Home > Image Theory > Colin Berry: The Scourge Marks are Frankly Not Credible

Colin Berry: The Scourge Marks are Frankly Not Credible

May 17, 2015

When someone is flayed with a Roman flagrum, one expects to see the skin ripped to shreds,
with blood flows to match. One does not expect to see neat imprints

imageIs that so?  Has this idea been investigated?

Colin had written a comment:

The crucial point surely is that there is no imaging of “wounds” or “injuries” as such on the sepia body image of the TS – absolutely none. The evidence for “wounds” and “injuries” rests entirely on the position of bloodstains at various locations. Even the “scourge marks” showing the dumb-bell shapes etc of skin-lacerating or indenting metal or bone tips are (we’re told) solely blood imprints – there’s no corroborating evidence in the body image.

The reliance on bloodstains alone to support the biblical narrative (scourging, crown of thorns, nails wounds, lance wound) with no supporting evidence whatsoever in the body image is entirely consistent with medieval forgery. Indeed, it’s hard to think of an alternative explanation – unless one’s view of the TS is “authentic until proven otherwise” (an authenticity-endorsing or promoting ‘sindonological’ position, as distinct from one that is strictly neutral, dispassionately scientific).

Thibault Heimburger replied:

I never understood what you mean by “imaging of wounds …”  What do you expect to see on a linen on contact with a bloody wound? I would expect to see exactly what we see on the TS.

Can you explain?

Colin then writes:

Maybe nothing. But I’m not the one who constantly refers to “wounds” or “injuries” for which there’s no independent and corroborating evidence in the body image, merely blood that is in locations that fit the biblical narrative. It’s to do with the burden of proof.

When someone is flayed with a Roman flagrum, one expects to see the skin ripped to shreds, with blood flows to match. One does not expect to see neat imprints correspondingly exactly with the shape of the metal or bone pellets, as if all they did was to produce contusions with just the right amount of weeping blood to “imprint” an image, with no surplus to obscure and thus ‘spoil’ the image. The scourge marks are frankly not credible, except as the work of a forger intent on creating over-simplified neat and geometric patterns that lack both realism and credibility.

  1. Sampath Fernando
    May 17, 2015 at 3:17 am

    Colin may correct if it is a painting. As far as I am concern TS is not a painting. (according to word of mouth TS is not made by man). If painter is such a intelligent person then he will paint the image according to the way Colin think. He won’t miss those details if he considered the other unthinkable properties at that time.

    I have to agree with Thibault.

    It take years to find out how the TS image got formed.

  2. daveb of wellington nz
    May 17, 2015 at 5:27 am

    Whipping / flogging / scourging can be inflicted with various severity, and the effects will also be different according to the instrument(s) used, and the health and physique of the victim. In the ancient world, slaves were counted as little value and were often whipped to death. In the American south, slaves were considered more valuable, and punishments inflicted were less severe and more seldom fatal. Beginning in 1948, British courts were restricted in prescribing whipping for most offences, but it continued in Delaware until 1972 for which whipping was prescribed for some 25 different offences.

    The lash, or cat-o’-nine-tails was a particularly severe instrument. Possibly the nastiest one was the Russian knout, dried and hardened rawhide thongs interwoven with wires, hooked and sharpened so as to tear the flesh. The Roman instrument was of course the flagrum.

    Scourging was a usual preliminary to crucifixion, and in order to carry out the court’s sentence, the victim had to be left with sufficient strength to carry at least the cross-beam to his place of execution, so presumably this would serve as some control on the severity of the beating.

    Vignon, Barbet and others since have analysed the traces on the Shroud. Barbet made the point that only those blows which penetrated the skin have left their mark, while those which resulted only in bruising did not. Correspondents may be familiar with the Faccini-Fanti paper presented at the Frascati conference in 2010 on the subject. Some of their findings may be debatable and contested. However their experiments included a simulated scourging with instruments that would leave similar marks on a drum coated with both white paper and carbon paper. Their paper depicts the results of this experiment. They claim that similar marks to the TS image was obtained if both a flagrum and a “pear rod” was used in delivering the punishment.

    Most artistic depictions of the scourging of Christ, seem to lack a specific realism, and would seem to depend only on the diverse artists’ gruesome imaginations, although doubtless some of them would have witnessed actual whipping punishments whenever they were in vogue.

    A particular point is that, skin lacerations as would be produced say by the Russian knout, or the English cat, might not be the case with a controlled use of the flagrum. The Roman flagrum is known to have been used in gladiatorial contests, and presumably was not necessarily fatal, unless administered with considerable brutality.

  3. May 17, 2015 at 6:32 am

    I am amazed at the incredible expertise of Colin. Who’d have thought that not only is he a world renowned physicist, he a forensic pathologist skillfully deflating those pathologist dolts who examined the Shroud image with the meager combined experience of many thousands of autopsies.

    I am in awe.

    • May 17, 2015 at 6:39 am

      Typo correction: I am in awe [of his arrogance].

    • Dave Hines
      May 17, 2015 at 4:34 pm

      I will have to pick up a copy of your book, thanks for writing it. Opinions vary but what counts in a court of law is the expert testimony. The jury will want to hear from the people that examined this “object” personally and have credentials.
      Like for example a battle field surgeon, Pierre Barbet. (A Doctor at Calvary) Chief Surgeon of St. Josephs Hospital who conducted a thorough examination of the Shroud and even went to the length of crucifying cadavers to aid in his forensic evaluation.
      Someone who has seen the horror of battle wounds. A serious minded person. Someone who has seen a lot of dead bodies up close and personal and who does this for living. At the very least the jury will want to hear the testimony of someone who has at least gone to medical school and holds a PHD in anatomy.

      Like Clint Eastwood said, “Opinion are like assholes, everyone has one”

      The jury does not want to hear opinions, but expert testimony.

      They will want to hear from expert forensic pathologists. They will want to review the testimony of Dr. Robert Bucklin and they will want to review the testimony of Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who does hold a PHD In Anatomy and was chief medical examiner of New York for 33 years.
      Dr. Robert Bucklin is a professor of forensic pathology and was directly or indirectly involved in up to 25,000 autopsies. In office for 50 years. Quite frankly I don’t give a crap if that was only 10,000 autopsies. The guy has seen a lot of dead bodies and knows the difference between what is a mannequin and what is a genuine person, between what is a painting and what is actual genuine human being. That is their job, to make that determination and they made that determination.
      A WRONGFUL DEATH TOOK PLACE!!! A genuine dead body was wrapped in that Shroud.and they are all in agreement on that.

      We have 3 expert witnesses that will testify the scourge wounds are genuine. Combined these 3 witnesses have been directly or indirectly involved in over 30,000 autopsies. Anyone out there think that their testimony is not credible?

      1. Dr. Pierre Barbet
      2. Dr. Robert Bucklin
      3. Dr. Frederick Zugibe

      The non authenticity side can put up a 1000 witnesses that will say “the scourge wounds don’t look credible” But it means nothing, A worthless opinion. You would be hard pressed to find one that actually even saw the Shroud of Turin. Amazing, declaring something a fraud without even having seen it. There is no jury in the world that would take the testimony of such a person with any degree of seriousness.

      They don’t look credible to the skeptic because they don’t want them to be credible. Even if they are credible they are not credible. Alrighty then.

      ALL 3 forensic experts have concluded beyond any doubt that a dead man in his 30’s approximately 5’11” with long hair, beard and mustache was
      1. Beaten
      2. Scourged
      3. Crowned With Thorns
      4. Crucified
      5. Side Pierced
      6. Legs Not Broken
      7. Wrapped in the Clean Linen Cloth
      8. Body Separated From Cloth Before Decomposition Set In

      When numerous pieces of physical evidence match the sequence of events recorded in the historical record it makes it possible to accurately calculate odds of probability and chance.Only One Person we know of in recorded history has undergone this sequence of events. There is 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus on this alone.
      Take a look at that again. The calculated odds all these match points are coincidental but the cloth did not make contact with Jesus is 1 in 82 MILLION, 944 THOUSAND.
      That is the bottom end lowest figure not taking into account a dead corpse by random happenstance and incredible luck left distance information on the Shroud and holographic info as a result of making contact with the linen!

      The numbers don’t lie. The Man In The Shroud is Jesus

      There is no reasonable doubt in that. To be in disagreement one would have to be in disagreement with the testimony of
      Dr. Pierre Barbet, Dr. Robert Bucklin and Dr. Frederick Zugibe

      And the skeptics are in disagreement with the ruling they made.
      I personally think they are flat out insane, suffering inside with some kind of sick ailment.

      To rule against the expert testimony is insane.
      Insanity = 666 in English Gematria.
      The number of the skeptic is 666.
      They are reduced to character assassination against expert witnesses so that their “pet paint or contact image theory” works.

      Bottom line, we either accept or don’t accept expert witness testimony I accept it.

      .

  4. don
    May 17, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    Colin is getting desperate…

  5. Louis
    May 17, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Not all Roman whips were designed to tear the flesh. There are many illustrations of the wounds next to the Roman flagrum on the Internet.

  6. Max patrick Hamon
    May 17, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s, Colin just missed the most likely fact Yeshu’a, on his way to Calvary, wore a seamless (woven of one piece) garment that could soak up all his whip wound blood as his body was drenched in sweat.

  7. Thibault HEIMBURGER
    May 17, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    Colin you wrote: “When someone is flayed with a Roman flagrum, one expects to see the skin ripped to shreds, with blood flows to match. One does not expect to see neat imprints correspondingly exactly with the shape of the metal or bone pellets, as if all they did was to produce contusions with just the right amount of weeping blood to “imprint” an image, with no surplus to obscure and thus ‘spoil’ the image. The scourge marks are frankly not credible, except as the work of a forger intent on creating over-simplified neat and geometric patterns that lack both realism and credibility.”

