Barrie Schwortz: Not a Painting, Photograph, Scorch or Rubbing

For me if there is real human blood found on the Shroud it would be a game changer. I don’t believe the evidence shows that now.

Maybe someone should contact Dr. Henry Lee and ask him if one of his classes would take it on as a class project. I can’t do that right now, but it would be interesting to see what experts in forenic science have to say.

Actually it was Ian Wilson who speculated about the Shroud image being a “snapshot” of the Resurrection in his first Shroud book published in 1978. He of course had another idea in mind.
Leonardo da Vinci had no Hasselblad or Nikon, much less shutter speed.

Let’s hope the Turin authorities do keep them in proper conservation conditions. Adler’s family was quite correct to return them as in case of further scientific analysis everything needs to be in the same place, not scattered around the world, so that proper comparisons can be made between the materials that were once on the Shroud and those that still remain there. It beggars belief that no one thought of this at the time. For obvious reasons it is not acceptable academic practice to scatter around pieces of an ancient object without insisting that they must be properly conserved and can be reunited with the original from which they were taken. I have every right to be frustrated with what appears to have happened with the scattering of evidence as anyone else studying the Shroud.

I assume John would rule out any further tests on the tapes wherever they may be on the grounds that science has not advanced since 1978 so there is no point in having a new analysis of the tapes.

John. While a professor of physiology who read for me all the papers I could find on the STURP blood findings declared them totally unconvincing, anyone who has read Caroline Walker Bynum’s Wonderful Blood will know the fascination with blood relics in the fourteenth century. There was a lot of Christ’s blood around, some of it dried, some liquid, many with stories of who collected it- Mary Magdalene was a favourite.
Some of it fell from consecrated hosts (e.g. The Bolsena miracle) and under the doctrine of transubstantiation was, of course, authentic, the real blood of Christ. To rule out the possibility that blood was added to the Shroud, either in the belief that it was the real blood of Christ, or to make it more awesome, is wrong.
However as an expert in criminal investigations who had seen dried blood over thirty-five years told me when looking at close-ups of e blood stains. ‘ I can tell you for certain that that is not dried blood’ and when I asked him whether the blood of a terrified man differed from that of anyone else, he said that he had seen many blood stains from murdered bodies and there was no distinction.
I may only be a historian who is a specialist in relic cults but I do at least seek independent expertise in areas that I have no specialist knowledge in and it would seem that the experts are not convinced by the STURP findings. But that is their expertise, not mine, which is more to do with the actual blood cults on which I have written a chapter in my relics book.

Several of the comments raised by correspondents are covered in a 2002 paper, “SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPLIED TO THE SHROUD OF TURIN: A REVIEW” By Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, and which can be found at: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

1) A detailed outline of the Scientific Method when applied to Shroud Studies, p.1;

2) Effect of 1532 fire on paint products: Hematite expected, heating tests had shown that hematite was reduced to magnetite, no such effect observed on Shroud; Tests had shown that all paint materials were changed by heat and pyrolysis products, some becoming water soluble, and would have diffused through the cloth, 1978 observations showed that nothing had moved with the water to douse the fire, p.4. My conclusion – if the image had ever been painted, there was no sign of any paint residues in 1532.

3) “Bands of different-colored yarn can be observed in the weave of the cloth (figure 3). Where darker bands intersect image areas, the image is darker. This proves that the image color is not solely a result of reactions in the cellulose of the linen. Something on the surface of the different batches of yarn produced color and/or accelerated color formation. The observations of bands of color agree with historical reports on the methods used to produce ancient linen. They indicate a very mild bleaching technique, unlike that used after the last crusade in AD 1291” – p.5. Observation would imply that manufacture of cloth predates 1291.

4) “The warp of ancient linen was protected with starch during weaving and the finished cloth was washed in Saponaria officinalis suds. Saponaria is hemolytic, which could explain why the old blood stains on the cloth are still red. Diane Soran (deceased) of Los Alamos, tested hemolysis on Saponaria-washed cloth before we went to Turin. The blood is still red on those 25-year-old samples. Controls are black.” – p.5. Explanation of why blood stains have retained their red color.

5) “Saponaria is toxic, and it is a potent preservative. A textile conservator told us that old cloths tend to be better preserved than newer ones. Comparison samples loaned to us by the amazing Museum of Egyptology in Turin were still supple, and several dated to several thousand years BC” – pp 5-6. Charles F has noted that no other examples of Quem Quaeritis artefacts are known to survive. Presumably they all post-date the abandonment of the saponaria method.

6) Image color does not appear under the blood-stains, resides only on the surface of the fibres, could be decolorized with diimide, leaving colorless cellulose fibres – p.7.

7) Image not produced by scorch, nor by radiation, other methods also excluded – pp 8-12.

8) Discussion of 1988 Radiocarbon date, Raes samples, cotton content, varying lignin, – pp 12-16.

9) Extensive discussion on contaminants observed on Raes samples, encrustations, dyes and lakes, gums, splicing, with several micrographs; – pp 17-23.

10) “Conclusion on the association between the radiocarbon date and the time at which the Shroud was produced: The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography, and residual lignin proves that the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth. A rigorous application of Scientific Method would demand a confirmation of the date with a better selection of samples.” – pp 23-24.

11) Various other related discussion – pp 24-29; “A logical hypothesis for image formation must accept the laws of physics and chemistry and explain all of the STURP observations, as follows:- [A list of 13 points of observations follow]. “The requirements make it apparent that no single, simple hypothesis will be adequate to explain all of the observations made on the Shroud”. – pp 29-30.

