anything like it. Nor does crucifixion result in massive blood loss, as the nails effectively block the holes they make. Scalp wounds bleed quite well, but nothing like enough to provide a “massive blood loss.” I agree with jesterof.

    Thank you. I missed your post .

    As I stated before – one is free to speculate, but in order the case to stand, one has to stick to the facts in the constraction of the reasonable hypothesis. And the facts do not support either nitrate water exposure, nor massive blood loss ( in the distinctions of what massive blood loss is)

  31. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 12, 2013 at 11:50 am

    Jester wrote: “I was talking about IN VIVO time”. The true fact is the TS haematic cartography is not only a (palaeo)pathology and blood physiology issue; it is also an archaeological one and as such shall be tackled in the light of a most specific burial ritual/practice (e.g. most likely use of an alkaline solution and fumigation to rapidly purify and dry the deceased’s body).

  32. June 12, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :Jester wrote: “I was talking about IN VIVO time”. The true fact is the TS haematic cartography is not only a (palaeo)pathology and blood physiology issue; it is also an archaeological one and as such shall be tackled in the light of a most specific burial ritual/practice (e.g. most likely use of an alkaline solution and fumigation to rapidly purify and dry the deceased’s
    body).

    Max, I know. I am not opining in the area where I am not an expert – and I have never opposed YOUR opinion on that. I can talk about pathology and physiology but I do realize this is not the only contributing factor. I simply am silent on achaelogical theme, becasue my knowledge upon the area will be an equivalent of “female blood” :-)

  33. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 12, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Most sadly, the TS blood as an archaeological issue in terms of ancient bloodstain patterns to be analysed/cryptanalysed in the light of a Second Period Temple burial rite, practice and custom has been currently overlooked and even underrated so far (my personal experience on this very blog). Hence the scientific and archaeological stalemate in Shroud Science.

  34. Kelly Kearse
    June 12, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    Max Patrick Hamon :
    Most sadly, the TS blood as an archaeological issue in terms of ancient bloodstain patterns to be analysed/cryptanalysed in the light of a Second Period Temple burial rite, practice and custom has been currently overlooked and even underrated so far (my personal experience on this very blog). Hence the scientific and archaeological stalemate in Shroud Science.

    Max,

    Have you ever thought of putting together an article or posting with the steps (in order) of such burial rites, practice, and customs wand detailing specifically what effects these might have relative to the bloodstains (or the cloth in general)? Start with the body being taken down from the cross and go from there. Exactly what would have taken place (in chronological progression)?

    I have seen various bits & pieces on the blog posted as reminders, but those are relatively disjointed from each other, not that easy for someone unfamiliar with the area to sort out in relation to the big picture. Or maybe you’ve posted this type of detail before somewhere (all together in one place) and there is a link?

    • June 12, 2013 at 2:38 pm

      I’ll second that request.

    • Louis
      June 12, 2013 at 5:17 pm

      Kelly, I advised Max twice about this on this blog since he is earnest and has the right as anyone else who is serious to post comments, whether we agree with what is stated or not. It seems we will have to wait because his papers are not yet ready, but he gives us clues about what his papers will be like in comments!

      • Angel
        June 14, 2013 at 10:07 pm

        Seriously, I would be extremely interested in reading a paper, journal article or a book authored by Kelly Kearse.

        Best,

  35. Kelly Kearse
    June 12, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    Typo!! practice, and customs “wand” detailing, should be practice, and customs “and” detailing. There is no magic wand.

  36. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    David Goulet :
    I’ll second that request.

    Ass me to the list :-)

  37. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    add – typo

    • Angel
      June 12, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      (LOL)…or a Freudian slip. Just kidding!

      Best,

  38. Kelly Kearse
    June 12, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    jesterof :
    add – typo

    :)

  39. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 3:12 pm

    Angel : jesterof, While
    I respect you and agree with a majority of what you’ve stated, all
    possibilities must be considered, including nitrites, nitrates and
    nitric oxide, if specific scientific problems related to the Shroud
    are to be solved.

    I disagree – one must include
    PERTINENT possibilities, chronic nitrate exposure is such a stretch
    possibility that it is not worth consideration, especially since
    thee is not even one piece of proof for that, but there are tons of
    possibilities of other nature – drying and postmortem
    fumigation/mordanting.

    Angel : Remember, as
    well, all things were not recorded in the Gospels. Certainly the
    Gospels did not mention Jesus had a sex chromosome trisomy (XXY),
    nor did the Gospels mention, in regard to maternal DNA (mtDNA),
    Jesus had a mutant genetic marker at 150T. What specific genetic
    disease is associated with that marker?

    As far
    as I remember the bits and peices of DNA were so fragmented that
    there was no possibility to draw ANT conclusions fro that. XXY is
    Kleinfelter syndrome. While there is always a possibility in
    someone who never had children of their own that such a male has
    Kleinfelter’s ( unless they are unusually short), there is no
    reason except the fantasy of a filmmaker to think Jesus Christ had
    that particular syndrome. Taking into consideration that by Gospels
    He did not have the source where the Y will come from, it is highly
    unlikely He was genotypically XXY or even XY If one
    remebers the birth history of Jesus, one must conclude that His
    genotype will be that of XX even without a SRY gene – this has been
    described:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556678

    Angel
    :
    While it is probable Methemaglobin was the result
    of trauma and stress, we are not certain Jesus was deficient in
    producing the diaphorase enzyme, nor if Jesus had an abnormal
    hemoglobin variant (Hemoglobin M). Methhemoglobinemia would be the
    result of either of those mentioned
    abnormalities.

    No, it is NOT probable that Jesus
    methemoglobinemia in dried blood resulted from stress and trauma –
    those DO NOT produce hemoglobinemia. Any speculations on a
    possibility of any genetic mutation causing methemoglobinemia is a
    pure fantasy without any background to back it up, so it is not
    worth to discuss it.

    Angel : Since, Leoncio
    A. Garza-Valdes was only able to obtain fragmented DNA, there are
    many things NOT listed in the Gospels that may, in fact, define
    Jesus. Best,

    Since there are only fragments of
    DNA there is nothing to talk about – this is clear speculation and
    one can consider the whole list of genetic abnormalities to fit
    them ( since there is neither proof or disproof of that) and
    chromosomal aberrations, but this is abolutely futile approach not
    worth any time.

  40. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    those do not produce METhemoglobinemie – typing too fast

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 10:09 pm

      Well, jesterof, since it is your field, you would know better than I.

      Best,

  41. Angel
    June 12, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    Internal hemhorrage.

    Excerpt:

    “Exsanguination is a relatively uncommon and dramatic cause of death in humans.

    Blunt force trauma to the liver, kidneys, and spleen can cause severe internal bleeding as well, though the abdominal cavity usually becomes visibly darkened as if bruised. Similarly, trauma to the lungs can cause bleeding out, though without medical attention blood can fill the lungs causing drowning, or in the pleura causing suffocation, well before exsanguination would occur. In addition, serious trauma can cause tearing of major blood vessels without external trauma indicative of the damage.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsanguination

    Internal bleeding was evident when Jesus was pierced with the sword (blood and water poured out).

    Excerpt:

    “A number of forensic pathologists have examined the descriptions (and, in some cases, information on the Shroud of Turin). They all agree that there is no way water could have come out. But, they agree that the heart is surrounded by the pericardium, which contains a watery fluid and a lance thrust would have extracted this fluid, which would look like water.

    The thrust would also have pierced the heart, drawing accumulated blood. Even if Jesus didn’t die of asphyxiation and even if He didn’t die of congestive heart failure and even if He didn’t die of hypovolemic shock and even if He didn’t die from the internal hemorrhaging itself, He had a large, deep, open chest wound through at least one lung and probably the heart, with internal bleeding. This would have caused internal infection and in a few days He would have died of sepsis, i.e., infection.”

    Best,

  42. Angel
    June 12, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    Question:

    If a person has a nosebleed, as a result of trauma to the nose, he or she is able to stop the bleeding by applying pressure (pinching the two nostrils together). Correct?

    Assuming the above scenario, how would Jesus have been able to stop the nosebleed if his hands were nailed to the cross?

    Best,

  43. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Angel, Jesus was pierced with the sword AFTER DEATH.

    Get your fact together – read the Gospels

    • Angel
      June 13, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      Firstly jesterof, I do read the Gospels, and I am aware Jesus was pierced with the sword after death.

      Secondly, If one had pleurisy and at the moment of death a sword was thrust into this person’s pleural cavity, fluid (water) would immediately seep out.

      Here is an excerpt of “Pericardial Effusion” the link below:

      “Those who were flogged would often go into hypovolemic shock, a term that refers to low blood volume. In other words, the person would have lost so much blood he would go into shock. The results of this would be

      1) The heart would race to pump blood that was not there.

      2) The victim would collapse or faint due to low blood pressure.

      3) The kidneys would shut down to preserve body fluids.

      4) The person would experience extreme thirst as the body desired to replenish lost fluids.

      There is evidence from Scripture that Jesus experienced hypovolemic shock as a result of being flogged. As Jesus carried His own cross to Golgotha (John 19:17), He collapsed, and a man named Simon was forced to either carry the cross or help Jesus carry the cross the rest of way to the hill (Matthew 27:32–33; Mark 15:21–22; Luke 23:26). This collapse indicates Jesus had low blood pressure. Another indicator that Jesus suffered from hypovolemic shock was that He declared He was thirsty as He hung on the cross (John 19:28), indicating His body’s desire to replenish fluids.

      Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John 19:34).

      http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html

      And below is an excerpt on the subject of the blood and water.

      “One view concerns the pericardium, the sac which surrounds the heart, and which contains a small amount of watery fluid. When the body undergoes great stress, as crucifixion would certainly entail, the amount of fluid increases and the sac expands. The Roman lance would then have passed through Jesus’ pericardium and into the right side of his heart, which is filled with blood even after death. As the lance was withdrawn, it would draw out the blood from the heart and the watery fluid from the expanded pericardium.”

