In considering the authenticity of the Shroud, one of the first questions that immediately comes to mind is, “Is the blood real?” Skeptics would have you believe that the scientists involved in the study of the Shroud bloodstains were in way over their heads-big time. That their approach to determining if, in fact, the blood was really blood was way out there, earmarked by inexperience and ineptitude. Sure, they were good scientists, but…
While Dr. Alan Adler’s name is typically invoked whenever the specifics of blood evaluation are discussed, dismissed by some as a mere “porphyrin specialist”, it is worth noting that a (the) major investigator in these studies was Dr. John H. Heller. A narrative of this story is provided in the book “Report on the Shroud of Turin”. Published in 1983, this book is a must read for anyone remotely interested in the Shroud, (or is worth considering a re-read if you already have it). The book is suitable for those with or without a scientific background. As one reviewer writes, “Heller is appropriately skeptical and driven by curiosity. For the readers of any persuasion, this is a fascinating book”. In addition, a lengthy interview with both Drs. Heller and Adler comprises the entire second half of the book “The Shroud of Turin And The C-14 Dating Fiasco: A Scientific Detective Story” by Thomas W. Case (1996). This interview, which covers all aspects of their work, was conducted shortly before Dr. Heller’s death in1995. References to the original Shroud scientific articles published by Heller and Adler may be easily found using the search engine on http://www.shroud.com. Or you can even find the Shroud papers using Google Scholar (they really do pop up there; they should, they were peer-reviewed).
Dr. Heller was no middle of the road scientist. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Yale University and did graduate work at both Yale and Cornell. He had a doctorate in medicine from Case Western Reserve and was a professor of Internal Medicine and Medical Physics at Yale University. He was recognized nationally and internationally for his work.
In 1954, Dr. Heller founded the Reticuloendothelial Society, which grew worldwide and still continues to this day. Dr. Heller authored the textbook, “Reticuloendothelial Structure and Function”, in 1960. The reticuloendothelial system functions in both the generation and destruction of red blood cells. Dr. Heller’s expertise was centered in making physical and chemical measurements of this system. He relates in his book that he has tested for the presence of blood in capital cases for both the prosecution and defense. (Re)read the book and Dr Heller’s initial concerns about testing for trace amounts of aged blood are apparent. Importantly, Dr. Heller, together with Adler, does not rely on a single approach. Multiple chemical tests were utilized to diagnose the presence of blood, any one of which, he asserts, is proof of the presence of blood, and is acceptable in a court of law. As an extension of the chemical tests, immunological studies were also conducted by Heller and Adler, which confirmed their previous results. Dr. Heller confidently concludes that it is real blood. He was the right man for the job. He knew what to look for. His experience speaks for itself, as does his choice of Adler as a coworker. Are there still some issues regarding the color and the precise composition of the bloodstains? Of course. There probably always will be. But these don’t invalidate the main conclusion.
It is certainly wise to be skeptical. That’s healthy. But this should also include being skeptical about the skeptics. It is smart to ask to see some I.D. To seek multiple opinions, from other scientists, particularly those outside of the Shroud crowd. For those unfamiliar with certain science search engines, it is good to consult Google Scholar or PubMed, but this shouldn’t be too overhyped. For example, you won’t always get the full range of a scientist’s experience just from Titles or Abstracts. A scientist may have experience in cloning a gene or altering specific DNA sequences in the study of a particular protein, but this won’t necessarily show up in the Title or Abstract of that paper-this is just a starting point. In my opinion Heller and Adler were well suited for the task, but it should be noted that they are not the only scientists to study Shroud fibers and conclude that real blood was present. Also, as described in Heller’s book and the accompanying scientific papers, evaluating for the presence of blood was only part of the story. They also worked diligently to determine if paint or pigment could account for the bloodstains as well. While some may cast doubt on their expertise as “blood chemists”, which becomes even more difficult with Heller’s resume, what is to be said for the rest of their work as lab bench chemists? Heller and Adler were good scientists, willing to take the risk of proving their own conclusions wrong. It’s in the book.
On the last page of the book, preceding the Epilogue, Dr. Heller writes, “No member of the team had worked in a vacuum. When confronted with a problem, he would discuss it with other colleagues at his own or other institutions. Each of the forty STURP members must have consulted at least ten other investigators who were not part of the Shroud team. Thus, at least four hundred scientists had added their input. In addition, all of us had given lectures before meetings of Sigma XI, the scientific society to which most research scientists belong, at chapter meetings of the American Chemical Society, at universities across the country and their alumni groups, such as MIT’s, at meetings of other scientific societies-from physical engineering to the medical sciences. From all of these we had received contributions of knowledge and suggestions.”
