Mike M writes:
I wanted to respond to that post but then again I don’t think I will do it justice without images and I still don’t know how to attach images to a comment.
I promise: when I figure it how and it is explainable, I’ll explain it.
(See Large Images Below)
I think the authors are confused between the Y cross and the "simple cross" (crucifix simplex) please see the first image below to compare the blood flow between 3 different types of crosses. I don’t think there would be much difference between the blood flow on the arms if Jesus was crucified on the Latin cross or the Y-cross.
However I don’t know why the authors (and Luigi ) ignored the blood flow on the left arm, there can be clearly seen 2 directional rivulets of blood indicating that the arms were not positioned in the the same direction. Please see image number 2 for an illustration of this. As can be clearly seen the blood flow going straight down ( in the right arm) is also consistent with the blood pooling in the right elbow as have been suggested in Dr. Lavoie’s experiments to explain the blood stain going off the elbow. While the blood flowing in 2 directions on the left arm is because the blood can either flow on the arm itself ( if the flow is slow and of low volume) or directly downwards due to gravity (if the flow is excessive and the weight of the blood becomes too much to flow parallel to the stretched arm) in that case the arm would be stretched out and there would be no pooling of blood on the left elbow ( as is clearly seen on the shroud). I realize that some think the double rivulets are due to Jesus moving in 2 different directions to breath, I don’t believe this to be the case since the double flow is only apparent on one arm and not both and also because I don’t think that Jesus would be able to move with that huge nail in his wrists. All motion, if any, would be at elbow/shoulder level and not wrist level. Therefore I strongly believe the 2nd image would be the most probable for the man on the shroud from the moment he was nailed to the cross till Rigor Mortis. Thanks,
#1
#2
The official record of Garlaschelli and Borrini’s presentation can be found at: http://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/AAFS2014Proceedings.pdf. Three references to the “traditional” horizontal position of the arms led me to believe the setting up of a straw man, but I think I was mistaken. Attempts to get blood to flow down an arm were made from three different ‘exit wound’ sites, at angles from “0° (arm parallel to the groud and perpendicular to the body) to 90° (vertical arm).” It was found that blood would only flow down the arm at “greater than 80°” which is, indeed, a good deal more vertical than any “traditional” position.
The idea that there were two blood flow angles, as illustrated above, was explored many years ago. The zigzag pattern was created, it was suggested, by blood flowing vertically down the arm and stopping in minor clots along the way, which, when the arm was more horizontal, then changed direction and dripped straight off. This was quite ingenious, and I experimented with it myself twenty years ago, but was wholly unable to produce anything like the pattern we see on the Shroud. The fact that in all this time nobody has reported success suggests that either the experiment has continuously failed, or that the researches of Garlaschelli and Borrini are long overdue.
Mike’s suggestion, that the blood would flow along the sloping arm if the flow was slow, or vertically off it if the flow was faster, also needs experimental corroboration.
The authors do state that “further analysis will focus on the position of both arms…” so I don’t think the right arm has been wholly ignored. We must look forward to their further results.
One more thing Hugh, a hole in the wrist will produce blood from more than one point (unlike their experiment squirting blood from one narrow tube in one direction, which doesn’t reflect what happens in nature); the skin is covered with blood vessels. Even blood from both the entry and exit wounds may flow around the arm and mix together. Another thing is the viscosity of the blood, since Jesus was severely dehydrated the blood would be thicker than that of the volunteer in the experiment.
The fact that blood would flow on the arm is simple physics (surface tension) where the blood would stick to another surface until a greater force (gravity, when there is enough weight of blood ) overcomes the surface tension.
Sorry Hugh. I don’t find the Garlaschelli’s presentation in the link you provide. Can you be more exact in the quote? Thank you.
Don’t worry. I found it.