      And there is a second view is as follows;

      “Anthony Sava, an American physician, has a different explanation for the water flow. He believes that the severe scourging caused internal hemorrhaging in Jesus’ chest, and the pleural cavity filled with blood. The blood settled on the bottom of the chest cavity while a clear liquid was left on top. Sava says that the Roman lance entered the chest and, upon being withdrawn, released the blood and the water from the chest.”

      Either of the two views gave the conclusion:

      The explanations for the blood and water flow are closely related at several points. All physicians who have examined the question agree that Jesus was already dead when the chest wound was inflicted. The blood and water most probably flowed from both the heart and the chest cavity.

      http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/forensic.htm

      Best,

  44. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    there was no blunt trauma to the liver or any other internal organs to cause internal bleeding.

    You keep inventing nonsense to prove what exactly?
    even massive blood loss will not release NO in a such amount that it will cause methemoglobinemia – it is impossible.

    read about free radicals a bit before producing fantasies.

    Best :-)

    • Angel
      June 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm

      jesterof, your comments indicate you may also be of the opinion prisoners who are beaten with a rubber hose, do not experience internal bleeding.

      I disagree with your assessment, but that doesn’t mean I do not respect your opinion.

      Best,

    • Angel
      June 13, 2013 at 8:49 pm

      jesterof, not fantasy, but reality.

      As I mentioned, nitrites and nitrates are found in soil and contaminated drinking water, which was common in ancient Jerusalem.

      Soil Properties Affecting Formation of Nitric Oxide by Chemical Reactions of Nitrite
      A. M. Blackmer and M. E. Cerrato

      Excerpt from abstract: NO = Nitric Oxide

      “These findings indicate that NO is formed by reactions of nitrite with the organic fraction of soils as well as by self-decomposition of nitrous acid.”

      https://www.agronomy.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/50/5/SS0500051215?access=0&view=pdf

      Contamination – soil – water

      Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water – The National Academies Press
      http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9038&page=13‎
      Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water To cause methemoglobinemia, nitrate must be converted to nitrite. The conversion is performed by bacteria in the mouth and ..

      At any rate, take care,

      Best :)

  45. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 11:04 pm

    Angel :
    Question:
    If a person has a nosebleed, as a result of trauma to the nose, he or she is able to stop
    the bleeding by applying pressure (pinching the two nostrils together). Correct?
    Assuming the above scenario, how would Jesus have been able to stop the nosebleed if his hands were nailed to the cross?
    Best,

    By coagulation cascade.

    Which is immediately activated.

    Nose bleed stops by itself in other words and nose bleed does not produce severe blood loss, unless a person is a hemophiliac, which Jesus was not

    • Angel
      June 13, 2013 at 5:46 pm

      jesterof, the coagulation cascade to which you refer does not occur in persons who have esophageal varicies and the condition is life threatening, as well.

      I’m not stating Jesus had esophageal varices, but this is one case, a result of cirrhosis of the liver, where bleeding does not stop of its own accord.

      Best,

  46. jesterof
    June 12, 2013 at 11:11 pm

    Angel :
    Internal hemhorrage.
    Excerpt:

    “Exsanguination is a relatively uncommon and dramatic cause of death in humans.
    Blunt force trauma to the liver, kidneys, and spleen can cause severe internal bleeding as well, though the abdominal cavity usually becomes visibly darkened as if bruised. Similarly, trauma to the lungs can cause bleeding out, though without medical attention blood can fill the lungs causing drowning, or in the pleura causing suffocation, well before exsanguination would occur. In addition, serious trauma can cause tearing of major blood vessels without external trauma indicative of the damage.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsanguination
    Internal bleeding was evident when Jesus was pierced with the sword (blood and water poured out).
    Excerpt:
    “A number of forensic pathologists have examined the descriptions (and, in some cases, information on the Shroud of Turin). They all agree that there is no way water could have come out. But, they agree that the heart is surrounded by the pericardium, which contains a watery fluid and a lance thrust would have extracted this fluid, which would look like water.
    The thrust would also have pierced the heart, drawing accumulated blood. Even if Jesus didn’t die of asphyxiation and even if He didn’t die of congestive heart failure and even if He didn’t die of hypovolemic shock and even if He didn’t die from the internal hemorrhaging itself, He had a large, deep, open chest wound through at least one lung and probably the heart, with internal bleeding. This would have caused internal infection and in a few days He would have died of sepsis, i.e., infection.”
    Best,

    I f you connect the BLOOD FROM PIERCED HEART and the interstitial fluid from the pleural pace and the lungs of somebody who died because of the pulmonary edema – and try to pin it as a “proof” of internal bleeding the conclusion is
    1) you do not understand neither basic anatomy and physiology
    2) you do not know what “internal bleeding” entails
    3) there is clear no point FOR ME to proceed in this discussion – the blog format is impossible for quick lectures in anatomy/physiology/basic pathology.

    P.S. Heart is FULL OF BLOOD – that is the pump pf the blood, it is expected and should be there, as are lungs as well – they are full of blood( 2 to their function) – it’s NORMAL

    ***sigh***

    • Angel
      June 13, 2013 at 7:56 pm

      jesterof, I would agree with you about minimal blood loss (500 mL), if it werent for the fact Jesus bled one hour before the Sudarium was even placed on His head. The Sudarium of Oviedo is the cloth (head napkin) that was in direct contact with the head of Jesus. The Shroud was placed on Jesus AFTER the Sudarium was removed.

      See Page 4.

      ” At the bottom of the back of his head, there is a series of wounds produced in life by some sharp objects. These wounds had bled about an hour before the cloth was placed on top of them.”

      There is a forensic scientist on the Sudarium team.

      José-Delfín Villalaín Blanco
      DM, PhD. Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of
      Valencia, Spain. Vice-President of the Investigation. Spanish Centre for Sindonology (CES).
      Member of the Investigation Team of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (EDICES).
      Jorge-Manuel Rodríguez Almenar

      http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf

      You state there was minimal blood, but did you include the blood found beneath the cross hole in your total?

      And if Jesus bled for one hour before the Sudarium of Oviedo was placed on His head, how are you including that blood loss in your total (500 mL, at most)?

      ***Sigh***

      Take care!

      Best,

  47. Catherine Matthews
    June 13, 2013 at 1:50 am

    Either way, it was a bad way to die. I knew of one woman
    who died of Exsanguination and to say it was bloody was an
    understatement. cat lover

    • Angel
      June 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm

      Catherine, it must have been awful for you.

      I knew a man who suffered from esophageal varicies, liver damage, and I saw several of his nosebleed episodes (gruesome) and the only way to stop the flow of blood was to get him to the Emergency Room.

      At the ER some type of endoscoptic treatment was performed, where something similar to a carrot stick was placed into the esophagus, putting pressure on the bulging varicose veins and bleeding stopped. The ER doctors stated this man had lost half his blood supply.

      Best,

  48. June 13, 2013 at 8:37 am

    Angel :
    jesterof,
    When you state Jesus lost, at most, one liter of blood, you are assuming only external bleeding, as seen with the naked eye, and failing to recognize blood loss from internal bleeding.
    I would conclude Jesus lost, at least, half his blood supply.
    Excerpt:
    “What is internal bleeding?
    While the general public understands that internal bleeding means bleeding that can’t be seen on the outside of the body, medical personnel tend to use terms that describe precisely where inside the body the bleeding is found. The internal bleeding may occur within tissues, organs, or in cavities of the body including the head, chest, and abdomen. Examples of other potential sites of bleeding include the eye, lining tissues of the heart, muscles, and joints.
    http://www.medicinenet.com/internal_bleeding/article.htm

    I do not state that Jesus lost “at least ONE LITER of blood” – i state He lost AT MOST HALF a liter of blood – which a big difference, btw.
    And if you consider a liter of blood to be HALF of a grown man blood supply ( it is called adult blood volume) you need to first check the figures, because it is about 20% of adult man blood volume, often even less.

    Jesus did not have internal bleeding – there is no reason for that.

    • Angel
      June 13, 2013 at 6:06 pm

      No, I do not consider a liter of blood to be half a man’s blood supply. Half a man’s blood supply would be approximately 3 liters.

      I found your inital post and you did state not more than half a liter, but I am of the opinion Jesus lost more than 500 mL, and that is because of the blood loss from the head, nose and mouth as evidenced by the comparative study of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin.

      The Sudarium was in direct contact with Jesus’ head and it was noted by the Sudarium scientists how much blood Jesus had lost from the head, mouth and nose. Since the Sudarium sopped up most of the blood, what blood is displayed on the Shroud is not indicative of Jesus’ total blood loss.

      My statement was Jesus lost approximately half his blood supply. A man’s total blood supply is anywhere from 5 to 6 liters; therefore, 2.5 to 3 liters is what I predicted.

      Best,

  49. Max Patrick Hamon
    June 13, 2013 at 9:34 am

    Kelly, Louis and David,

    to reconstruct the TS man’s burial (post mortem handling in terms of pre-burial procedures (taking the body down the cross and carrying it to the cave tomb) and burial core procedures (wrapping in shrouds, purifying and drying) is meticulous work. In order to be convincing, thought experiment shall be enlightened and back up by state-of-the-art experimental archaeology.

    Besides, the true fact is I am writing up not just one research paper at a time but… more than a dozen (in an attempt to fill in the historical gap and solve the TS image formation process enigma) + a book on my deciphering of Templar enigmatic graffitis in the Coudray Tower, Chinon, France + my unavoidable work engagements as cryptologist + etc).

  50. Louis
    June 13, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Ok, thanks.

  51. Kelly Kearse
    June 13, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    Louis :
    Ok, thanks.

    Same here

  52. Kelly Kearse
    June 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    Kelly Kearse :

    Louis :
    Ok, thanks.

    Same here

    But-one quick question if okay- In Jesus’s day, were the burial practices the same, in general, for Jewish men & Jewish women?

  53. jesterof
    June 13, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    Angel :
    No, I do not consider a liter of blood to be half a man’s blood supply. Half a man’s blood supply would be approximately 3 liters.

    I found your inital post and you did state not more than half a liter, but I am of the opinion Jesus lost more than 500 mL, and that is because of the blood loss from the head, nose and mouth as evidenced by the comparative study of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin.

    Angel, did you ever see anybody in real life loose a liter of blood? Exactly 1000 ml?
    I suspect that you did not, therefore this amount, or 500 ml or 2 liters are somewhat theoretical for you and you easily throw the figures and the causes, because you have never experienced it in reality.
    One can not loose even 500 ml from a nose bleeding and mouth bleeding, unless somebody has a very severe case of hemophilia.
    This is impossible simply because we are designed that way – otherways we would be extinct already. our defense mechanisms prevent us loosing even 100 ml of blood because of the nose bleed. or mouth bleed.
    A blood loss of a liter( without replacement) in a most case scenarios leads to severe morbidity and sometimes mortality, depending on a situation
    In Jesus case if he would loose a litr of blood upon scourging or have had an internal bleeding of that amount as a result of some blunt trauma ( it does have to be severe) he won’t survive the road to Calvary. real internal bleeding the ones you have heard about, and connect to here are acute life threatening conditions and lead to the OR STAT, or otherwise they end up in a morgue.

    Angel :
    The Sudarium was in direct contact with Jesus’ head and it was noted by the Sudarium scientists how much blood Jesus had lost from the head, mouth and nose. Since the Sudarium sopped up most of the blood, what blood is displayed on the Shroud is not indicative of Jesus’ total blood loss.
    My statement was Jesus lost approximately half his blood supply. A man’s total blood supply is anywhere from 5 to 6 liters; therefore, 2.5 to 3 liters is what I predicted.
    Best,

    The Sudariuum does not prove in any way your hypothesis of massive blood loos. Bleeding – yeas, but not massive blood loss. Sudarium proves a blood loss of about 50 ml

    If Jesus would loose half of his blood supply He would die at the place of scourging.

    You have no idea what you are talking about – at all.

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 10:28 pm

      jesterof, how much blood do you believe Jesus lost as the result of the following:

      1. Initial scourging – 70 lashes as opposed to the usual 39/40 lashes?

      2. Embedding the crown of thorns? (Head wounds produce much blood)

      3. Intraocular bleeding (eye was completely closed).?

      4. Walking through the Via Dolorosa, bleeding, while carrying the exceptionally heavy cross beam and falling to the ground two or three times, until Simon the Cyrenian was ordered to help carry the beam?

      5. Bleeding from the head wounds, mouth and nose on the cross?

      6. Internal hemhorraging as evidenced by the Roman sword thrust seepage of blood and water, after immediate death?

      Totaling all these various bleeding incidences, how much blood do you state was lost?

      Best,

      • Angel
        June 14, 2013 at 10:31 pm

        Line 6 should read, Internal hemhorraging as evidenced by the Roman sword thrust into Jesus’ side resulting in the seepage of blood and water. This blood flow occurred immediately after death.

  54. jesterof
    June 13, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Angel :
    Catherine, it must have been awful for you.

    I knew a man who suffered from esophageal varicies, liver damage, and I saw several of his nosebleed episodes (gruesome) and the only way to stop the flow of blood was to get him to the Emergency Room.
    At the ER some type of endoscoptic treatment was performed, where something similar to a carrot stick was placed into the esophagus, putting pressure on the bulging varicose veins and bleeding stopped. The ER doctors stated this man had lost half his blood supply.
    Best,

    Do you have any idea why a man who has severe varices will have severe bleeding from them? That is exactly the same reason why he has varices to start with.
    Do you also know what varices are?

    And if you oknow can you even compare this to a traumatic nose bleed?

    those are not even apples and oranges, those are apples and milk.

    • Angel
      June 13, 2013 at 10:59 pm

      jesterof, I hope you’re not “MO” on another board. Are you?

      In my post, I stated I did not attriibute varicies to the blood loss of Jesus, but was just giving you an example of a nosebleed that does not stop of its own.

      Varicies are varicose veins and the bleeding would be equivalent to someone who has slashed his or her wrists (a venal bleed).

      Best,

      • jesterof
        June 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm

        Varices are not in the nose, so first of all it is not a NOSEBLEED.

        Second, introducing variceal bleeding in a liver failure patient to prove your theory of nose bleeding leading to the loss of a half of blood volume is absolutely the same as saying that apples are sour, because milk contains lactose.

        variceal bleeding from ESOPHAGUS in a patient with liver failure and portal hypertension does not prove your assertion of nose bleeding leading to loss of half of blood volume in a totally healthy person subjected to trauma of the nose.
        If you do not understand it I can’t help you. But you are comparing apples and milk, not even the apples and oranges

  55. jesterof
    June 13, 2013 at 10:41 pm

    Angel : jesterof, I
    would agree with you about minimal blood loss (500 mL), if it
    werent for the fact Jesus bled one hour before the Sudarium was
    even placed on His head. The Sudarium of Oviedo is the cloth (head
    napkin) that was in direct contact with the head of Jesus. The
    Shroud was placed on Jesus AFTER the Sudarium was removed. See Page
    4.

    500 ml is not MINIMAL blood loss – it is a
    big blood loss and that is THE MOST amount Jesus could have lost if
    one sticks to the description of His torture. Sudariuum proves that
    He has lost not more than 50 ml.

    Angel
    :
    ” At the bottom of the back of his head, there is
    a series of wounds produced in life by some sharp objects. These
    wounds had bled about an hour before the cloth was placed on top of
    them.” There is a forensic scientist on the Sudarium team.
    José-Delfín Villalaín Blanco DM, PhD. Professor of Forensic
    Medicine at the University of Valencia, Spain. Vice-President of
    the Investigation. Spanish Centre for Sindonology (CES). Member of
    the Investigation Team of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology
    (EDICES). Jorge-Manuel Rodríguez Almenar http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf You
    state there was minimal blood, but did you include the blood found
    beneath the cross hole in your total? And if Jesus bled for one
    hour before the Sudarium of Oviedo was placed on His head, how are
    you including that blood loss in your total (500 mL, at most)?
    ***Sigh*** Take care! Best,

    Jesus did not bleed
    an hour – it is impossible. He was bleeding upon the trauma
    inflicted and then the bleeding stops – it is our natural defense
    mechanism – we clot. Even if some sipping of the plasma occurs, or
    some fresh blood appears after a clot is scratched – it is not a
    bleeding like an open faucet. As I previously stated – you have no
    idea what you are talking about. Angel, what do you do for a
    living? If that is not a secret.

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 7:38 pm

      jesterof, you may have misunderstood my post. I did not state varicies were in the nose.

      Varicies line the esophagus in patients that have liver damage (cirrhosis), but when these varicose veins rupture, the patient bleeds from the nose and the mouth.

      I’ve had to take a man to the ER with this condition, at least, four times and believe me there was massive bleeding from the nose. Blood was not only all over the bathroom floor, but on the walls as well. It is one of the most gruesome sights, with respect to blood, a person will ever encounter.

      Best,

  56. Angel
    June 13, 2013 at 10:44 pm

    jesterof says: “As far as I remember the bits and peices of DNA were so fragmented that
    there was no possibility to draw ANT conclusions fro that. XXY is
    Kleinfelter syndrome. While there is always a possibility in
    someone who never had children of their own that such a male has
    Kleinfelter’s ( unless they are unusually short), there is no
    reason except the fantasy of a filmmaker to think Jesus Christ had
    that particular syndrome.”

    *** Angel says: “Yes, I know that particular trisomy (XXY) is Kleinfelter’s syndrome, an extra chromosome on the 23rd pair of sex chromosomes, 47 (XXY)

    Yet, males with this particular trisomy, contrary to your statement, are tall, not short, and have long arms and legs (like the Shroud Jesus) and those males with that particular trisomy may show female characteristics, due to a lack of testosterone.

    Look carefully at the frontal image of the shroud. Do you notice the breasts and the long arms and legs? Go to google images and get a clear frontal image and enlarge it. I have a clear picture in my book and the breasts are obvious.

    Now compare the breasts on the Shroud image to the male with Kleinfelter’s on this link.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

    Further, female DNA was found on the Shroud of Turin and although most don’t believe in the research of Ron Wyatt, the blood analysis performed on tblood from the crosshole also detailed an XXY trisomy, although Ron found only a haploid 24 (XXY).

    Scientists now believe Abe Lincoln also had Kleinfelter’s syndrome.

    You state my ideas are wild or crazy; yet, a picture is worth a thousand words in this case.

    Take care!

    Best,

    • jesterof
      June 14, 2013 at 12:29 pm

      Angel, I suspect you have a comprehension issue. Where did I state that Kleinfelter’s are short? Is this the same as with my “minimal blood loss of 1 liter”?

      Jesus did not have Kleinfelter’s syndrome. How many Kleinfelter’s males have you diagnosed and tested? Or is it another theory based on bits and pieces from the web?

      What is “female DNA”? Probably the same as “female blood”

      There are no reliable DNA studies to prove ANYTHING in relation to Jesus Christ – it is too fragmented.

      If one knows at least SOME genetics and applied it to the birth history of Jesus one knows for sure, that Jesus’s haploid combination will not have ANY Y chromosome – it is impossible, given His birth history. His genotype will be XX.

      • June 14, 2013 at 12:59 pm

        Beard?