    That’s why Fred Zugibe (RIP) thought that the TS man was washed.
    http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/Washed.htm

    ” However, if the body was washed, the dried blood around the wounds would be removed causing an oozing of bloody material within the wounds resulting in the production of relatively good impressions of the wound”

    If the TS man was washed, the scourge marks are credible.
    Please read his book: “The Crucifixion of Jesus- a Forensic Inquiry”., p23, Fig.2-3 showing “a beating across the back of a young person”.

    “The scourge marks are frankly not credible, except as the work of a forger intent on creating over-simplified neat and geometric patterns that lack both realism and credibility.”

    Please look again at those scourge marks
    http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml
    I don’t see any “over-simplified neat and geometric patterns”.
    I see exactly the contrary.

    The scourge marks can not be the result of the work of a forger.
    Just look at them.

    • May 18, 2015 at 1:34 am

      Thibault:

      Contemporary testimonies describe the roman flagrum as an awful weapon. Its blows tore the skin and the flesh till reaching the bones. Note that the image of the man of the shroud has more than a hundred of impacts and not a single tearing of the skin is visible. The “perfect” form of the little balls is similar to the “perfect” form of the trails of blood. Too “perfect” to be true.

      Furthermore, the image of an executioner carefully selecting his blows in order to do a regular design with the impacts separated from each other is not credible. There was no reason to do so. The marks are also placed in a too “perfect” distribution to be plausible.

      In addition, I refuse any credit to Zugibe’s theory of post-washing marks. The blood of a corpse laying in an horizontal position flows in a lateral sense as the same Zugibe’s pictures show. But the marks of the man of the Shroud run from the forehead to the chin and from the wrists to the elbows. This is simply impossible in a laying corpse. This is the kind of things that go usually unnoticed to the sindonist experts. Then their theories become castles in the air.

      PS: “Forensic experts” perhaps, but not experts in history of Medicine. They are two different things.

      • Dave Hines
        May 18, 2015 at 2:44 am

        Who do you think the jury is going to listen to seriously and accept as credible testimony?
        David Mo or Dr. Frederick Zugibe?
        Good Old Doc Zugibe was Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York for 33 years. Held Master of Science degree and PHD in Anatomy.
        involved in over 10,000 autopsies.

        Wrote a book on the subject of the effects of crucification on the human body based on 50 years of research.

        What are your credentials David Mo?

        How many autopsies have you performed?
        How many books have you written and published?

        You rendered your opinion. Like Clint Eastwood said, “Opinions are like assholes, everyone got one”

        “The blood stains are to neat, the scourge wounds are to neat”
        This is the carnival pitchman Joe Nickel argument, what a laughing joke.
        Take a look at the scourge wounds again,they are not all separated and “to neat”
        Here is a suggestion, do a thorough examination of the scourge wounds before speaking on the subject.

        Thanks but no thanks for your opinion. I am going with the expert witness testimony on this, as any other intelligent person would do.

        Never once when Dr.Frederick Zugibe took the stand as an expert witness (which he did many times) did the jury not rule in his favor despite how many other “expert witnesses” disagreed with him.
        I am sticking with the testimony of the undefeated proven winner on this one, Dr. Frederick Zugibe, Scourge wounds are genuine,

  8. May 17, 2015 at 6:16 pm

    Dave Hines’ reply is so complete there’s not much else to say. Perhaps Colin should stick to his area of expertise and go forward with that. His reasoning lacks, well, reason.

    • Dave Hines
      May 17, 2015 at 10:11 pm

      Hello Andy, I made a video addressing all the points I just made. I want to share it with you . It is a pilot closing argument video. This video was inspired by a letter I got from Barrie S. For personal reasons I did not want to share it on this site, but now I have changed my mind. In this video we see the Man in the Shroud from head to toe over and over again in slow motion. The expert witness testimony of Dr. Pierre Barbet, Dr. Robert Bucklin and Dr. Frederick Zugibe are presented in this video. I made this because people seem to have forgotten The Shroud has been examined by expert forensic pathologists and a ruling was made. A decision rendered.
      The scourge wounds in question are very graphically presented in this video, up close and personal. There are a few stunning shots.
      The audio track and some of the images became slightly damaged during the many re renders of the film, I was not able to repair them to the extent I had hoped for. Bear that in mind. That is also the reason the bass and reverb are a bit heavy. (more than desired)

      https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=uc2vk9jrNiY&feature=vm

  9. Hugh Farey
    May 18, 2015 at 2:35 am

    I see no good reason for Colin to be ganged up against for particular abuse. He is far from the first to observe that the scourge marks do not appear to tear any skin, are distinct from each other, and, if taken in twos or threes, appear to be neatly splayed rather than coming together in an irregular clump. Furthermore, although the eminent pathologists, and others, seem in agreement, in fact of course they don’t. There are two common reconstructions of the instrument which could have conflicted the ‘dumb-bell’ wounds, both different, and both archaeologically unfounded. In order to explain the variety, some authors have listed a regular arsenal of possible devices, all of which seem to have left clearly distinguishable marks on the body. Then, of course, we have the ‘was the body washed?’ question, about which the eminent pathologists are in confusion.

    Dave Hines’ big post is misleading in several respects. There is no jury, and there has been no ruling. Had there been a ‘trial’ of the kind so many people think there is, the eminent pathologists would certainly not have been accepted at their word. They would have been extensively cross-examined. All of them would immediately have explained that examining a sheet with an image on it was not at all their area of expertise, and that they were doing the best they could with the data available. Dr Zugibe, as eminent as they come, was frankly contemptuous of Dr Barbet, as eminent as they come, claiming that his knowledge of basic anatomy was mistaken, and daveb in particular, I’ve no doubt, would have liked to cross-examine Dr Zugibe to try to reconcile the two

    Expressions like “there is no doubt” and “the numbers don’t lie” may be reassuring to the convinced; they are no argument for authenticity. (Of for forgery either, for that matter).

    And as for “I personally think they are flat out insane, suffering inside with some kind of sick ailment,” well, you all know what kind of influence a remark like that is likely to have on those so described, and on the credibility of those who so describe them.

    • Louis
      May 18, 2015 at 8:23 am

      If Colin was less aggressive in commenting he would probably not be the target os só many attacks. When challenged about a point for which he hás no answer he resorts to personal attacks. To be fair, he is not the only one who does this and not long ago a four-letter word was what he got as a response. I wish Dan could be more strict and impose rules.
      Unfortunately there is only one medical practitioner commenting here and what we need is more experts.

    • Dave Hines
      May 19, 2015 at 2:59 am

      Hi Hugh, I am going to start by quoting Plato and then continue on further…
      1.”Numbers are the highest degree of knowledge, it is knowledge itself.”
      2. Galileo ” Mathematics is the language that God wrote the universe in.”
      3. Saint Augustine “Numbers are the thoughts of God”
      4.Pythagoras “All is Number”

      Spirit of God leaves numerical clues behind, invented the English language and gave it to man over 500 years ago and left the following numerical clues behind, knowing The authenticity of the Shroud would be questioned in this day and age.

      Spirit of God, knows what I am going to write before I write it,
      Knows in advance how you will respond to me, knows what you are going to say before you say it, knows what you will write back to me before you write it.

      Spirit of God can hear our internal dialogue.

      Anyways, Here are the “Thoughts of God” on the subject of the Shroud of Turin

      In English Gematria (Numerical Clues Left Behind By The Spirit of God)

      Jesus of Nazareth = 1128
      Shroud of Turin = 1128
      It’s not a painting = 1128
      It’s The Mandylion = 1128
      Behold The Image of Edessa = 1128
      A picture of Jesus = 1128
      3D Hologram of Jesus = 1128
      3D Hologram of The King = 1128
      Israeli King Jesus = 1128
      Beaten and Crucified Nude = 1128
      Crown of Thorns = 1128
      Right Side Pierced = 1128
      Cruelly Scourged = 1128
      A Brutal Scourging =1128
      Legs not Fractured = 1128

      There are many more, but I will add only 1 more to this list

      SHROUD IS GENUINE 1128

      I can’t speak for anyone else on this Blog Site, but I am going with the math on this one.

      1128 Shroud is Genuine. I suggest to others in doubt going with the 1128 combo.
      It is a number that keeps repeating itself. Exactly what a professional gambler looks for when wanting to make a rock solid pick. The same thing happening over and over again and never changes. Go with it. Over a 99% of winning.

      (I won a 7 team parlay on the spread in NFL Football using this strategy)

      The odds of probability and chance the following phrases listed all relating to The Shroud of Turin will have the same 4 number sequence is conservatively a 1 in 100 million chance.

      I would put a million cash on 1128 Shroud is genuine and not lose a second of sleep over it.

  10. daveb of wellington nz
    May 18, 2015 at 2:39 am

    All four gospel accounts claim that Pilate had Jesus scourged or flogged. In one text, Jesus is led out before the crowd after the scourging, and before Pilate finally passes the sentence of crucifixion.

    Both Mark and Matthew, say that Simon of Cyrene was enlisted to “help” Jesus carry his cross. Luke, otherwise dependent on Mark’s narrative, states that Simon himself carried the cross walking behind Jesus. John does not mention Simon, but states that Jesus carried the cross himself.

    This implies that whatever instrument was used for the whipping, that Jesus still had sufficient strength to walk to the place of execution, and it suggests that Jesus was thought able to carry the cross, for at least part of the way. Therefore the scourging must have been a controlled punishment, and talk of flaying skin and flesh from the bone would hardly match this scenario.

    It is consistent with the pattern of scourge wounds seen on the Shroud image!