Dr. Heller strikes me as an especially intelligent man, one who was smart enough to be confident in what he knew and smart enough to admit that he didn’t know everything. Read the book if you haven’t. Consider reading it again if you already own a copy. Looking for a holiday gift for a friend (or even yourself), for a dyed-in-the-wool-authentic or the most rabid of skeptics? Give ‘em Heller.
Kelly Kearse is a serious scientist in his own right. See http://www3.cancer.gov/intra/eib/kearse.htm
Perhaps we should ask any critics of his science to state their own qualifications or the or the qualifications of the authorities they rely on. I have relied on Heller and Adler who consulted their own colleagues. In Heller’s book after he and Adler had reached a conclusion based on upon their investigation,using a microspectrophotometer for which they had to go through two colleagues to arrange a test. The results indicated old acid methemoglobin an clear indicia of old, ancient blood.
As qualified as they were, they each consulted with another expert. Two more opinions: ancient blood.
“Then they called Bruce Cameron on a speaker – phone. His double doctorate was dedicated to hemoglobin in all its many forms. After they had given him the numbers and
plotted them, Cameron was a little sharp. “You both should know what it is. It’s old acid methemoglobin. I don’t know why you wanted to bother me with something you know as well as I do . . . Hey, wait a minute. Are you two idiots working on the Shroud of Turn?”
This is drawn from Heller’s book as cited and quoted in Chapter 9 of my work in progress. The working title of the Chapter is “The Blood of the Lamb.”
“These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They
have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelations 7:14
The white robes of today are white coats of the lab technicians.
I have my own expert I consult who is a physicist, not a chemist, but he did a little checking and before I researched any of the above he advised me that ancient blood would degrade to methemoglobin. I was stunned when I read the passage from Heller. It confirmed what my own “expert” had told me thirty-four years later.
I second Kelly’s suggestion that if you are serious about the Shroud, you must read Heller’s book. The one who suggested I read it was Barrie Schwortz – nearly two years ago.
“While Dr. Alan Adler’s name is typically invoked whenever the specifics of blood evaluation are discussed, dismissed by some as a mere “porphyrin specialist”
I described Alan D Adler as a porphyrin specialist, not a mere anything.To insert that term mere is disgraceful misrepresentation and polemics.
To think I used to respect you, Dr. Kelly Kearse. You are now at risk of being described as a “mere” (your word, NOT mine) propagandist.
That is all I wish to say. This site STINKS…
Hi Colin. I thought you left us for the last time the last time. Will you be leaving us for the last time again? Or merely so?
I HAVE left the site, Paulette, for good, but sadly cannot ignore the weasel words and misrepresentation that continue to appear here.
I’ve just this minute resurrected an old site of mine that was created to deal with the polemics and propaganda that emanate primarily from shroudystory.com.
http://strawshredder.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/the-latest-attempt-on-shroudstory-com-to-put-words-into-other-peoples-mouths-words-they-have-not-used/
It’s just an opening shot. There will be more later to tell the real story that lies behind Kelly Kearse’s tribute to John H Heller, and the way he chose to lard the introduction with references to us sceptics.
Barrie Schwortz will know why I had to research Alan D Adler (“world renowned blood expert”). John Klotz will know why I had to research John H Heller vis-a vis my own research qualifications (“poodle barking at Great Dane etc).
PS to Kelly Kearse: Heller did NOT write a textbook on the reticuloendothelial system, and published relatively little of importance in that area. He edited a multi-author volume (something entirely different). Editing and authoring are two entirely different things.
Amazing post. Thanks
Kelly, I thought your post was spot on and quite aromatic. Thanks for improving the aroma!
Heller did not say he was the author of a textbook-the is no mention of it in his Shroud book.
Those are my words. I was searching for a cover photo of the Report book on amazon, when I first became aware of the book. The US version of amazon lists him as an author. The UK version lists him as an editor. I am not sure what Google Scholar says.
The title of editor is even more impressive than author as he is clearly recognized as an authority in the area-the publisher recognizes him as having the knowledge & experience to correctly evaluate the writings of multiple authors in the field
As to if he published relatively little of importance in that area, others can decide for themselves
In trying to respond to each point specifically underneath it, I inadvertently hybridized my words with a previous post. Here is an edited version of Comment #7 above, with just my words. My apologies.