      • jesterof
        June 14, 2013 at 1:10 pm

        2 colinsberry ( I am glad you lifted up your self-imprisonment)))

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556678

      • Angel
        June 14, 2013 at 8:49 pm

        The blood Ron Wyatt tested was blood from the crucifixion cross hole and that blood revealed a haploid (24 chromosomes), with the XXY trisomy.

        Years ago, when the blood from the Shroud was tested by Leoncio Valdes, a female researcher posted an article on the web that has since been removed. She stated Jesus had Down syndrome and mentioned a trisomy. People must have written in about the article, because it was pulled from the internet. She was either from the University of Texas or Arizona and she may even have been on the Valdes team.

        And that article did appear on the internet as evidenced by these two post links in 2011 from people from UK – Ireland.

        >>>Link one: Is there truth in the “trisomy 21” of Jesus? – Yahoo! UK & Ireland …
        uk.answers.yahoo.com › … › Society & Culture › Religion & Spirituality
        Jul 27, 2011 – Trisomy 21 means that Jesus would have suffered from Down Syndrome. There is no records, at all, that document Jesus having any traits of Down …

        >>>Line Two: Is there truth in the “trisomy 21” of Jesus? – Yahoo! UK & Ireland …
        uk.answers.yahoo.com › … › Society & Culture › Religion & Spirituality
        Jul 28, 2011 – Well i doubt that. Assuming he was an actual person (i believe there is a high possibility he was an actual person even though i am an atheist.

        Therefore, since Ron found the XXY and the female who reported a trisomy, as well, my conclusion was the trisomy was Kleinfelter’s as opposed to Down, as the female researcher reported.

        Kleinfelter’s is on the 46 chromosome and instead of an XY there is an
        XXY which is noted 47 XXY

        Since Ron found a haploid, 23, instead of a full 46 the sex chromosome would have been on the 23 chromosome, instead of the normal chromosome 46 and the trisomy reported as 24 XXY as was reported.

        Therefore, one researcher stated Down syndrome and the other indicates Kleinfelter’s sydrome.

        If you look at Jesus’ height (very tall), the long arms and fingers, the long legs, then Kleinfelter’s more aligns with Jesus over Down syndrome and Ron got a chromosome count of 24 XXY from the blood beneath the cross hole.

        Ron further stated dead blood will not give a chromosome count, but he had the lab keep the blood at room temperature with gentle swirling for 48 hours and the blood came to life.

        Some scientists disagreed with his chromosome count and others believed. Here is the account of a Geneticist who attended the same church as Ron.

        http://www.arkdiscovery.com/chromosomes.htm

        Best,

  57. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    Angel:
    Varicies are varicose veins and the bleeding would be equivalent to someone who has slashed his or her wrists (a venal bleed).

    No, it is not equivalent to slashing non-variceal veins at the wrists. It is totally different.
    If you slash only your veins at the wrists, you will not bleed neither to death nor even the half of the blood volume, contrary to the popular belief. One has to slash something else :-)

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 8:56 pm

      jesterof, You are making much of nothing.

      My point was people with esophageal varicies hemhorrage from the nose. Whether the bleeding is similar to an arterial bleed or a venal bleed is irrelevant.

      Let’s just say it is a nose hemhorrage that doesn’t stop bleeding of it’s own accord. :)

      Best,

  58. Hugh Farey
    June 14, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    I always get suspicious when a sentence begins: “Scientists now believe….” It is almost exclusively used to suggest that there is general scientific acceptance of something, when invariably the contrary is the case. The only people who have any hope that Lincoln had Klinefelter’s Syndrome (not Kleinfelter) are The American Association for Klinefelter Syndrome Information and Support, and their evidence is almost entirely that he was tall and thin. Other ‘scientists’ have suggested Marfan’s Syndrome and multiple endocrine neoplasia, both of which have been discredited by other ‘scientists.’
    As almost all adults with Klinefelter’s Syndrome look no different from any other adult, it is difficult to say categorically that any historical figure didn’t have it, but the figure on the shroud does not, in my opinion, show the enlarged breasts that occur in a few percent of cases, nor the nipples which would accompany them, and whether, or by how much, his overall proportions differ from those of ordinary people has been the subject of endless inconclusive debate.
    As for the alleged discoveries of Ron Wyatt, not only do these remain unproven, but there is no evidence at all that he discovered any blood on any ark down any crack under any crucifixion-cross-socket. For any serious consideration of his ‘trisomy’ theory, at least the laboratory which allegedly carried out the work might be identified.

    • jesterof
      June 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm

      2 Hugh Farey

      Lincoln could not have had Kleinfelter’s. Marfan’s – yes, there is a possibility for this

      • Angel
        June 14, 2013 at 9:04 pm

        I just saw a paragraph attached to an article on Kleinfelter (Kleinfelter’s) where it was stated it would be interesting to test Lincoln for Kleinfelter’s, since he was tall and lanky. I also saw another link on Marfan’s, associated with Lincoln, but that wasn’t mentioned in the initial paragraph inclusion on the article I was reading.

        It’s Down syndrome, but is it Kleinfelter or Kleinfelter’s. I’ve seen it spelled both ways. Which of the two is correct?

        Best,

  59. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Regarding XXY:

    Wide hips are characteristic of Klinefelter’s syndrome-are these present in the Shroud image?

    Regarding female DNA & haploid:

    What is often omitted in discussions of “both male & female DNA being found on the Shroud” is that these were not the only gene segments evaluated in these studies. Four other, non-sex related genes were included: tyrosine hydroxylase, FES, human coagulation factor VIII, & von Willebrand factor. (Sindon 8: 39-47, 1995). These additional genes were chosen because they are polymorphic, that is they show variation within the population-not everyone will express the same form of these genes. This will allow you to tell if the DNA comes from one or multiple subjects.

    The DNA analysis of these targets, separate & distinct from those involving sex-related genes, indicated that DNA from multiple individuals was present on the Shroud. Therefore, no conclusion can be made.

    Although DNA may be fragmented, certain information may be gained depending on the extent & sites of degradation. Paper documents fed through a shredder look pretty end-stage, but if one is looking for a particular phrase or keywords, with enough sorting it might be found. With DNA analysis, the use of multiplex probes within the gene sequence and modern replication & amplification methods can help maximize the chance(s) of success-all depends on the particular gene targets of interest-some may be too far gone, some may not. Even partial sequence information can sometimes be useful. All _o_ n_ _d is l_ ve

    The haploid 24 XXY studies have never been published, therefore I cannot comment on any details. Only to say it is unclear how a higher organism might survive in a haploid state.

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 9:08 pm

      Kelly, a Geneticist who attends Ron’s church gave this analysis on the chromosome count Ron presented.

      A Scientist Analyzes Mr. Wyatt’s Chromosome Theory

      Dr. Eugene Dunkley, Geneticist
      August 1999, England

      http://www.arkdiscovery.com/chromosomes.htm

      Best,

  60. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    Scientists now believe Abe Lincoln also had Kleinfelter’s syndrome.

    No, Abe Lincoln could not have had Kleinfelter’s by a default. I suggest you read on a syndrome to figure out why. I have hinted on it in a post which you understood as me saying that Kleinfelter’s are usually short, whereas I actually said the diametrically opposite LOL

    There are other syndromes involving unusually tall stature. One of them is attributed to Lincoln

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 9:36 pm

      jesterof, I don’t care if Abe Lincoln has Kleinfelter/Kleinfelter’s or Down Syndrome. That was a remark by someone at the bottom of an article I was reading and it was in reference to Abe being tall and lanky.

      Males with Marfan’s syndrome are also tall and lanky and the connective tissue is weakened, which causes other problems. From what I’ve read there is a defect, with reference to the production of the protein fibrillin.

      Lincoln could not have had Marfan’s syndrome because his hands were not long and thin and he couldn’t have had Kleinfelter’s, because he didn’t have enlarged breasts.

      Now, Jesus was tall. Jesus’ arms and legs were longer than normal and His hands were long and thin. As well,Jesus had a long, narrow face, like Senator John Kerry and He had breasts, as is clearly seen on the Shroud frontal image.

      Therefore, excluding the chromosome count, Jesus’ symptons align more with Kleinfelter’s than Marfan’s.

      Best,

  61. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    The DNA analysis of these targets, separate & distinct from those involving sex-related genes, indicated that DNA from multiple individuals was present on the Shroud. Therefore, no conclusion can be made.

    That is the whole point – the DNA studies could not have proven anything

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 9:49 pm

      Yes, that was the Shroud study.

      DNA aside, Jesus had the symptoms associated with Kleinfelter’s. Long hands and thin fingers are associated with both Kleinfelter’s and Marfan’s, but enlarged breasts in the male is associated with Kleinfelter’s, and that defines the shroud Jesus.

      Did you look at the enlarged Shroud frontal image? Did you notice the male breasts? As well, there is a high risk for breast cancer in males with Kleinfelter’s, so these men must also have inherited the mutant BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.

      Best,

      • jesterof
        June 14, 2013 at 9:55 pm

        Angel :
        Yes, that was the Shroud study.
        DNA aside, Jesus had the symptoms associated with Kleinfelter’s. Long hands and thin fingers are associated with both Kleinfelter’s and Marfan’s, but enlarged breasts in the male is associated with Kleinfelter’s, and that defines the shroud Jesus.
        Did you look at the enlarged Shroud frontal image? Did you notice the male breasts? As well, there is a high risk for breast cancer in males with Kleinfelter’s, so these men must also have inherited the mutant BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.
        Best,

        No, he DID NOT.

        And there are no male breasts on the Shroud.

  62. June 14, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    jesterof :
    2 colinsberry ( I am glad you lifted up your self-imprisonment)))
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556678

    Never mind-self imprisonment. I simply have a low threshold for pseudo-science. According to your version of genetics (XX genotype) , what the Roman centurion should have said was “Truly this transvestite was the Daughter of God”.

