Home > Blood Studies, Image Theory > Hugh Farey on the possibility of image color under bloodstains

Hugh Farey on the possibility of image color under bloodstains

November 23, 2013

imageOnly Adler [pictured to the right] carried out any such study, and this is what he said: “Interestingly, fibrils freed of their coatings using this technique [protease to dissolve away any protein] closely resemble the non-image fibrils of the Shroud.” I cannot take this as a general truth. All the Mark Evans photos showing bloodstains clearly show that most of the red particles have been rubbed off the upper surfaces of the threads, and are mostly confined to the cracks and crevices where one thread crosses another. The surfaces from which the blood has been rubbed off are as yellow as the rest of the image fibres, and do not carry the distinctive silky white appearance of the non-image threads.

  1. Max Patrick Hamon
    November 23, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    “To really see, you must be free from all authority, tradition, fear, and the cunning words of thought. Truth is to see what is. It is the beginning and end of all search.” Krish.

  2. Max Patrick Hamon
    November 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    (just checking if my comments were still awaiting moderation. They are. Enough is enough !)

    • O.K.
      November 23, 2013 at 3:24 pm

      Max, it happens sometimes, I don’t know why.

      • November 23, 2013 at 3:38 pm

        Think of the site as a Roman Catholic version of Pravda, where self-censorship is/was the key to survival, and you can’t go far wrong. (Am only posting this to confirm my hunch that Big Brother is back in pre-moderation mode, having wiped an earlier comment containing what was deemed to be an excessive number of home truths, like a reference to $TERA.Inc. Click on Send and ye shall find…).

        • Dan
          November 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm

          Nothing is in pre-moderation. Nothing has been knowingly removed or blocked. Send me a copy of what is missing.

    • Louis
      November 23, 2013 at 8:56 pm

      Max, forget the rest and do your job.You have more to contribute, whether other bloggers agree with you or not, and Dan has kept the doors open for you.

  3. November 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    Colin, that is utter balderdash. There have been times when a comment or two of mine gets lost in cyberspace, but I do not believe it’s because of censorship. Like the time I revealed a deep, dark secret about you. It got lost. So what. Actually, I’m kidding. Or am I?

    • November 23, 2013 at 4:11 pm

      “Like the time I revealed a deep, dark secret about you. It got lost. So what. Actually, I’m kidding. Or am I?”

      You have my full permission to post whatever you have got on me, John Klotz, you deeply unpleasant character, you. Come on. Do your worst.

      • November 23, 2013 at 5:22 pm

        Collin,

        You are totally without real humor. I thought I made it clear enough that I was, as we say on this side of the pond, ‘jerking your chain.” Okay, I’ll admit it, I have no dark secrets about you and have never had a comment about you censored by Dan or anybody else. What you have seen is what you have got from me.

        I don’t think, however, I’ll will ever write anything as funny as the wonderful, Swiftian satires you have posted on his blog. How did you ever acquire that Swiftian gift of black humor. I mean, your claim hat he Shroud was really Jacques de Molay. What an imagination and to be able to convince people ala Swift that you were being serious. Bravo.

        I am in awe.

  4. November 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    Dan :
    Nothing is in pre-moderation. Nothing has been knowingly removed or blocked. Send me a copy of what is missing.

    I have posted it to my own site, having copied and pasted it from here, while still on screen, under “One of our comments is missing”.

  5. Thibault HEIMBURGER
    November 23, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    Dear Hugh,

    You wrote: “All the Mark Evans photos showing bloodstains clearly show that most of the red particles have been rubbed off the upper surfaces of the threads, and are mostly confined to the cracks and crevices where one thread crosses another”.

    That’s true.

    “The surfaces from which the blood has been rubbed off are as yellow as the rest of the image fibres, and do not carry the distinctive silky white appearance of the non-image threads.”