SInce you’ve left the site, I guess you won’t be seeing this, though I don’t think it’s the weasel words and misrepresentations you can’t ignore, I think it’s just the attention.
“Men who are unhappy, like men who sleep badly, are always proud of the fact”
Betrand Russel
The real story is I recently reread the book myself, this past week. I decided to write about it, to recommend the book to others who may not be that familiar with it-same for mentioning the interview contained in the last half of the book by Chase.
Regarding your original post, “mere” is entirely my word, that is why I did not include it in quotes.
mere (def): being nothing more than what is specified, i.e. a “porphyrin chemist”.
Had I wish to quote your own words regarding Alan D Adler, I would have chosen from “pseudoscience”, or “Mickey Mouse science”, etc.
Heller did not say he was the author of a textbook-the is no mention of it in his Shroud book.
Those are my words. I was searching for a cover photo of the Report book on amazon, when I first became aware of the book. The US version of amazon lists him as an author. The UK version lists him as an editor. I am not sure what Google Scholar says.
The title of editor is even more impressive than author as he is clearly recognized as an authority in the area-the publisher recognizes him as having the knowledge & experience to correctly evaluate the writings of multiple authors in the field
As to if he published relatively little of importance in that area, others can decide for themselves
This endless controversy is meaningless.
Yes, Adler was a porphyrin specialist and not a specialist in blood.
Yes, Heller was a expert in medicine, medical physics and blood studies and not a specialist in porphyrin.
However, working TOGETHER , they concluded that the “blood on the Shroud” is real blood.
The team “Heller+Adler” was the best one.
For example, they wrote in “Blood on the Shroud of Turin” (Applied Optics, 19 (16) 1980):
” In our opinion the spectral data taken in aggregate are positive in confirming the presence of perturbed acid met-hemoglobin species on the Shroud”.
That’s true.
I have found some spectral data of acid met-hemoglobin in different peer-reviewed papers.
They are right.
Thanks to Kelly for reminding us the prominent role of Dr. Heller.
John, Mike, Russ-Thanks
Thibault,
Thanks-I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Just as it is meaningless to still try to disprove the “scorch theory” while every one who knows the data very well (especially concerning the blood and serum stains) and have two cents of intelligence knows that such a man made forgery CANNOT be what have caused the body image on the Shroud…
Kelly,
Don’t forget Paulette. Her wry wit usually evades Colin’s understanding.
I think it is still interesting to work on the scorch hypothesis to compare scorch fibers / shroud image fibers.
Point is Thibault mainly looked at the spatial distribution of color whereas Rogers gave more specific characteristics of scorch fibres :
Thibault, could you study the coloration of the medullas ? the birefringence and cristallinity ?
Great post Kelly,
Colin accepts that the ‘blood’ is some form of blood product. If he didn’t he wouldn’t have bothered with the leech hypothesis. He’s not a skeptic of the blood – just what kind of blood and how it got there.
If you look at what theories the ardent skeptics put stock in, this is a good indicator of what Shroud data is skeptic-approved. The blood, with caveats, is one of them.
Excellent article, Kelly.
If the blood evidence is approved, then the skeptics should rely of the only forgery scenario that is possible, which imply the use of a real crucified corpse in order to produce a false relic of the Shroud of Christ with all his bloody stigmata (and with a body imprint in extra). That’s the only possible forgery scenario that exist once you accept that the blood on the Shroud is real blood and came most certainly from the Shroud man himself… But I repeat myself over and over again. Sorry. It’s just that people don’t seem to get it.
If there is no image under the blood, this would the case. But that ‘fact’ is now questioned by the skeptics thus providing more wriggle room (for leeches or other theories). It is interesting to see what is contested and what isn’t.
And why do you think they contest such a point (i.e. the fact that there is no image under the blood AND ALSO the serum stains)? Because they are well aware of the fact that such a data essentially prove that the Shroud is a real burial cloth of a real crucified man who had all the bloody stigmata of Jesus Christ! Or else, they would never contest this particular data. This is not scientific at all.
Thanks, David (#13)
And what is simply ignored/not discussed, such as the alternate tests by Heller & Adler for the bloodstains being the product of some type of pigment. They looked for both sides of the coin, not just one selectively.