  63. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    colinsberry :

    jesterof :

    2 colinsberry ( I am glad you lifted up your self-imprisonment)))
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556678

    Never mind-self imprisonment. I simply have a low threshold for pseudo-science. According to your version of genetics (XX genotype) , what the Roman centurion should have said was “Truly this transvestite was the Daughter of God”.

    My version of genetics is approved by a case reported by geneticists.
    XX males with SRY gene are not that rare. The one without is is much more rare and is described in the link. But in order to realize this possibility if one does understand what is written there, which you obviously do not( surprise, surprise LOL )

  64. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    My version of genetics is approved by a case reported by geneticists.
    XX males with SRY gene are not that rare. The one without is is much more rare and is described in the link. But in order to realize this possibility one has to understand what is written there, which you obviously do not( surprise, surprise LOL )

    • June 14, 2013 at 1:37 pm

      I never used to have any opinion regarding Ukrainian pre-clinical training (Soviet era) – but I do now. Kindly stop bullsh*tting the site, even if preferable (slightly) to trolling.

  65. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    My darling self-proclaimed “scientist” who do not understand the basics of genetcis and who does not know how to hold his own word plus lacks the basics of masculine dignity – I am a board-certified American physician.

  66. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    colinsberry :
    May 21, 2013
    I now know who “jesterof” is, thanks to a little carelessness on her part with choosing an email address. Yes, she is medically qualified, as stated earlier. All the more reason I would say for not indulging in amateur psychiatry on a public forum.
    I shall continue to regard her as a troll, and avoid this site, until I receive an apology and assurance she will desist in future from making troll-like personal attacks.

    So, “Sherlock” how about holding your own word? Not a month passes and a weak wimp is jumping again LOL

  67. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    Such XX males described in the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556678) are diploid (46)

    Exactly how might this apply to the birth history of Jesus?

  68. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Kelly Kearse :
    Such XX males described in the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556678) are diploid
    (46)
    Exactly how might this apply to the birth history of Jesus?

    Well, He did not have human father, according to Gospel’s, so His chromosomes are all maternal and since there is no source for the paternal gamete with an Y chromosome, one might expect a XX genothype be female only
    but He still is a male – and how this can happen is described in a link above.

    Not that I 100% seriously consider all of the above, but the material possibility of incarnation of the Divine has been genetically possible. Obviously, that is a speculation :)

  69. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    colinsberry :
    You are Fabri Oksana MD, with your initial medical training in the Ukraine. back in the 80s.
    http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/irm00Profiling/profile.asp?LicId=102020&ProfNBR=1501&External=TRUE
    I believe you currently hold a position in a Florida hospital as an anaesthetist (UK description). That does not make you an expert on all matters relating to physiology, biochemistry and genetics.

    what you “believe” is irrelevant here – the old record on the internet are what it is – old records.
    As anesthesiologist and a primary care doctor I am much more qualified to address the issue of potential psych deficiency clearly demonstrated by your approach to others than you are qualified to judge my knowledge of physiology or biochemistry,
    Obtain an American medical license first and then we can discuss your qualifications.

    But before it just learn how to hold your own word. Colonial Brits as an example of dignity deteriorated to pathetic pompous wimps LOL

    • June 14, 2013 at 2:49 pm

      I’ve said what I want to say, and will again take my leave.

      But rest assured that pseudoscience here or elsewhere will not go unchallenged, no matter what kind of ad hom is directed against me.

      (What kind of medic – least of all an anaesthetist- is able to diagnose mental disorder in folk whom they encounter on web forums? And even if that were possible, how professional is it to make instant diagnoses? Sorry, ‘jesterof’, but you are doing no favours whatsoever to those who provided your qualifications for practising any kind of medicine in your adopted country, namely the USA. Seems to me you have brought some Soviet-era nastiness with you).

  70. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    jesterof :

    Kelly Kearse :
    Such XX males described in the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556678) are diploid
    (46)
    Exactly how might this apply to the birth history of Jesus?

    Well, He did not have human father, according to Gospel’s, so His chromosomes are all maternal and since there is no source for the paternal gamete with an Y chromosome, one might expect a XX genothype be female only
    but He still is a male – and how this can happen is described in a link above.
    Not that I 100% seriously consider all of the above, but the material possibility of incarnation of the Divine has been genetically possible. Obviously, that is a speculation :)

    The link above only describes how a diploid XX person, who is the offspring of two parents, can be a male. The material possibility of incarnation of the Divine being genetically possible, according to this scenario would involve doubling down on Mary’s haploid genome, with the additional step of a genetic change involving a gain or loss of function.

  71. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    jesterof :

    Kelly Kearse :
    Such XX males described in the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556678) are diploid
    (46)
    Exactly how might this apply to the birth history of Jesus?

    Well, He did not have human father, according to Gospel’s, so His chromosomes are all maternal and since there is no source for the paternal gamete with an Y chromosome, one might expect a XX genothype be female only
    but He still is a male – and how this can happen is described in a link above.
    Not that I 100% seriously consider all of the above, but the material possibility of incarnation of the Divine has been genetically possible. Obviously, that is a speculation :)

    The link above only describes how a diploid XX person, who is the offspring of two parents, can be a male. The material possibility of incarnation of the Divine being genetically possible, according to this scenario would involve doubling down on Mary’s haploid genome, with the additional step of a genetic change involving a gain or loss of function.

  72. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    A wimpish pseudo-scientist unable to hold his word and without any trace of dignity engaged in constant bashing the dead recognized scientists is unable to realize that his own deficiencies are visible through the name calling of those who can not answer?

    A pompous loser who considers himself extremely qualified to judge others but relieves his own acrimony the moment his own weapon is directed at him thinks it is not obvious what it indicates?
    One does not need to hold a degree, just to know this type of vile mediocrity LOL

    • June 14, 2013 at 4:49 pm

      From your 2009 profile (see link above):

      Publications
      This practitioner has not provided any publications that he/she authored in peer-reviewed medical literature within the last ten years.

      In other words, there is no evidence that you have ever done any independent research, certainly not published, yet you attempt to belittle someone whose researches are easily retrievable from Google, and which have been widely cited in other people’s papers.

      You lady should learn some manners – and STOP THE TROLLING.

  73. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    You are even more retarded than it looks from your rants.. One can have more than one last name if one is a woman. Besides publications have nothing to do with qualifications, but it is too much for a man who does not keep his word to understand.
    keep searching honourless “sherlock”

  74. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    Kelly Kearse :

    Not that I 100% seriously consider all of the above, but the material possibility of incarnation of the Divine has been genetically possible. Obviously, that is a speculation :)

    The link above only describes how a diploid XX person, who is the offspring of two parents, can be a male. The material possibility of incarnation of the Divine being genetically possible, according to this scenario would involve doubling down on Mary’s haploid genome, with the additional step of a genetic change involving a gain or loss of function.

    that is true, the step of doubling still has to be demonstrated and the exact area which is responsible for the loss of function is still to be found ( as postulate by the authors) but the possibility of a XX male without SRY gene is more valid than XXY, or any Y involvement.
    As I’ve said, those are just half-serious speculations.

  75. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    edit – the quote is obviously not yours, I have cut the wrong part.

  76. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    jesterof :

    Kelly Kearse :
    Not that I 100% seriously consider all of the above, but the material possibility of incarnation of the Divine has been genetically possible. Obviously, that is a speculation :)

    The link above only describes how a diploid XX person, who is the offspring of two parents, can be a male. The material possibility of incarnation of the Divine being genetically possible, according to this scenario would involve doubling down on Mary’s haploid genome, with the additional step of a genetic change involving a gain or loss of function.
    that is true, the step of doubling still has to be demonstrated and the exact area which is responsible for the loss of function is still to be found ( as postulate by the authors) but the possibility of a XX male without SRY gene is more valid than XXY, or any Y involvement.
    As I’ve said, those are just half-serious speculations.

    I think the main problem is trying to apply the laws of (known) science to one of the mysteries of faith. From a theological standpoint, Y involvement would be the most valid- why would God’s Son be anything but a normal, healthy male? To me, this just makes sense. How does this happen with a virgin birth? From a scientific standpoint-I don’t know. This would fall in the realm of the miraculous-but that’s God’s territory. That’s where faith would come in. Maybe in heaven there’s a DvD (available as a bundle together with the creation of the universe).

  77. Louis
    June 14, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    Kelly, In Christian belief God created the universe ex-nihilo, out of nothing, and if that is correct there is no reason to wonder why he decided to intervene in history be sending his son Jesus without depending on a material father Even the Talmud talks about the messiah as a pre-existent being and, to take this further, such a being only needed a womb for the incarnation of the Divine to take place.

  78. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    I think the main problem is trying to apply the laws of (known) science to one of the mysteries of faith. From a theological standpoint, Y involvement would be the most valid- why would God’s Son be anything but a normal, healthy male? To me, this just makes sense. How does this happen with a virgin birth? From a scientific standpoint-I don’t know. This would fall in the realm of the miraculous-but that’s God’s territory. That’s where faith would come in. Maybe in heaven there’s a DvD (available as a bundle together with the creation of the universe).

    I do not know if there is an answer to this question from a scientific point as well. Including the definitions of “normal healthy male” ( or female, for that matter) – with all the combinations of factors involved recently it has been not the 23d pair of chromosomes as a determinant only. But that is a broader question.
    It is one of those areas where materialistic explanation and it’s logic is short of answers – yet.
    But there should be an explanation, maybe we just do not know it.

  79. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    Louis :
    Even the Talmud talks about the messiah as a pre-existent being and, to take this further, such a being only needed a womb for the incarnation of the Divine to take place.

