The present analysis of available scientific data obtained from the Shroud of Turin and the results of a few experiments allow the conclusion that the best explanation, and a consistent one, for the peculiar pinkish redness of the bloodstains on the Shroud is that authentic acid blood of a dead crucified person stained an authentic Jewish madder-dyed temple mantle during and after an authentic Jewish burial procession of a person whose dead body formed an image on and disappeared from the Shroud in an extremely delicate way before putrefaction. This delicate and timely disappearance of the dead body and the presence of a bloodstained image of what seems to be a first-century Jewish ornament of a Sanhedrin member indicate that this person most probably was Jesus Christ.
This is no small paper; call it a book. That one paragraph, above, is on page 230. The paper is rich with footnotes. Many (it seems like most) of the footnotes and the ten pages of the bibliography have hyperlinks. There are numerous images, graphs and diagrams.
The title is: Authentic acid blood mordanted the madder-dyed Shroud of Turin pinkish red before image formation – Jesus was dead
The author is A.A.M. van der Hoeven. The PDF was installed on Academia.org just yesterday, September 22, 2014. Adrie’s page on the site is HERE.
I’m one of those people who always reads the acknowledgments before I begin. How many names do you know?
The author wishes to express her gratitude to all people and institutions who kindly granted permission to use their published material. These are, in random order, the Commissione Diocesana per la Sindone, the Optical Society of America, Elsevier, Inc., Springer Science+Business Media, Russ Breault, Shroud of Turin Education Project Inc., the Infrared and Raman Users Group, the NIST Chemical Sciences Division, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, the Biocommunications Association, the American Chemical Society, the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc., Petrus Soons, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Russ Selzer, Thibault Heimburger, the Institute of Chemistry of the University of Tartu in Estland, Antonino Cosentino, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Paul Weyth, Mario Latendresse, Colin Berry, Louis L. Bispo.
She is also grateful to T.J. Egan, F.E.G. Guimarães, M.J. Melo, A. Boffi, and Varaprasad Bobbarala for answering her questions on the aqueous heme dimer, lignin fluorescence, alizarin and purpurin spectra, acid methemoglobin, and madder root extracts, respectively.
Now to read the paper. Because it will take half a ream of paper to print it, I have put it onto my iPad and a Kindle reader so I can take it to Starbucks or wherever I am during the next few days.
If you do nothing else before you walk away from this posting, read the Table of Contents, below.
BTW: HERE IS AN ALTERNATE LINK to the paper on another site that seems a bit faster.
Image Note: The caption reads, “Fig. 2.29. A part of the small of the back area of the Shroud in visible light (left) and UV light, showing fluorescence “slightly enhanced” (right).” A footnote tells us it is from T. Heimburger’s A detailed critical review of the chemical studies on the Turin Shroud: Facts and Interpretations, 2008, over at shroud.com.
Here is a peak at the Table of Contents:
- 1. INTRODUCTION. 4
- 1.1. Normal blood features. 4
- 1.2. Special features of the bloodstains. 5
- 1.3. Analysis in this paper 6
- 2. COHERENCE OF SPECIAL BLOOD FEATURES. 6
- 2.1. Red color but no Soret band. 6
- 2.1.1. Acid heme dimers. 7
- 2.1.2. Heme-madder lake. 24
- 2.1.3. Blood before image. 67