Additionally, as someone pointed out in a comment in a previous post (O.K.? sorry, I don’t remember), the studies by Baima Bollone, who through chemical & immunological analysis also concluded that the stains were composed of real blood. BB had the advantage of using material rather than surface-sampled tapes-he once asked Jackson why they limited themselves to this approach and Jackson replied “because we underestimated the problem.”
Somebody can provide here the complete Heller’s bibliography? Perhaps I am in a mistake but I thought it was mainly devoted to tobacco issues. Somebody can help me? Thank you.
I totally agree with what you have written, Kelly.
How can we assess the scientific hierarchy of someone if we don’t know his bibliography?
-CORTISONE AND PHAGOCYTOSIS
John H. Heller
-Author Affiliations
Section of Medical Physics, Departments of Physiology and Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine New Haven, Connecticut
The New England Institute for Medical Research Ridgefield, Connecticut
– STIMULATION OF THE RETICULOENDOTHELIAL SYSTEM WITH CHOLINE
JH HELLER – Science (New York, NY), 1953 – ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
1. Science. 1953 Sep 25;118(3065):353-4. Stimulation of the reticuloendothelial system with choline. HELLER JH. PMID: 13089707 [PubMed – OLDMEDLINE].MeSH Terms. Mononuclear Phagocyte System/drug effects*.
-MEASURAMENT OF THE FUNCTION OF THE RETICULOENDOTHELIUM
JH Heller – Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1958 – Wiley Online Library
-A NEW PHYSICAL METHOD OF CREATING CHROMOSOMAL ABERRATIONS
JOHN H. HELLER & A. A. TEIXEIRA-PINTO*
Nature 183, 905 – 906 (28 March 1959); doi:10.1038/183905a0
New England Institute for Medical Research, Ridgeneld, Connecticut. Dec. 24.*Gulbenkian Foundation Research Fellow.
-HIGH-FREQUENCY TREATMENT OF MATTER
John H. Heller et al.
Número de patente: 3095359
Fecha de presentación: 16 Nov 1959
Fecha de emisión: 25 Jun 1963
JOHN H HELLER United States Patent 3,095,359 HIGH-FREQUENCY TREATMENT OF MATTER John H. Heller, Wilton, Conn., assignor to New England Institute for Medical Research, Ridgefield, Conn., a corporation of Connecticut Filed Nov. 16, 1959, Ser. No. 853,188 4 Claims. (Cl. 195-78)
-NONTOXIC RES STIMULATORY LIPIDS
John H.Heller
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 88. The Reticuloendothelial System (RES) pages 116-121.June 1960
(he work described in this paper was supported in part by grants from the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C.)
-IMMUNIZING AGAINST AND TREATMENT OF DISEASES
JH Heller – US Patent 2,952,585, 1960 – Google Patents
-RETICULO ENDOTHELIAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
JH Heller – 1960 – Ronald Press
-EFFECT OF RADIO FREQUENCY FIELDS ON THE ELECTROPHORETIC MOBILITY OF SOME COLLOIDS
DJ Wilkins, JH Heller – The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1963 – link.aip.org
-NEW ADVANCES IN THE STIMULATION OF THE RES
JH HELLER, JP RANSOM, VZ PASTERNAK – Colloq. Intern. Center Natl. Rech. Sci, 1963
-RADIO-FREQUENCY TREATMENT FOR BREAKING DORMANCY AND CONTROLLING VIRUS INFECTIONS OF PLANTS
GH Mickey, JH Heller – Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Mgrs, 1964
-HUMAN CHROMOSOME ABNORMALITIES AS RELATED TO PHYSICAL AND MENTAL DYSFUNCTION
JH Heller – Journal of Heredity, 1969 – Am Genetic Assoc
-CELLULAR EFFECTS OF MICROWAVE RADIATION
JH Heller – Biological Effects and Health Implications of Microwave …, 1970
Un cordial saludo
Carlos
I’ve read Dr. Heller’s interesting book. I write a monthly column for “The Variety Post”, of Clark and Cowlitz counties, Washington. My next article will discuss the Shroud, and the evidence that is most ignored. I spoke with Mark Antonacci just before he published his book in 2,000. One of my brothers arranged for me to speak with him. I was the first person to challenge, in print (Oct. 1988), the radiocarbon tests, based on the fact that the Shroud had been exposed to spoke from the 1532 fire. I have some very unusual anecdotes regarding the Shroud. I will explain these on my next column.
I meant, “exposed to smoke . . .”