    No.
    Look carefully at Fig. 8-1 and 8-2.
    In Fig 8-1, most of the red particles are found in the top right part of the picture. Here the surfaces of the thread are reddish-brown and not at all “as yellow as the rest of the image fibers”.
    Those reddish-brown fibers (serum+haemoglobin ?) are exactly what one would expect if this particular area had been soaked with blood.
    I do not understand your point of view. It seems to me that, for you, blood is only represented by the red agglomerates;

    I wrote (as a comment):
    “This dense blood image can be described as follows:
    – Many dense small spots of red material
    – Most of these red spots are on reddish-brown colored threads (top right)
    – Unusual yellow-greenish colored threads (top left): serum?
    – Less or even non colored threads more or less similar to the clear cloth (bottom left)”

    Don’t you agree ?

    • O.K.
      November 23, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      In Fig 8-1, most of the red particles are found in the top right part of the picture. Here the surfaces of the thread are reddish-brown and not at all “as yellow as the rest of the image fibers”.
      Those reddish-brown fibers (serum+haemoglobin ?) are exactly what one would expect if this particular area had been soaked with blood.

      That’s similar argument I use in an article I sent to Dan, he will have post it by tomorrow.

  6. November 23, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    John Klotz :
    Collin,
    You are totally without real humor. I thought I made it clear enough that I was, as we say on this side of the pond, ‘jerking your chain.” Okay, I’ll admit it, I have no dark secrets about you and have never had a comment about you censored by Dan or anybody else. What you have seen is what you have got from me.
    I don’t think, however, I’ll will ever write anything as funny as the wonderful, Swiftian satires you have posted on his blog. How did you ever acquire that Swiftian gift of black humor. I mean, your claim hat he Shroud was really Jacques de Molay. What an imagination and to be able to convince people ala Swift that you were being serious. Bravo.
    I am in awe.

    So you have backed down from your dark suggestion that I have something to hide. Sorry, John Klotz. You have failed the internet forum audition. There will be no further comment from me to you, given your nasty troll-like attempt to blacken my character by insinuation – one that came to nought when challenged. My record in life is so clean that any attempts on my part to explore the dark side of my nature risk sudden death from boredom.

  7. Kelly Kearse
    November 23, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    On page 217 of his book, Zugibe mentions the Adler digestion experiments in the context of the following sentences “An observation of major importance, reported by Jumper et al. in Archaeological Chemistry in 1984, is the absence of the body image on the wound-image margins, suggesting that the blood images were present on the cloth before the body image was placed, appeared, or perhaps developed.”

    Also, that “Dr. Rogers looked directly at serum flows under magnification and observed no image color under them, and Don Janney, also of the STURP team, did RGB image enhancement of photographs of serum flows and concluded that there was no image under them.”

    [I am only posting this excerpt for the benefit of anyone who is interested in the subject, but may not have run across these particular observations. Certainly, those in the immediate discussion are familiar with them.]

    A specific comment to Thibault: Have the bloodstains in non-image areas been evaluated in similar photographs, i.e. off-elbow, off-foot? In these regions, are there areas where blood particles may have rubbed off-if so, how does the coloration compare?

    • Hugh Farey
      November 23, 2013 at 6:43 pm

      Thanks Kelly. On the whole, if possible, I like to read the words of the person who actually made the observation, rather than a second-hand, or third-hand (Zugibe quoting Jumper quoting Adler) reference which may unwittingly be slightly altered. And I prefer to read their observations than their conclusions.
      Rogers, for example, says: “It is interesting to note that where serum had flowed through the cloth in an image area, there seemed to be no image-coloured fibres below it.” This is subtly, but significantly, different from “Rogers … observed no image colour under them.” I too wonder what difference there is in colour between a “serum on image” stain and a “serum on non-image stain.” Perhaps someone with the iPad shroud.app could tell us? It is certainly not obvious from shroudscope.