I would think the amount of variables that might affect the results would be significant-clean skin versus sweaty, grimy skin, musculature, length of the arms, amount of hair on the wrists, forearms, the frequency, duration of movement, etc. If three people were crucified on exactly the same style of cross for exactly the same amount of time, their bodies taken down and wrapped in a cloth, how overlapping would the blood flow patterns be? Would there always be rivulets? In exactly the same pattern. Handling, transport of the body could also be affect the final result, as well as washing, even done hurriedly, which is debatable. .
If an artist were skilled enough (or not) to effectively depict blood flow patterns on the cloth is subjective, but if the blood was simply applied by a forger, why is it so red?
“…….but if the blood was simply applied by a forger, why is it so red?”
This it is a MAGNIFICENT question!
Carlos
And which artist would even consider blood flow on a body in two different plains (vertical/cross & horizontal/tomb) like in the small of the back blood stain and the blood stain going off the elbow?
Bloodstains evidence on the Shroud totally contradict the idea of a forger applying blood on the cloth. Next.
Dripping stuff down arms is a reasonably easy thing to do, so I think somebody should have a go at it. Kelly is perfectly correct that all sorts of things “might” have an effect, and Mike may be correct in his ideas of what blood “may” do, or “would” do. The great thing about Garlashelli and Borrini is that they can say what, in their admittedly very limited experiments, it actually did do. I don’t think it is necessary to recreate the exact configuration of the rivulets and islets, just how to produce some kind of interlaced or zigzag flow. No amount of simple physics is a good as a demonstration.
And as for a forger making it red – adding red paint would probably do, such as madder root dye. This is much more of a problem for people who think it is undoctored real blood, as we have discussed before. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/wiltshire/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8302000/8302446.stm for Lord Nelson’s bloodstained glove, http://gb.pinterest.com/pin/179862578842010008/ for JF Kennedy’s shirt, http://historical.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=6014&lotIdNo=6169 for Abraham Lincoln’s collar, or http://ornamentedbeing.tumblr.com/image/5318393577 for King Charles I’s shirt.
There is one think worth notice, the blood flows on the left of the arm are actually very close to the arm’s edge, so they were actually flowing on the upper side of the arms.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5695/drr7.jpg
Off topic:
See […] for Lord Nelson’s bloodstained glove, […] for JF Kennedy’s shirt, […] for Abraham Lincoln’s collar, or […] for King Charles I’s shirt.
Ah… The modern “relics”. Why no one is disputing their authenticity, contrary to the Christian relics?
I expect their authenticity is indeed disputed. It was more the colour of the blood I was interested in, rather than from whom it came.
And as for a forger making it red – adding red paint would probably do, such as madder root dye.
I remember that this possibility was excluded in one of the STURP’s papers, but I can’t recall in which. I’ll do some search.
Yes, I applaud the effort to actually do something, but I think these types of situations can only go so far, you get rivulets, you don’t-again, I think the variables in trying to recreate this type of thing can be numerous. Even for a single individual, on a singular arm, the relaxed & flexed positions of a forearm, shoulder could alter the blood flow patters due to the absence or presence of furrows at a particular time that blood dripped downward.
The pictures are interesting-I believe the color of the cloth(s),material including the Shroud, is a consideration to be taken into account as to how this may affect our perception of the blood color.
If the blood was doctored, wouldn’t the chemical signature of the additive be apparent in the spectroscopic analysis-or perhaps it could lie within certain of the unresolved peaks?
In Adler’s protease digestion experiments, would the paint, dye be sensitive, removed together with the blood to evaluate fiber color underneath?
Good points. I think actual paint, which tends to rely on heavy metal atoms, has probably been ruled out. Fragments have been indentified on the shroud, but may be due to subsequent contamination. However distinguishing chemically between blood and other red organic derivatives I think is much more difficult, especially if the stain under examination is a blend. However there are various anomalies in the spectrographical analysis – remember my obsession with the peak/trough at 630nm – which may point to the answer.
Dedicated to Hugh… I give you the …”Chaos theory” (innocent humour but speaks volumes)
http://youtu.be/n-mpifTiPV4