- 2.2. Separate serum – UV-fluorescence halo on wrist 69
- 2.2.1. Identification of separate plasma/serum.. 69
- 2.2.2. No fluorescent “serum” scratches but dark images of stripes. 77
- 2.2.3. Some “serum” margins possibly a tenting effect around … bloodmarks. 78
- 2.3. No potassium signal in three X-ray fluorescence spectra of bloodstains. 80
- 2.3.1. Postmortem blood is hyperkalemic. 80
- 2.3.2. Vertical serum draining. 82
- 2.3.3. Horizontally and vertically imprinted serum halos. 84
- 2.3.4. Filter effect 89
- 2.4. Few cells – hemolysate stains. 90
- 2.4.1. Separate serum not red. 92
- 2.4.2. Hemolysis mechanisms. 92
- 2.5. Hydroxyproline in red particles on Zina-thread. 98
- 2.6. High Na and Cl levels on reverse side. 99
- 3. SURVIVAL OF CLOTH, BLOOD AND SERUM – PRESERVATIVE COATING.. 101
- 3.1. Myrrh and aloes – antibacterial and antifungal 101
- 3.2. Saponaria – antibacterial and antioxidant 102
- 3.3. Madder – antimicrobic, antifungal, insecticidal, antioxidant 103
- 3.4. Leech saliva antibiotics. 104
- 3.5. Mordant protects madder lake from degradation. 104
- 4. MADDER ON STARCH COATING.. 105
- 4.1. Starch. 107
- 4.1.1. Strippable sealing film.. 107
- 4.1.2. Hot water washed out starch – blue fluorescence. 110
- 4.1.3. FTIR spectra of Raes samples are similar to FTIR spectra…. 112
- 4.2. Madder dye. 149
- 4.2.1. Visible color and wet acid-base chemistry. 149
- 4.2.2. Reflectance curves of clear areas – raw and absolute. 158
- 4.2.3. Raw fluorescence scan background. 162
- 4.2.4. Fluorescence photography. 166
- 4.2.5. Image fluorescence. 174
- 4.2.6. SEM-EDS analysis – smooth organic coating embedding particles. 178
- 4.2.7. Microscopy – Red aluminum lake particles. 179
- 4.2.8. Pyrolysis/Mass Spectrometry. 184
- 4.3. Not pectin or microbial bioplastic coating. 186
- 4.4. Not Saponaria. 186
- 4.4.1. Acidichromism – not Saponaria. 188
- 4.4.2. Fluorescence – not quite Saponaria. 188
- 4.4.3. UV-vis absorbance – not Saponaria. 190
- 4.4.4. Sugars – no Saponaria evidence. 191
- 4.4.5. Solubility – not Saponaria. 192
- 4.4.6. Color with iodine – not Saponaria. 193
- 4.4.7. Effect on chelated iron – not Saponaria. 193
- 4.4.8. Effect on image formation – not Saponaria. 194
- 4.4.9. Lake colour with Al3+ and Ca2+ – not Saponaria. 194
- 4.4.10. Heme-complex colour – not Saponaria. 195
- 4.4.11. Relative reflectance of bloodstains – not Saponaria. 197
- 5. FORMATION MECHANISMS. 198
- 5.1. Post-mortem heme dimer formation – … 199
- 5.2. Blood drying on the body. 205
- 5.3. Rivulets running across the Shroud. 207
- 5.4. Pools of wet blood – brown bloodstains. 209
- 5.5. Scourge marks. 210
- 5.5.1. Very faint – not dense – not chemically tested – no spectra. 210
- 5.5.2. No fluorescent serum scratches or serum borders. 214
- 5.5.3. Only dorsal scourge marks on reverse side. 214
- 5.5.4. Hyperfibrinolysis caused pink imprints but no smears before image formation. 214
- 5.5.5. Other ways of scourge mark transfer 221
- 5.6. Blood smears from hands of buriers. 223
- 6. OTHER RED COLOR HYPOTHESES. 224
- 6.1. Authentic blood. 224
- 6.1.1. Blood of a living, crucified person. 224
- 6.1.2. Bilirubin. 224
- 6.1.3. Prior UV-irradiation. 231
- 6.1.4. CO-ligand from carbon monoxide gas. 232
- 6.1.5. Saponaria-treated cloth. 232
- 6.2. Painted-on bloodstains. 233
- 6.2.1. ‘Cured’ blood paint – NO or CO.. 233
- 6.2.2. Iron oxide particles in protein binder 237
- 6.2.3. Iron-madder lake. 238
- 6.2.4. Acid blood. 238
- 6.3. Survey red color hypotheses. 239
- 7. BLOOD ON THE PETALON – NOT ON THE BEARD.. 241
- 8. CONCLUSION.. 247
- 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 249
- Bibliography. 250
This looks like a good source of information.