    • Thomas
      May 18, 2015 at 3:59 am

      Very nice point daveb. One can quite easily imagine the torturers wanting the final humiliation of the cross. In that context, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to imagine the scourging as something a bit nasty but not “devastating”.

    • Dave Hines
      May 19, 2015 at 3:31 am

      Very good points.
      1. “And the plowers plowed on my back, they made their furrows long”
      2. “But they have not prevailed against me”
      3. “They dug a pit for me but in the midst of it, they themselves have fallen”

      Furrow is defined as a narrow groovelike or trenchlike depression in any surface
      to make make a rut, groove, or trail in (the ground or the surface of something)

      1. “By His Stripes we are healed”

      2. Man In The Shroud literally looks like a “Striped Man”

      3. Forensic Evidence and Scripture Match.

  11. Max patrick Hamon
    May 18, 2015 at 3:32 am

    Re Roman crucifixion victim’s blood wounds inflicted by means of Roman scourging whips and still visible on the TS:

    Hugh, Colin and David Mo, eminent pathologists did agree they are scourge/whip marks (not marks left by macerated blood-fed leeches used as felt-tip pens!?).BTW what is your credibility as bloodstain pattern analysists re blood soaked up with woolen fiber cloth and both blood and blood wounds washed out with heavy sweating prior to crucifixion (see the seamless fine woolen robe kept in Argenteuil, France)? What do you really know about Judean funerary customs, practices and rites in the Second Temple Period and the specific way they could have been applied to the TS man in the hypothesis the latter was Yeshu’a and in terms of shed innocent blood?

  12. anoxie
    May 18, 2015 at 3:45 am

    You know what is frankly not credible?

    CB claiming the “blood” came from a leech, see https://shroudstory.com/2013/03/22/three-new-shroud-of-turin-websites-to-watch/

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 18, 2015 at 4:13 am

      Do hope you’re not mistaking a ‘blood expert’ or ‘biochemist’ for an (archaeological) ‘bloodstain pattern analyst’ (which makes a world of difference here).

      • anoxie
        May 18, 2015 at 10:56 am

        Do hope people don’t mistake a “skeptic” for a “consipiracist”.

  13. daveb of wellington nz
    May 18, 2015 at 5:25 am

    The Roman army was a well-trained force, highly disciplined, and even superior to the Greeks. This is clear from reading any authoritative text, such as “A History of Rome to AD 565” by Boak & Sinnigen, a classic on Roman history. Ordinarily the required service was sixteen campaigns in the infantry, and ten in the cavalry. This arrangement always ensured the presence of veterans in any contingent or levy. A record of at least ten campaigns was required of any candidate for public office, which assured that the army was well led and well organised.

    They were methodical, experienced and well conscious of military efficiency, as well as being highly mobile.

    A crucifixion or a flogging of some criminal was all in a day’s work and it would be done efficiently, methodically and with the end objective always in mind. The sentenced person had to be kept strong enough to carry at least the cross-bar to the place of execution. Any pre-punishment, such as scourging or whipping could not be inflicted so severely as to make the prisoner helpless and unable to complete this journey. He had to complete it on his own feet.

    What we see of the scourging on the Shroud image, is an all-over systematic pattern of superficial scourge wounds, consistent with this objective. They break the skin, but it is not a severe singularly concentrated flaying of flesh and skin, despite the high number of lashes inflicted. It is systematic, consistent with a controlled disciplined infliction of the punishment, with an end objective.

    As for the forensic pathologists, they may vary in matters of detail, and criticize their colleagues’ expertise on various specialist aspects. However they are agreed that the scourge marks on the Shroud are in fact what they seem to be, and are no artisan’s forgery.

    • May 18, 2015 at 6:23 am

      Daveb makes an excellent point about scientists. They may disagree on details and sometimes “pride” results in derogatory comments about their colleagues. Therefore while there is general agreement about 95% of the pathological findings, that doesn’t prevent a little debunking about minutiae. One example is Zugibe’s coming up with a fine-tuned explanation of the manner in which crucifixion cause death that differed from his colleagues. Perhaps he and Bucklin are debating this heaven even as we write. :-)

    • Dave Hines
      May 24, 2015 at 3:01 pm

      Thank you Daveb for this post. Extremely well written. Insightful, thoughtful, helpful. There is feeling you get, deep down in your gut, in your solar plexus that lets you know when something is right or it is not, a gift granted to one from the Spirit of God, that lets one clearly make distinction between what is a paper rose and what is a genuine rose. The genuine bill or the counterfeit. But those harboring anger and contempt in their hearts do not possess this gift because the Spirit of God is repelled against their prideful nature. They don’t receive help from a Higher Power but from a Lower Power instead. An ancient and deceiving sick spirit, a fear based spirit and is a liar by nature.
      The Shroud is genuine, my heart, my mind, my body and my soul tells me so. The Forensic Science says it is genuine. This post is a voice of reason, of logic and genuine intelligence. There is no contempt or racial bias written in between the lines. One thing you cannot hide from a jury is anger and contempt. It shows in your body language and in your eyes. There are many who would declare the Shroud a forgery but in less than 60 seconds on the stand they would be discredited as a witness, regardless of their credentials because of racial bias. A good lawyer will immediately expose it and let the jury see it. Anger and hatred blind a person from the truth and negatively affects their judgement. Their testimony is not credible. History has taught us that. People can rip The Shroud apart on this site with the written word, but if they had to stand up in public and make their case it would be an all out complete and utter disaster. Add a video presentation to that as well. People are attracted to people that have joy in their spirit and have a desire to share that joy with others, to give it away freely, they are not attracted to the person with hidden anger and contempt toward Jesus Christ that launch character assassinations against credible witnesses with impeccable credentials, like for example Dr. Barbet, Dr. Bucklin, Dr. Zugibe, Dr. Adler, Dr, Ballone and I will include Dr. Max Frei the head of the forensic Science Police Department who I would put on the stand in a New York second if he was still alive and who made this statement to the press,
      “I can affirm without fear of being proven wrong, this linen cloth dates back to Palestine 2000 years ago” Dr. Max Frei (This statement got the attention of some very serious people who later set out to defraud the Shroud and assassinate his character and work)

      I decided to put the testimony of Jesus Christ on this site as a corroborating witness to Dr Max Frei’s testimony. And the skeptics can laugh all they want, but will not be able to find the clink in the armor of my witness who is an electro magnetic field sensor A scientific instrument who without racial bias who will record the testimony of Jesus Christ the Lord who will tell us all The Shroud is authentic, My witness has one sole purpose, to give testimony to the truth and that is exactly what everyone will see.
      My client who I am defending and who I have had a personal relationship with for over 40 years will testify now. Bear in mind, my client speaks in numbers.
      1.Galileo Galilei ” Mathematics is the language that God wrote the universe in.”
      2. PLATO “Numbers are the highest degree of knowledge, it is knowledge itself.”
      3. Saint Augustine “Numbers are the thoughts of God”
      4.Pythagoras “All is Number”

      No less than 1 million people in 211 countries will be seeing this. Spirit of God will make sure of that. Mark my words on that all you skeptics.

  14. May 18, 2015 at 8:19 am

    I assume from all the confidence of these ‘ experts’ that they can provide evidence that a scourging covering both front and back of a body and here with372 marks, which would have made it impossible for any man then to have carried a cross, is documented.
    In all my studies of the ancient world I have never heard of such a thing.

    Better to stick with a biblical source,Isaiah 1.6, here and note how these all-over scourge marks show the integration of this verse into fourteenth century iconography ,.e.g in the Holkham Bible illustrations and the Rottgen Pieta among many other similar examples.
    Colin, you are talking real sense – happy to agree with you in this occasion.

    Whenever I read the accounts of these forensic experts they never seem to address the effects of a scourging such as the one the Shroud shows – 372 marks none of which appear to break the skin. An artist could do it – a scourger ?????

    • May 18, 2015 at 8:26 am

      P.S. Barbara Faccini notes three different types of instruments on the Shroud scourge marks in her Ohio presentation. James Marrow in his intensive study of Passion iconography notes that indeed illustrations of the fourteenth century do indeed show three different instruments in these all- over scourgings as each one reflects a different OT precedent .
      Thanks, Barbara Faccini for providing another example to support Marrow’s scholarship!

  15. Antero de Frias Moreira
    May 18, 2015 at 11:09 am

    «Note that the image of the man of the shroud has more than a hundred of impacts and not a single tearing of the skin is visible. The “perfect” form of the little balls is similar to the “perfect” form of the trails of blood. Too “perfect” to be true.»

    The last sentence simply is not true

    Daveb has already made reference to the excellent paper on this subject by Professor Giulio fanti and Barbara Faccini nevertheless I’d add the following:

    It’s simply not true that all scourge marks have perfect dumbell lshapes matching the roman flagrum whipping.
    It’s impossible for the punisher to apply the same strength and direction to every lash, so some lashes would produce only contusions and bruisings of soft tissues while most of them would probably injury the subcutaneous fat and even muscles below and skin tearing could occur.

    When subcutaneous fat tissue and muscles were injured by the «flagrum plumbatae» bleeding would occur and soon an extended area of blood smear anc clotting should follow.

    If this was the case neither clear cut scourging marks nor body image would be apparent.
    Dr.Thibault Heimburger has already mentioned Professor Zugibe’s hypothesis that the Man of the Shroud was washed.

    By removing that large dried blood area by washing reopened scourging lesions that reached subcutaneous fat and muscular layer would bleed again even if their correspondent skin area was torn away and it is not unreasonable to assert that the shape of this re-bleeding would match the offensive object, bacause what bleeds is not the superficial skin layer but the subcutaneous fat and muscle,, in other words the shape of blood marks from scourging is related to bleeding from muscle an fat NOT THE SUPERFICIAL SKIN.