  8. Hugh Farey
    November 23, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    The densest blood stains do indeed show red particles on the top surfaces of the threads, not just in the cracks. That’s why I was careful to add qualifying words like “mostly.” However, looking at, for example, Fig.8-2, I do not agree that any of the fibres themselves are reddish-brown. I think that is due to a coating of particles, possibly blood derivatives. The fibres themselves, I think, are yellow. The whitish patches are due to the overexposure of the reflective sheen of true shroud material.
    However, you may have a point if the yellow threads are coloured thanks to “serum” rather than “image.” They just look the same in photographs. I think if the protease tests had been carried out on threads rather than fibrils, and if, indeed, yellow blood threads had turned white, while yellow image threads remained the same colour, I would find Adler’s findings more convincing. As it is, I do not think the matter is settled.

  9. Kelly Kearse
    November 23, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    Hugh Farey :
    Thanks Kelly. On the whole, if possible, I like to read the words of the person who actually made the observation, rather than a second-hand, or third-hand (Zugibe quoting
    Jumper quoting Adler) reference which may unwittingly be slightly altered. And I prefer to read their observations than their conclusions.
    Rogers, for example, says: “It is interesting to note that where serum had flowed through the cloth in an image area, there seemed to be no image-coloured fibres below it.” This is subtly, but significantly, different from “Rogers … observed no image colour under them.” I too wonder what difference there is in colour between a “serum on image” stain and a “serum on non-image stain.” Perhaps someone with the iPad shroud.app could tell us? It is certainly not obvious from shroudscope.

    I happened to be reading the book, including that chapter, and saw the post-I thought it was a reasonable summary-it helps to put things in context, that there is more than just the digestion experiments-that’s all. I always recommend that someone go to the original source if truly interested.

  10. Kelly Kearse
    November 23, 2013 at 7:23 pm

    Hugh Farey :
    Thanks Kelly. On the whole, if possible, I like to read the words of the person who actually made the observation, rather than a second-hand, or third-hand (Zugibe quoting
    Jumper quoting Adler) reference which may unwittingly be slightly altered. And I prefer to read their observations than their conclusions.
    Rogers, for example, says: “It is interesting to note that where serum had flowed through the cloth in an image area, there seemed to be no image-coloured fibres below it.” This is subtly, but significantly, different from “Rogers … observed no image colour under them.” I too wonder what difference there is in colour between a “serum on image” stain and a “serum on non-image stain.” Perhaps someone with the iPad shroud.app could tell us? It is certainly not obvious from shroudscope.

    BTW, it isn’t Zugibe quoting Jumper quoting Adler-it’s just Zugibe quoting Jumper et al.; Adler is a co-author on the paper-it’s only one hop, not two.

    I have the iPad app-I don’t think the resolution is comparable to the ME photographs, particularly in reference to the detail Thibault was discussing.

  11. Hugh Farey
    November 23, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    Thanks for that, Kelly. I was thinking of buying an iPad specifically for the app (I don’t have one at the moment), but I’m not sure I’ll bother – unless it’s really interesting down by the C14 corner?

  12. Max Patrick Hamon
    November 25, 2013 at 4:55 am

    Hugh you wrote : “The surfaces from which the blood has been rubbed off are as yellow as the rest of the image fibres, and do not carry the distinctive silky white appearance of the non-image threads.”

    Before I even read Thilbault’s comment, I had wanted to comment myself on this but had dropped the very idea because of Dan’s ‘immoderate moderation policy’ at my expense of free speech. Because of Louis’s kind words (again), I’ll take up my comments on this blog and add up to Thibault’s.

    Hugh,

    you are totallly wrong in your opinion above. This is most untrue, at best an optical illusion. Could anyone see any ‘yellow brownish’ blood images (in microphotographs taken uder a specific lighting), the true fact remains though any bloodstain pattern analyst or archaeological bloodstain pattern cryptanalyst (be he a gifted amateur) worth his salt can see the blood decals stand out positive in the positive photographs and negative in the negative photographs while it is the reverse for the body images : they stand out negative in the positive photographs and positive in the negative photographs.

    Don’t let Hugh & Co lead you astray from visual truth. They are only two intellectual English bulldogs thinking they are genuine wild ducks smarter than tamed ones. Don’t let them walk you.

  1. November 24, 2013 at 2:53 am
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: