Home > Blood Studies > Were Some Bloodstains Added Later or Maybe Retouched?

Were Some Bloodstains Added Later or Maybe Retouched?

January 29, 2015

imageColin Berry in part of a comment writes:

Twice now on this site I’ve reminded folk that any difficulty in seeing the TS body image from a distance would have been rendered less of a problem in public displays by the presence (or maybe deliberate addition) of blood stains and scourge marks. So while “over-flagellation” has been cited as evidence of a paying of lip service to prevailing artistic fashion it might equally well have been done to assist visibility, while not compromising the credibility that attaches to a faint body image per se deemed to be a genuine imprint of the body of Christ.

To which Thomas replies:

Nice theory re: blood Colin. I’ve said it before, I’ve got a feeling some, if not all the blood, was added. I still on balance believe the image is ‘authentic’. But not necessarily the blood. Or at least not all of it.

And Colin replies:

Thanks Thomas. It’s in fact quite instructive and possibly enlightening to put oneself in the position of a medieval monk who has been given the task of making a faint body imprint more visible from 50 yards,while (a) doing nothing that detracts from the ghostly body image and (b) can lend further credibility to a 33AD provenance consistent with or reinforcing the New Testament accounts of the torture and crucifixion..

Personally, I’d start with the major blood flows, and not worry too much about some of them seeming to trickle down the frontal hair, the important thing being to leave a signature of the crown of thorns (the latter not being imaged). I’d then add the scourge marks, making them as evenly spaced as possible, with minimal cross-crossing that looks untidy, and trying not to undo my major bloodstain handiwork work by mixing up or overlapping the two types. Forearms? There’s a lot of work gone into creating those intricate blood trails there, so don’t go and spoil it by adding some distracting scourge marks as well, bar the merest hint. I’d also be very careful to keep scourge marks clear of the area on the dorsal side where the viewer expects there to have been long hair reaching down to the shoulders, especially as the latter itself is poorly imaged. Maybe the colleague who did the body image to simulate a sweat imprint felt it best to give the merest hint of a hair imprint, hair tending to trap sweat, perhaps, as distinct from facilitating its passage from scalp to linen.

And BT from Connecticut, where the snow has finally stopped for awhile, writes in an email:

Dr. Berry’s theory is interesting and should be carefully considered. I am inclined to speculate that all or some of the bloodstains were originally there and remain so. I say this because it seems likely and it appears from a very limited sampling that some bloodstains may have blocked image formation. We can not rule out the possibility that well intentioned caretakers of the relic may have retouched the bloodstains. When you consider that the Holy Shroud may be 2000 years old and that it was unfurled before crowds and folded and unfolded countless times the idea of retouching bloodstains becomes plausible.

This is why we need to see the high definition images that church is withholding.

Source of above image:  a clipping from Haltadefinizione image at Sindone.org

Categories: Blood Studies Tags:
  1. ekmcmahon
    January 29, 2015 at 5:45 am

    As I have said before, I am not a scientist. I know what I see and have read on these Shroud sites. What I have read is that the DNA from the blood samples removed from the Shroud are all the same. I find it doubtful that a “helpful” Monk several hundreds of \years ago did some touch up work and just happened to use the same DNA matching blood type. My insides tell me that it is just as Jesus Christ left for us as a reminder of who he is and what he did for us.

    • January 29, 2015 at 6:21 am

      ” What I have read is that the DNA from the blood samples removed from the Shroud are all the same.”

      What follows was hardly a ringing endorsement from immunologist Kelly Kearse , ekmcmahon, addressing the 2014 St.Louis gathering. Final sentence of his pdf:

      “In summary, DNA studies have the potential to distinguish if the bloodstains are representative of a single or multiple individual(s) at the molecular level. Additionally, a molecular biology approach could potentially be used to demonstrate that a DNA signal is present on the Shroud that originates from blood cells.”

      Note the use of the terms “potential” and “potentially”. If reliable data existed to support your assertion for TS blood samples all having “the same DNA”, one might have expected Kelly’s summary to have been somewhat less guarded, dare one say more positive.

      Remember: only a minority of blood cells (the white nucleated ones) have DNA. The vast majority are mature red cells which lack a nucleus. Add to that the fact that TS blood seems largely free of cellular debris (prompting no doubt that Adler/Heller description of TS ‘blood’ as a ‘serum exudate of retracted blood clots’), plus extensive DNA degradation plus adventitious contaminating DNA then it’s unlikely there’ are going to be hard and fast answers for the origins of Shroud DNA, such as it is, any time soon.

      • January 29, 2015 at 9:31 am

        What was your rationale for the monks using leeches theory? I thought you went down that route (an ingenious one) because the blood evidence did not support either paint or normal human blood. Have you had a rethink about the evidence on those counts?

  2. Carlos
    January 29, 2015 at 7:07 am

    ¿Se ha conseguido reproducir experimentalmente las manchas de sangre tal y como aparecen en la Sábana?

    -No

    ¿Podría permanecer ROJA la sangre supuestamente añadida?

    -No

    Creo que se introducen especulaciones “sin sentido”.

    Carlos

  3. Max patrick Hamon
    January 29, 2015 at 7:16 am

    Posted on another thread

    Could Charles (AND Colin) account for an alleged “1325 CE± 65 monk” using an about 4,40 x 1,10m DOUBLY IMAGED cloth (implying it was wrapped around the body from head to toe) while the original size of the most famous representative relic of the Sindon Munda/Sindon Kathara (or Matthean “PURE/CLEAN cloth”, first kept in Aachen or Aix-la-Chapelle and then –after having been cut in two halves– Compiègne and Kornelimünster) was only about 2,10 x 1,80m and NON-IMAGED (implying it was wrapped around the body from one side to the other)?

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 29, 2015 at 7:22 am

      Why the sudden need to forge a “Sindon IMMunda”, an “unclean cloth” wrapped around from head to toe and not from side to side?

      • Max patrick Hamon
        January 29, 2015 at 7:48 am

        Reminder: In the 13th-14th CE, the body sheet was folded over the deceased right or left side, then the other edge over his right or left side. To my knowledge, there is no known examples of medieval body sheet having been wrapped around the deceased from head to toe.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          January 29, 2015 at 7:56 am

          …or better say first over the head, then the feet.

  4. January 29, 2015 at 7:31 am

    That’s a nice theory but the examination of the blood stains has not revealed anything but metahemoblobin (ancient blood) and no paint connected to the stains (not to mention the serum halos).

    Also, the redness of the blood was attributed to bilirubin in the blood caused by trauma. Blood added in the Middle ages (or even a few decades- maybe even days) would have lost its vital redness unless also charged with bilirubin, not a likely scenario.

    I applaud Colin’s ingenuity but I don’t think it answers any questions about the blood. That is of course only my opinion.

    • January 29, 2015 at 10:36 am

      Sorry John, but I can’t agree with a single word of your summary; The reasons have been set out before, here and on my own site(s).Y our take has been heavily Adlerized then lightly Hellerized for good measure, and is totally wrong, wrong, wrong.

      As I’ve said before, the TS is either authentic, assuming the radiocarbon dating was spectacularly wrong (which would require a huge stretch of the imagination)

      OR…

      it’s a brilliant 14th century hoax/forgery conceived and executed by a perfectionist, one who was 100% dedicated to his one-off project. He may have had a partner with a flair for marketing the end-product or simply as an extra pair of hands.. I visualize them in my mind’s eye as looking something like this similarly single-minded pair of individuals unencumbered with a strong moral purpose in life.

      While not wishing to make light of their nefarious activities, it’s possible they never thought of themselves as ‘breaking bad’ , not in the greater scheme of things.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        January 29, 2015 at 11:13 am

        Your “pair of individuals” (especially the old guy with his hat, glasses and shirt) does look like two “1325 CE± 65 (most learned) monks” unless it is a casting errror.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        January 29, 2015 at 11:39 am

        Note: “casting errror” here means bad choice.

        • January 29, 2015 at 12:26 pm

          Storyline: long-running US TV series Breaking Bad

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903747/

          “When chemistry teacher Walter White is diagnosed with Stage III cancer and given only two years to live, he decides he has nothing to lose. He lives with his teenage son, who has cerebral palsy, and his wife, in New Mexico. Determined to ensure that his family will have a secure future, Walt embarks on a career of drugs and crime. He proves to be remarkably proficient in this new world as he begins manufacturing and selling methamphetamine with one of his former students (Jesse Pinkman). The series tracks the impacts of a fatal diagnosis on a regular, hard working man, and explores how a fatal diagnosis affects his morality and transforms him into a major player of the drug trade.

          Might the TS have been conceived and executed by the medieval equivalent of our “Walt and Jesse”. Those two (master and student – see above) set out to supply home-made “crystal meth” (methylamphetamine, a potent stimulant) of the highest purity and potency to a segment of the drug-dependent population desperate for its next mind-transporting fix.

          Light-hearted analogy. Not to be taken too seriously.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          January 29, 2015 at 2:54 pm

          “Walter White is diagnosed with Stage III cancer”
          He should have tried Drs Gerson & Kelley’s cancer therapy (very efficient at stage IIIa, IIIb and even IIIc).

        • Max patrick Hamon
          January 29, 2015 at 3:00 pm

          Not to mention medicinal cannabis.

  5. January 29, 2015 at 7:40 am

    In short, this is purely nonsensical speculation with no basis.There are no traces of any touch-ups, and bloodstains are not positioned accidently but correspond to the anatomical features of the body. This level of detail seems to be far beyond the capabilities of medieval “correctors”.

    See:

    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi01part5.pdf

    Of course not to mention other aspects, like mentioned serum, lack of any brushstrokes, or concordance of blood type (AB) with those on other relics (Sudarium of Oviedo, Tunic of Argenteuil, Miracle of Lanciano).

    No, bloodstains wer not added later nor retouched.This is absurd.

  6. Max patrick Hamon
    January 29, 2015 at 8:07 am

    In terms of ancient bloodstain pattern analysis, the TS crucifixion victim haematic cartography is flawless.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 29, 2015 at 8:15 am

      It implies a cloth in-soaked with a watery solution, remoistened freshly dried blood and both a cloth-to-body very close contact and gradual loss of contact while submitted to a drying ritual.

  7. Max patrick Hamon
    January 29, 2015 at 8:41 am

    Bood intensifiers (such as pre- or light mordanting, carbon monoxide liberated along with smoke in the course of a Judean ritual in the shape of fumigation/burning aromatic aloetic woods/myrrh etc) could account for the aged/archaeological blood colour changing (upon exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure) from standard old brownish to bright carmin red via brownish mauve.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 29, 2015 at 9:07 am

      As I once or twice already said: bilirubin is neither the problem nor the solution, just probably one part of the whole equation here.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 29, 2015 at 9:38 am

      Reminder: on March 16, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. (#5 Reply) and 7:35 p.m. (#21 Reply): I wrote:
      “As far as the archaeological bloodstain pattern analysis is concerned:

      – Natural mordanting of dry blood remoistened with aqueous alkaline solution along with drying through myrrhic-aloetic (wood aloe) fumigation could account for:
      – The aged bloodstains still “looking fresh” today when seen in full day on the long inner burial cloth as if the blood had just been shed the day before. Mordant is known to be used for INTENSIFYING STAINS e.g. in cell or tissue preparations
      – Potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal. Now it is well known gelatine is a breakdown product of collagen. The true fact is low temperature (55°-85° C) alkali gelatinisation of starch residuals present in the ancient linen cloth could be a possible factor as bubbling very fine printing paste to be taken into account in the Shroud image formation process.
      – Bilirubin is neither the problem nor the solution, just probably one part of the whole equation as it could have been trapped (along with carbon monoxide?) during the image formation process.
      – Most likely dust, dirt and body fluids should be found in the very impurity layer that makes up the body image.”

      • Max patrick Hamon
        January 29, 2015 at 10:21 am

        On January 30, 2013 at 8:24 a.m. (#5 Reply), I wrote:

        “MOST LIKELY the bloodstains are aged “re-dried RE-MOISTENED freshly dried bloodstains” strongly suggesting the burial sheet was first moistened or in-soaked with aqueous alkaline solution (e.g. ashes, Jerusalem limestone dust and/or urea residues mixed with pure living water/collected rainwater). Note: Jerusalem limestone dust mixed with water can gelatinized starch. Then the moistened/in-soaked burial cloth could have been subjected to a low temperature accidental/providential thermal imprinting process (e.g. ritual fumigation and/or corpse hyperthermia).”

        On June 4, 2013 at 8:00 am (#63 Reply), I also wrote:

        “The presence of oozing from the wounds + the very fact the buriers took great care not to disturb the blood is consistent with an ancient Judean/Jewish burial custom in terms of bloody corpse tahara (purification ritual). It has nothing to do with a supernatural event. As a victim of a violent death, the TS man’s body should be buried with his shed innocent blood. Most likely, the neat haematic cartography resulted from a sticking-gradual-unsticking transfer mechanism implying first the clean long inner body sheet soaked in a watery solution was compressed widthwise (with smaller dry clean outer shrouds + large all-envelopping burial cloth– now kept in Kornelimïnster and known as sudarium domini = the Johnian soudarion) while taut lengthwise back and front as all parts of the body should be wrapped-up (see Naḥmanides, Torat ha-Adam; Inyan ha-hoẓa’ah) and then the tightly wrapped-up bloody corpse, lying in extra height first on one side and then the other side, was subjected to fumigation (in the proscess the long inner body sheet somehow got taut again back and front through shrinking up).”

  8. Max patrick Hamon
    January 29, 2015 at 10:49 am

    David (Goulet), you wrote:

    “the blood evidence did not support … normal human blood.”

    Shall I repeat aged/archaeological human blood is definitely not human fresh blood. The former could have been degraded through a specific burial ritual, which you seem to totally overlook. Besides I’d very much like to see how Colin can fool an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst worth his/her salt with his alleged “leeches used as felt-tipped pens” to touch up the TS body image. Can Colin tell us which areas were touched up from those which were not?

    • January 29, 2015 at 11:29 am

      Sorry I should have been more clear. I believe Colin utilized the leech theory because the blood evidence seemed to disprove fresh, typical human blood – and certainly non-primate blood. Certain anti-coagulants and serums (I forget the medical terminology) had to be accounted for – hence the leech theory. I was not precluding that the blood was first century and human — having very unique characteristics that may be explained by your burial practice theory. I was hoping Colin would provide an update on where he sees the leech theory in the overall picture now.

  9. Antero de Frias Moreira
    January 29, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    I uterly agree with O.K. the added blood theory is ludicrous

    Red stains on the Shroud are not whole blood they are rather blood clot exsudates that imprinted on the fabric by a contact process with a body.
    IAs a general denomination red stains comprise «blood rivulets and blood trails from the venous and arterial injuries from crucifixion and the cap of thorns,, the «blood flow» from the spear wound and the «blood belt» on the dorsal body image.

    Regarding the scourge marks no doubt they correspond also to a blood exsudate as evidenced by the serum ring surounding them which appears on U.V. fluorescence photographs but these marks may also result from contusion of soft tissues by scourging with a «flagrum» whip.

    Forensic medical experts concluded that «blood» marks are consistent with injuries resulting from scourging and crucifixion.

    Although not every red stain was studied( I mean sampled and observed on micoscope/magnified) Shroud researchers would surely notice differences if some whole blood had been added later in Shroud history let alone the fact that brush srokes would be apparent.to a careful examination.

    Why and how would a forger or a Shroud caretaker add or retouch «blood marks» with hematic material derived from a clot exsudate?
    Did a Middle Age forger have the knowledge of clotting physiology?

    The answer is straightforward NO!!!

    So it turns out this «theory» is just another time waste on Shroud studies,
    It’s only usefulness is fueling discussion on this blog and the possibility of learning something more from the content and links provided by some commenters.

    Putting aside this as a far fetched «thought» I’d appreciate to know what is really observed on the Shroud that led these people to elaborate such an absurd claim.

    regards
    Antero de Frias Moreira
    Centro Português de Sindonologia

  10. Stan Walker, MD
    January 29, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    Antero,

    Your analysis – on blood spots – is spot on. These musings by Colin – and Freeman – are fascinating. Intriguing? Not so much. Their analyses are sophisticated – and implore the rest of us to be most focused. Without them – this would be rather droll. I greatly appreciate their contributions. The risk of the overstated presumptions – scorch theories/historical paint falling off notions – or asserting that questioning the validity of Carbon dating is fatuous (Colin saying it would require a huge stretch of the imagination to believe the C12 dating was false) is tantamount to curtailing the liberty of judgement. This is subtle – but very real intellectual tyranny.

    Thanks again for your insights. As a physician – it is always mind boggling to me that others – turn a blind eye to forensics on the Shroud – and foist entertaining theories upon us.

    I enjoy all the theories nonetheless.

    • January 29, 2015 at 1:23 pm

      Musings you say, Stan? Maybe. But what are the alternatives, given that none of us are free to walk into a certain Turin repository, and ask that a certain case be opened to allow us to probe with our hand lens?

      But here’s a thing: Alan Adler and John Heller, may they both RIP, despite being billed as members of STURP, did not do that either. They never travelled to Turin with the STURP team. They stayed at home and were content to work on sticky tape samples provided by Ray Rogers, having never seen the sampling sites in situ with their own eyes. So one is fully entitles in my view to view many of their observations and certainly conclusions with a degree of circumspection.

      The idea that the TS blood is a “serum exudate of retracted blood clots” is one that should be treated with a great deal of scepticism. It appears to be based partly on a failure to see the “formed elements’ of blood, notably red blood cells or even remnants thereof. More importantly, there was a persistent current of narrative-driven comment, what with speculation as to how dried (post-crucifixion) blot clots could leave an imprint, to say nothing of “trauma” bilirubin, and relying on non-specific chemical tests for bilrubin, The latter was almost certainly NOT present! Adler himslef admitted as much in 2000 in his conservation paper. Bilirubin is far too photosensitive to survive more than a few years, even in dim light, never mind centuries.The phototherapy of neonatal jaundice (which I researched in Philadelphia with the late Don Ostrow for two years) depends on the marked photo-sensitivity and resulting chemical breakdown of bilirubin.

      It’s time to stop taking things on trust (Royal Society motto: Nullius in verba– take nobody’s word for it). We have the splendid Shroud Scope that allows us to see things with our own eyes, though it helps to adjust contrast, brightness, midtone settings etc to differentiate one thing from another.

      I’ve just this minute done that with the image that heads this posting.

      Note the heterogeneity, hardly what one would expect of a “serum exudate of retracted blood clots”. As I (and Hugh Farey) have consistently maintained for some 2 years or more, what you see is probably a partially detached blood stain, with some parts more intense than others. The fluorescent halo of the stain above (wrist blood) is not around the entire stain. It’s restricted to the small limb you see top left, where the image is most strong. What price a “serum halo” when it is so localized?

      I repeat: Nullius in verba. It’s time to shelve most if not all the received wisdom where TS imagery is concerned. Much was written before we had access to the Durante 2002 images, and there are almost certainly new insights to be gained from the Halta 2008 high-definition images, once the Vatican sees fit to release them to the public domain and/or bona fide researchers.

      • January 29, 2015 at 1:43 pm

        Colin:

        The idea that the TS blood is a “serum exudate of retracted blood clots” is one that should be treated with a great deal of scepticism. It appears to be based partly on a failure to see the “formed elements’ of blood, notably red blood cells or even remnants thereof.

        Bilirubin is far too photosensitive to survive more than a few years, even in dim light, never mind centuries.

        So how long? Months? Years? How much time of its history TS spent exposed to light (instead of being stored in closed casket)? A few years at max? We don’t know.

        • January 29, 2015 at 2:24 pm

          OK: here’s what Alan Adler himself wrote in 1993, effectively destroying his own case for a role of bilirubin in explaining the (alleged) permanently bright-red colour of Shroud bloodstains (my italics):

          https://www.shroud.com/adler1.htm

          Non-ionizing Radiation

          Exposure to non-ionizing radiation, such as visible light will also lead to either direct photochemical damage to both the cloth and the images or indirectly to similar damage through photocatalyzed reactions brought about by the presence of photosensitizers.

          Trace transition metal compounds and, particularly, the relatively large amounts of various iron-containing structures present can serve as such photosensitizes (sic) Such reactions can strongly affect the images. For example, the red color of the blood has been attributed to the presence of protein-bound bilirubin being admixed with methemoglobin. Overexposure to ultraviolet and/or visible radiation could modify this color, as bilirubin can be readily and quickly photodecomposed under a variety of conditions ….

          (skipped passage)

          … Clearly, the Shroud should be maintained, as now, in the dark until such matters are thoroughly investigated.

          Alan Adler clearly saw the need to backtrack on his bilirubin hypothesis, but could not bring himself to make that abundantly clear. Note too that there was no attempt to attach exact time scales to bilirubin photo-decomposition. (Nothing would ever happen in science it one was forbidden from mentioning susceptibility to this or that unless accompanied immediately by numerical data). Science is a process of progressive refinement. It’s difficult enough as it is, without being held to unrealistic standards.

          The reticence we see above in failing to come clean re premature and misleading announcements in research is not uncommon. We’ve all of us been there at one time or another.,

  11. daveb of wellington nz
    January 29, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    All of the forensic pathologists who have ever examined either the Shroud or its imagery, from the time of Yves Delage onward, have never raised a single doubt that any single blood stain might be a subsequent add-on. All of them had a forensic explanation for any blood-stain they examined, and every blood stain was true to type, pattern and location, even the flow across the small of the back and the patterns at the feet (see Barbet). There is no case presented requiring an answer!

  12. January 29, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    Daveb and his sainted pathologists are indeed powerful arguments, but I do wish they were alive to be questioned about aspects of their conviction that I don’t feel able to share. I wonder there are any living pathologists of similar eminence who are interested in the Shroud.

    • January 29, 2015 at 2:35 pm

      … to say nothing of the fact that forensic pathologists acquire their expertise through investigating cadavers.

      What special insight can those pathologists bring to bear to a faint image on linen, centuries old, when it’s not even certain that the blood is whole blood, or even ‘real’ blood, and no agreed view as to how the basal body mage was formed?

      The case for authenticity cannot be based on spurious appeals to the ‘expertise of experts’. There are NO experts where the TS is concerned. All we have are opinions that are more of less better informed by the scant facts available.

    • January 29, 2015 at 2:36 pm

      I wonder there are any living pathologists of similar eminence who are interested in the Shroud.

      Once was Delage, next Vignon, barbet, Hynek, Sava, Bucklin, Zugibe. Now is for example Svenson, and a few others. Old generations are passing, new generations are coming, new views, new opinions, yet major conclusions stay the same.The Shroud is pathologically flawless.

  13. January 29, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    Colin:

    Alan Adler clearly saw the need to backtrack on his bilirubin hypothesis, but could not bring himself to make that abundantly clear. Note too that there was no attempt to attach exact time scales to bilirubin photo-decomposition.

    So there was bilirubin or not? As we don’t know the exact timescales for bilirubin decomposition, nor the amount of time Shroud spent exposed to light (had it been just 1 % of presumed age, it would be about 20 years), we cannot exclude the posibility of its presence in the bloodstains, as positive results indicate. So this is no way to dispute the presence of the blood on the Shroud -nor for postulating any touch-ups. Just only to throw some confusion and unrest about the previous conclusions.

    • January 29, 2015 at 2:53 pm

      OK: I am not the one who deploys “bilirubin” as an argument for anything. The case for suspecting that the “blood” on the TS might not be whole blood, or even real blood, is based on many other considerations, notably the absence of microscopic confirmation (lack of recognizable red cells), on the atypical porphyrin visible/uv spectrum. It was the latter that prompted Adler to invoke (read: dream up) a bilirubin association, omitting to isolate and characterize either the free porphyrin OR the bilirubin, totally inexcusable except that his test material was restricted to sticky-tape sample of microgram quantities of blood-stained fibres supplied by Ray Rogers).

      As for time scales of bilirubin decomposition, it’s impossible to generalize, given the range of factors that affect it – pH, protein binding, composition and intensity of light , oxygen access v nitrogen-blanketing etc etc,

      When I helped set up a new lab with Don Ostrow in 1970 to investigate bilirubin photo-transformation, the first thing we did was to remove 1 in every 2 of the lab’s fluorescent light tubes. There was no quantitative data – we simply had to compromise between excessive exposure of bilirubin to light, and the need to see what we were doing.

  14. Max patrick Hamon
    January 29, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    On June 1, 2013 at 2:20 pm and12:10 pm, I wrote:

    “Most likely, the bilirubin if any left, was trapped via a pre-/light mordanting process that also could account for the body image formation process.”

    “Reminder: As far as the TS image is concerned, on one hand, the bloody body image is first and foremost readable as old archaeological bloodstain patterns and thus shall be studied in the light of a specific burial by an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst. On the other hand, forensic PALEAOpathology is a quite different approach. It aims at determining the cause and manner of any death that is violent, unusual or untimely. Both fields of expertise though can merge when it comes to identify a wound pattern that can be matched to a weapon, any other sharp, cutting, piercing objects or blunt instruments.”

  15. Thibault HEIMBURGER
    January 29, 2015 at 3:39 pm

    Bilirubin or not? This is not the problem.
    “Were Some Bloodstains Added Later or Maybe Retouched?” is the question.

    If some bloodstains were added or retouched, the “painter” must have used human (or primate) blood. This is also true if the bloodstains were not added or retouched.

    Is it credible ?

    • January 29, 2015 at 3:43 pm

      It is not in-credible to imagine someone using human blood (let’s at least throw out the notion it is monkey or ape blood) to touch up an icon of this significance. Not at all.

      • Thomas
        January 30, 2015 at 2:35 am

        Exactly. I’ve always felt some of the ‘blood’ marks look far too ‘tidy’…especially on the arms, head. Again, I think there is a possibility that some of the blood marks are authentic – those of the feet, lower back and possibly side wound would appear to my eyes to potentially be authentic, messy and ‘un-artistic’ as they are. But it doesn’t have to be all or nothing, does it? Whilst I respect the ‘saints’ of Shroudom, I for one do not bow to them in all uncritical deference.

  16. Max patrick Hamon
    January 29, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    Re “the ghostly body image” Colin mention on May 6, 2013 at 10:47 am, I wrote:

    “The very name of Queen Guinevere could refer to the Shroud of Christ (aka TS) bloodied body image as spiritual wine and bread. The fact is it comes from the Welsh form Gwenhwyfar and can be translated as “The Fair/Bright/Holy Ghost/Ghostly Image” and also wordplays with the old Breton gwin vara, “wine and bread”.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 29, 2015 at 3:48 pm

      Note: Gwenhwyfar as The Holy Ghost is also the same as the Holy Spirit.

      • January 29, 2015 at 3:53 pm

        aka the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

  17. January 29, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    “The Shroud is pathologically flawless.” Well sadly that is one of the opinions I find difficult to share. As for bilirubin, you can buy it, in little jars; it’s orange, or yellow – hence jaundice. How anyone can pretend that the pink colour of the shroud blood has anything to do with it is another of the mysteries I would like to resolve. However, I do have a little sachet of red madder, whose stain matches it precisely. Then there’s that curious spike in the reflectance spectrum at about 610nm…

    • January 29, 2015 at 4:59 pm

      Madder you say Hugh? That rings a bell, nay an entire peal of bells.

      Authentic acid blood mordanted the madder-dyed Shroud of Turin pinkish red before image formation – Jesus was dead.

      Adrie van der Hoeven

      http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268125045_Authentic_acid_blood_mordanted_the_madder-dyed_Shroud_of_Turin_pinkish_red_before_image_formation_-_Jesus_was_dead

      243 pages!

      I bet she drinks Carling Black Label.

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      January 30, 2015 at 3:19 pm

      Hugh: “As for bilirubin, you can buy it, in little jars; it’s orange, or yellow – hence jaundice. How anyone can pretend that the pink colour of the shroud blood has anything to do with it is another of the mysteries I would like to resolve. ”

      Can you explain why you think that brown met-hemoglobin+yellow/orange bilirubin can’t give a red stain (the blood stains are red or reddish under the microscope).

      ” However, I do have a little sachet of red madder, whose stain matches it precisely. ”
      Can you explain me how red madder could match all of the properties found by Heller and Adler.

      ” Then there’s that curious spike in the reflectance spectrum at about 610nm…”
      What are you speaking about ? Can you explain?

  18. Carlos
    January 29, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    ” I wonder there are any living pathologists of similar eminence who are interested in the Shroud”.

    Prestigiosos forenses españoles “actuales”, estudiosos de la Sábana y que “públicamente” aceptan la autenticidad:

    Delfín Villalaín, Domínguez J.J, Delgado Roig, Guillermo Heras Moreno, Reverte Coma, Cabrera Forneiro, Mauricio Lorente Sánchez…..

    Carlos

    • Hugh Farey
      January 30, 2015 at 6:28 pm

      Thank you gentlemen.

      Yes, Thibault. If I mix brown paint and orange paint I do not get red, only, as you might expect, orangy brown. I do not know why mixing any other similarly coloured chemicals should give anything different.
      And no, I do not think that red madder accounts for all the characteristics of the blood stains. I am inclined to believe that they are blood, but that red madder was added to make them a bit more ‘bloodlike’ when the original faded or was eroded away.
      And ah, the reflectance spectrum. This was more or less where I joined shroudstory a couple of years ago. Look up “Today’s How do we know? The image is not painted” which occurred or 21 October 2013 and you’ll see the reflectance spectrum, my observations and your own reply.

      And thank you, OK, for your list of pathologists. I have written to those whose contact details I could find.

      • January 31, 2015 at 2:11 am

        Why recruit a specialist porphyrin chemist to a project when the latter’s response to an atypical porphyrin spectrum was to abandon chemistry, resorting instead to a combination of cookery and creative accounting? That’s without mentioning the betrayal of a pro-authenticity bias (“trauma” bilirubin).

        I frankly do not understand why TH still hankers after the bilirubin story, not unless he too considers the narrative to be more important than the chemical facts, or rather absence thereof. Bilirubin was a total irrelevance, not least because of its instability to light and oxygen. Its author admitted as much in 1993.

        Please can we move on (consigning bilirubin to the dustbin of shroudology)?

        • Carlos
          January 31, 2015 at 4:31 am

          Colin:

          Lo primero que hay que tirar a la “basura” es la posibilidad de una imagen artística medieval, ya sea una pintura, una escultura, un bajo relieve o una plantilla.

          Sólamente “un cuerpo humano real” puede producir la impronta de la Sábana, y todo lo demás es perder el tiempo.

          Así que la única “via” es la de Garlaschelli…….. y esa técnica ya fue desechada y desacreditada por Walter McCrone.

          Carlos

        • January 31, 2015 at 4:49 am

          Google translate:

          The first thing to throw “trash” is the possibility of a medieval artistic image, be it a painting, a sculpture, a bas relief or template.

          Only “real body” can cause the imprint of the Shroud, and everything else is wasting time.

          So the only “via” is to Garlaschelli …… .. and that technique has already been discarded and discredited by Walter McCrone.

          Reply: Real body? By all means, as you immediately acknowledge later. Garlachelli did indeed use a real body as template. OK, that meant finding an alternative to direct thermal imprinting. Garlaschelli did just that, resorting to a two-step with postponed heating. He used cold ochre pigment for initial imprinting. He then baked the imprinted linen in an oven to chemically etch the linen that had been in contact with the pigment (especially if contaminated with acidic impurities as may have been the case with medieval ochre if made by calcining green vitriol).

          Garlaschelli technique discarded? My McCrone you say? Methinks you are a little confused there Carlos. McCrone claimed to have found ochre traces, sufficient he considered to account for the imagem but failed to convince folk that the tiny specks of ochre he found were artist’s ochre. But that’s not the point. Had Garlachelli’s technique been deployed in medieval times using red ochre and its acid baggage to chemically etch the linen, then the ochre has then done its job, and it no longer matters a jot if there’s merely traces left for big shot microscopists to discover centuries later,

        • Carlos
          January 31, 2015 at 9:45 am

          Colin:

          -¡Así que el artista pinta un cuerpo humano real con ocre rojo, cuerpo ROJO, cabello ROJO…..y obtiene una imagen en ROJO.!…..que allá, en el FUTURO, se tornará amarilla.

          -Garlaschelli utiliza el HORNO para amarillear la tela sin imagen, ya que prescinde de la imprimación de la tela con el COLÁGENO y las fibrillas del lino tienen que ser TODAS amarillas.

          -Garlaschelli tiene que terminar la imagen pintando “a mano alzada”, o sea con pincel determinando los CONTORNOS en la imagen.

          -Ampliando los positivos de la reproducción de Garlaschelli, ya a TAMAÑO NATURAL ya al MICROSCOPIO, sólo pueden engañar al ojo con “gran miopía”.

          http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf

          -Usted desconoce lo último escrito por Walter McCrone.

          Desautorizó este tipo de experiencias en escrito del año 2000:

          Carta al Director aparecida en el Volumen 24 nº 5 (Septiembre/Octubre 2000) de la revista Skeptical Inquirer (páginas 67 y 68).

          “El número de Mayo/Junio 2000 del Skeptical Inquirer incluía un artículo entristecedor donde se mostraba hasta que punto se han convertido en habituales las ideas paranormales, especialmente en Francia.

          El autor, Henri Broch, describía “como reproducir sábanas con todas las características de la sábana de Turín”. Estaría de acuerdo con él si se añadiese la siguiente salvedad, “si se observa a simple vista”.

          Acabo de escribir un artículo, actualmente en prensa (1) demostrando que la técnica de frotamiento de un bajo relieve produce una imagen que, bajo ampliaciones superiores a 500X, resulta muy diferente de la de la sábana de Turín.

          Ello quiere decir que la “Sábana” turinesa no pudo haber sido realizada mediante tal procedimiento, dejando como única alternativa convencional el empleo del pincel; sólo así se puede obtener una imagen con todas las características físicas microscópicas observadas en la “Sábana”.

          Ambas imágenes fueron realizadas con pigmentos artísticos (ocre rojo y bermellón) pero los pigmentos en las imágenes sobre la Sábana de Turín se encuentran bien dispersos por todas las fibras de lino, casi en su totalidad como agregados de entre 1 a 5 partículas individuales de tamaño inferior a una micra; por contra, en las imágenes obtenidas por frotamiento de un bajo relieve, el pigmento se dispersa en agregados deentre 100 a 1000 (o más) partículas individuales.

          Walter C. McCroneMcCrone Research InstituteChicago, Illinois(1) Enviaré una copia de este artículo a cualquiera que lo solicite.Teléfono (312) 842-7100; Fax (312) 842-1078; correo electrónico:wmccrone@mcri.org”

          Carlos

        • January 31, 2015 at 12:44 pm

          I re-read the Garlaschelli paper, and even drafted a reply Carlos. But then a thought occurred to me. Why are we discussing the body image? The posting is about blood. While there is still some uncertainty – at least in my mind – as to the claim that blood, whether whole, partial, touched-up, simulated, human or animal came before body image, the two image types – one red, the other yellow – are topics that are best discussed separately. One thing’s for certain: Garlaschelli’s paper needs very careful reading. Whilst the English is immaculate, it’s all too easy to misunderstand the final experimental protocol. The term “artificial ageing’ is used for oven-heating both before and/or after application of acidified pigment. I’d have preferred that the second heating step had been described as accelerated thermochemical etching of linen fibres, not ageing, and also made a little clearer why Luigi used cobalt blue as neutral pigment, not red ochre (apologies for my earlier mistake in forgetting he made that substitution).

        • Hugh Farey
          January 31, 2015 at 2:48 pm

          I think the point about the cobalt blue was that after washing the cloth you could easily see that the pigment was completely removed (at least as far as the eye could see; no doubt there were flakes slotted away in various interstices) so that the image was demonstratedly only due to the acidic discolouration of the flax fibres. Had be used red ochre, it would not have been so obvious.

        • January 31, 2015 at 2:59 pm

          Thanks Hugh. You are of course correct.

          As I say, it takes a very close reading to appreciate the nature of the image-forming mechanism, mainly because “artificial ageing” of the linen takes precedence over actual image formation. It’s a posting about blood, so I shan’t labour the point, but here are key sentences:

        • January 31, 2015 at 3:27 pm

          Oops. Let’s try again:

          Thanks Hugh. You are of course correct.

          As I say, it takes a very close reading to appreciate the nature of the image-forming mechanism, mainly because “artificial ageing” of the linen takes precedence over actual image formation. It’s a posting about blood, so I shan’t labour the point, but here are key sentences:

          ” We used a previously aged (3h at 215C) linen cloth for the development (sic)of the image”

          and earlier:

          An absolutely weighed amount of a suitable chemical sensitizer (ed. finally settling on an approx 1% solution of sulphuric acid)can then be added to the neutral pigment (ed. cobalt blue) for precise results.The artificial ageing (sic) that followed consisted of air heating of the linen in an oven for 3h at 140-145 C).

          As I said earlier, I don’t consider that second heating step should be be seen or described as an “ageing” process, given that has already occurred, and at a much higher temperature. It’s more to assist with the evaporation of water from the dilute sulphuric acid to make hot viscous concentrated sulphuric acid – a potent chemical dehydrating agent, one that gently pyrolyses linen carbohydrates, leading to chemical changes and yellowing probably not dissimilar from that obtainable by heating without the acid albeit at a much higher temperature. So there’s a sense in which Luigi’s procedure is in essence a process of scorching, the difference being that he can use a live human volunteer and cold acidified pigment for initial imprinting, and then do the oven-baking of the imprinted linen while the volunteer heads off to the shower.

          If the aim of the exercise in the 14th century was (as I now maintain) to simulate a sweat imprint, then my simple contact scorching off a heated metal template is just an entry-level model, one that is fine for modelling 3D properties but not much else. Luigi’s model is more sophisticated in terms of dual-stage technology, but the end-result – a negative imprint comprising superficially-pyrolysed linen fibres – is essentially the same chemistry, but achievable at a much lower temperature using dil.sulphuric acid as a sensitizer, and substituting (if desired) a real person for a bronze statue.

        • Carlos
          January 31, 2015 at 6:10 pm

          Colin:

          El “quid” del tema, la ESENCIA, es que la Sábana muestra la impronta de un cuerpo humano REAL.

          Todo lo demás, siendo importante e interesante, tiene un valor muy relativo y secundario.

          Por ello, la casi total mayoría de los médicos que la estudian (y me incluyo) tienen la certeza de su AUTENTICIDAD.

          Pero los cuerpos humanos reales NO (negación) dejan esas improntas sobre las “sábanas”……

          Por ello, la casi total mayoría de los médicos que la estudian (y me incluyo) tienen la certeza de su carácter EXCEPCIONAL.

          La sangre, siendo importante, es secundaria en importancia respecto de la impronta de un cuerpo REAL porque existen INFINIDAD de factores que pueden modificar la forma en que se presenta.

          Cualquier teoría de formación de la impronta, incluida la falsificación, tiene que partir de la presencia de un cuerpo humano real.

          Carlos

        • January 31, 2015 at 6:31 pm

          As stated earlier, Carlos, the two-step Garlaschelli technology allows one to imprint off a real human being. You may fault the end-result on this failure to match the TS in every detail, but that’s hardly surprising given our total ignorance of the events that produced the image. Personally I find his paper most enlightening, once the detail is fully grasped (it’s taken me much re-reading to appreciate that his methodology is essentially a localised scorching under pigment imprint, facilitated by a combination of temperature and acid).

          So what is your objection – given that a TS-like image can be produced from a real person, who could have lived in the 14th, not 1stt century? Yes, there’s much fine-tuning needed, and indeed we may never get an exact match, or even hope to. But some of us at least are not attempting to produce a facsimile copy. We are responding to the claim that science is at a loss to explain the TS image, so it has to be the genuine burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, radiocarbon dating notwithstanding.

          Science is not at a loss – it is simply deprived access to the TS, and has to rely on the limited photographic data available and relatively few forensic leads obtained by STURP over a single week 35 years ago.

        • Carlos
          January 31, 2015 at 7:44 pm

          Colin:

          “So what is your objection – given that a TS-like image can be produced from a real person, who could have lived in the 14th, not 1stt century?”

          Hablo de la impronta de un cuerpo humano real que sea ANATÓMICAMENTE CORRECTA, como es la impronta de la TS, y que por lo tanto despierta el interés médico.

          A tamaño REAL la reproducción de Garlaschelli es una CARICATURA anatómica y carece de interés médico.

          Para hacer CARICATURAS anatómicas sirve cualquier procedimiento sin necesitar de un cuerpo humano real………usted o yo podemos hacerlas perfectamente.

          Si la ciencia es capaz de explicar y reproducir una impronta humana anatómicamente correcta por cualquier procedimiento posible en los siglos XIII-XIV, será bienvenida.

          Carlos

        • February 1, 2015 at 1:49 am

          Google translation:

          I mean the mark of a real human body that is anatomically correct, as is the imprint of the TS, and therefore arouses medical interest.

          A REAL size reproduction Garlaschelli is an anatomical CARICATURA and no health concern.

          To make anatomical CARICATURAS serves any procedure without the need of a real human body ……… you or I can do them perfectly.

          If science is able to explain and play an anatomically correct human imprint for any possible method in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, is welcome.

          Sorry, Carlos, but your concept of ‘anatomical correctness’ is simply not on my radar screen. “Anatomical correctness” is too subjective to be of any use where the TS image is concerned, except insofar as one sees the correct number of certain appendages, say, (e.g.hands) but not others (e.g.number of fingers and thumbs on those hands, where the TS image is clearly “incorrect” though not necessarily the subject from which the image was imprinted).

          When I look around at my fellow man, woman and child I see a huge diversity of body types. That’s reflected in the part that is most visible, namely the face, where there is no consistency between obvious ratios like height of forehead relative to width of face, and that’s without considering folk of widely different ethnic origins.

          If you then add to that the uncertainties about image formation – the apparently orthogonal projection of a 3D image onto linen that either requires a kind of radiation unknown to science OR (more probably in my view) a direct-imprinting mechanism, probably assisted by manual moulding of cloth to contours, maybe from a bas relief, at least for the face (see Garlaschelli) then one can quickly find oneself having to abandon any mental yardstick that one previously used to decide upon anatomical correctness v incorrectness.

          It’s like trying to define what’s a proper red or a proper blue. An absorption spectrum
          in the visible light spectrum might serve as an objective standard, assuming a single maximum and no minor peaks or shoulders (rarely the case) but the human eye forms its own judgements – and what one person’s eyes see as “correct” may or may not be exactly the same as another’s.

        • Carlos
          February 1, 2015 at 4:42 am

          Colin:

          Es un debate ABSURDO….y casi llego a entender el por qué Turín carece de interés por mostrar las fotografías y los resultados de los estudios científicos realizados en la restauración.

          Su idea de “anatomical correctness” es totalmente errónea.

          Tengo delante de los ojos la fotografía de “su rostro”, y como lo que veo es “anatomical correctness” puedo tener la certeza de que es la fotografía de un hombre real.

          ¿Veo su oreja izquierda?
          No…..solamente un pequeñísimo “indicio”.

          ¿Veo los dedos de su mano izquierda?
          No…….

          ¿Veo su antebrazo derecho, su abdomen, sus piernas y pies etc, etc, etc?
          No……

          ¿Cree usted que lo que veo en la fotografía de su rostro es INSUFICIENTE para tener la certeza de que es la fotografía de un ser humano real?….la fotografía de Colin Berry.

          Se ven muchísimas más cosas en la impronta de la TS que en la fotografía de “su rostro” (de Colin Berry) y TODO lo que se ve es “anatomical correctness”.

          ¿Carecía de orejas el Hombre de la Sábana, carecía de parte de la cara, carecía de dedos pulgares, etc, etc?
          La impronta no (negación) las ha recogido.

          ¿Eso significa anatómicamente incorrecto?.
          ¡NO!

          Lo que se ve en las reproducciones de Garlaschelli, Nickell, etc es anatómicamente INCORRECTO, lo que se ve en las pinturas, esculturas, bajo-relieves, etc, etc medievales y del gótico temprano, es anatómicamente INCORRECTO.

          Es desafortunado que una cosa tan sencilla de entender no esté (negación) en la pantalla de su radar. Lo siento sinceramente.

          Carlos

        • February 1, 2015 at 5:48 am

          “Absurd debate” you say Carlos? Debate? Methinks you have suddenly descended to ridicule and browbeating. Your emotive rhetoric, which I decline to translate, invites no detailed response.

          If this “debate” is to get back on track, you would need to define precisely what you mean by “anatomically correct”. But I shan’t be holding my breath, given as I say the wide range of variation that exists in human anatomy and the uncertainties re image formation.

          Here’s a passage from Luigi Garlaschelli that I heartily recommend to you and others who deploy that term “anatomical correctness” as though it had talismanic properties:

          “The accuracy of the anatomy of the Man of the Shroud has been debated many times. Some researchers consider it flawless and perfect, others think it looks unnatural. According to Frederick Zugabe it may even show evidence that Jesus suffered from Marfan’s Syndrome, a rare hereditary disease having among its symptoms elongated limbs, long spidery fingers, and a long thin face. Since the image is fuzzy and ruined by burns, it is very doubtful whether accurate anthropometric measurements are possible (for example, in the front image the feet do not even show):thus the question remains unclear.”

          Keep calm and carry on!

        • Carlos
          February 1, 2015 at 1:48 pm

          Colin:

          No (negación) he pretendido molestarle con los
          ejemplos que puse, pretendía que lo entendiera de manera muy fácil. Como le ha molestado le ruego que me disculpe.

          Desconozco el texto de “Did Christ Have Marfan’s Syndrome?” La Sindon”, Turin, Italy, Dec. 1983, Zugibe, F.T., para hacerme una idea de qué escribió Zugibe necesitaría leerlo.

          El título es muy desafortunado y no (negación) conozco médicos que hayan apoyado ese absurdo “diagnóstico”.

          El comentario que hace Garlaschelli sobre el síndrome de Marfan es INCORRECTO por desinformado:

          Los huesos, para ser “sugerentes” de un síndrome de Marfan deben ser EXTREMADAMENTE largos en un individuo MUY ALTO Y DELGADO.

          – elongated limbs:

          Los miembros, brazos y piernas, deben ser EXTREMADAMENTE largos y delgados.

          -long spidery fingers

          -Las manos en el síndrome de Marfan son EXTREMADAMENTE largas, la palma de la mano por alargamiento de los metacarpianos y los dedos por alargamiento de sus “falanges”.

          Los pies también son EXTREMADAMENTE largos y planos en el síndrome de Marfan.

          [ mida usted el conjunto de la mano del Hombre de la TS y no importa que lo haga con EXCESO……. porque si se excede con los dedos se quedará sin metacarpianos]

          – long thin face

          Confundir la “carencia de impronta” con la “delgadez de la cara” es muy desafortunado.

          – Ser altos, delgados y con dedos muy largos es común en grandes pianistas, violinistas, etc, porque la longitud de los dedos les favorece la técnica instrumental.

          Estos instrumentistas no (negación) tienen el síndrome de Marfan, que además de muy importantes trastornos en muchos órganos contempla un “tórax excavado” o un “tórax en quilla”, el pie plano, paladar arqueado y dientes apiñados, dificultad de aprendizaje, columna vertebral curvada hacia un lado (escoliosis)…..cosas algunas o todas que no favorecen el “divismo” musical.

          (igual para multitud de individuos con esas características físicas)

          Se ha dicho por muchos, NECIAMENTE, que el mítico violinista Niccolo Paganini (1782-1840) tenía un síndrome de Marfan.

          Muy alto y muy delgado, y de cara asimismo muy delgada.

          Y digo neciamente porque se conserva el molde de la mano derecha del genial violinista que es de TAMAÑO NORMAL , y su médico personal, Francesco Bennati, publicara en la “Revue de París”:

          “….la mano de Paganini aunque de tamaño normal, tenía una capacidad de extenderse al doble debido a la elasticidad de los ligamentos capsulares de los hombros, de la muñeca y de las falanges y en su mano izquierda que tocaba las cuerdas, tenía una extraordinaria flexibilidad de las primeras articulaciones que le permitían, sin cambiar de posición la mano, moverse en forma lateral sin tensión anormal, haciéndolo con facilidad, precisión y rapidez”.

          Se ha dicho por algunos, NECIAMENTE, que Abraham Lincoln tenía un síndrome de Marfan.

          Se ha dicho por alguno, NECIAMENTE, que el Hombre de la TS podría tener un síndrome de Marfan.

          Carlos

        • Carlos
          February 1, 2015 at 1:50 pm

          Síndrome de Marfan

          Carlos

  19. Kelly Kearse
    January 29, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    Thibault wrote:

    “Were Some Bloodstains Added Later or Maybe Retouched?” is the question.
    If some bloodstains were added or retouched, the “painter” must have used human (or primate) blood. This is also true if the bloodstains were not added or retouched.
    Is it credible ?

    My comments:

    The previous studies show that primate (human) blood components are present. In my opinion, they don’t, however, directly address if blood components from other, even non-primate, species might also exist. Except for one other, which was serendipitous because of the reagents that were used. Rabbit blood can be scratched off the list because of the primary/secondary detection systems in certain experiments. DNA methods might provide a way to evaluate this in one fell swoop, if target gene sequences were chosen that had sufficient variation to distinguish between species.

  20. Carlos
    January 29, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    ¿Manipulación en las manchas de sangre?

    ¿Manipulación en el estudio por el C14?

    Hay que ser coherentes.

    Carlos

  21. daveb of wellington nz
    January 29, 2015 at 10:44 pm

    Pathologists, sainted or not, know what genuine blood stains look like. Anyone who doubts it can’t have read John Mortimer’s “Rumpole of Old Bailey”. And they don’t need the cadavers brought into the court room to assess them or give their evidence. Pictures are enough, even when they’re two thousand years old! Name one pathologist who can match Delage, Vignon, Barbet, Willis, Zugibe, who has studied the TS in the same detail, but who is able to deny the reality and integrity of the blood stains there.

  22. January 30, 2015 at 3:31 am

    I am still waiting to see as a wound in a scalp produces these “gracious rivulets” as in the Shroud.It would be easy to reproduce in a video (you know, photoshop does miracles).
    I’m still waiting to see how some “gracious rivulets” are produced when a cloth is pressed against a wounded scalp as in the Shroud .

    Quotes from “prestigious” forensic or not forensic specialist opinions are not impressive… when they come from devout believers. Remember that some prestigious forensic specialists say they are not possible. I am asking for facts.

    The hypothesis of a retouch is ad hoc. It is trying to avoid the evidence against a natural transfer of blood from the body to a cloth. But the homogeneity of all the blood stains in the shroud refutes it. Making two identical stains that remain identical in the lapse of centuries is impossible. Either the blood and the image of the body are from the first century or they are from the fourteenth century. Another alternative is not possible.

    • Thomas
      January 30, 2015 at 5:50 am

      Unlike many here I am not a Shroud obsessive. I have neither the interest nor time to research it too deeply.
      Hence David Mo I will ask you a favour. Could you please point me in the direction of the research that proves that all the blood stains are homogenous. As opposed to being potentially of different ages and/or composition.

      • Thomas
        January 31, 2015 at 1:27 am

        Still keen to be pointed in the direction of research proving that the bloodstains are homogenous.

  23. Carlos
    January 30, 2015 at 4:17 am

    “Quotes from “prestigious” forensic or not forensic specialist opinions are not impressive… when they come from devout believers”

    ¿Devotos creyentes? (“..devout believers”)

    ¡Tiene un apestoso “olor” a descalificación “ad hominem”!

    ¿Cree David que los expertos tienen que ser ateos cristófobos?

    ¿Quizás solamente ateos?

    ¿Podrían ser los expertos “muy poco” creyentes y “muy poco” devotos?

    ¿Cómo medimos la creencia y la devoción?

    ¡RIDÍCULO! …..además de OFENSIVO!

    Carlos

  24. Kelly Kearse
    January 30, 2015 at 5:22 am

    D Mo wrote:

    “Quotes from “prestigious” forensic or not forensic specialist opinions are not impressive… when they come from devout believers. Remember that some prestigious forensic specialists say they are not possible. I am asking for facts.”

    “The hypothesis of a retouch is ad hoc. It is trying to avoid the evidence against a natural transfer of blood from the body to a cloth. But the homogeneity of all the blood stains in the shroud refutes it. Making two identical stains that remain identical in the lapse of centuries is impossible. Either the blood and the image of the body are from the first century or they are from the fourteenth century. Another alternative is not possible.”

    If opinions are considered invalid because someone is a devout believer, does the same hold for those who are devout agnostics or atheists? Or are they agenda exempt? For the Christian, if the Shroud were shown to be non-authentic, there is much more to their faith (one would hope) than the cloth. For the agnostic or atheist, if the Shroud were “proven” authentic, where does one go then? One could argue the non-believer might be more subject to bias, because it simply must be an impossibility. There is no fall back.

    I don’t think any opinion should be disqualified just because someone is a devout believer or a devout non-believer-the fervor can and does go both ways.

    Retouch doesn’t have to be an overhaul and the 1st and 14th centuries could meet. There are possibilities where there could have been a touch before a re.

  25. daveb of wellington nz
    January 30, 2015 at 5:34 am

    DM: “I’m still waiting to see how some “gracious rivulets” are produced when a cloth is pressed against a wounded scalp as in the Shroud .”

    There is an obvious response to David Mo’s query. He could grow his hair to a sufficient length, fabricate a cap of thorns for himself and jab it firmly on his head with a few hard blows. He might then observe at his own leisure what gracious rivulets might form and make his comparison. Alternatively, if he finds himself insufficiently hirsute, he might find a willing volunteer subject for the experiment.

    Fortunately, to save himself the trouble, there is a less traumatic solution available. It seems that the Sudarium of Oviedo has an identical pattern of scalp blood flows. And it is known that the Sudarium dates well back into the first millenium. He has already conceded “Making two identical stains that remain identical in the lapse of centuries is impossible.” So that is an interesting commentary on the dating of the Shroud!

    • Thomas
      January 30, 2015 at 5:54 am

      I think skepticism around the head wounds is justified. Surely a crown of thorns digging into the scalp under the hair would not create the kind of rivulets we see on the surface of the hair on the shroud.

      • Thomas
        January 30, 2015 at 5:57 am

        I guess I will get the standard “but this expert said that…”. Are experts ever wrong? In my experience – yes, quite often!

        • PHPL
          January 30, 2015 at 6:59 am

          Experts are sometimes biased. One can often observe this in justice courts where evaluations and tests are biased by the side that retains them.
          Reports are influenced, sometimes heavily, by the pay check.

          In the shroud’s case it’s not only financial , but also (strong) religious bias. Some see what their fantasies want them to see.

          Carbon 14 test is not biased and doesn’t give a damn about your opinion or about apocalypse .

        • January 30, 2015 at 7:13 am

          Speaking of which (bias and radiocarbon dating): if the sample site selected was so ill-chosen, prompting terms like “radiocarbon fiasco” etc, implying it was the labs’ fault, then why did those “of faith” not say so at the time?

          In passing: John Klotz above has me and David Mo confused. While we have some views in common, we are not clones.

          If there’s a God, then He moves in mysterious ways, like sending us a present (the TS) that did not date to AD 33,+/-100 despite the sampling being carried out in a Turin cathedral with Church folk officiating.

  26. January 30, 2015 at 5:46 am

    Kelly,

    You just saved me a great deal of distraction and effort to draft a reply. Colin having claim that pious pathologists should be doubted because of their piety put his own beliefs on the table. Does his world view have room for the reality of the Resurrection? If not he is not a skeptic seeking truth but an agnostic-atheist seeking to justify his world view.

    Or should we accept a scientific opinion by a pathologist because he has the integrity of his profession and years of experience in examining dead bodies and reaching scientific conclusions.(See e.g. Bucklin)

    It’s not the the Resurrection is a sine qua non for expressing an opinion. But if a skeptic can not deal with the authenticity of the Shroud, his or her opinion must also be suspect by Colin’s standard.

  27. Max patrick Hamon
    January 30, 2015 at 7:44 am

    Reminders for David Mo:

    The Turin Shroud bloodied body image implies at least TWO (slightly) different configurations of the long burial cloth in close conjunction with the corpse, not just one from beginning to end as far as the bloody body formation process is concerned (the two slightly different configurations sort of operated a geometric distorsion in the resulting superimposition of the blood decals and body images)

    The TS man’s face show many an image deficit implying air gaps and/or presence of screening objects. 3D images can give you a fairly good idea of the way prominent crease marks at headtop and chin level did fit the TS man’s head and imply the latter was bound and compressed as the (then watery solution in-soaked) shroud, literally do appear molded around his head, front (and back). Partial extreme compression of the face could account for the very faint partial “second blood image of the head” found by Fanti at the back of the cloth.

    Most likely the TS man’s dried blood-heavy perspiration-dust-stiffened long hair side strands were hard like cardboard when the long Shroud was first tautly pulled up over the head lengthwise and then a smaller shroud (a face cloth or veil) was tightly wrapped up around widthwise along with a skull cap on top of it all to tightly close the long burial upper end.

    Thus most likely the corpse was tightly wrapped up in linen shroudS. Then it was placed in extra height –first on the right side then on the left side– to be subjected to a myrrhic-aloetic fumigation to dry out. In the process the long inner body shroud (aka the TS) got sort of taut again through shrinking, which account for some of the resulting blood marks (resulting from thorn punctures of the temple and forehead) seen on the face and hair to have been originally on the cheek (geometric distortion most likely due to shrinking up while getting sort of taut at one and the same time at face level). This tends to prove the blood decals came first, the body image second.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 30, 2015 at 8:36 am

      Additional reminder

      On June 9, 2013 at 5:47 pm, I wrote:

      “(…) there are more than mere orthogonal properties involved in theTS image. There are also slight shifts and displacements recorded:
      – at face level (most likely due to the presence of a small ‘jawbox’ consisting in two wooden pieces placed underneath on each side of the head and a shorter one on top under the chin and used in conjunction with a small face cloth (now kept in Manppello) and a skull cap (now kept in Cahors) on top of the TS so as to tightly shut the long burial sheet at head level). Most likely the three wooden pieces were sawn off the titulus damnationis).
      Reminder: As early as the 4th centry, the TD is described as a relic divided into three pieces (one in Rome, one in Jerusalem and one in Constantinople) (…).

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 30, 2015 at 8:39 am

      Typo: to have been originally on the face, temples, cheeks and beard.

  28. Max patrick Hamon
    January 30, 2015 at 9:03 am

    On December 9, 2014 at 9:11 am and 10:00 am, I wrote:

    “The vertically panoramic image of the space under the TS man’s chin image (with beard compressed) that misleadingly look like the latter’s neck (is currently missed by most shroudie and anti-authenticists)”.

    According to Lavoie’s reconstruction, the blood marks seen on the hair of the frontal image of the Shroud of Turin were originally on his face (forehead, temples, cheeks and beard) not in his hair as they now appear to be in the image. (…) Lavoie (who) is no forensic archeologist could have missed a few cryptic data (such as): possible presence of objects framing the TS man’s head (e.g. small “jaw-box” made of three short wooden pieces + headband tight at top of head level in order to keep his mouth closed), long hair side strands pasted with dust , dried blood and sweat, as hard as cardboard and ‘frozen’ at head-tilted-forward position).”

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 30, 2015 at 9:42 am

      On June 9, 2013 at 6:53 pm, I also wrote:
      “Anyone observing the TS man’s face will (at first and maybe even second and third sight) see an ‘almost’ normal nose.However a very close examination of the face in terms of geometrical projection made from a life-size photograph tells us ‘a quite different story’:
      To the sole exception of the bony areas of the eye-sockets and nasal septum, all the rest of the face shows irregular features and displacements.

      Reminder: Once carefully overlaid (at scale 1 :1), the two holy faces (Manoppello Veil and Turin Shroud) do reveal the face of a man with a ‘skewed nose’. This is confirmed by Byzantine numismatics in nearly a dozen of extant gold coin obverses featuring a ‘Shroud-Veil-like’ Christ Pantocrator, THierry Castex’s and Oskar K.’s 3D reconstructions of the TS face.

      Link at: https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/image_thumb37.png?w=604&h=742

    • Max patrick Hamon
      January 30, 2015 at 11:37 am

      Typo: tied at top-of-head level

  29. Max patrick Hamon
    January 30, 2015 at 9:52 am

    Still re TS forensics:

    On August 10, 2013 at 5:03 am, I also wrote:

    “Re the nose issue, the latter is an issue within the ‘Skewed nose’ issue. Is the nose just swollen, just deviated, just swollen and deviated or swollen, deviated and really broken?
    On October 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm (#3 Reply), I wrote as an Addendum:
    “(…) Forensically speaking, a slight deviation of the fleshy tip of the TS man’s nose was detected. This obsevation was done in the 1970s, that is WELL BEFORE the Manopello Veil face was scientifically examined.Now Iconographically speaking, the same feature happens to be ALSO detectable on the MV face.
    In the mortuary/morgue, corpses with “skewed/deviated nose tip” are a well known fact. It is mainly due to excessive pressure exerted on the defuncted’s face as the corpse had remained tightly zipped up into a body bag. This is additional evidence the TS man was tightly wrapped up in his burial shrouds.
    All the forensic pieces of evidence as far as the Ts face is concerned shall be REvisited both in se and in the light of artistic interpretations of the Christ face iconography.”

  30. nag
    January 30, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    Mark 14:1-9 says it was 2 days before Passover when they were seeking a way to arrest Jesus. Then it says he was in Bethany reclining at table when a woman poured [not sprinkled] some of the costly genuine spikenard perfumed oil onto his head. In Matthew 26:12 Jesus says “In pouring this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.” In John 12:7 he says “Let her keep this for the day of my burial.” Luke 22:44 says He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground. The oil and the blood and sweat must have been mixed on his skin.

  31. January 31, 2015 at 4:24 am

    A colleague in this forum has intended to silence the/my critical opinions with an argument of authority based on the opinions of some “prestigious” physicians. Arguments of authority are usually weak and are very weak when referred to fervent supporters of a particular belief. There are a lot of cases of biased fervent opinions even stated by “prestigious” personalities.

    When the opinions of “prestigious” fervent believers are stated I ever ask for reasons or facts. This doesn’t mean any kind of disdain to anybody but an elementary preventive measure. And I am absolutely sure that the believers would do the same in front of opinions of “prestigious” passionate sceptics.

    I have two additional reasons to ask for evidence and not opinions, if this is needed.

    The opinion of these “prestigious” physicians about blood stains is counteracted by the opinions of other “prestigious” physicians, either independent or not.

    The opinion or these “prestigious” physicians is refuted by personal experience of wounds and the pictures of blood trickles (two of them resented in this forum).

    Therefore I ask for evidence and suggest an easy experiment that could persuade me. I’m sorry if I don’t do it, Daveb. I am very busy with other works and the burden of proof is not mine.

    • Thomas
      January 31, 2015 at 4:55 am

      I would still like to know the basis for your earlier claim that the blood wounds are homogeneous. From you or anyone else. Continued silence means the evidence isn’t there?

      • February 1, 2015 at 2:55 am

        Thomas:

        Do you know any study of the blood of the shroud that speaks of heterogeneous results? I don’t know.

        In addition, different materials age in different ways. A retouch after centuries with the same appearance than the original is almost impossible.

        • Thomas
          February 2, 2015 at 1:40 am

          Most of the blood wounds look quite similar, I agree. Doesn’t prove they are homogeneous though.
          The blood across the lower back still puzzles me…
          makes little sense as an “embellishment”…I’ve tried my best to keep an open mind and see it as an embellishment, but still struggle to see why someone would do that…

        • February 2, 2015 at 3:30 am

          Could this be the answer to your question, Thomas.

          “The Flagellation of Christ” by the Master of Okolicsno, 1514

          Most paintings of the same genre and period show the wrists bound and held high above the head. Opting for that particular choice of restraint could have had more to do with artistic convenience, allowing for the front of the victim to be a direct target, and not merely marked as a consequence of a ‘flick-around’ of the tips from a flagrum applied to the back only.

          See also the Lirey pilgrim’s badge showing the coiled structure on the dorsal side, the one that Ian Wilson described as a “blood belt”.

          Maybe “blood imprint of chain links” as a carry-over from the flagellation might be a better description of what we see on the dorsal TS, maybe somewhat stylized, depending one one’s position re authenticity (?).

        • Thomas
          February 2, 2015 at 4:19 am

          good thought Colin….although why does the blood go well out to the sides….but putting that curiosity to one side I think you’ve got a good explanation there

        • February 2, 2015 at 5:01 am

          The coiled structure on the Lirey badge certainly extends out onto the linen on both sides, Thomas, making it seem more like a real rope or maybe chain than the secondary imprint left by either of those. That’s not to say that’s any more or less authoritative than Wilson’s ‘blood belt’ description, or the one here (‘chain imprint’). It may simply be the way the badge maker chose to represent unclear features of the Shroud that even he did not fully understand, and that’s before the added complication of the 1532 fire (see below).

          Here’s another thought, maybe out of the box. That Hungarian picture in my previous comment was painted 18 years before the Chambery fire. Maybe the artist had seen the TS, or been given a reasonably accurate description. Maybe the “chain” on the pre-fire TS was seen to be definitely confined to the body image only, not extending sideways. Maybe what we see today as ‘chain’ extending out onto the linen, erroneously reinforced by the Lirey representation, is just a false impression created by fire damage, water stain or a combination of the two.

          Maybe Leonardo da Vinci took a good photograph of the TS prior to the fire. Has anyone checked his archives thoroughly? ;-)

  32. January 31, 2015 at 5:20 am

    Thomas:

    I think skepticism around the head wounds is justified. Surely a crown of thorns digging into the scalp under the hair would not create the kind of rivulets we see on the surface of the hair on the shroud.

    Surely? Surely it has has made physicians very impressed by the accuracy of those wounds, allowing them to make very detailed descriptions of injuries suffered by Shroud Man.

    The article of Sebastiono Rodante on this topic is a must read:

    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi01part5.pdf

    Some interesting quotes:

    “It is necessary to differentiate between puncture wounds caused by a thorn which was implanted in a blood vessel of the head and afterwards removed; and a wound from a thorn injuring a vessel and remaining in situ for a certain period of time. In the first case, there is the issue of blood (arterial or venous, according to the type of vessel injured) until, by the coagulative process at the point of the injury (inside the vessel and in its walls, as well as in the injured cutaneous capillaries)—until a clot forms and therefore the bleeding toward the exterior ceases. In a healthy organism, in which the coagulative factors are normal, this process takes place in a few minutes. Instead, in the Crucified of the Shroud, the crown of thorns must have remained implanted on the head for a certain period of time, either before the crucifixion or during the hours in which he remained on the cross right up until death. In this case, each thorn remaining in situ blocked the issue of blood onto the skin to some extent, depending on the calibre of the perforated vessel. But the spasms of the forehead muscle, contracting because of the pain provoked by the injurystimulus on the sensitive nerve-endings and making the infixed thorn move, kept the thornwound open. If the injured vessel was a vein, there was a determination of blood in a slow and continuous flow, helped in its course by the movements of the wrinkling forehead. However, the perforation of an artery of a certain calibre (such as the frontal branch of the R superficial temple artery), by its own arterial pulsation caused movement at the point of perforation.”

    I would still like to know the basis for your earlier claim that the blood wounds are homogeneous. From you or anyone else. Continued silence means the evidence isn’t there?

    A contrario, can you give us evidence that those wounds are homogenous? If so, which ones?

    David Mo:

    The opinion of these “prestigious” physicians about blood stains is counteracted by the opinions of other “prestigious” physicians, either independent or not.

    The opinion or these “prestigious” physicians is refuted by personal experience of wounds and the pictures of blood trickles (two of them resented in this forum).

    Therefore I ask for evidence and suggest an easy experiment that could persuade me. I’m sorry if I don’t do it, Daveb. I am very busy with other works and the burden of proof is not mine.

    Yeah David Mo. Barbet, Ricci, Caval, Rodante and others (supporting the authenticity) are wrong, and only Baden (opposing authenticity) must be right.

    You asked for evidence. You have been provided with it. Nevertheless you reject it. It’s only your bias.

    • February 1, 2015 at 3:04 am

      O.K.

      Your reply has nothing to do with our problem and my request. This is to say: Blood never runs by forming “gracious rivulets” on the hair (neither, by no menas, when transferred by pressing on a cloth) . If you think this is possible, show it, please.

      • February 1, 2015 at 4:31 am

        Your reply has nothing to do with our problem and my request. This is to say: Blood never runs by forming “gracious rivulets” on the hair (neither, by no menas, when transferred by pressing on a cloth) . If you think this is possible, show it, please.

        I have already:

        https://shroudstory.com/2015/01/04/unique-blood-marks-explained/

        See my comment from January 10, 2015 at 9:26 am

        And also see another article by Rodante to see that the transfer of blood into cloth is possible in proper conditions:

        http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi07part6.pdf

  33. January 31, 2015 at 10:19 am

    Use CON+++ etc if you cannot read what’s below. It’s an enlarged screen shot of this site’s comment entry box.

  34. Thomas
    February 2, 2015 at 4:50 am

    Off topic but just to say I was sad to read just now of Marcus Borg’s passing a week or two ago. A theologian I really respect, a very good example in my opinion of a true Christian as well as a deep thinker. RIP

    • daveb of wellington nz
      February 2, 2015 at 5:11 am

      Marcus Borg was a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a fellow traveller of John Dominic Crossan, neither of whose views are consonant with the resurrection, nor of orthodoxy. Nevertheless Borg was apparently on friendly terms with a more gifted scholar N T Wright despite their considerable religious differences.

      • Thomas
        February 2, 2015 at 6:13 am

        Well I think Borg was at the more “orthodox” end of the Jesus Seminar. Borg and Wright had more in common, in the end, than in difference. I’ve got a great book of them in dialogue

  35. daveb of wellington nz
    February 2, 2015 at 5:02 am

    Paper. Frascati Conference May 2010 by Jose Luis Fernandez Sanchez, makes some comparisons between Oviedo Sudarium and Turin Shroud. Paper seems to adopt a very cautious approach, is consequential to various investigations of sudarium (Ricci ~1960s, Spanish Sindonology from 1989 into 1990s, and included some by author 1984, and other subsequent work), and proposes a number of further investigations. Various assertions are made concerning stains before and after death, position of body at various times relative to death, various pollen studies, carbon dated to around 700 AD (sudarium is heavily contaminated). A & M Whanger applying polarized image overlay technique, Sudarium/Shroud have apparently asserted they found 70 points of coincidence for frontal stains, and 50 points for the rear. Sanchez asserts that validation of these results is required to confirm them.

    I suggest that David Mo’s queries might be answered by further investigations as proposed by Sanchez. Meantime such a closed mind on the issue does not seem to be an appropriate perspective, in the light of the investigations so far to date.

    • February 2, 2015 at 6:53 am

      Exactly DaveB, exactly. The Shroud is a central but only one piece of the puzzle.

    • February 2, 2015 at 7:09 am

      III CONGRESSO INTERNAZIONALE DI STUDI SULLA SINDONE
      TURIN, 5TH TO 7TH JUNE 1998

      COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SUDARIUM OF OVIEDO AND THE SHROUD OF TURIN

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

      Quote from pg. 13:

      We could ask the following question – what is the probability that two sets of stains formed at random, at different times by different bodies, could correspond to such an extent on flat surface? Although we do not have the answer to this question yet, it is clear that the probability is very small. If we add to this the physical (time involved and formation mechanisms of the stains) and historical conditions, we are left with only one possible answer – everything seems to indicate that both cloths wrapped the same body and this body was that of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew crucified in Jerusalem under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate on 3rd April 33 (or 7th April 30) at midday, local time, in the place called Golgotha

  36. February 2, 2015 at 5:47 am

    Here’s another representation of the scourging which also shows a chain being used as restraint that is around the midriff – as well as wrist.

    Can anyone explain what the fellow is doing with those pincers?

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 2, 2015 at 8:25 am

      Here Christ is not chain bound but ROPE bound. The alleged “Chain” Colin “thinks he see” is a pareidolia due low résolution.
      Link at: http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/87171/87171,1327452122,1/stock-photo-golden-bas-relief-of-the-old-basilica-of-fatima-representing-one-of-the-fourteen-mysteries-of-the-93520321.jpg

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 2, 2015 at 8:34 am

        Re the Turin Shroud inconography, oftentimes Colin is a victim of pareidolias e.g. when he tried to describe the Hungarian Pray Ms fol 28 upper & lower sections and the Lirey Badge of pilgrimage.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 2, 2015 at 8:52 am

        The Hungarian Master of Okolicsno (Flagellation of Christ, 1514 CE) interpreted the “blood belt” as “a chain”, the old Basilica of Fatime artist as “a rope”.
        Reminder for Colin: the TS image ventral and dorsal blood decals in head-to-head discontinuity can “work” as an oversized Rorschach test.

      • Max patrick Hamon
      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 2, 2015 at 10:25 am

        The pair of pliers can read as the stylized monogram “ST” for S(udário de) T(urim).

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 10:45 am

          Or: O S(udário de) T(urim), “The Turin Shroud”.

        • February 2, 2015 at 10:47 am

          Ingenious, and possibly even correct Max, if as you maintain the bronze is 20th century.

          Given that I can think of no other obvious explanation for pincers/pliars being used at that low level just above the feet, yours seems a highly credible explanation.

          Can anyone else think of reasons why that hardware should be shown in a 20th century representation of the flagellation (as distinct from the subsequent crucifixion where that pinching/gripping hardware is often shown, even in the 1357(?) Lirey badge, presumably to remove crucifixion nails, though one has to look hard to see it)?

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 2, 2015 at 11:10 am

        Too bad oftentimes Colin’s and Charles’ thinking are mere wishful thinking.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 2, 2015 at 10:16 am

      The bas-relief in bronze is a work by mid century XX of the artist Martinho de Brito. It was later gilded by Alberto Barbosa.

  37. Kelly Kearse
    February 2, 2015 at 6:40 am

    CB wrote: “Can anyone explain what the fellow is doing with those pincers?”

    Peeling off paint

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 2, 2015 at 9:05 am

      Re the image of a pair of pliers (“pincers”): at the end of the 1990s CE Alan Whanger thought he detected the ghost image of a pair of pliers at the same level and with almost the same orientation on the TS .

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 2, 2015 at 9:07 am

        typo: at almost the same level.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 9:09 am

          See his book: “The Shroud of Turin, An Adventure of Discovery”, Providence House Publisher, 1998, p. 99.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 9:10 am

          Foot level instead of knee level.

  38. piero
    February 2, 2015 at 10:58 am

    A new “bilirubin nonsense”???

    Bilirubin is produced (via red cell destruction and heme protein catabolism) from biliverdin (= dehydrobilirubin).

    >Bilirubin is very similar to the pigment phycobilin used by certain algae to capture light energy, and to the pigment phytochrome used by plants to sense light. All of these contain an open chain of four pyrrolic rings.
    >Like these other pigments, some of the double-bonds in bilirubin isomerize when exposed to light. This is used in the phototherapy of jaundiced newborns…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilirubin
    — — —
    The yellow coloration of urine results from urobilin (or urochrome)
    that is produced as a product of bilirubin degradation.
    — —

    First remark:
    Now I don’t know if it was exact the rough estimation done by OK (on January 29 at 2:32 pm
    See also: the vague answer [on this subject] by Colin, who evoked pH, protein-binding,
    light, oxygenation or not, etc….)…
    But taking into account the rough value of 20 years of exposure,
    we can try to show what happened
    (and also: we can try to identify the inherent compounds!).

    Second remark:
    The CFM (= Chemical Force Microscopy) can be the non-destructive solution
    for identification problems about the compounds deriving from bilirubin degradation.

    Problem to solve connected to the exact timescales for bilirubin degradation:
    What is the feasible way (= simulation) about ageing process ?
    In other words:
    Which kind of cycles for bilirubin samples exposure ?

    For example:
    2000 years => basic ratio : 2000 / 20 = 100
    So…
    99 years +1 of exposure
    or
    49.05 years + 0.5 year of exposure

    … etc.
    Another simple question:
    What kind of apparel to choose?

    – Xenotest
    – Fadeometer
    – Suntest
    – or Hg lamp?
    – … or what ?

    But the verdict by Colin (January 31 at 2:11)
    vanish all these questions.
    He saw are irrelevant due to the fact of the instability of bilirubin and Oxygen action.
    Then the previous questions are rejected.
    I believe this can be an interesting example of false problems.

    But, reading Adler (…These tested as blood derived residues giving positive test for the presence
    of protein, hemin, bilirubin… Source = “Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Blood Stains”, Turin, 2000), I have some residual doubts…

    So…
    Not being a biologist (see also: how to show true effects of aging on bilirubin) I try to ask:
    Are we sure of that verdict?

    — — —
    Past references:

    The Orphaned Manuscript and the Color of Blood, Blog by Dan = June 1, 2013
    First reference = from the article “The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud”, which Adler wrote in 1986
    Second reference= the article “Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Blood Stains”, which Adler wrote much later, in 2000 (just before his death).

    Here the message sent by Yannick on this blog in the past (October 14, 2012 at 6:40 pm):
    >To conclude on the question of the bilirubin level on the Sudarium, I just want to ask again the help of anyone who will read this in order to finally find the correct answer about that ! So, if someone know something about the bilirubin level that was found in the blood of the Sudarium, please, tell us the truth !!!! THANKS !
    -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
    Unfortunately there is not the word “bilirubin” in the St. Louis Conference Paper:
    “New Discoveries on the Sudarium of Oviedo” by César Barta, Rodrigo Álvarez, Almudena Ordóñez), Alfonso Sánchez and Jesús García
    Instead in the St. Louis Conference Paper:
    A Critical (Re)evaluation of the Shroud of Turin Blood Data:
    Strength of Evidence in the Characterization of the Bloodstains
    presented by Kelly P. Kearse, Ph.D.
    bilirubin was indicated only two times.

    Now I ask:
    Is it improved our level of knowledge about bilirubin (= on Turin Shroud and on Sudarium of Oviedo)?
    I have read that:
    >Unconjugated bilirubin is not very soluble in water
    And see also, for example, the following definition:
    >Hematoidin = A ironless pigment derived from hemoglobin and formed within tissues, chemically similar to bilirubin. Hematoidin is a a hematogenous pigment apparently chemically identical with bilirubin but formed in the tissues from hemoglobin, particularly under conditions of reduced oxygen tension.

    Here another definition:
    >Hematoidin is a pigment derived from hemoglobin that contains no iron but is closely related to or identical to bilirubin. Hematoidin is formed intracellularly, presumably within reticuloendothelial cells, but is often found extracellularly after 5-7 days in foci of previous hemorrhage. It occurs as refractile, yellow-brown and orange-red granules, but more characteristically as rhomboid plates arranged in a radial pattern, so-called hematoidin burrs.

    -*-*-*-*-*-*-
    The photodecomposition of bilirubin and other bile pigments.
    C H Gray
    C H GRAY
    A. Kulczycka
    D C Nicholson
    Journal of the Chemical Society. Perkin Transactions 1 (Impact Factor: 1.95). 02/1972; 3:288-94. DOI: 10.1039/P19720000288

    Source: PubMed

    Abstract
    >The photodecomposition of bilirubin in chloroform was studied by spectrophotometry and chromatography. A fraction of the pigment decomposed with retention of the tetrapyrrolic structure, giving biliverdin, chrysin, and choletelin. The rest of the bilirubin decomposed to propentdyopents, imides, a pyrrolic acid, and simple aliphatic acids. Verdins, mesobiliviolin, and i-urobilin treated similarly retained the tetrapyrrolic structure for a longer time.