    That is true, but if we are trying to prove the authenticity of the Shroud by applying earthly characteristics ( bilirubin, methemoglobin, AB(-) type of blood, types of pollen, specifics of ancient burial etc) than the question of genetic combinations arises as well – Angel’s assertion on Kleinfelter’s, is in this area and though it is pure speculation, obviously, but if we think ( as kelly proposes) that there should be a genotype of normal male (XY) her approach is a possibility as well.
    I am short of an answer – where would a Y( and the rest of 22 autosomal paternal chromosomes) come from :)

    Anybody has any suggestion?

    • Louis
      June 14, 2013 at 6:32 pm

      Agree, but I was writing in general terms, not with specific reference to the Shroud.

  80. Louis
    June 14, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    Jesterof, such questions led a secular and intellectually honest Jew like Stephen Jay Gould to propose the NOMA. He was open-minded and stated that he would be comfortable even discussing philosophy with Pope John Paul II, also a philosopher. The point is this: Gould was an agnostic and a good scientist and he also knew that something was missing, science could not explain everything. That placed him head and shoulders above Pinker, Harris, Dawkins and the lesser known atheists.

  81. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    Louis :
    Kelly, In Christian belief God created the universe ex-nihilo, out of nothing, and if that is correct there is no reason to wonder why he decided to intervene in history be sending his son Jesus without depending on a material father Even the Talmud talks about the messiah as a pre-existent being and, to take this further, such a being only needed a womb for the incarnation of the Divine to take place.

    It’s not a matter of wondering why, it’s a matter of trying to understand from a scientific standpoint, if possible, how He might have pulled it off

    • Louis
      June 14, 2013 at 6:34 pm

      Kelly, you wrote “if possible” and that says a lot…

  82. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    Louis :
    Kelly, you wrote “if possible” and that says a lot…

    I agree

    • Louis
      June 14, 2013 at 6:51 pm

      I knew you would, and there’s no need to tell you that you are on the right track. Keep it up!

  83. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Louis :
    Jesterof, such questions led a secular and intellectually honest Jew like Stephen Jay Gould to propose the NOMA. He was open-minded and stated that he would be comfortable
    even discussing philosophy with Pope John Paul II, also a philosopher. The point is this: Gould was an agnostic and a good scientist and he also knew that something was missing, science could not explain everything. That placed him head and shoulders above Pinker, Harris, Dawkins and the lesser known atheists.

    I agree and I, personally, do not need any proofs, as I suppose does not need Kelly, Angel or yourself.

    But we all are engaged in semi-scientific ( since we are speculating on the other people research and data) discussion and trying to prove as much as possible from an earthly point of view – in the frame of what we know.

    I have to admit, though, that the desire to have the materialistic scientific explanation of as much as possible (so the remaining conclusion of supernatural will be obvious) is partially driven by the desire to convince our agnostic counterparts :)

  84. Louis
    June 14, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    Fair enough, Jesterof, although we know that we depart from this world leaving a number of questions unanswered that does not prevent us from trying to get as much knowledge as possible through materialistic explanations.

  85. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    Angel :
    jesterof, you may have misunderstood my post. I did not state varicies were in the nose.
    Varicies line the esophagus in patients that have liver damage (cirrhosis), but when
    these varicose veins rupture, the patient bleeds from the nose and the mouth.
    I’ve had to take a man to the ER with this condition, at least, four times and believe me there was massive bleeding from the nose. Blood was not only all over the bathroom floor, but on the walls as well. It is one of the most gruesome sights, with respect to blood, a person will ever encounter.
    Best,

    That is correct. But this is NOT a nose bleeding, so you can not try to prove that a person can bleed a half a liter from his nose ( as from nose trauma) by variceal bleeding which has a nose as an outlet, not a sourse for the blood.
    Variceal bleeding can be massive, because it is from the vessel structure and under pressure, plus there is a hypocoagulable state because of the liver insufficiency.

    Neither of these are present if the person has a nose trauma and bleeds from his nose due to trauma ( unless, of course the person has also a liver insufficiency with hypocoagulation or deficiency of some of the clotting factors, but neither of those is present in Jesus Christ case)

  86. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    Angel :
    The blood Ron Wyatt tested was blood from the crucifixion cross hole and that blood revealed a haploid (24 chromosomes), with the XXY trisomy.

    Years ago, when the blood from the Shroud was tested by Leoncio Valdes, a female researcher posted an article on the web that has since been removed. She stated Jesus had Down syndrome and mentioned a trisomy.

    This just gets better and better

    Now it is Down syndrome LOL

    Angel, do not tell me you have never seen people with Down syndrome. It is so rmarkable, that seen once even non-medical person will distinguish it in the future.

    neither of those features are present on the man of the Shroud.

    Not to mention the impossibility of somebody with clear physical abnormality ( and often cognitive impairment) would have any chance in those cruel times to gather crowds or have disciples – those were not politically correct times of the present ( even now people can be cruel towards visible physical impairments)

    The “blood from a crucifixion hole”
    clearly sounds like hunt for the Holy Grail to me.

    Do you really believe that? *** rolling eyes smiley***

    Because I do not – I can believe only the studies related to the blood of the Sudarium, the Shroud or if anybody would conduct a DNA determination of any of the known pieces of the Eucharistic miracles.

  87. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    Angel :

    Secondly, If one had pleurisy and at the moment of death a sword was thrust into this person’s pleural cavity, fluid (water) would immediately seep out.
    Here is an excerpt of “Pericardial Effusion” the link below:

    He did not have pleurisy. He had pulmonary edema. Pericardial effusion has nothing to do with it.

    “Those who were flogged would often go into hypovolemic shock, a term that refers to low blood volume. In other words, the person would have lost so much blood he would go into shock. The results of this would be
    1) The heart would race to pump blood that was not there.
    2) The victim would collapse or faint due to low blood pressure.
    3) The kidneys would shut down to preserve body fluids.
    4) The person would experience extreme thirst as the body desired to replenish lost fluids.

    He did not loose much blood. He was in shock – but not because of the blood loss but becasue of pain, severe dehydration and rhabdomyolysis
    your results as 1,2,3, can cause a smile, because those are just bites of what is going on in a human body in the shock conditions. They are not incorrect, they are simply just some of. And one might be tachycardica and hypertensive prior to becoming bradycardic ad hypotensive – or another combination of parameters – depending on a time frame.
    Since Jesus did not loose blood massively adn severe dehydration does not egual severe hemorrhage, the last terminal stage of shock ( hypotension,bradycardia and death) would not develop in a 12 hour time frame.

    There is evidence from Scripture that Jesus experienced hypovolemic shock as a result of being flogged.

    No there is no such evidence becasue He did not have hypovolemic shock hwile carrying the croos to Gogotha – he was in a pain shock and was developing severe dehydration, but this was still not hypovolemic shock.
    He fell down not because of the hypotension ( if that would be the case, He would not get up) but because of lot of trauma after scourging and the heaviness of the cross – that was too much.

    Another indicator that Jesus suffered from hypovolemic shock was that He declared He was thirsty as He hung on the cross (John 19:28), indicating His body’s desire to replenish fluids.

    which not a proof of hypovolemic SHOCK just a proof of hypovolemia as a result of dehydration. One does not have to be in shock and still be hypovolemic. As I stated above – if His fall would be from hypotension as a late stage of shock ( which is usually seen quickly only upon severe hemorrhage, not dehydration – that is more prolonged) He would not be able to get up and would have died there – o the road.

    Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs.

    I can guarantee you He was having tachycardia from the agony in Gethsemane.
    And rapid heartbeat does not cause fluid to gather in the pericardium or around the lungs. Not even in a week time frame, and we are talking here hours – that is not enough time for pleural effusion or pericardial effusion to accumulate.

    This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John 19:34).

    No it does not explain it – because there is no way enough fluid will accumulate in the pericardium or pleural space in less than 12 hours we have, unless the fluid is blood as a result of mechanical trauma ( which is not the case)
    Interstitial fluid from the lungs is a result of pulmonary edema which was one of the causes of death and which developed already after crucifixion – and pulmonary edema is a result of acute heart failure with literally flooding of the lungs with interstitial fluid

    The explanations for the blood and water flow are closely related at several points. All physicians who have examined the question agree that Jesus was already dead when the chest wound was inflicted. The blood and water most probably flowed from both the heart and the chest cavity.

    That is true, but blood is ALWAYS in the heart, which when pierced will give the flow of the blood and it is also always in the lungs – lungs are filled with blood, because they are the filter for it, so to say, so piercing of the lungs will cause blood flow as well – no need to additional accumulation of blood anywhere. Fluid is a result of the pulmonary edema, which was a process preceding death and basically the cause of such a rapid death

  88. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    Angel :
    I just saw a paragraph attached to an article on Kleinfelter (Kleinfelter’s) where it was stated it would be interesting to test Lincoln for Kleinfelter’s, since he was tall and lanky. I
    also saw another link on Marfan’s, associated with Lincoln, but that wasn’t mentioned in the initial paragraph inclusion on the article I was reading.
    It’s Down syndrome, but is it Kleinfelter or Kleinfelter’s. I’ve seen it spelled both ways. Which of the two is correct?
    Best,

    Kleinfelters are infertile. Lincoln had children. case closed

  89. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    Angel, look at Down’s, because you clearly are oblivious that it is one of the most remarkable visible abnormalities :

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.dsrf.org/blog/dsrf_blog/speech-and-language-therapy-for-adults-with-down-syndrome&h=0&w=0&sz=1&tbnid=fqoBC0dztsiPGM&tbnh=183&tbnw=275&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddown%2Bsyndrome%2Bteen%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=down+syndrome+teen&docid=QVTtUIK0uwGUsM&hl=en

    here are the explanations for the distinct facial features ( none of which have anything to do with the features of the Man of the Shroud):

    http://sathiyam.tv/english/featured/march-21-world-down-syndrome

    • Angel
      June 15, 2013 at 1:23 am

      jesterof, I know the facial features of Down syndrome. I’ve seen enough Special Ed children during my life. Sarah Palin’s little boy has it.