12) Discussion of Maillard reaction hypothesis, including ammonia test on Edgerton linen – pp 31-37.

Rogers’s paper quoted by daveb above contains too many inconsistencies to be acceptable at face value, and it would be so useful if somebody who followed his work closely could explain them. To take a couple:

1) (from daveb above) “Effect of 1532 fire on paint products: Hematite expected, heating tests had shown that hematite was reduced to magnetite, no such effect observed on Shroud.” Rogers’s experiments, and the accompanying photos, show a piece of linen sandwiched between two steel plates and heated at the centre. I would like to know whereabouts, on the cloth, the hematite was reduced to magnetite, and whether there were concomittant effects on the cloth at the same point. Presumably there was some gradient. Rogers says that, “all paints were changed by heat and/or the chemically reducing and reactive pyrolysis products (formaldehyde, furfural, organic acids, CO, etc.). Some Medieval painting materials become water soluble and they would have moved with the water that diffused through parts of the cloth at the time of the AD 1532 fire. Observations of the Shroud in 1978 showed that nothing in the image moved with the water.” But he does not say what temperatures are needed to achieve these effects, and whether those temperatures also cause any discolouration of linen fibres. The temperature gradient is very important. Either there was one, in which case we would expect different effects on different parts of he Shroud, or there wasn’t, in which case we would observe uniform effects.

2) (from Rogers’ paper) Compare Figures 3 and 18. They are both claimed to be UV images but are completely different. Figure 18 shows that the Holland cloth fluoresces (if it is fluorescence) intensely at the place from which the Raes sample was taken, but not elsewhere, but Rogers does not account for this. Being covered with the Shroud would have had minimal effect on the oxygenation or temperature of that area compared to the rest.

3) (from Rogers’ paper) “Diane Soran (deceased) of Los Alamos, tested hemolysis on Saponaria-washed cloth before we went to Turin. The blood is still red on those 25-year-old samples. Controls are black.” I have grown Saponaria, produced soap from it and soaked cloths in it. It has had no effect on the preservation of blood colour. It is a pity that in a heavily illustrated paper Diane Soran’s experiments could not be shown.

I mention these not to prove that Rogers was a poor scientist, agenda driven (neither of which I believe) or even wrong, but merely to show that even the most careful of papers can have inconsistencies and anomalies which it is not rude or arrogant to want cleared up before being accepted as gospel.

The main reason that I call on experts is that I don’t make a fool of myself particularly when talking of scientific issues. I have a professional reputation to defend, it has taken me years to build up and I am not going to risk it by publishing anything that will be ridiculed within the academic community, university presses and others who pay me money for my ‘expertise’.

So writing on the Shroud, I made sure that I had a respectable journal but one where my article would be widely read, as it has been. I knew I could rely on HT to check it out for themselves but I had the whole read by an Oxford professor in medieval Christianity to make sure that it was academically respectable.

I was warned that I might get hostile feedback from Shroudies for the article but the editor tells me that there has been virtually none. I have had one single letter forwarded to me unopened by HT and it was simply the face of the Shroud with a written caption offering me blessings. Instead I have had responses from many academics who have been supportive and I would be able to use material from some of them in future articles.

As to blood, I have made it clear here that it would not surprise me in the least if there were blood human or otherwise on the Shroud. From the thirteenth century onwards there was a much greater emphasis on the sufferings of Christ and these were shown in various ways, by showing the Crown of Thorns still in place not only on the Cross but also in the deposition and burial, by emphasising blood stains and showing blood flowing along the arms, and by emphasising scourge marks that covered the whole of Christ’s body. As often happened, many people jumped on the bandwagon and began producing relics of the blood of Christ, some of which were enormously popular. So it was that the monastery at Hailes was able to build their major building on the proceeds. So there was a lot of ‘Christ’s blood’ around and one would not be surprised to find some blood added to the Shroud.

I had the following checked out :
1) the tests for blood at the forensic laboratory at Modena. The tests done there should have shown up human blood if there had been any but they did not. Apparently it would be extraordinary but not totally impossible for the laboratory to have missed it.
2) the articles by Heller and Adler and other supporting articles I could track down. These were read by a professor emeritus in physiology and were found totally unconvincing. For me this is quite sufficient and the fact that no one has taken the tapes and replicated the tests backs up his opinion. The professor noted that they probably mistook animal proteins. He offered to pass on the papers to a haematologist but could not believe there would be a difference of opinion.
3) the same professor remarked that this was too red for dried blood and this has been confirmed by someone who has dealt over many years with bloodstains.

I am quite happy on the basis of this to risk my reputation in the academic community within which I work by saying that, while human blood on the Shroud would hardly be surprising in the fourteenth century, no significant replicated evidence has been found to support that there was. I shall just have to live with the contrary opinion of the lawyer John Klotz and I will try not to lose sleep over it.

… And in a very short “insert” placed in the article (published yesterday in the newspaper “Corriere della Sera”) by Paolo Mieli also appears the caption on the Pope Achille Ratti (1857-1939) who was elected Pope in 1922 under the name of Pius XI (and who also wrote an encyclical against Nazism … ).
After noting that under his pontificate was resolved the Roman Question, with the Lateran Treaty of 1929; it is emphasized that he was among the most enthusiastic supporters of the cult of the Shroud of Turin, which he called “a still mysterious object, but certainly not that of men”…
So one might also ask:
But what he wanted to attack in that article? …