    Link:
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/18102406_The_photodecomposition_of_bilirubin_and_other_bile_pigments

    — —
    Vague informations:
    Dipyrroles are sometimes called half-bilirubin or semi-rubin. These compounds have many similar properties to the linear tetrapyrroles. For example, they are potent antioxidants and inhibitors for many enzymes…

    See also:
    Semirubin = A Novel Dipyrrinone Strapped by Intramolecular Hydrogen Bonds…
    link
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo000393k?journalCode=joceah
    — —
    >…a new dipyrrinone model for one-half of bilirubin, the yellow-orange neurotoxic pigment of jaundice, was synthesized following Friedel-Crafts acylation…

    “Semirubin. A Novel Dipyrrinone Strapped by Intramolecularly Hydrogen Bonds”, Huggins, M.
    T.; Lightner, D. A. J. Org. Chem., 2000, 65, 6001-6008.

    link:
    http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/10987933/Semirubin__A_novel_dipyrrinone_strapped_by_intramolecular_hydrogen_bonds_

    J. Org Chem. 1998 Apr 17;63(8):2665-2675.
    Hemirubin: An Intramolecularly Hydrogen-Bonded Analogue for One-Half Bilirubin.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11672135

    Read
    “A C-H … O=C Hydrogen Bond? Intramolecular Hydrogen Bonding in a Novel Semirubin.”
    Huggins, M. T.; Lightner, D. A. J. Org. Chem., 2001, 66, 8402-8410.
    or
    try under:

    Carboxylic acid to amide hydrogen bonding. 10-Oxo-semirubins
    by
    Salzameda, N.T. Huggins, M.T. Lightner, D.A.
    2006 Tetrahedron
    — — — —
    Please excuse me…
    But, unfortunately, I have not yet
    found other useful references!

    • February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am

      If you would care to compose a simple question (or structured series of questions) re bilirubin, I’ll try to answer it to the best of my ability, piero, my having researched and published on model systems for phototherapy of neonatal jaundice way back in the early 1970s.

      Kindly try to focus on specifics.

      • piero
        February 3, 2015 at 9:16 am

        I completely agree with you about the need to focus on one point.
        So the problem to be answered is represented here with the following question:
        – “What decomposition products may give the degradation of bilirubin?”

        There is something under the article:
        “Bilirubin Photooxidation Products in the Urine of
        Jaundiced Neonates Receiving Phototherapy”
        Pediatric Research
        Copyright © 1984 International Pediatric Research Foundation, Inc.

        Summary
        >Bilirubin-IXa photooxidation products were detected by high
        performance liquid chromatography in the urine of neonates
        undergoing phototherapy for hyperbilirubinemia. The in vivo
        photoproducts were identified by chromatographic comparison with authentic synthetic standards using two complementary methods.
        >Bilirubin photooxidation products were not detected in
        urine from jaundiced infants not receiving phototherapy. The
        specific photoproducts identified in the urine include propentdyopents, hematinic acid imide and its hydrolysis product (3-carboxy-2-methyl-2-hexenedioic acid), and the hydrolysis product (2-vinyl-3-methyl-maleic acid) of methylvinylmaleimide.
        >Their total urinary concentrations were low (0.2-0.9 mg/dl) during phototherapy. These observations show that photooxidation of bilirubin clearly does occur during phototherapy. They are consistent with the view that, although photooxidation is not the major photochemical event associated with phototherapy, it can and clearly does occur concurrently with photoisomerization.

        Link:
        http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v18/n8/pdf/pr19842055a.pdf?origin=publication_detail

        — — —
        Another question:
        Is it possible associate hematohydrosis with a variation of bilirubin?

        Unfortunately I have not found the answer for that, instead I have read (other) few medical lines about bilirubin taken from:
        “Conjugated Hyperbilirubinemia”
        Author: Richard A Weisiger, MD, PhD;
        Chief Editor: BS Anand, MD

        >Because bilirubin is highly insoluble in water, it must be converted into a soluble conjugate before elimination from the body. In the liver, uridine diphosphate (UDP)-glucuronyl transferase converts bilirubin to a mixture of monoglucuronides and diglucuronides, referred to as conjugated bilirubin, which is then secreted into the bile by an ATP-dependent transporter. This process is highly efficient under normal conditions, so plasma unconjugated bilirubin concentrations remain low.

        >A large number of disease states lead to bilirubin accumulation in plasma. Diseases that increase the rate of bilirubin formation, such as hemolysis, or diseases that reduce the rate of bilirubin conjugation, such as Gilbert syndrome, produce unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia.

        Link:
        http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/178757-overview
        — — —
        If we want to follow Max Patrick Hamon and
        his particular idea connected with “ancient Judean ritual in the shape of fumigation/burning aromatic woods/spices (= 2 Chronicles 16:14 – 21:19 Targum)” then the last problem to solve can be the following:

        – “What is the changing of the color of a blood stain after fumigation?”
        I have not yet found an answer about that question…

        • piero
          February 3, 2015 at 9:18 am

          I was a bit defocused because I have reread the entire past discussion (on bilirubin):
          “Blood Clotting and the Strange Case of Brother Hirudo”
          April 4, 2013
          — —
          I beg your pardon…

        • February 3, 2015 at 9:46 am

          Sorry, piero, try hard as I may, I do not understand your first question:

          “What decomposition products may give the degradation of bilirubin?”

          Bilirubin is converted by light and oxygen to decomposition products. It’s another way of saying that bilirubin is chemically unstable and does not store well.

          Neither do I understand what bilirubin photooxidation or photoisomerism has to do with the crucial issue here, namely Adler’s claims re bilirubin being responsible for the allegedly permanent bright red colour of TS blood.

          Adler’s claims are refuted by his own later acknowledgement that bilirubin is photosensitive, being converted, as we’ve said, by light and oxygen to water-soluble degradation products.

          That’s the only part of your focus on bilirubin that is relevant – namely the fact that it can’t possibly function as Adler initially claimed as a ‘preservative’ for blood. It’s bilirubin itself that needs preservative!

          In fact bilirubin will last indefinitely if protected from light and oxygen, which is hardly the case for a centuries old artefact that was periodically brought out its reliquary for display. Of course, the TS is now protected by an argon atmosphere, but any bilirubin that was in the original bloodstains would have degraded rapidly, for the same reason that prematurely-born jaundiced infants with unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia, gradually lose their yellow skin coloration when placed under bright visible white light (avoiding brain damage, i.e. kernicterus). It’s the 450nm blue component that is most effective in photodegradation of bilirubin in vitro, and similarly in phototherapy in vivog.

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER
        February 3, 2015 at 4:17 pm

        Dear Colin,

        About bilirubin.

        You wrote: “Bilirubin is converted by light and oxygen to decomposition products. It’s another way of saying that bilirubin is chemically unstable and does not store well.”

        You are beyond any doubt an expert in bilirubin.

        Bilirubin is highly unstable (I have no doubt).

        Assuming a bloodstain on linen cloth containing a “high level” of unconjugated bilirubin, this bilirubin will be quickly transformed into “decomposition products”.

        My questions:
        – What are these products ?
        – Are these products stable ?
        – What is the color of these products ?
        – Do you think that these products could nevertheless give positive tests for “bilirubin” (the tests used by Adler and Heller) ?
        – what do you mean by “… and does not store well.”

        In other words, can you please explain us why the yellow-green fibers, shards etc. found by Heller and Adler in the blood and serum areas have nothing to do with bilirubin decomposition products?

        Incidentally, you wrote: ” Adler’s claims are refuted by his own later acknowledgement that bilirubin is photosensitive, being converted, as we’ve said, by light and oxygen to water-soluble degradation products.”
        Do you have the link or the reference?

        Thank you.

        • February 3, 2015 at 5:04 pm

          Good evening to you TH.

          What are these products ?
          – Are these products stable ?

          The final end products of bilirubin photodecomposition are dipyrroles (propentdyopents.)

          or monopyrroles (e.g. methylvinylmaleimide). Stability is a relative term, but these are certainly stable relative to the parent tetrapyrroles, bilirubin especially.

          But there are intermediate products that are less extensively degraded. There’s the isomeric bilirubins with cis-trans transformations involving the vinyl side chain. There are the dioxetanes formed by addition of singlet oxygen across the conjugated double bond systems, and the dihydroxyl derivatives (rhodins etc) that Don Ostrow, John Zarembo and I identified and reported in 1972.

          – What is the color of these products ?

          Dipyrroles and mono pyrroles are generally yellow or colourless. Intact oxidised tetrapyrroles and tripyrroles can be green, red, purple or yellow!

          – Do you think that these products could nevertheless give positive tests for “bilirubin” (the tests used by Adler and Heller)?

          No. It’s the central CH2 bridge of bilirubin that separates the two dipyrrole halves of the molecule that confers the chemical reactivity that enables it to form purple or red products in the Van den Berg reaction with diazotized sulphanilic acid.

          That central CH2 group is generally the first thing to go when bilirubin is photoxidized, resulting in rapid loss in diazo-reactivity.

          what do you mean by “… and does not store well.”

          One would find progressively less “bilirubin” if one stored the pigment without proper protection from light and oxygen. One could monitor the oxidation by loss of diazo-reactivity, or by watching the loss of the high Rf orange spot on thin layer chromatography.

          In other words, can you please explain us why the yellow-green fibers, shards etc. found by Heller and Adler in the blood and serum areas have nothing to do with bilirubin decomposition products?

          Remind me please. Did Heller and Adler identify those yellow-green fibres as being biliverdin or bilirubin photoproducts? If so, what did they deduce from that as regards parent bilirubin, which I say could not possibly have been present after so many centuries exposure to light and oxygen.

          Incidentally, you wrote: ” Adler’s claims are refuted by his own later acknowledgement that bilirubin is photosensitive, being converted, as we’ve said, by light and oxygen to water-soluble degradation products.”

          Do you have the link or the reference?

          https://www.shroud.com/adler1.htm

          See section on non-ionizing radiation.

          I trust that helps. Don’t hesitate to let me know if this fails to answer your queries.

        • Thibault HEIMBURGER
          February 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm

          Colin wrote:
          February 3, 2015 at 5:04 pm
          Good evening to you TH….

          Thank you Colin.

          You wrote:”I trust that helps. Don’t hesitate to let me know if this fails to answer your queries.”

          Surely that helps. Thank you.

          I have to read your answer in detail.

          In the link you provided, I read: “Trace transition metal compounds and, particularly, the relatively large amounts of various iron-containing structures present(5,7) can serve as such photosensitizes Such reactions can strongly affect the images. For example, the red color of the blood has been attributed to the presence of protein-bound bilirubin being admixed with methemoglobin.(7,8) Overexposure to ultraviolet and/or visible radiation could modify this color,(2) as bilirubin can be readily and quickly photodecomposed under a variety of conditions ”

          I have found the references.

          At least, it demonstrates that Adler was aware of the effect of ” ultraviolet and/or visible radiation” on the “protein-bound bilirubin”.

          However, Adlers’ sentence does not imply that ” Adler’s claims are REFUTED by his own later acknowledgement that bilirubin is photosensitive, being converted, as we’ve said, by light and oxygen to water-soluble degradation products.”

          In fact, I read the contrary. Adler never eliminates his “bilirubin hypothesis” because of the fact that bilirubin is photosensitive.

          Sorry but now I am working on another subject: JImage and 3D.

        • February 5, 2015 at 1:22 pm

          “Adler never eliminates his “bilirubin hypothesis” because of the fact that bilirubin is photosensitive.”

          But he does precisely that, TH. I say that with total conviction.

          Adler used that section under “Non-ionizing radiation” in his 1993 paper essentially to retract his bilirubin hypothesis. It should never have been proposed in the first place, misusing as he did a ‘microspotting’ technique with a non-specific colorimetric test (Ehrlich’s reagent) to make quantitative statements (“extraordinary amounts of bilirubin”). Nor should he have made references to “trauma” causing his claimed ‘extraordinary’ levels of bilirubin. In so doing he betrayed a pro-authenticity bias. STURP was there to collect the evidence for or against authenticity – not to go preempting debate with airy-fairy pro-authenticity hypothesizing.

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER
        February 6, 2015 at 5:27 pm

        Sorry Colin, but I have a completely different understanding of this paper.
        You wrote: “Adler used that section under “Non-ionizing radiation” in his 1993 paper essentially to retract his bilirubin hypothesis.”

        How can you say that?

        This title of the paper is “CONSERVATION of the Shroud of Turin”.

        It is obvious that Adler never used this paper to “retract” his bilirubin hypothesis.

        He simply forewarned that, in the context of the conservation of the TS, “OVEREXPOSURE to ultraviolet and/or visible radiation could modify this color,(2) as bilirubin can be readily and quickly photodecomposed under a variety of conditions”.

        The best evidence is found in the following sentence: “Alternatively, if the red color of the blood is due to the presence of vermilion, i.e., mercuric oxide, light exposure will blacken the image, as has been evidenced in many older paintings.(l2)”
        As you know, Adler knew that vermilion had nothing to do with the blood stains.
        Nevertheless, he wrote that.

        You failed to consider the context.
        Adler (and Schwalbe) wrote this paper about the conservation of the TS, taking into account ALL of the hypotheses.

        Seven years later (2000), Adler wrote in “Chemical and physical characteristics of the bloodstains”:
        ” .. it was demonstrated that the observed spectra of the blood particles contained both met hemoglobin and albumin bound bilirubin.”

        You can challenge Adler’ hypothesis but you can’t say that Adler used this paper to retract his bilirubin hypothesis.

        • February 6, 2015 at 6:21 pm

          When Adler put forward his idea that bilirubin was responsible for the permanently red colour of Shroud blood, there was no mention of bilirubin’s fragile nature. One has to assume that he was untutored in bilirubin chemistry, the latter being entirely different from that of the chemically more stable porphyrins in which he specialized. But come 1993 he suddenly changed his tune. Now he was recognizing that bilirubin is unstable towards light and oxygen, and that instability might then also de-stabilize linen.

          What is that if not a late de facto retraction of his initially misguided thinking? How could bilirubin possibly be held to stabilise the red colour of ancient blood, while simultaneously breaking down and damaging linen in the process? The two positions were entirely at odds with each other. No, he didn’t say “I retract”, but his volte face made it abundantly clear that he had abandoned his initial position, which amounts to the same thing – an admission of error, an oversight, a retraction. Adler got it wrong -seriously wrong- but his “trauma bilirubin’ narrative continues to be proselytized to this day. Science is supposed to be self-correcting. Shroudology clearly is not – more’s the pity.

  39. February 2, 2015 at 11:10 am

    PS: but if we’re into spy clue symbolic art, then the pincers/pliars, if seen as a coded motif, might equally well be a stylized cross, i.e. the cross, snuck in to signal what was to follow.

    Beware: this cryptostegano wotsit is catching…

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 2, 2015 at 11:22 am

      Colin, methinks If you were an Hindu Oldbod (with bad eyebrainsight), you would be all too prone to see the pair of pliars as a mix of the involution and evolution svatiska crosses!

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 2, 2015 at 11:31 am

        Typo: a Hindu Oldbod

      • February 2, 2015 at 12:09 pm

        The thing that seems to differentiate genuine from would-be academics these days is diligence and spadework, The would-be academic seizes upon something – a supposed insight or brainwave – and immediately rushes to publish, whether as a book, a pdf or a comment on a web forum. The genuine academic bides his/her time. First impressions can be misleading. First impressions need to be carefully corroborated by looking at as many related examples as possible. All to often, one’s first impressions melt away.

        The Hungarian Pray Manuscript and its supposed pre-14th century provenance of the TS is a prime example of premature publication. Those imagined sightings of the “L-shaped poker holes” are frankly first impressions and fanciful delusions that simply do not stand up to serious scrutiny, lacking what one might call internal AND external consistency. It’s spurious statistical correlation based on a sample size of 1.

        The same might be said of the Sudarium of Oviedo. I’ve refrained from commenting on it so far, failing to see any credible evidence whatsoever for the claimed correspondence between its blood pattern and the Turin Shroud. (Sorry Mark Guscin). Why bother commenting on so-called evidence that is not evidence at all – merely wishful (clearly) narrative-driven thinking dressed up as scholarship?

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 12:26 pm

          Colin you wrote: “Those imagined sightings of the “L-shaped poker holes” are frankly first impressions and fanciful delusions that simply do not stand up to serious scrutiny, lacking what one might call internal AND external consistency.”

          The fact is the L- and P-shaped burn holes featured in the HP Ms bifolium DOES stand serious scrutiny in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic domain relevance steganographic criterion while YOUR first impression and fanciful delusions (the L-shaped and P-shaped patterns are mere decorative patterns) definitely DOES NOT.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 12:28 pm

          Typo: DO… DO…

        • February 2, 2015 at 12:28 pm

          Yeah, Colin, yeah. The facts contrary to theory? The worse for them.

        • February 2, 2015 at 12:39 pm

          Shroudology is, for the most part, an academic wasteland. I know, having spent 3 years searching for something that would disabuse me of that view. If I had to summarise my case with just one example, it would be, without hesitation, the Hungarian Pray Manuscript. Scholarship? Do me a favour.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 12:32 pm

          Colin, methinks you are the king of the first impression as far as Shroud iconography is concerned (HP Ms, Lirey Pilgrim’s badge, Scourging of Christ scenes etc).

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm

          Reminder for Colin: pre- or light mordanting can look like light scorch.

  40. Max patrick Hamon
    February 2, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    Re the Oviedo Sudarium and Turin Shroud bloodied face haematic congruency in terms of archaeolgical bloodstain pattern analysis, Colin methinks YOU do need diligence and spadework before passing your own opinion as it does seem the latter is only based on just… your first impression.

    • February 2, 2015 at 1:08 pm

      I have been monitoring the views expressed here and elsewhere on the Sudarium of Oviedo and refrained from comment.

      Genuine, i.e. published scholars, which you are not Max, should not presume to know the (unpublished) thoughts of genuine scholars with a track-record of published peer-reviewed research findings.

      If you wish to be taken seriously Max – then publish . A blog site (your own) will do for starters.

      Sorry to be so frank.. Someone has to say it. Stop posing as an authority. You have zero credentials as an academic.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 2, 2015 at 1:47 pm

        Sorry to be so frank too but in terms of what is hidden in full view to the non-initiated eye, you have zero credentials as a professional archaeological image analyst and/or cryptanalyst or even a professional archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst. I am a professional cryptologist, which you are not.

        Each to his own field(s). Yours is chemistry. Stop posing as an authority on the HP Ms to discard it as if it had no connection at all with the Constantinople Sindon aka Turin Shroud. In terms of medieval image analysis and cryptanalysis, professionally speaking, I have more authority than you and that’s a fact whether you like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 3, 2015 at 1:01 pm

        Re genuine i.e. published scholars, which I am, I was already published by my peers in medieval glyptography (my deciphering of Knights Templar graffiti)

        • February 3, 2015 at 1:28 pm

          We’ve been here before Max, a year ago. A paper submitted to a conference is not generally regarded as having been ‘peer-reviewed’, and Dr.Nicolotti in Turin (see below) commenting on this site was not able to track down that single submission anyway. As I say, Max, you should as a first step set up your own internet site for proselytizing your views if you wish to be regarded as “published”.

          Max Patrick Hamon
          March 15, 2014 at 9:39 am

          BTW my paper is in French, see Loches, Graffiti anciens, “QUATRIEME RENCONTRE” 2006 (Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium of Glyptography, 2006 Loches). It was published in December 2010.

          You can order the book to the Musée Serge Ramond “La mémoire des murs”, Place de Piegaro, 60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte France – Telephone :(00 33) 03 44 24 54 81.

          Note: in 2012 I rewrote, revised and completed my paper to insert it in a collection of my 2004-2007 studies of the Coudray Tower enigmatic graffiti (Templar Glyptography). Hopefully the collection is to be published in December 2014…

          Andrea Nicolotti
          March 29, 2014 at 8:43 pm

          Mr, Hamon,
          I cannot find your article because the publication “Loches, Graffiti anciens, “QUATRIEME RENCONTRE 2006″ is practically impossible to find. And it is not exactly the kind of publication I had imagined.
          No problem. It is not important. I still wait for:
          1) an example of the “dual letter” (an E within a U) .
          2) the colon “:” as a contraction for NOSTER DOMINVS.
          Thanks

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 3, 2015 at 2:11 pm

          It is pratically impossible to find!!!!????

          The proceedings can be ordered at http://www.memoiredesmurs.com/musee-graffiti-historique.html

          It is also to be sold at the castles of both Loches and Chinon.

  41. Max patrick Hamon
    February 2, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    Colin you wrote: “If I had to summarise my case with just one example, it would be, without hesitation, the Hungarian Pray Manuscript.”

    What do you REALLY know in terms of Byzantine and Roman/Medieval image analysis and cryptanalysis? Are you a professional cryptologist? A professional archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst? What is exactly your scholarship as an image analyst or cryptanalyst? Do you really think your PhD in chemistry is an “all around” PhD? Are you kidding?

  42. Max patrick Hamon
    February 2, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Colin, re your over-simplistic approach (i.e. based on YOUR first impression) of the HP MS bifolium illustrations, BTW it does seem you STILL haven’t noticed the folio 28 lower section features a L-shaped and a P-shaped pattern both made of small round circles.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 2, 2015 at 1:20 pm

      The former made of FOUR small black circles and the latter made of FIVE small black circles.

      • February 2, 2015 at 1:27 pm

        This comment is a prime example of what you consider to be supportive evidence Max. It’s nothing of the sort.
        It’s descriptive detail, not evidence.

        Descriptive detail and evidence are two entirely different things. You cannot hope to persuade or convince people by blasting them with descriptive detail.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 1:55 pm

          Don’t you distort my words. The L-shaped and P-shaped patterns build a Crucial evidence SEVERAL OTHERS. Crucial/Smoking gun evidence can definitely be in details/a series of details. You are totally off the mark as far as true forensics applied to the Turin Shroud is concerned. Are you really an academic? At times I very much doubt it.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 2:04 pm

          Colin, methinks you don’t really understand or cannot even imagine what my crucial evidence is. Though it would require from me a time-consuming research paper in terms of cryptanalysis and steganalysis, I can demonstrate the TS-HP Ms connection beyond the shadow of a rational doubt.

  43. Max patrick Hamon
    February 2, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    Typo: The L-shaped and P-shaped patterns build a Crucial evidence ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS.

  44. Max patrick Hamon
    February 2, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    Re the HP Ms bifolium folio 28 upper and lower sections, many a detail in connection with the TS yet hidden in full view have been missed so far by both shroudies and anti-authenticists.

  45. daveb of wellington nz
    February 2, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    It was Henry Ford who asserted that “History is bunk!” From the various depictions of Christian art we have seen here recently, I’m coming to the conclusion that much of Art is bunk, when we attempt to interpret it as a realistic impression! We have seen on another thread the recent restoration of what is clearly a beautiful depiction of a Savoy display of the Shroud with Cardinal Borromeo, together with a Savoy saint who happened to have died some hundred years or so previously, and many questions were raised about the artist’s depicted impressions of the Shroud which could not be answered satisfactorily.

    In two art works posted on this thread above, we see artists’ depictions of the flagellation, both comparatively modern works. In both cases we see Christ’s arms bound at waist level. There are apparently no scourge wounds on the image of the TSM’s arms, and the conclusion would have to be that the arms were actually bound above the head. This was apparently the usual practice of Roman flagellation, is noted by Barbet, and there are clearly good executioner reasons why this should be so, particularly if the prisoner should happen to faint during the flagellation.

    Some clues may be taken from art works, there are small tokens of realism which the artist may be aware of and has attempted to depict, but clearly also much that they are ignorant of. The watchword is caution when it comes to attempting to read too much into what is shown in such works. Realism is often a secondary objective in art, the primary objective being more frequently to inspire empathetic or a devotional state of mind in the observer. It very much depends on the skill, knowledge and intentions of the artist.

  46. Max patrick Hamon
    February 2, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Actually the face most curiously added up/hidden in the first Mary’s sleeve, gives “the steganographic/cryptographic A” to the whole composition alike the pair of pliars most curiously used at that low level just above the feet in de Brito’s Scourging of Christ, steganographically/cryptically most likely refer to O S(udário de) T(urim), “The Turin Shroud”.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 2, 2015 at 2:51 pm

      For instance, the very initials of O S(udário de) T(urim) in Portuguese, hidden in full view — under the shape of the pair of pliars– is the anagram of SOT, which in Hebrew means “SECRET”.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 2, 2015 at 3:04 pm

        Martinho de Brito made here a secret reference to the Turin Shroud.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 3:26 pm

          The Portuguese sculptor thus appeals to the initiated eye.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 2, 2015 at 3:28 pm

          …which Colin has not yet.

  47. Max patrick Hamon
    February 2, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    To Colin: As far as image analysis and/or cryptanalysis is concerned, I have no lesson of authority to receive from a Chemist who cannot even discriminate a chain from a rope in a sculpture.

  48. February 3, 2015 at 1:31 am

    Actually, as I’ve had to remind Max many times previously I am not a chemist by training, but a biochemist, which is something entirely different, A biochemist is less concerned with the details of particular atoms and molecules, and more with the way that living cells function at the molecular level (enzymes, metabolic pathways, biomembranes, subcellular organelles, energy transduction etc). All three of my degrees are in biochemistry. All of my published work is in biochemical or clinical journals.

    The remit of the biochemist is much, much wider generally than that of the chemist since the focus on life processes interfaces more closely with physiology and medicine. However if past performance is anything to go by, my saying, nay repeating this will not make the slightest bit of difference where Max is concerned. He will continue to refer to me as a chemist, which I am not and never have been.

  49. February 3, 2015 at 2:54 am

    Incidentally, I did some quick research on the difference between pincers and pliars. The tool in the bronze is indeed correctly described as ‘pincers’, not pliars due to the shape and angle of the grip jaws.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincers_%28tool%29

    That still leaves unanswered the question I posed earlier asking what they were doing in a scourging scene.

    On reflection, I cannot agree with Max re his claimed ST (Shroud of Turin) configuration of the pincers. There are no grounds for identifying anything in that bronze as being Shroud-related.

    Might they be there as a token and/or symbolic representation of an instrument of torture? The above wiki link briefly mentions that pincers were used as such in Roman times, sometimes red hot!

    • daveb of wellington nz
      February 3, 2015 at 5:29 am

      Pincers / pliers developed from tongs used in smithy work for gripping hot metal, earliest depiction is apparently Greek god Hephaestus in his forge. Pincers proper are most useful for cutting (e.g. wire) and a wide variety of such useful gripping / pinching tools have developed in modern times for specialist tasks.

      As an instrument of torture, I suppose they might be used for pinching the flesh, or making cuts, amputating fingers & toes, pulling out toenails, finger nails or teeth, for castration, or for cutting tendons (hamstring) and laming the victim. No executioner should be without a set!

      Their appearance in the bronze of the flagellation scene above, I would interpret as symbolic. Thus forging is associated with the underworld and the black arts, symbolic of torture instruments, useful for precision locating of crucifixion nails, and as a potential threat of injury. The only useful purpose I can think of in flagellation is for cutting binding ropes or shackles, therefore I would presume essentially symbolic.

      • February 3, 2015 at 6:13 am

        Seems we see eye-to-eye on on thing at any rate, daveb, namely that the pincers are there for symbolic value only – maybe to make flesh creep at the mere sight of them (victim’s and viewers alike). However, they do seem a curious feature to include so prominently, given at first sight they appear out-of-context (pincers being a standard item in the checklist of crucifixion hardware in Western art, along with nails, lance, sponge etc etc).

        Apologies btw for my misspelling of pliers.

        The key distinction between pincers and pliers, according to my Collins’ dictionary, is that pincers have those curbed bevelled ends that are good for making close contact with embedded object (nails etc) with a view to pulling them out. Pliers tend to have serrated jaws and are intended more for squeezing, though quite what it doesn’t say.

        I note your earlier comment re not placing too much reliance on art if wishing to fill in the gaps re the biblical record or be better informed as to Roman punishment and crucifixion. That I take as read. But time and again on this site we see interest and puzzlement from both pro- and anti-authenticity positions re the curious blood imprint across the small of the back, one that looks chain-like, or maybe a twisted double coil of rope. (Yes Max, I agree it’s a rope in your close-up, but that does not undermine my case).

        For my part, I once proffered the view that the imprint was evidence for thinking the man on the Lirey badge had not been the victim of crucifixion, but of roasting at the stake, a view that was supported by the de Charny/de Charney link, allegedly nephew and executed Templar uncle respectively. It had not occurred to me at the time that the “blood belt” (Wilson’s term) could be a visual cue to the treatment that had taken place before crucifixion, i.e. scourging, with a chain or rope restraint. The only role I could see for the chain was as a restraint for burning at the stake (again, supported by art).

        A blood imprint that is not (or need not necessarily) have been from a wound, but merely from contact imprinting from a bloodied chain or rope must have implications for the debate as to whether the body would have needed to have been washed to produce the entire set of blood stains, via assorted mechanisms including new seepage of blood etc. So there’s still a valid place methinks for finding time to scan image files of western art to get new ideas that might otherwise not have occurred to one, while accepting that no one artist holds a monopoly of wisdom and insight. Indeed, some like the bas reliefartist above with those mysterious pincers, probably like nothing better than to tease the first cohorts of viewers, it being a means of getting his or her work better known and talked about. Theirs is a competitive environment with keen rivalries. The same might be said about shroudology, for better or for worse.

      • daveb of wellington nz
        February 3, 2015 at 2:12 pm

        Most DIY Kiwis (we are famous for using No. 8 wire technology here) would understand the distinction between pliers and pincers well. I recall my father, a typical handyman, had various sets of both.

        As to forging being a black art: I once had to visit a major workshop down south in Dunedin. It specialised in making or upgrading railway wagons, and had furnaces for smelting. The various molds had been prepared for couplings, buffers brake-shoes and the like. I was privileged to see the pour of the molten cast iron. It was indeed a form of engineering magic to see the results of the pour as the various components were formed in all their detail. Forging has always been seen as a form of arcane mystery and wonder from ancient times.

        Barbet of course had his own explanation for the blood-belt across the small of the back. He envisaged a type of twisted sheet for support during transport of the body, and hence creating the blood-belt and the impression it left therefore resembled a twisted rope or chain. He was emphatic that all the stains implied that there was a minimum handling of the body.

  50. Max patrick Hamon
    February 3, 2015 at 7:10 am

    Colin, you wrote:

    “There are no grounds for identifying anything in that bronze as being Shroud-related.”

    My goodness, YOU were the first to relate an alleged “chain” you thought you saw in the old basilica of Fatima bas-relief (when actually it was a rope!)!!!!!????? Are you kidding? Are you eel or snake?

    Besides the stylized monogram reading both SOT, “secret” in Hebrew and OST as initials for O S(ùdario de) T(urim), had you the initiated eye for secret references (in terms of the sculptor’s FREE interpretation of part of the bloodied body of the man of the Shroud), you could have noticed a few striking parallels (strong athletic build, head tilted forward, rope bound at trunk level, awkward position of the left leg placed in front of the semi flexed right leg, rope tied at left wrist level, hair in a poney tail etc).

    On February 2, 2015 at 10:47 am, commenting on the explanation I gave you, you wrote:

    “Ingenious, and possibly even correct Max, if as you maintain the bronze is 20th century.
    Given that I can think of no other obvious explanation for PINCERS/PLIARS (upper cases mine) being used at that low level just above the feet, yours seems a highly credible explanation.”

    Now you changed your mind (the eel or snake strikes again) after YOURSELF having hesitated between pincers and “pliars” (pliers?). Reminder: British English is not my first language, far from it. Besides I was influenced by a diagram in Alan Whanger’s book, The Sroud of Turin, An Adventure of discovery. In his diagram, Alan Whanger, an American English speaker, actually drew halfway between a pair of pliers and a pair of pincers, what he thought to be, at feet level, the ghost image of a hardware. Whangher himself called it “pliers”.

    You also misleadingly wrote:

    “That still leaves unanswered the question I posed earlier asking what they (the pincers/pliers) were doing in a scourging scene.”

    The traditional iconography of the Arma Cristi DOES include “a pair of pincers”. This is not the real issue here. The original issue was: what is a pair of pincers doing in a scourging scene when it is traditionnaly depicted in conjunction with the Descent of the Cross not the Scourging of Christ? If you’re not convinced the pair of pincers does work as a stylized monogram (OST) as secret reference (SOT in Hebrew) to “O S(ùdario de) T(urim)”, STILL waiting for YOU (or anyone else) to find a better answer.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 3, 2015 at 7:24 am

      Shall I repeat: the pair of pincers as “dirhyming element” in the composition of the Scourging of Christ gives “the cryptographic A” to the depiction of Christ.

      Reminder for Colin: The Scourging scene of the golden bas-relief of the old Basilica of Fatima represents one of the fourteen MYSTERIES of the rosary, similar to the stations.

    • February 3, 2015 at 7:33 am

      The sole purpose in putting up those pictures was to show there are precedents in art for a physical restraint – chain or rope- being used in an artist’s reconstruction of the flagellation. That was to to reinforce the suggestion that what we see on the dorsal side of the TS is an imprint in blood from a chain or rope. In no way does that imply that either of the two artists was attempting to hint at any connection with the TS. Why should they? It is you Max who has made that connection with your ‘pliers =TS’ theory, one I was initially prepared to consider, but subsequently rejected in favour of a different kind of symbolism (pliers, or as I prefer to say, pincers = simple pictorial symbol for imminent torture, real or threatened, over and above flagellation per se, ).

      If it’s all the same to you Max, I’ll terminate this rather tiresome discussion now, with its entirely uncalled-for references to snakes and eels. having I trust made my meaning clear to others on this site.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 3, 2015 at 7:43 am

        STILL waiting for YOU (or anyone else) to find a better answer.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 3, 2015 at 8:10 am

        Referring first to “The Flagellation of Christ” by the Master of Okolicsno, 1514″, YOU wrote:
        “Maybe “blood imprint of chain links” as a carry-over from the flagellation might be A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WE SEE ON THE DORSAL TS (uppercases mine), maybe somewhat stylized, depending one one’s position re authenticity (?).”

        And Then (on February 2, 2015 at 5:47 am), you wrote (commenting on the golden bas relief illustration):

        “Here’s another representation of the scourging which ALSO SHOWS A CHAIN (upper cases mine; my comment: here, in conjunction with your first illustration, it did imply it could be a cryptic reference too to WHAT WE SEE ON THE DORSAL TS) being used as restraint that is around the midriff – as well as wrist.”

        And finally you wrote:

        “having I trust made my meaning clear to others on this site”.

        Which others? Actually I was an attentive reader of your two illustrated comments. If you really meat it was not TS related at all, your two related illustrated comments were ambiguous still.

  51. Max patrick Hamon
    February 3, 2015 at 7:28 am

    Typo: the SORROWFUL MYSTERIES of the Rosary.

  52. Max patrick Hamon
    February 3, 2015 at 7:38 am

    Besides the current acception of “series of prayers/meditations” (on the sorrowful mysteries), etymologically speaking, the very word Rosary, mid-15c., is derived from Latin rosarium “rose garden,” and in Medieval Latin also means “GARLAND; STRING OF BEADS”. Now the contusions marks left by pellets on Christ’s body can be remindful of bloodied garlands and strings of beads.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 3, 2015 at 7:47 am

      See Ricci’s reconstruction of the Shroud of Turin man’s bloodied scourge marks.

  53. Hugh Farey
    February 3, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    It looks to me as if the man with the pincers is cutting Jesus’s hamstring. I have tried to find some biblical allusion to such a possibility without success. There may have been a local tradition for such a thing, or might it be connected with the visions of Fatima? Incidentally, a quick trawl through the plaques on the other altars of the Rosary shows that in both the Crucifixion and the Resurrection scenes, the nail wounds are clearly in the wrists, so that might be some reference to the Shroud.

    • February 3, 2015 at 1:19 pm

      How come Hugh? Had Jesus had a hamstring severed he’d have been unable to carry a cross, surely?

    • daveb of wellington nz
      February 3, 2015 at 2:16 pm

      I would consider the pincers to be symbolic only, as I stated above, Feb 3, 5:29 am et seq.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 3, 2015 at 2:35 pm

      Hugh, you also wrote: “There may have been a local tradition for such a thing, or might it be connected with the visions of Fatima?” THis is just nonsense.

  54. Max patrick Hamon
    February 3, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Sorry Hugh, your explanation “cutting Jesus’s hamstring” WHILE Roman soldiers are scourging him, is just an intellectual dead-end compared to the explanation I first gave (the Scourging of Christ is cryptically TS related).

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 3, 2015 at 2:41 pm

      As Hugh noticed, the old basilica bas reliefs of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection scenes, are also TS related since the nail wounds are clearly in the wrists. How long will it take you and Colin to SIMPLY ADMIT secret references to TS that are here discreetly/cryptically made by Portugese sculptor, Martinho de Brito in the mid 1950s CE?

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 3, 2015 at 2:46 pm

        Typo: How long will it take you and Colin to SIMPLY ADMIT discreet and secret references to TS are discreetly/cryptically made in the several scenes of the golden bar relief of the sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary by Martinho de Brito?

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 3, 2015 at 2:48 pm

          In other words, secret and discreet references to the OTS (Sùdario de Turim).

        • Max patrick Hamon
          February 3, 2015 at 2:58 pm

          Typo: To OTS = O Sùdario de Turim

  55. daveb of wellington nz
    February 3, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    I should like to be able to check the “Recent Comments” column to see what other views have been recently expressed on various topics, without being obfuscated by a long string of repetitive entries of MPH, and missing most other entries. All it requires is for him to exercise a more disciplined approach. He could give some deep thought to what he’d like to write, put it into a text file, come back to it, re-edit it to to his heart’s content until he’s satisfied with it, and then post it as a single item. Some of us actually do that, and find that the result is worthwhile, and gives a much better and succinct posting, without later regretting what we ought better to have said. It also makes for much more efficient postings on the blog. No excuses! Just, do it!

  56. Max patrick Hamon
    February 3, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    Reminder for Colin: (cording to Wiki) “MPH is a commonly prescribed psychostimulant and works by increasing the activity of the central nervous system. It produces such effects as increasing or maintaining alertness, combating fatigue, and improving attention”.

    • February 3, 2015 at 4:14 pm

      Are we talking about methylphenidate (MPH, more widely known as “Ritalin), Max … or the other MPH, the one who sees spy clues in everything his eyes light upon?

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 4, 2015 at 6:04 am

        Colin, methinks MPH is much recommended for you, Hugh and DBWnz given your poor condition in terms of intellectual wakefulness, vigilance, and performance as far as de Brito’s bas relief interpretation is concerned.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 4, 2015 at 6:10 am

      You can try yerba mate instead (much more natural).

  57. Hugh Farey
    February 3, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    Yes; it was a bit of a long shot. I’m not suggesting that Jesus actually did have his hamstring cut, but was looking for a quotation along the lines of “he was crippled for our sins” or some such in the Old Testament. Didn’t find anything, so I thought I’d throw the idea open to the house, as it were. There is some sort of tradition that Jesus was at least lame, if not completely crippled, I believe. I don’t accept a single word of any of Max’s linguistic jiggery-pokery, so was looking for a more sensible explanation for the pincers, which I don’t think is nonsensical, even if nothing comes of it. It may be, as Daveb suggests, that the pincers are simply aspects of meanness, or possibly the instruments of the passion are deliberately dispersed among the sorrowful mysteries. The man on the other side of the pincers-wielder seems to be holding the hyssop stick, and there is a man who looks as if he is about to spear Christ’s side in the picture of the crowning of thorns. The hammer and nails appear in the crucifixion scene.

    • Charles Freeman
      February 4, 2015 at 4:37 am

      The pincers are one of the so-called arma, instruments shown in the Passion of Christ. For those of you who have Beldon Scott, you can see them in the surround of Vittorio Amedeo Barralis’ engraving ‘Sacred Anatomy of the Image of Our Lord Christ Imprinted on the Holy Shroud, 1685 (fig. 126, p.178) – the original yet another from that underexplored treasure house of images of the Shroud, the Royal Library in Turin. They are shown alongside a hammer and what appear to be nails.

      This engraving is interesting as the artist was creating a meditation on the wounds of Christ as shown on the Shroud and is one of the few to concentrate on and reproduce the flagellation marks.

      Of course, pincers are seen in other representations of the arma and so one cannot make any kind of special link with the Shroud – Barralis was simply adding them in alongside other of the arma and Beldon Scott notes that this was the result of liturgies centring on the Shroud by the Theatine order to which the architect of the Shroud chapel Guerino Guerini belonged.

      There is apparently a relic somewhere of the chain which bound Jesus after his arrest before he was brought before Pilate. I have not been able to track down where it is but clearly people knew it existed as I have found it among a list of the recorded relics of the Passion without any further information as to its whereabouts.

      • Charles Freeman
        February 4, 2015 at 4:53 am

        The Arma Christi Rolle of c, 1440 now preserved at Stonyhurst College, in the UK, has illustrations of the arma and under the pincers is the following poem (translation, of course) that is itself dated earlier, to the end of the fourteenth century.

        ‘The pincers that drew the nails out
        Of feet and hands all about
        And loosened the body from the tree
        Of my sins loose they me.’

        So even if the pincers are shown before the Crucifixion took place, they are very much around in imagery of the Passion of Christ and it is interesting to find them alongside an engraving of the Shroud.

        Google images ‘Passion Christ arma’ will bring up more examples although the pincers are not always illustrated among the arma.

  58. Max patrick Hamon
    February 4, 2015 at 5:49 am

    Thank you Charles.
    Your mentioning the pincers can ALSO be found alongside an engraving of the Shroud (see Vittorio Amedeo Barralis’ engraving ‘Sacred Anatomy of the Image of Our Lord Christ Imprinted on the Holy Shroud, 1685 (fig. 126, p.178) DOES back up my point: Martihno de Brito bronze bas relief scourged Christ IS Shroud related via the Arma Christi iconography IN CONJUNCTION WITH the TS.

    Hugh’s, Colin’s and DBW’s alleged “explanations” totally fail to account for pincers to be found in the Scourging of Christ scene i.e. in a scene before the Crucifixion took place. They just fall
    flat on my explanation. In light of many a detail pointing to a free interpretation by Martinho de Brito of the TS man image in several scenes (Flagellation, Crucifixion, Resurrection), most likely The dirhyming presence of THE pair of pincers in the Flagelltion of Christ scene does cryptically read as a secret/discreet reference to O Sùdario de Turim (of which initials OTS are definitely embedded as a stylized monogram in the very depiction of the pair of pincers).

    The most intriguing fact remains though, in the 1990s CE, Whangher thought he detected on theTS the ghost image of a pair of pincers/pliers at almost the same level (feet instead of knee level) and in almost the same orientation.

  59. Max patrick Hamon
    February 4, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    Typo: Martihno de Brito’s bronze bas relief scourged Christ IN CONJUNCTION WITH the pincers IS Shroud related via the Arma Christi iconography.

  60. Max patrick Hamon
    February 5, 2015 at 4:16 am

    In sum, in spite of their impeccable credentials as High School Science of the Earth Teacher, « ANTIbiochemist » (on pension) and Engineer (on pension), Hugh, Colin and Dave are very poor/much uninspired amateurish image analysts or cryptanalysts in their claim the de Brito’s golden bas-relief Christ iconography is not discreetly and even secretly Shroud related (especially the Scourging of Christ scene in conjunction with the dirhyming pair of pincers that gives the cryptographic A to the whole composition).

    The true fact remains, several bas-relief scenes staging Christ body (the flagellation scene included) do meet the intrinsic and extrinsic domain of relevance criterion. In other words, Hugh, Colin and Dave ARE wrong whether they want to admit it or not.

  61. Hugh Farey
    February 5, 2015 at 5:48 am

    No. While surely nobody can doubt Max’s ingenious talent for creating linguistic and artistic connections and relationships between almost any collection of artefacts, there is no obligation on anybody to suppose that these same connections were made by the creators of the artefacts themselves. This applies to the curious pincers above, to the curious circles in the Pray codex, and various other apparent anomalies that have cropped up on shroudstory from time to time.That fact the curve of a pincer looks a bit like a letter S does not mean that the artist meant it to refer to the word Sudario, and I don’t believe he did, and nor, in spite of all the peroration above, is there any evidence that he did.

    Max’s contempt for the steganocryptoarcheopanjandrological abilities for everybody except himself is tiresome, but in fact it works against his arguments. The chances of any artist being as clever as Max are, to my mind, zero. I don’t believe Martin de Brito had any such things in his mind, nor his supposed medieval Benedictine monk, nor any of the other poor toilers in the real world producing pictures with aspects which are not immediately apparent. Of course they must have had some reasons, but I don’t think Max necessarily gets any closer to them than anybody else.

    Apart from a general cultural awareness by 1950 of the pathological details of the image on the shroud, I agree with Colin that there are no grounds for supposing that de Brito had the Shroud in mind at all when he created his sculptures for Fatima.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      February 5, 2015 at 7:20 am

      Hugh, you wrote: “there are NO GROUNDS (upper cases mine) for supposing that de Brito had the Shroud in mind at all when he created his sculptures for Fatima.”

      Oh, really?

      This is what I would call a desperate case of “most dramatic tunnel vision” (with blind spots behind and even ahead!). The true fact is YOUR opinion has NO GROUNDS at all (not even half a leg to stand on!). What are you hard arguments and facts to oppose to mine? Mine have sindonological, iconographical and cryptological grounds! You only can reason by mere negative assertion (“there are no grouds”) but without hard facts and relevant conter-arguments. Are you kidding?

      Unless one considers de Brito was a really G-od-inspired genius, can you tell me how come, without having the Shroud in mind, he could have depicted details that not only do look like free interpretations of several of the Shroud image characterictics but are also unmistakenly shroudlike (to the initiated sight-and-brain coordination system) in several of his bas-relief scenes (flogging scene included)? For instance, do you really think de Brito just dreamed of a Christ with nails in the wrists and not in the palms, dressed himation/sindon fashion-like?

      • Max patrick Hamon
        February 5, 2015 at 7:33 am

        Hugh, you wrote: APART (upper cases mine) from a GENERAL CULTURAL AWARENESS (upper cases mine) by 1950 of the pathological details of the image on the shroud, I agree with Colin that there are no grounds for supposing that de Brito had the Shroud in mind at all when he created his sculptures for Fatima.”

        Do you really read what you wrote. Can you tell me whence the culturalaxareness come from (e.g. re the nail in the wrist not i the palms), please?

        The true fact is YOU work against your own opinion. That’s spel volumes on how reliable your alleged “image analysis” is! Don’t you make a fool of yourself, please.

  62. February 5, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Thibault:

    Sorry but now I am working on another subject: JImage and 3D.

    It is nice to hear that, because I too. I can help you if you want. After performing some experiments I came to some important conclusions about 3D effect on the Shroud. I think we should reconsider it a little bit, particularly in the face area. It seems that banding effects play there much more important role than most people think.

    I am planning to make some presentation about it. I have a lot of material but no final document yet.

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      February 6, 2015 at 4:17 pm

      OK

      It should be interesting to work together about this subject.
      And yes you can help me…
      If you want you can ask my private email to Dan

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