      What I was stating is a female researcher posted the article on the web years ago. She was the person who made the claim about Down syndrome and Jesus and referenced the Down syndrome trisomy.

      Jesus DID NOT have the features of people with Down syndrome nor did He have it.

      The two replies on Down syndrome that I posted were from people in the UK and the urls I included were only to show you the article had to have been posted on the Internet or those people would not have referenced it or asked if Jesus had it.

      The article has since been pulled from the Internet.

      Since the woman mentioned a trisomy, I figured she may instead have meant the Klinefelter trisomy, because Ron had found the XXY.

      I don’t want to continue debating the subject.

      Additional blood testing would have to be performed if anything conclusive is to be presented.

      Best,

  90. jesterof
    June 14, 2013 at 9:53 pm

    Angel :
    jesterof, I don’t care if Abe Lincoln has Kleinfelter/Kleinfelter’s or Down Syndrome. That was a remark by someone at the bottom of an article I was reading and it was in reference
    to Abe being tall and lanky.
    Males with Marfan’s syndrome are also tall and lanky and the connective tissue is weakened, which causes other problems. From what I’ve read there is a defect, with reference to the production of the protein fibrillin.
    Lincoln could not have had Marfan’s syndrome because his hands were not long and thin and he couldn’t have had Kleinfelter’s, because he didn’t have enlarged breasts.
    Now, Jesus was tall. Jesus’ arms and legs were longer than normal and His hands were long and thin. As well,Jesus had a long, narrow face, like Senator John Kerry and He had breasts, as is clearly seen on the Shroud frontal image.
    Therefore, excluding the chromosome count, Jesus’ symptons align more with Kleinfelter’s than Marfan’s.
    Best,

    I am sorry, but your reasoning just clearly indicated you neither know what Marfan or Down’s or Kleinfelter is about nor have any idea that there is variability of expression of the syndrome, therefore the statement Lincoln could not have had Marfan’s syndrome because his hands were not long and thin and he couldn’t have had Kleinfelter’s, because he didn’t have enlarged breasts simply indicates that you do not have idea what you are talking about.
    Marfan’s can be without long hands and Kleinfelter’s can be without enlarged breasts ( as a matter of fact adult Kleinfelter’s look mostly normal males).

    But Down’s can not happen without special facial features which makes all of the Down’s syndrome people look alike.

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 11:00 pm

      Then you are obviously unaware males with Kleinfelter’s syndrome have an increased risk for breast cancer: it’s actually 20 times higher than healthy men.

      At any rate, I do not wish to argue with you further.

      Take care!

      Best,

  91. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    Angel :
    Kelly, a Geneticist who attends Ron’s church gave this analysis on the chromosome count Ron presented.
    A Scientist Analyzes Mr. Wyatt’s Chromosome Theory
    Dr. Eugene Dunkley, Geneticist
    August 1999, England
    http://www.arkdiscovery.com/chromosomes.htm
    Best,

    It sounds as though those involved are very well-meaning & sincere. However, as a starting point towards any semblance of validity, it is reasonable that some data be presented and critically analyzed. Without data, there is really no basis for discussion.

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 11:09 pm

      Kelly, I agree with you and look forward to reading your paper.

      Good luck with your research. :)

      Best,

  92. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 11:02 pm

    Angel :
    Seriously, I would be extremely interested in reading a paper, journal article or a book authored by Kelly Kearse.
    Best,

    Very kind comment, thank you.

    There are a couple of Shroud-related blood papers & a DNA paper on shroud.com

    Non-Shroud journal articles, if interested, search my name on PubMed

    Non-Shroud books, if interested, search my name on amazon

    • Angel
      June 14, 2013 at 11:13 pm

      Kelly, you’re welcome and I will certainly search out your papers and books.

      Best,

  93. Kelly Kearse
    June 14, 2013 at 11:14 pm

    Kelly Kearse :

    Angel :
    Seriously, I would be extremely interested in reading a paper, journal article or a book authored by Kelly Kearse.
    Best,

    Very kind comment, thank you.
    There are a couple of Shroud-related blood papers & a DNA paper on shroud.com
    Non-Shroud journal articles, if interested, search my name on PubMed
    Non-Shroud books, if interested, search my name on amazon

    BTW, If you’ve never used Pubmed, you type in the last name then a space then the first initial

    You can look up any author of a scientific journal article this way

    • Angel
      June 15, 2013 at 1:34 am

      Kelly, I will check out Pubmed tomorrow.

      I did see some of your articles when I searched scientific publications with your name in quotes. Apparently your expertise is in the biomedical field.

      Years ago, back in the 80s. I attended two of Dr. Alan Adler’s seminars. One was at Seton Hall University in New Jersey and the other was a dinner seminar at a restaurant in downtown Manhattan.

      Dr. Adler made a statement, referencing his expertise in the field of Porphrin chemistry, that I’ll never forget. He said, “I am so good in my field that had the Shroud not been exposed to a flood, I could have told you if Jesus was circumcized or not.”

      Best,

      • Angel
        June 15, 2013 at 3:23 am

        Kelly, is this true? I don’t know what to believe anymore, but if this is true, it confirms Creation.

        Science
        Message From God Found Hidden Inside DNA Sequence
        Feb. 01, 2013

        Excerpt:

        “Researchers at Harvard University announced today that they have found what appears to be a message from God written inside the human genome.

        The message was discovered when researchers noticed strange mathematical patterns appearing within a certain section of the genome.

        Stunned by its discovery, the team contacted language experts familiar with Aramaic – the language Jesus Christ spoke in daily life.

        Message reads. “Hello my children. This is Yahweh, the one true Lord. You have found creation’s secret. Now share it peacefully with the world.”

        http://dailycurrant.com/2013/02/01/message-god-hidden-dna-sequence/

        Best,

  94. Angel
    June 15, 2013 at 3:39 am

    PS It’s cruel hoax

  95. Angel
    June 15, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    Kelly, I searched on Amazon and saw one book on T-cells, but its a little out of my price range.

    A friend of mine has an abundance of T-cells and states he never gets sick. Is there any truth to the statement, “The more T-cells, the less chance of sickness or the more T-cells the better the immune system?”

    I’ll’ check your online publications later today, but my interests, with regard to the shroud, lie in the areas of shroud DNA and blood chemistry.

    With respect to the God message, “TheDaily Currant,” I’ve found, is a satirical magazine, similar to “The Onion.” Therefore, a hoax.

    Best,

  96. Louis
    June 15, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Angel, that it is a hoax is written all over the walls. It does not sound like anything coming from Yahveh.

    • Angel
      June 15, 2013 at 9:32 pm

      Louis, yes I know. It went viral on the internet and there are videos, as well.

      I got suspicious when I saw, “Hello, my children.”

      Yet, are posters able to post under the Harvard science veil? I would think Harvard could bring a law suit against that online paper. Not certain though.

      Maybe the site is making money on a per-click basis. Pretty sad to be that desperate.

      Best,

      • Louis
        June 16, 2013 at 8:54 am

        Angel, the intention seems to have been to poke fun at those who believe in God. I do not know if you’re interested in the physics-theology dialogue. Given one of his recent comments, Kelly probably is. Father Robert Spitzer, former president of Gonzaga University has published a number of books on the topic which should be easy to obtain at your end if the pocket allows you to do so. You can find about the work being done by him and his staff over the Internet. Best.

  97. Kelly Kearse
    June 15, 2013 at 7:18 pm

    Angel :
    Kelly, I searched on Amazon and saw one book on T-cells, but its a little out of my price range.
    A friend of mine has an abundance of T-cells and states he never gets sick. Is there any truth to the statement, “The more T-cells, the less chance of sickness or the more T-cells the better the immune system?”
    I’ll’ check your online publications later today, but my interests, with regard to the shroud, lie in the areas of shroud DNA and blood chemistry.
    With respect to the God message, “TheDaily Currant,” I’ve found, is a satirical magazine, similar to “The Onion.” Therefore, a hoax.
    Best,

    T cells rule, but I’m biased. We used to joke with the other labs that studied B cells, that B stands for boring. The immune system is an amazing thing-organ transplants are what first got me interested in science when I was growing up-The book is a protocol, methods guide to follow in the laboratory for various immunobiology & molecular biology techniques. Other than that, it can help you at night if you’re having trouble sleeping. Shroud DNA & blood chemistry, great-I’m interested in those as well-currently putting together a follow-up Shroud DNA manuscript.

    • Angel
      June 15, 2013 at 9:54 pm

      Kelly, I am awaiting your follow-up, Shroud DNA manuscript.

      I’ve read about 40 books on the Holocaust in the last two months, including many of the personal survivor accounts. I’m halfway through Himmler and at present, I’ve two remaining.

      Joking with the other labs is fun.

      When I was in school, taking Advanced P-Chem, while also doing independent research for an Organic Chemistry professor, our jokes, with respect to solving the Schrodinger equation triple integral, ( dr d\theta d\phi), were similar to “Enough is enough, dpizza, dpie.”

      In short, time for dinner. :)

      Best,

  98. jesterof
    June 15, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Kelly, don’t you think that overemphasizing one system or one organ is not going to work in the long run?

    Our body is such a perfect design I keep admiring it.But in it’s entirety, not in corpuscular approach

    Endorsing “t-cells”, or “R-protein receptor”, or “endorphin release” is, probably, a good money-making move ( since the general public is mostly very uninformed) but it is usually neutral at best. Sometimes even harmful.

  99. Kelly Kearse
    June 15, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    jesterof :
    Kelly, don’t you think that overemphasizing one system or one organ is not going to work in the long run?
    Our body is such a perfect design I keep admiring it.But in it’s entirety, not in corpuscular approach
    Endorsing “t-cells”, or “R-protein receptor”, or “endorphin release” is, probably, a good money-making move ( since the general public is mostly very uninformed) but it is usually neutral at best. Sometimes even harmful.

    Absolutely not. Different strokes for different folks. Focusing on a particular area of interest can allow the opportunity to look into something more thoroughly, to really deepen understanding. You can’t get this from an entirety type view, but it’s an individual thing. I think it can work terrific in the long run, but not everyone is the same. For me, it’s never been about making money, it’s going with what you feel.

  100. jesterof
    June 15, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Kelly Kearse :

    Absolutely not. Different strokes for different folks. Focusing on a particular area of interest can allow the opportunity to look into something more thoroughly, to really deepen understanding. You can’t get this from an entirety type view, but it’s an individual thing. I think it can work terrific in the long run, but not everyone is the same. For me, it’s never
    been about making money, it’s going with what you feel.

    I was not talking about interests and professional preferences. I won’t be able to talk to the patients in a clinic for all day long myself ))))
    it was mostly in lieu of enhancing the system or organ in the body to “improve health”. Sorry for misunderstanding :-)

  101. Angel
    June 16, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    Kelly, I’ve read most of your article (Blood/DNA) and it was thorough, well researched, and an excellent source of information. I’ve still to read the remainder of the article on “Cloning.”

    A question that comes to mind, from what I’ve read; thusfar, is you’ve stated the blood of Jesus is AB, but it hasn’t been determined if it was/is AB+ or AB-.

    When I attended Dr. Alan Adler’s seminar, he specifically stated the blood was AB-. The reason I remember that Jesus’ blood was negative is because my mother had AB+, and when Adler stated, AB-, I immediately thought it was opposite to my mother’s blood, and that’s how I remembered the blood type of Jesus all these years. Adler stated it was AB negative.

    In conclusion, I would ask, when, since Adler’s seminar back in the mid-80s, was it determined the blood on the shroud was not AB-?

    Just wondering!

    Best,

  102. Angel
    June 16, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    Kelly,

    I forgot to add this to my reply. Was a Radioimmunoassay performed on the Shroud blood to determine if there was kidney or liver damage?

    When I was an undergrad, studying Radioimmunoassy in our Analytical Chemistry class, the entire class had to give a urine sample and each student was required to write a report on the instrumentation as well as the result of his or her individual urine test.

    A peak for albumin or perhaps it was the amplitude of the albumin peak, if I recall, indicated kidney disease.

    Best,

  103. Kelly Kearse
    June 16, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    Angel :
    Kelly, I’ve read most of your article (Blood/DNA) and it was thorough, well researched, and an excellent source of information. I’ve still to read the remainder of the article on “Cloning.”
    A question that comes to mind, from what I’ve read; thusfar, is you’ve stated the blood of Jesus is AB, but it hasn’t been determined if it was/is AB+ or AB-.
    When I attended Dr. Alan Adler’s seminar, he specifically stated the blood was AB-. The reason I remember that Jesus’ blood was negative is because my mother had AB+, and when Adler stated, AB-, I immediately thought it was opposite to my mother’s blood, and that’s how I remembered the blood type of Jesus all these years. Adler stated it was AB negative.
    In conclusion, I would ask, when, since Adler’s seminar back in the mid-80s, was it determined the blood on the shroud was not AB-?
    Just wondering!
    Best,

    In a personal communication with Baima Bollone, through Emanuela Marinelli, he said the Rh factor (protein) was not able to be examined because it was too degraded. So it’s unknown if the blood is Rh negative or Rh positive. I am not sure specifically which studies that Adler was referring to, but it could be that in the earlier going of these studies, no reactivity with anti-Rh antisera was considered to be Rh negative.

  104. Kelly Kearse
    June 16, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    Angel :
    Kelly,
    I forgot to add this to my reply. Was a Radioimmunoassay performed on the Shroud blood to determine if there was kidney or liver damage?
    When I was an undergrad, studying Radioimmunoassy in our Analytical Chemistry class, the entire class had to give a urine sample and each student was required to write a report on the instrumentation as well as the result of his or her individual urine test.
    A peak for albumin or perhaps it was the amplitude of the albumin peak, if I recall, indicated kidney disease.
    Best,

    No

    In Adler’s studies albumin was evaluated, together with endogenous immunoglobulin, because these are both major serum proteins, indicative of the bloodstains being real blood.

    Thanks for the kind words-I never had the opportunity to meet Dr. Adler or to hear him speak in person, but have listened to several podcasts/mp3 with him as a featured speaker.

    • Angel
      June 16, 2013 at 8:19 pm

      Thank you for the reply Kelly.

      I’ve just finished reading the remainder of your article and I have two questions. Why is it not possible to test the Shroud blood for the S antigen? Wouldn’t this determine the Shroud blood was, in fact, human blood?

      Siemens offers a test for the S antigen.
      http://healthcare.siemens.com/news-and-events/news/healthcare-news-2012-08-29-1

      I’ve read D’Adamo’s papers on ABO blood and initially he stated AB blood was first introduced in 700 AD.

      I often wonder if knowing the Sudarium of Oviedo had C-14 dated to 700 AD and was found to contain AB blood type, if this was the reason D’Adamo stated the oldest AB blood was found to be 700 AD.

      As well, I’ve seen type “A” blood was found in ancient Egyptian mummies, and why Egyptians state, this find proves they are/were Caucasian, but have not seen type AB found in Egyptians. Is there a paper that details which Egyptian mummy had type AB blood?

      Lastly, if the Shroud is found to date from the first century, then Jesus was responsible for introducing type AB blood, unless AB was found in one of the Egyptian mummies. Otzi the iceman had type “O” blood.

      Yes, I’m honored to have met Dr. Adler. His seminars were wonderful and he was a comic, as well.

      Best,

  105. Kelly Kearse
    June 17, 2013 at 1:28 am

    The S antigen was tested for, see https://shroudstory.com/2013/01/30/guest-posting-by-kelly-kearse-distinguishing-human-blood-from-that-of-other-species/

    Regarding D’Adamo’s theories & AB blood type, see comments in the threads about:
    Positive for AB is not the same as AB positive & Just how old is the AB blood type

  106. Angel
    June 17, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Kelly,

    Thanks, Kelly. I missed the Ballone (MNS) line. When I returned to the internet to finish reading the article, I picked up at King Tut, missing the Ballone line (MNS).

    Ron Wyatt stated the blood he found beneath the cross hole, possibly the same blood as that of the shroud, was dried and black in color. This would have been aged, oxidized blood. He mentioned it was tested in a lab in Israel, but did not state the name of the lab..

    All Ron’s US chemical testings, specifically analyzing for sulfur in the sulfur balls that God rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah, were done by Galbraith Laboratories in Knoxville, TN.

    Galbraith is a very reputable lab for Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen (CHN) analysis. Most major pharmaceutical companies use Galbraith Labs.

    The sulfur tested by Galbraith gave a result of 96% pure monoclinic sulfur. The 5 cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are the only place on earth where one is able to find this pure form of sulfur.

    When atheists question the existence of God, the sulfur found and analyzed from the five Sodom and Gomorrah cities is direct proof God, in fact, that does exist.

    http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

    I’m hoping direct proof the Shroud dates to the first century will soon be found.

    Best,

  107. Angel
    June 17, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    “are the only place on earth” – typo: “are the only places on earth.”

  108. Hugh Farey
    June 17, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    Even a cursory look at Ron Wyatt’s Sodom and Gomorrah pages are enough to demonstrate that his ashen cities are nothing more than wind eroded lake deposits typical of the entire area. His satellite photographs have been superseded by Google Earth’s extremely detailed aerial photographs which show no sign of his city streets. The geology of the entire area has been extensively studied and none of it demonstrates any extreme volcanic activity (although a fair amount of seismic activity is clear). His chemistry, suggesting that the deposits of limestone and gypsum are the products of vulcanicity rather than aquatic deposition, is eccentric in the extreme. All his photos of “crystals of sulphur” are actually “desert roses” of gypsum. Pure sulphur balls are not exclusive to the Dead Sea but relatively common in similar conditions across the globe and may be caused either microbiologically or due (more likely in this case) to the reduction of gypsum by hydrocarbons. They are not direct evidence for, let alone proof of, the existence of God. For further details you could try Googling Lake Lisan Geology, or the name of the scientist who went out to check Ron Wyatt’s claims, Elizabeth H. Gierlowski-Kordesch.

  109. jesterof
    June 17, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    Don’t know about Sodom and Gomorrah, but a claim about “blood of Christ” in the hole from the Cross is priceless.

    However I did not find anything about that in his site – but Angel claims his discovery is real :-)

  110. Louis
    June 17, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    There are different ways of interpreting the Bible by avoiding both extremes, fundamentalism and allegorical reading. Scientists and historians have dismissed Ron Watts, in the same way that they ignored Jacobovici who claimed to have found “Moses’ footsteps”, so to say, in Sinai. Most of these attempts do not go beyond wishful thinking, Man is seized by fear in a world still in the process of evolution, as Teilhard wrote, the creation account in Genesis is mostly mythical, therefore the need for the science-theology dialogue.

    • Hugh Farey
      June 18, 2013 at 4:17 am

      “Scientists and historians have dismissed Ron Watts, in the same way that they ignored Jacobovici who claimed to have found “Moses’ footsteps”, so to say, in Sinai.” Although I agree with the general tone of your post, Louis, the sentence above could have come straight from an extremist tract, and could be misleading. Scientists and historian have not “ignored” Jacobivici, not did they “dismiss” Wyatt in the same way. The claims of both these men were examined closely, and simply did not live up to the interpretation put upon them. The claims were therefore rejected. No doubt if more convincing evidence were adduced, that too would be examined carefully, with the possibility of accepting the claims after all.

      It is all to common for people with extreme ideas to declare that their views have been completely ignored, when in fact they have been carefully assessed, and found wanting.

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