“This fits the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
“moist fibrinolysed blood clots”
OK, http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Religion/index.html, quest for god.
As usual your cryptic notes are useless. Whom are you quoting? The link to Dan’s other site has some meaning?
A point can only be made if everyone understands the context. Presuming everyone else functions on the same wavelength as you is the height of hubris.
Last time we had this discussion about cryptic notes was about banding:
Whom am i quoting? Seriously? Have you read the topic of this post? Have you read the article we’re talking about?
Now, do you buy this article like a good source of information? Do you think her conclusion is science or a quest for god?
I’ve given my opinion, give yours.
The article is 250 pages, I’ve barely had a chance to read through the table of contents. The post itself is merely pointing out an intriguing article. Even so, when I give my opinion I will provide more context than you. Spewing out sentence fragments may pass for ‘giving your opinion’ in your world, but in the real world it’s just useless drivel.
Ok, this is your opinion.
Now, what you could understand from my “cryptic comment” is that “hyperfibrinolysis” on which she bases her bold conclusion is only suggested in her paper, too simplistic on this issue to prove anything.
I appreciate the clarification. If I am terse it’s only because I am eager to hear the opinions of more expert commenters, like yourself, and it’s frustrating to not have you provide more detailed counter points. A good insight is a valuable thing.
“This fits the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” I’m not quite sure what anoxie is saying. Is he disagreeing with this statement? It refers to:
– “no signs of putrefaction of the dead body” which could be explained by the disappearance of the body before putrefaction set in, which fits the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection within 40 hours or so.
– “the dumbbell-shaped scourge marks on both halves of the Shroud are not smeared.” If one were to accept that the body left the inside of the Shroud while the blood-stains were still damp (not something I go along with personally), then it could be thought miraculous that they were not smeared, which fits in with the miracle of the resurrection referred to in the Gospels.
On its own merits the concluding sentence of the abstract is perfectly reasonable, although the Resurrection is not mentioned anywhere else in the paper, which devotes itself mostly to explaining the pink colour of the bloodstains.
I’m not quite sure what Hugh is saying: are you disagreeing with her statement? Agreeing, if she were right? Disagreeing but thinking she is reasonable? Agreeing but still disagreeing partly?
Sorry, anoxie, it’s a ‘you can earn marks for your working even if your premises are wrong’ approach often used by examination markers! The two statements made by the paper which ‘fit the bodily Resurrection of Christ’ do indeed just that, even though I think one of them to be incorrect.
I still can’t see what you give her credit for:
Establishing the two statements?
Looks very interesting.
I was able to download the paper to TS folder on my hard drive from Adrie’s jesusking site (Dan’s Alternate Link above). But it took about 24 minutes for the full 18.3 MB. I guess her site was busy with others like-minded.
In order to make less obscure the discussion, I have tried to indicate a reference to what we were talking about the term
>The fibrinolysis system is responsible for removing blood clots. Hyperfibrinolysis describes a situation with markedly enhanced fibrinolytic activity, resulting in increased, sometimes catastrophic bleeding. Hyperfibrinolysis can be caused by acquired or congenital reasons. Among the congenital conditions for hyperfibrinolysis, deficiency of alpha-2-antiplasmin… etc., etc., etc.
>Bleeding is caused by the generation of fibrinogen degradation products which interfere with regular fibrin polymerization and inhibit platelet aggregation. Moreover, plasmin which is formed in excess in hyperfibrinolysis can proteolytically activate or inactivate many plasmatic or cellular proteins involved in hemostasis. Especially the degradation of fibrinogen, an essential protein for platelet aggregation and clot stability, may be a major cause for clinical bleeding … etc., etc, etc. …
But the problem is that we were talking about a body of a deceased person …
unless you want to consider the alternative of living body! And this idea of the living body, in my opinion, is not credible … unless of having to postulate a “resumption of life” (ie the Resurrection!), which is a religious event outside of the normal routine of scientific inquiry…
Please, excuse me for that convolution/clumsiness of this talk about a medical term…
Reblogged this on Best of Shroud Story.
Comments are closed.