    This is exactly what we observe on the Shroud let alone the fact that besides U.V. Fluorescence photographs show a serum halo around the scourge marks.

    This is a FACT and no medieval forger would be able to accomplish such a deed!!!.

    For me this is the most plausible medical explanation and the most probable scenario that I share with you.

    For ethical motives it is not possible to reproduce such a scenario with a living person who would be killed by crucifixion partially washed and wrapped in a linen sheet
    Thus a definitive experimental answer cannot be given and I think the previous reasoning is enough.

    regards

    Antero de Frias Moreira
    Centro Português de Sindonologia

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      May 18, 2015 at 4:16 pm

      I fully agree.
      More later…

  16. Hugh Farey
    May 18, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    Prof. Zugibe does not explain why the forehead, arms and feet of the man in the Shroud were not washed, while his back (and chest?) were. If the blood from the forehead or spear wound oozed out as a result of the washing the man must have been supported sitting upright while being washed. After being laid down, this new bleeding was not removed. Why not?

    “U.V. Fluorescence photographs show a serum halo around the scourge marks.
    This is a FACT.” No, it isn’t. The UV photos of the back of the body show rather a high background fluorescence, against which any extra fluorescence due to ‘serum’ is impossible to affirm. Some of the other bloodstains have partial fluorescent borders. Miller and Pellicori, who carried out the study, say “Fluorescing borders apparent around some areas.” Although they mention the fluorescence around many wound marks, they do not mention any around the scourgemarks of the back.

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      May 18, 2015 at 4:13 pm

      “Prof. Zugibe does not explain why the forehead, arms and feet of the man in the Shroud were not washed, while his back (and chest?) were. ”

      Sorry Hugh, Prof.Zugibe explained that.

      Do you have his book ?

      • Hugh Farey
        May 18, 2015 at 5:52 pm

        Alas no. My information is from his online article “The Man of the Shroud was Washed” where he doesn’t mention it. What does he say in his book?

  17. daveb of wellington nz
    May 18, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    ” … a scourging covering both front and back of a body and here with 372 marks, … ”
    The figure of 372 is from the Fanti-Faccini paper ” … 372 bloodstains can approximately be counted (159 – front, 213 – back) “. Barbet counted “more than 100, perhaps 120” in pairs, implying if there were two thongs there were 60 lashes, excluding those which left no marks. Wilson notes that the number of marks has been variously estimated from 90 to 120. Authors Fanti & Faccini do not address the discrepancy between their figure and those from the earlier investigators.

    “… note how these all-over scourge marks show the integration of this verse (Isaiah 1:6) into fourteenth century iconography ,.e.g in the Holkham Bible illustrations and the Rottgen Pieta among many other similar examples. The 14th century iconography would also seem to match the first known showing of the Shroud at Lirey in 1355 !

    The remarkable coincidence between the description of Isaiah’s “suffering servant” or “man of sorrows”, and the gospel accounts of the punishment inflicted on Jesus, was noted by biblical exegetes well before the Shroud ever came to light. It is difficult to escape a conclusion that the author of Isaiah was somehow privy to a special divine revelation, a true prophesy. The marks on the Shroud not only match Isaiah’s description, but these were the punishments actually inflicted on Jesus as described by the authors of the gospels, and made manifest on the Shroud.

    “An artist could do it – a scourger ?????” Agreed, an undisciplined out-of-control sadist scourger might not. Highly disciplined experienced Roman soldiers (there were two of them), that is another matter. But then they were true artists of their “craft”, and knew how to achieve their purpose.

    • May 18, 2015 at 10:40 pm

      372 or whatever..Anyone who suffered that number of bloodstains would not have been able to carry a cross.
      ‘ the author of Isaiah was somehow privy to a special divine revelation…’ Debatable.
      I am sticking with the fourteenth century on this one.

      • Dave Hines
        May 19, 2015 at 4:43 am

        Hi Charles, I just purchased “a expensive fine linen cloth” I am holding in my hand a piece of 100% pure linen fabric, herringbone twill weave. (Only 2 places in the world I could find had this in stock)
        There is no way any artist in their right mind would ever use this kind of fabric for a painting. For starters it would have to be stretched and put on a 14′ frame. One mistake made and you would have to purchase another 14′ piece and start over.

        But if you like we can begin the long insane list of things that one would have to do to replicate the Shroud image and literally get on the freight train going straight into crazy town.
        Step 1: I have the fabric
        Step 2 I need a genuine dead body that has been crucified…
        STOP… we are not going to crazy town.

        I highly suggest purchasing some pure linen herringbone twill fabric and applying pigment to it, Just so you can get an idea of how astronomically impossible it would be to replicate The Shroud image on this kind of fabric or any other by using paint, myrrh resin or any other medium for that matter.
        What this fabric would work better for would be a contact image. I’ll add one more thing this fabric could be used for, A holographic linen film plate…
        But it would have to be coated with something so that the laser light interference pattern of the object desired to be replicated could be seen on the linen. A thin layer of starch fractions and pectin might work.
        I wonder what kind of organic substance contains starch fractions and pectin ?
        How about myrrh & aloes? They contain starch fractions and pectin.
        Together they also have very similar chemical properties to cellulose acetate which is used on holographic film plates.
        I just told you in part how the Shroud image was formed.
        A interference pattern of laser light recorded on the linen.

        • Charles Freeman
          May 19, 2015 at 12:50 pm

          People are still painting on linen after sealing it with gesso. Once you have an outer surface you can paint what you want , even hundreds of marks of bloodstains not a single one of which has a significant blood flow.
          As always such paintings are very vulnerable to disintegration as they are just on the surface if the cloth so they need to be kept on a flat surface to avoid disintegration .
          Once the pigments have been on for hundreds of years there is inevitably some discolouration of the linen underneath when they disintegrate, as on the Zittern Veil.
          The scourge marks on the Shroud cannot possibly come from a person with a beating heart – some of the marks would have cut deeper than others and there would be different levels of mark and bloodstain. On a real body with this scourging there would have been many other welts and bruises that did not break the skin in addition to the 372 or whatever that actually did on the ‘real
          body’ hypothesis. It does not make any kind of sense that a man could also carry a cross after a technique of intensive front and back flagellation not recorded anywhere in the ancient world.
          A fourteenth century discoloured linen after the disintegration of the pigments , fitting the iconography of Isaiah 1:6, is by miles the best hypothesis.
          Sometimes common sense is needed.

      • Dave Hines
        May 20, 2015 at 12:08 am

        Charles you are right on that point. One would certainly think a person excessively scourged to this degree would not be able to carry the cross on their own power. The Gospel account clearly states Jesus had to be helped by Simon of Cyrene. Forensic evidence and scripture match again.

        If this linen cloth was believed to have wrapped the King of Spain in 7th Century and 3 forensic pathologists examined the cloth and confirmed “Yes, a genuine dead body was wrapped in this cloth”
        NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WOULD QUESTION IT.
        IT WOULD BE THE END OF THAT DISCUSSION.

        You yourself Charles would not question it.
        You would accept a dead body was wrapped in the linen.
        .
        Why then do you have trouble accepting what no less than 3 forensic pathologists have ruled in this case?

        When you watch Forensic Files do you question what the forensic pathologists rule in those cases?

        This does not have anything to do with Jesus does it?
        Oh, I think it does. Correct me if I am wrong.

        Since the name JESUS is involved with this linen we cannot accept what no less than 3 forensic pathologists have determined,.
        In between the lines of some of these posts, I am hearing “I hate Jesus” “I hate the Catholic Church” “I hate religion”

        It is not rocket science to determine if a genuine dead body was wrapped in a linen cloth or not.
        No less than 3 forensic experts concluded there was a genuine dead body wrapped in the Shroud

        If we applied the same harsh criteria we are inflicting upon the Man in The Shroud we would have to begin exhuming bodies from every graveyard in the world and re do the autopsy report. But not with just 1 pathologist, but with 7 or 9. It could take up to 10 years to complete the investigation on just one of the bodies exhumed and to make positive ID again.
        . How do we know that is a real dead body that was buried in the ground? That could be some kind of mannequin in that coffin and a insurance fraud took place.

        We need to evenly distribute justice across the board and give each person the same treatment we are giving the Man in The Shroud.

        People that have been convicted on circumstantial evidence need to be immediately released form prison, regardless of the offense, that would include pedophiles, child murderers, rapists, serial killers and every other sick thing you can possibly imagine and release them all back into society because “the skeptics aren’t convinced on the evidence”

        We need to start exhuming “dead bodies” from cemeteries (if those actually are dead bodies) and take a 2nd look and make sure there is an actual dead body in that coffin and not a mannequin or a convincing looking wax dummy look alike. Start looking into people bank accounts and insurance records.
        Point: If there was not a racial bias against my client we would all be in agreement on this site a genuine dead body made contact with the Shroud.

        • May 20, 2015 at 1:31 am

          Dave- look at the helpful illustration at the beginning of the Faccini Fanti article. Do you really believe that blood oozing from wounds from a flagellation would have settled in that very precise manner in every case as shown here with the intensity the same on the cloth where the body had lain as on the top which covered the body – so that presumably the blood oozed upwards against gravity?

          You could not possibly carry out this intensive flagellation, make sure that the skin where it was broken was done so in an even way and that some hours later blood would have been oozing out on both front and back of the body in exactly the same pattern(with the variation for the three instruments that Faccini noticed) from each and every wound. At least one can say that the blood knew where to stop in each and every case.

          You say these experts have.’ruled in this case’ . There is no rule in the world of science( and common sense observation) . Thank goodness we don’t have to accept all these so-called experts and can make up up our own minds within the sphere of our own specialist interests. I suspect that none of these forensics experts had every studied fourteenth century Passion iconography. Once you see similar patterns of bloodstains on fourteenth century examples, you begin to put together a very different picture.

          These marks could easily have been achieved, if rather unimaginatively so, by an artist. Much more likely.

          I am sticking with a fourteenth century creation- those who read the (Anglican) Church Times will find my views expressed in more detail in an 1,800 word article in their May 8th edition – it was aimed at their specific ( mainly clergy and conventional Anglican) readership (23,000) and may not travel further.
          And yes, it was published there on the recommendation of a Professor of Church History at Oxford.

        • Hugh Farey
          May 20, 2015 at 3:45 am

          “If this linen cloth was believed to have wrapped the King of Spain in 7th Century and 3 forensic pathologists examined the cloth and confirmed “Yes, a genuine dead body was wrapped in this cloth”
          NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WOULD QUESTION IT.
          IT WOULD BE THE END OF THAT DISCUSSION.”

          You have posed your scenario the wrong way round. People like to have their beliefs confirmed. If you had posed:

          “If this linen cloth was NOT believed to have wrapped the King of Spain” but 3 pathologists said it had been

          then there would have been extensive discussion and cross-examination of the pathologists before the disbelievers were convinced.

          Many of us on this site have wished we could have asked the various pathologists for clarification of their ideas. Kelly even put together a list of ten questions, if I remember. The idea that not one single person would question an opinion that confirms their belief may be true; the idea that not one single person would question an opinion contrary to their beliefs is a little naive.

      • Dave Hines
        May 20, 2015 at 2:54 pm

        Hello Charles, go ahead and post some of these photos you are referring to here on this site. I am a artist, I have seen and done a lot of paintings.
        That is how I got involved with the Shroud going through a google search of every painting and art work ever done of Jesus. If there is something you have I have not seen please post it, I will look at it.
        I have never seen any work of the old masters or any other artist for that matter that painted something that looked like a authentic human being. I can tell it is a painting within seconds of looking at, but that was not the case when I saw the Shroud the 1st time. It did not look like a painting at all.
        My 1st impression of the Shroud was “it looks authentic but it cannot be authentic” I was absolutely not convinced the Shroud was genuine when I saw it. I thought it was a 19th century photograph.
        Any forensic pathologist would be thinking the same before seeing The Shroud, “there is no way this is the genuine thing” fully expecting to take a quick look and then get back to taking care of genuine human patients.

        For starters the fabric does not look like 1ST Century, blood stains are red, there is a image on the cloth, that would make any forensic pathologist immediately think it is not genuine.
        Corpses do not leave complete images behind on linens, only blood stains and perhaps some vague imprints of the body.
        But, Obviously something got their attention that turned them around or they would not have written books and had their whole lives turned upside down because of their involvement with the Shroud. My own life has been completely turned upside down because of it. It inspired me to write and publish a book and I am not a author. I get 500 to 1000 views a day in 211 different countries. on the Shroud videos i make.
        Over 300,000 views in short time.
        My whole llfe has been completely changed because of the Shroud of Turin. I am so deeply wrapped in the Shroud, I could not get out of it even I wanted to.
        My mail box is full, people asking questions. We will have to continue this at some later date. In the meantime post some of the photos you believe are evidence that support The Shroud is painted. I will look at it.

        • Charles Freeman
          May 21, 2015 at 4:31 am

          Dave, I assume that as a researcher in this area, you have a copy of John Beldon Scott’s Architecture for the Shroud with its wealth of illustrations- the essential handbook for all those following the post-1355 history of the Shroud.. So figure 42, p.60, which is a1583 fresco from the Galleria delle Carte Geografiche in the Vatican shows clearly that the images at that date were clear enough to be seen from about two hundred yards away- note how the onlookers are gazing at the Shroud from this far away. This fresco is,of course, backed by many other depictions of the Shroud also illustrated in Beldon Scott.
          If you look at the illustrations of the Holkham Bible of c.1330, or the Roettgen Pieta – but there are many other examples from the fourteenth century- you will see how typical the Shroud is of fourteenth century iconography of the day.
          My argument is that we have a discoloured linen left after the disintegration of the pigments, probably in the nineteenth century. The fundamental mistake made by many researchers is to assume that the images now are as they always have been, without realising that painted linens were inherently fragile and easily disintegrated as the pigments were only on a gesso surface on the outer fibrils of the cloth and did not penetrate it. STURP looked for paint that had probably vanished ( although McCrone claims some tiny particles were still there). If only the Vatican will let textile experts in with their modern microscopes, the matter could soon be sorted either way.
          People can have their lives turned around by works or art or even shadows of what were once works of art.I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who follow you.

      • Dave Hines
        May 21, 2015 at 5:05 pm

        Hello Charles I have a splitting headache and hard pressed for time but we can certainly make time to acknowledge the good works of those who created some of the art work you have mentioned. I am not familiar with the works of art you have made reference too. Time permitting please post some highlight photos of depictions of art that would be evidence supporting The Shroud is a work of art and we will look at them. I am not close minded. I was not able to find them on a google search. On a closing note I want to add I do not have any followers, just other people who are interested in the Shroud that watch my videos.

  18. May 19, 2015 at 1:21 am

    An intelligent person does not swallow everything an expert says, specially when it is contrary to what you are seeing with their own eyes or is folly. That’s typical of gullible people that confuse experts with Sibylline oracles.

    I tend to be respectful of experts:
    1. When they are experts in in the field of their expertise. I am referring in our case to the experts in the history of medicine.
    2. When there is unanimous or almost unanimous coincidence in what they say.
    3. When they give understandable reasons that not contradict the obvious.

    1. You quote doctors that are not really experts on our subject. They are forensic surgeons and not scholars of the history of medicine. Therefore, their claims are opinions.
    2. The group of doctors that you quote is very restricted. Their reputation does not exceed the sindonist circles. (With a single exception: Zugibe quoted by Zias, but not about blood). Their experiences have not been repeated (specially Barbet) in scientific conditions. Therefore, the differences between them (cf. Hugh Farey’s commentary) have not been adequately proven. Their claims are opinions.
    3. Experts sometimes made statements whose validity does not lie in the field of the technical work or particular knowledge. The blood does not fall horizontally. The truth of this statement does not depend on forensic science. The marks of the lashes are very unlike. This either. These points should be judged to the light of the reason that everyone has. And I’ve never seen the answer of your “experts” to my plain objections. Therefore, their claims are opinions.

    Some experts often hide their opinions under the guise of “science”. Reciting the “sura of experts” to silence criticism on the views of some questionable authority is the classic appeal of pseudoscience.

    Sapere audere.

    • May 19, 2015 at 7:11 am

      David,

      You flunk on your first point. As far as the history of medicine is concerned, the Shroud image exhibits attributes that could not possibly have been know to a medieval forger. That’s not my opinion, it is the conclusion of scientists who have examined the image in depth.

      You see David, my book as over 500 footnotes and includes citations to many sources. It includes an Appendix of sources which includes the writings of skeptics and well as supporters of authenticity. The available results of expert examinations of the Shroud are staggering.

      Are you a medical historian? I would bet you dollars (or pounds) to donuts that medical history is covered in the curriculum of any medical school that is not a diploma mill. Among other things one can bet they study Galen. Have you ever studied Galen?

      Please cite the texts or trade book on medical history that support you positions and deal with an actual physical examination of the Shroud or a detailed examination of the high resolution photographs of the Shroud.

      By the way there is one forensic pathologist who tried to cast doubt on the Shroud blood flows but it appears he only examined pictures in a magazine and it is not revealed how much study he did of the history of crucifixion before he gave his opinion. I believe it was zero. The relationship of the blood flows to the crucifixion process is one of the matters that the forensic pathologists who have published discussed in detail.

      • Hugh Farey
        May 19, 2015 at 7:44 am

        “The Shroud image exhibits attributes that could not possibly have been known to a medieval forger.”

        It is the contention of non-authenticists that some attributes of the Shroud, such as the negative effect, were indeed probably unknown to medieval times, but came about as incidental outcomes of procedures which were understood. These are not medical, however. I do not know of any anatomical or medical attributes of the Shroud that a medieval forger “could not possibly” have known. Can anybody name some?

        • PHPL
          May 19, 2015 at 7:52 am

          Yes Hugh, incidental.

        • Dave Hines
          May 20, 2015 at 2:08 pm

          Hello Hugh, you misunderstood what I said, I posted “If this linen cloth was believed to have wrapped the King of Spain in 7th Century and 3 forensic pathologists examined the cloth and confirmed “Yes, a genuine dead body was wrapped in this cloth”
          “But we have no idea who the person is”

          I said that no one would dispute that finding. There would only be a dispute if all 3 were not in agreement.

          Of course they would not assume a dead body made contact with the cloth before examining it.
          A professional pathologist would never assume anything until examining the evidence left on the linen.

          There have been cases tried without a body but a wrongful death was still proven beyond a reasonable doubt because of trace physical evidence left behind by the victim on clothing, linens, carpet fibers, ect. It is not common but there are many such cases.

          Note in my comment a name was never attached to the linen cloth.
          The only job of the forensic pathologists in the case scenario I laid out was to determine if a genuine dead body made contact with the cloth. That is all. Not to attempt to make positive ID on the body.

          If the Shroud of Turin did not have a name associated with it, and was called “The shroud of some unknown dead man”
          and the linen was given to 3 forensic pathologists to determine if a genuine dead body actually made contact with the linen and the name of Jesus was completely taken out of the picture no one would dispute their finding. If after a thorough examination all 3 agreed that indeed the cloth did make contact a genuine dead body “but we have no idea who the person is”
          NO ONE WOULD DISPUTE THE FINDINGS OR THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.

          No one would say, “I am not convinced, let’s have 20 other pathologists look at that linen”:

          .But add the name Jesus to it, and all hell breaks loose. Now the medical professionals with impeccable credentials and successful careers just became incompetent fools and liars. Look at the comments here just about the scourge wounds.

          Look at what the skeptics did to Dr. Max Frei, head of the forensic police department, they accused of him of manufacturing evidence and being incompetent. Still going on to this day because he stood up for Jesus.
          I saw him give testimony, he was a very credible witness, did not come across incompetent or dishonest in any way. An excellent witness, a shame he passed away before his work could be finished.

          If these wounds belonged to someone else, and 3 different forensic pathologists all agreed they were genuine. No one would question it.

          We would be discussing who is the person was that was wrapped in it, not was there a dead person wrapped in the Shroud, but who.

        • Hugh Farey
          May 20, 2015 at 2:27 pm

          I still disagree. If I had reason to believe a cloth was not a shroud, and some pathologists told me it was, of course I’d question them. So would anybody else interested in the cloth. It’s true that more people are interested in Jesus than in the King of Spain, but those who were interested would certainly want to explore the pathologists’ findings further.

          As for Max Frei, I think he was honest but mistaken about the pollen on the Shroud, as he was about various other things. I think his methodology was wrong, as I have explained elsewhere.

  19. May 19, 2015 at 2:03 am

    Against Zugibe: According him the trails of blood were produced when a wound is pressed. But it is unlikely that the people that were washing didn’t clean the blood produced by their own pressing. Thibault: I would like to know the Zugibe’s explanation to this.
    Blood doesn’t fall from the forehead to the chin or from the wrists to the elbows when the corpse is lying on his back (on this planet at least). I would like to know Zugibe’s explanation to this.

    Lashings: The Roman flagrum didn’t cause “subcutaneous” wounds. It was an awful instrument of torture. It broke the skin and the flesh and, as Freeman states, more than a hundred impacts would cause the death or leave the victim KO. A Roman executioner using such weapon of massive destruction to inflict a lot of gentle little impacts over all the body with all his careful attention in order to don’t cross never two of them is a children’s story. I beg your pardon!

    • May 19, 2015 at 8:17 pm

      Read DaveB’s response below to the flagrum issue. Your pardon begging is itself begging to be pardoned.

      • May 20, 2015 at 1:14 am

        That Daveb’s comment says nothing new. He continues with the story of the artist executioner.

        See the difference between the pictures posted by Hugh and Max. If you don’t see any difference the discussion is closed. I am not Jesus of Galilee. I cannot make the blind see.

        • May 20, 2015 at 2:26 pm

          Nor can I make the deaf hear.

  20. May 19, 2015 at 8:28 am

    The scourge marks are most likely authentic exactly because they do not look authentic. If a forger was involved with the relic then why would he create such enigmatic marks to represent a scourge, when in his medieval time period and audience would have expected the more traditional ‘stripes’ left by a whip? The forger hypothesis continually needs to turn the forger into some kind of mastermind who decided to use a image formation method that was 100 times more complex than needed for the audience of the era. He might have stumbled upon a process for the body image, but there is no reason for him to use the dumbbell shape when, as Hugh has pointed out many times, nobody today (let alone the medieval period) is certain what a roman flagrum actually looked like.

  21. Antero de Frias Moreira
    May 19, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    As usual in this Blog Dr. Hugh Farey wrote a rebuttal of my comment « U.V. Fluorescence photographs show a serum halo around the scourge marks.
    This is a FACT»

    as follows: « No, it isn’t. The UV photos of the back of the body show rather a high background fluorescence, against which any extra fluorescence due to ‘serum’ is impossible to affirm. Some of the other bloodstains have partial fluorescent borders. Miller and Pellicori, who carried out the study, say “Fluorescing borders apparent around some areas.” Although they mention the fluorescence around many wound marks, they do not mention any around the scourgemarks of the back.»

    Dr. Alan Adler wrote:

    1- « All blood images show evidence of clot rtraction rings of serumabout each wound, these being easily seen in the fluoescence photographic study» in The Turin Shroud Pst Preent and Future International Scientific Symposium, Torino2-5 March 2000 Chapter Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains page 220.

    2-….« …a series of ultraviolet fluorescent photographic images were made of the Shroud….Also the border of every blood mark shows the typical yellowish fluorescence of the serum exsudate ring…» in The Orphaned Manuscript Foreword pages 13, 14

    Dr. Kelly Kearse wrote:

    «Each individual blood wound
    shows a distinct serum clot retraction
    ring; such blood halos are only visible under ultraviolet light (5), a detail that a
    forger is unlikely…. in« Blood on the Shroud of Turin an Immunological review» 2012
    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf

    Dr Thibault Heimburger wrote:

    «Everybody can see the fluorescent halo around the main bloodstains in the UV-Vis
    photographs. In fact, small fluorescent haloes were also observed around all the blood marks,
    even around the scourges.» in «A detailed critical review of the chemical studies on the Turin Shroud: Facts and Interpretations 2008 https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf

    Are these Shroud scholars wrong and misinterpreting the scourge marks?

    I invite commenters to draw their own conclusions

    regards
    Antero de Frias Moreira
    Centro Português de Sindonologia

  22. Hugh Farey
    May 19, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    “Are these Shroud scholars wrong and misinterpreting the scourge marks?”

    Yes they are. Here is the most relevant image from Miller and Pellicori’s paper:

    Unless there are other UV photos that have been hidden up till now, Alan Adler and anybody else who sees fluorescence around every scourge mark is deluding themselves. One finger of the wrist wound, certainly; the upper and outer border of the spear wound, certainly; but every scourge wound, certainly not.

  23. Hugh Farey
    May 19, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    The “audience would have expected the more traditional ‘stripes’ left by a whip?” Really? As in the Holkham bible or the Stuttgart psalter or Duccio di Buoninsegna’s Scourging of Christ?

    • May 19, 2015 at 2:43 pm

      Are those influenced by the Shroud by any chance?

      • May 19, 2015 at 4:57 pm

        No, David, the other way around- the artist of the Shroud was following the conventional iconography of his day, not only in the scourge marks but in the blood flows along the arms and the squiggles of the bloodstains of the head. These features are too widely spread geographically to have been the result of anyone seeing the Shroud but an artist who had kept up with trends in the representations of the Passion would have included them.
        The illustration provided by Hugh above makes my earlier point clearly. For a scourge wound from a real body to have left a mark means that blood or other liquid was oozing from it when the body was laid on the Shroud and this oozing was persistent enough to have seeped through the top of the Shroud when it was laid over the body. This is bizarre enough when the flagellation took place some time before the crucifixion and death of Jesus. However, why is it that in every case the blood flows just so far as to leave the impression but no further in every case – to the extent that Faccini was even able to to distinguish three different instruments. This could never have happened in real life after a real flagellation which would have been a much rougher affair.

        However, for an artist no problem, he can paint whatever he likes and limit the bloodstains to precise areas, especially when he is trying to represent a biblical verse. Have all these forensic experts actually seen bloodstains on a piece of cloth that don’t seep into the capillaries. If it is gessoed in the medieval way, no problem.

        Also I don’t buy the medieval forger idea. No forger would have hoped to have taken in anyone by a large imaged cloth when none are mentioned in the gospels or represented in the iconography of the deposition. If produced for the Quem Queritis ceremony, however, all that was needed was a symbolic representation of the dead body – the artist did not even try to show the face of Christ as that of a man lying down. So long as the images could be seen in the dim early Easter light, bloodstains and all, the figures larger than life size for the medieval period and doubled up, that was all that was required. He did not even make the two bodies the same size.
        The scourge marks are,in fact, one of the clearest piece of evidence that the Shroud never covered a real body.

    • May 19, 2015 at 2:50 pm

      Also those are pieces of art, and isn’t our forger theory based on the premise that this is not artwork but an intent to appear authentic? It is intended to match the Passion narrative everyone at that time was familiar with. The skeptic keeps saying “but this isn’t what we’d expect to see in a crucified man” and I keep saying “Exactly the point”. If it’s a forgery why is the forgery so oddly unlike what we’d expect. Can you name another type of forgery where the forger went to such lengths to make the end product look so unlike what his audience would expect?

      • Hugh Farey
        May 19, 2015 at 3:41 pm

        This is a little confused, if I may say so. If the ‘audience’ expected stripes, why did no artist paint any? Small welts appear to have been the order of the day.

        • May 19, 2015 at 8:13 pm

          Why do think that was, Hugh? Why small welts? Would that be consistent with what medieval lashing inflicted? Did medieval artists differentiate between first century lash wounds and 14th century ones?

        • Hugh Farey
          May 20, 2015 at 3:25 am

          No idea. The only picture I have of medieval lashing I posted here a few day ago – that of Louis IX being whipped. If both the picture and the whip preserved in a museum are genuine, then he was lashed with thin chains rather than cords with knobs on, which I would have thought made stripes rather than dumb-bells or spots. The picture does not show what the artist thought the wounds inflicted by the chains looked like. Representations of the scourgemarks only seem to have appeared shortly before the Shroud, and they all, as far as I have discovered, went for small injuries and short blood flows rather than stripes, although as Charles points out, a wide variety of instruments, derived from Isaiah, were depicted as the theme evolved.

  24. Max patrick Hamon
    May 19, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    Reminder for all: the Roman flagrum consisted either of leather thongs that contained lead pellets (called plumbatae) or short chains with knobs of metal at the end. It was specifically designed NOT to lacerate (to violently torn the skin from the body) but to cause the skin to burst/break (Latin rumpere) and the victim’s body be stamped/crushed (Latin pinsere, “to stamp,crush”) all over with marks much like a leper (= an outcast, a sinner).

    In the NT, sin, like leprosy, is said to be contagious (1 Corinthians 5:6-7).
 Sin, like leprosy, is said to be deceptive (Hebrews 3:12-13).
 Sin, like leprosy, is said not inherited but acquired (Ezekiel 18:20).
 Sin, like leprosy,is said to have a tendency to increase (James 1:14-15).
Sin, like leprosy, is said to be incurable, “except” for by the power of God (Hebrews 9:22).

    See link at:

    http://www.google.fr/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/jesus_leper_600.jpg&sa=X&ei=H3tbVYnHCMvcUa2ygLgK&ved=0CAkQ8wc4aQ&usg=AFQjCNEOi3TNHUeVYzO9jHc2trY1US8p8Q

    Actually, the TS man’s naked body image with its markings does look like that of ‘a leper’ (= a sinner, an outcast). Symbolically speaking, it is very telling; see Isaiah 53:3 (“He was despised and rejected by others”) and 53:5 (“But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed”.

    Here is one of the flagra found at Herculaneum (it consists here of three short chains with knobs of metal at the end, attached to a short handle).

    See link at:

    http://www.google.fr/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.mediterranees.net/civilisation/Rich/Illustrations/Flagrum.jpg&sa=X&ei=Yn5bVePEBMH2ULiVgYgG&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNH0ULoN5kn7ijux1rVX1R4VksqQKQ

    It does seem the flagrum/flagra used on the TS man’s naked back is/are an in-between(s) i.e. between a common flagrum (see above) and a flagrum talis tessellatum

    See link at:

  25. Max patrick Hamon
  26. Antero de Frias Moreira
    May 19, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    “Are these Shroud scholars wrong and misinterpreting the scourge marks?”

    Yes they are. Here is the most relevant image from Miller and Pellicori’s paper:

    The second line is what Dr. Hugh Farey wrote

    Another reference I found:

    THE 1978 SCIENTIFIC STUDY
    OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN
    ROBERT H. DINEGAR
    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi04part3.pdf

    « Bloodstains do not fluoresce—it is virtually totally absorbing in the ultraviolet. However,
    at the border of the scourge marks and around the periphery of the heavier blood flows,
    there is a white fluorescence, invisible in white light. When tested chemically this was
    identified as serum albumin. Blood degradation products in the form of bile pigments
    were also found.»

    Is the late S.T.U.R.P. team researcher Dr. Robert Dinegar also wrong?

  27. Max patrick Hamon
    May 19, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Scourging of four-fingered hand and (nearly) stark naked Christ (13th c. CE)

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 19, 2015 at 3:53 pm

      Was a four-finger-handed and (nearly) stark naked Christ the order of the day too?

  28. Hugh Farey
    May 19, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    Just look at the photograph. If you can see rings round every scourge mark, then you agree with Alan Adler and the others. If you don’t see rings around every scourge mark, then you don’t. It’s not a question of eminence, it’s a question of observation. The two scientists who actually took the photos did not comment on the scourge marks, although they did about other wounds. I do not think every scourge mark is surrounded by a fluorescent ring. Do you?

  29. daveb of wellington nz
    May 19, 2015 at 4:24 pm

    Scourging was a usual preliminary to Roman crucifixion of criminals. It may be presumed that the vast majority survived and walked to the place of crucifixion carrying at least the cross-beam, not necessarily with any assistance. Scourging of Roman citizens was limited to 40 lashes. A Jewish executioner was limited to administering 40 lashes, but in practice the limit they adopted was 39 (presumably a religio-safety margin on the prescribed 40). Roman scourging of non-Romans could and did exceed 40. The 372 marks claimed in the Faccini-Fanti paper have not been corroborated by anyone else, and all earlier investigators have said that there were between 90 and 120 marks occurring in pairs corresponding to about 60 lashes.

    The reference to Isaiah 1:6 was written by a Proto-Isaiah, and much of his writings are more a proclamation than a prophecy reflecting the situation in 8th century Israel in the time of Hezekiah.
    Is 1:6: “From the sole of the foot to the head there is no sound spot in it; Just bruise and welt and oozing wound, not drained, or bandaged, or eased with salve.”
    It is an accusation against Israel’s wickedness, and need not be interpreted as an oracle.

    The Proto-Isaiah has written most of chapters 1-39, with a few chapters attributed to his disciples, and are preoccupied with 8th century Israel. Deutero-Isaiah include chapters 40-55, and are attributed to an anonymous poet writing towards the end of the Babylonian exile. These chapters include the servant songs, and have often been seen as oracles reflected in the New Testament understanding of the passion and glorification of Christ. Chapters 56-65, Trito-Isaiah, are oracles by post-exilic writers imbued with the spirit of Isaiah.

    The Carolingian Stuttgart Psalter illustration of the scourging of Christ is an early example of quite similar depictions of a fully scourged back as the 14th century works, but clearly does not depend on 14th century concepts of the scourging, It dates from 800-815 AD, there are close correspondences with the Shroud image, and it is known that there were close Carolingian affinities with the Byzantine court. It may suggest some familiarity with a Byzantine Shroud image which may have been known at this time.

    The pattern of scourge marks on the Shroud match what is known of the Roman flagrum. If the flagrum was indeed used to inflict them, then clearly they did not tear at the flesh, but in many cases they seem to have penetrated the skin. I would interpret them as a controlled preliminary punishment, and by spreading them over the whole body, there would be some assurance that the prisoner would survive, for the end sentence of crucifixion. There is no concentration of the punishment at localised areas, which might result in tearing of flesh. I should say they are what one might expect from a knowledgeable disciplined executioner, who is informed that his punishment must not result in the death of his prisoner.

    The distressing picture of the scourged victim provided by Max above, would indicate that it is indeed possible to inflict a severe scourging covering the entire back, and for the victim of it yet to survive, even in a seated posture.

    • Thomas
      May 20, 2015 at 4:16 am

      Exactly. The lashings would need to be painful, even excrutiating, but not damaging or brutal enough to prevent the final, public humiliation of the crucifixion.
      So the idea that a scourging must by necessity be fatally injurious is fundamentally flawed.
      I’m sure those sadistic Romans had a range of instruments of torture, including ones that inflicted milder damage, such as perhaps what we witness on the Shroud.

  30. Max patrick Hamon
    May 19, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    Hugh misleadinly wrote: “If you can see rings round EVERY (upper cases mine) scourge mark, then you agree with Alan Adler and THE OTHERS (upper cases mine)”.

    Very pale/clear serum water halo/ring around blood is very hard to see, except under UV. Actually when Miller and Pellicori studied their ultraviolet fluorescence photographs of specific bloodstained areas (the blood that had flowed from the TS man’s feet, wrists, and side), they discovered a light fluorescent margin around their sharply defined edges. Re the scourge marks, they just said “MANY (NOT EVERY) scourges have fluorescing bordering areas.”

  31. Hugh Farey
    May 19, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    “All blood images.” “Every blood mark.” “Each individual blood wound.” “All the blood marks.”

    These are from Antero’s post above. I know what Miller and Pellicori said. And I agree with them. I’m so glad you agree with me. Keep up.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 19, 2015 at 6:59 pm

      Hugh, you first wrote (on July 28, 2013 at 10:09 am)

      “Pellicori and Miller (…) present seven photos of the shroud, from Dorsal Foot to Ventral Foot, and comment on the features of each one. No reference is made of fluorescence around the scourge marks is made until the third photo (the back, see above), when they say “Many scourge marks have fluorescing bordering areas.

      Then you wrote (on May 18, 2015 at 12:26 pm):

      “Although they (Miller and Pellicori) mention the fluorescence around many wound marks, they do not mention any around the scourgemarks of the back”.

      Can you agree with yourself before agreeing with me, please?

  32. Hugh Farey
    May 20, 2015 at 3:08 am

    Absolutely right, Max; what a wonderful memory. However, my point is thus confirmed. The scientists who took the photos did not observe that every blood mark had a serum ring. I do not observe that every blood mark has a serum ring. Does anybody?

  33. Antero de Frias Moreira
    May 20, 2015 at 11:22 am

    Frankly it’s my guess that Shroud scholars have not examined in detail every bloodstain on every obtained U.V. Fluorescence photograph, namely the scouge marks nevertheless I’m sure a sufficient number was studied so a general conclusion could be drawn, and that conclusion has already been presented.

    Dr. Max Patrick Amon wrote “Pellicori and Miller (…) present seven photos of the shroud, from Dorsal Foot to Ventral Foot, and comment on the features of each one. No reference is made of fluorescence around the scourge marks is made until the third photo (the back, see above), when they say “Many scourge marks have fluorescing bordering areas.

    Nevertheless Dr. Hugh Farey wrote a rebuttal of my comment

    Are these Shroud scholars wrong and misinterpreting the scourge marks?”

    Yes they are. Here is the most relevant image from Miller and Pellicori’s paper:

    “Although they (Miller and Pellicori) mention the fluorescence around many wound marks, they do not mention any around the scourgemarks of the back”.

    These are absolutely opposite points of view!!!!! Who is right???

    In a near future I predict the release of a new Shroud book titled « SINDONOCLASM- How my science debunks the Myth»

    I’ll be the first to order it.

    regards
    Antero de Frias Moreira
    Centro português de Sindonologia

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 20, 2015 at 11:43 am

      Antero you wrote: “Max Patrick Hamon (correction mine) wrote “Pellicori and Miller (…) present seven photos of the shroud, from Dorsal Foot to Ventral Foot, and comment on the features of each one. No reference of fluorescence around the scourge marks is made until the third photo (the back, see above), when they say “Many scourge marks have fluorescing bordering areas”.

      Actually I was ONLY quoting Hugh Farey’s comment (on July 28, 2013 at 10:09 am) that was in sharp contrast with his latest comment (on May 18, 2015 at 12:26 pm). Thank you not to give me comments that are not mine but are Hugh’s.

  34. Max patrick Hamon
    May 20, 2015 at 11:33 am

    Reminder for Hugh: In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s, most likely the bloodstains are made of degraded redried remoistened/deluted freshly dried, half-dried and dried blood and all the blood of the scourge wound clots were washed out neat and clean through heavy sweating. On Yeshua’s way to the Calvary, most likely too some of the blood of the clotting scourge wounds was soaked up by the fibers of his woollen robe (now kept in Argenteuil) and the pulling off his robe at the Calvary pulled off the fragile new clots adhering to the said fibers.

  35. Hugh Farey
    May 20, 2015 at 11:46 am

    Yes, yes, all right. I misquoted Miller and Pellicori just now, saying they didn’t mention the scourge marks, when in fact they did. They said, of the scourge marks on the back, that many of them had serum rings. They did not say that all of them had serum rings.

    This particular point is fairly trivial. The original point I was making was that even Shroud scholars of unassailable repute such as Adler or Zugibe say things which can be demonstrated to be not entirely accurate. The bold announcement of anything as a FACT, especially if it is in capital letters, invariably confers a certainty which the statement does not warrant. Colin lead this post with a series of observations which lead him to doubt the credibility of the authenticist viewpoint. To refute his claim, what is needed is either counter-observations or different conclusions, not airy quotes of FACT which are no such thing.

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      May 20, 2015 at 4:22 pm

      Hugh,

      Now you agree that you misquoted Miller and Pellicori. Thanks for you fair play.

      There are “serum rings” around many scourge marks on the back.
      Looking at the photos you have, from the Miller an Pellicori’s paper, you don’t see them.
      This is normal.
      There is a huge difference between photos published in a paper and the original photos.
      Remember: Adler, for example, looked at the original photos.

      It is interesting to note that the presence and the visibility of the serum rings seem to be bound to two main parameters:
      1) the more or less close linen-body contact
      2) the amount of blood.

      “Colin lead this post with a series of observations which lead him to doubt the credibility of the authenticist viewpoint. To refute his claim, what is needed is either counter-observations or different conclusions, not airy quotes of FACT which are no such thing.”

      What do you mean exactly by “counter-observations or different conclusions, not airy quotes of FACT which are no such thing.”?

      I completely disagree with Colin.
      The TS scourge marks are much more credible as real scourge bloody imprints than as painted pseudo-scourge marks.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 20, 2015 at 4:29 pm

      hugh, you wrote: “The original point I was making was that even Shroud scholars of unassailable repute such as Adler or Zugibe say things which can be demonstrated to be not entirely accurate”.

      Methinks in the process you demonstrated the same here can be applied to you too as Shroud scholar. No Shroud scholar and/or researcher is perfect.

      • Hugh Farey
        May 20, 2015 at 5:32 pm

        Too true, Max, too true.

  36. May 20, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    I’ve reread Colin’s post and the subsequent comments. Nothing I’ve read convinces me the image must be fake. However, neither does any comment convince me it is unquestionably authentic. Everyone seems to have a different assumption as to what the wounds should look like and this colours their interpretation of what we do see. Like so many aspects of the icon, a conclusive answer eludes us. Fertile discussion nonetheless.

  37. Antero de Frias Moreira
    May 20, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    Max accept my apologies for misquoting you

    regards
    Antero de Frias Moreira

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 21, 2015 at 3:57 am

      In sum most likely many a marking on the TS man’s body are genuine scourge wounds with serum halos (see original UV images). Via the images, the flesh does look stamped and crushedimplying the use of a specific type of scourge: a flagrum most likely with two or three leather throngs tipped with plumbatae (or lead pellets).

  38. daveb of wellington nz
    May 20, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    In all of the above thread, I know of no comment contributed from any forensic pathologist, yet all seem to think they are better placed and more informed than all those well experienced pathologists who assert that the scourge marks are in fact what they seem to be. Curious, or merely agenda driven? I draw my own conclusions!

    • May 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm

      I appreciate the sentiment but it is fair to point out that while a pathologist may indeed identify the marks as scourge wounds, the pathologist is not concerned with the intricacies of image formation – especially how blood may smear and affect clarity of image. Colin has spent more time now experimenting with image formation than the pathologists mentioned — that does give weight to his observations.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        May 20, 2015 at 4:18 pm

        Actually a PALEOpathologist, an archaeological bloodstain pattern analyst, a Second Temple period funerary archaeologist and a cryptologist (familiar with the three above mentioned areas of expertise here involved and having a very good ‘descriptive knowledge’ of the Turin Shroud and additional relics associated with the burial of Yeshu’a) would be better placed and more informed to identify the specific markings as scourge wounds.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          May 20, 2015 at 5:28 pm

          Note: Paleopathology is the study of ancient family objects and religious relics (mainly bodily remnants, bloodstained fabrics and other textiles) that can yield paleopathological evidence/information from the past re deseases, warfare, injuries, tortures, different types of executions etc).

        • Max patrick Hamon
          May 20, 2015 at 5:30 pm

          Typo: religipus and non-religious relics

  39. May 21, 2015 at 1:15 am

    I have posted:

    “Against Zugibe: According him the trails of blood were produced when a wound is pressed. But it is unlikely that the people that were washing didn’t clean the blood produced by their own pressing. Thibault: I would like to know the Zugibe’s explanation to this“.

    Thibault: I would like your answer. Thank you.

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      May 21, 2015 at 2:14 pm

      Sorry David, I don’t understand at all what you say.
      Can you please explain in detail.

      • Hugh Farey
        May 21, 2015 at 2:50 pm

        Hi Thibault. It may be that Zugibe explains all this in his book, but could you say briefly how he explains why the washing of the body did not remove the blood trickles down the arms, which look as if they were formed while the body was on the cross (my question) or why they did not wipe away the post mortem blood stimulated by their own efforts. The blood from the spear wound must have come out while the chest was upright, so why was it not wiped away after the body was lain down again? (DavidMo’s question).

        • Thibault HEIMBURGER
          May 21, 2015 at 3:24 pm

          Thanks Hugh,

          It’s now clear that Zugibe’s explanations/hypotheses are not known or understood.

          I am the only who has his book “The Crucifixion of Jesus- A Forensic Inquiry”-Second edition- 2005 ?

          I’ll try to scan the relevant pages and then I’ll post a link to them.

          Thank you for your patience.

        • Thomas
          May 21, 2015 at 3:59 pm

          De Wesselow argues that it was Jewish practice for the ‘lifeblood’ not to be washed.

        • Dave Hines
          May 21, 2015 at 4:33 pm

          Hi Hugh, I know when I say this it is pure speculation and does not hold much of any weight. But the length of the Garden Tomb grave is 5′ 11″ and it was chiseled out to make it to that size, it was not originally 5′ 11″. Man In The Shroud is appx 5′ 11″. I believe this is where Jesus was laid. I believe the attention of Joseph of A and Nicodemus was diverted from the body of Jesus to making the grave big enough for Jesus, causing further time delay and less attention to the body of Jesus. I believe a mixture of the myrrh and aloes were simply poured over the entire body to “purify the body” but the blood stains left as they were. I also believe the linen cloth itself was submerged in the solution of myrrh and aloes and is responsible for the thin layer of starch fractions and pectin that Ray Rodgers claims is there. Myrrh and aloes and starch fractions and pectin have the same sugars and chemical properties. Myrrh resin would also preserve the blood stains and they would remain red as a result. My theory only. I can test it. I will put fresh blood on the pure linen herringbone weave cloth I just bought and then apply myrrh resin and see what happens. I have the cloth, I just need some fresh blood to apply to it and then the myrrh. I have some pure myrrh resin from Egypt I just purchased. It is 100% pure. High Quality. I will post photos and or live video footage of the experiment.

        • Thomas
          May 23, 2015 at 7:17 am

          Hugh see my comment just below. You don’t see any merit in de wesselow’s point about not washing away lifeblood?

  40. Max patrick Hamon
    May 21, 2015 at 3:25 am

    Reminder for David Mo:

    From an archaeological bloodstain pattern analytical standpoint, most likely there was no direct washing stricto sensu of the TS man’s body, just natural washing out neat and clean of his wounds via heavy sweating + blood being soaked up by PRE-burial cloths + ‘indirect washing’ and drying funerary procedures.

    On January 29, 2015 at 8:41 am I wrote:

    “Blood intensifying processes (such as pre- or light mordanting of remoistened freshly dried blood and carbon monoxide liberated along with smoke in the course of a Judean ritual in the shape of fumigation/burning aromatic aloetic woods/myrrh ) + in-soaking of the inner long narrow winding sindon/himation (aka TS) with aqueous alkaline solution –e.g. ashes, Jerusalem limestone dust and/or urea residues mixed with warm pure living water/collected rainwater– could account for the degraded and deluted archaeological dried blood still looking fresh as if it had just been shed the day before (its colour changing upon exposure to bright sunlight or UV exposure from standard old brownish to bright carmin red via brownish mauve).

  41. May 22, 2015 at 2:20 am

    Thibault:

    Dr. Zugibe observed that a corpse had bleed after the manipulation due to the autopsy and after a slight (“rinsed”) washing. (“The Man of the Shroud Was washed”, http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/Washed.htm ).

    One confusing point: It is not clear if the case is unique or it is a regular fact nor what kind of manipulation was needed. And why “rinsed”?

    Two possibilities and two objections:
    1. The blood flowed during the washing. Objection: the people who was washing the corpse had cleaned it.
    2. The blood flowed when the corpse was lying (“a few minutes after”). Objection: the direction of the blood trails on the shroud doesn’t correspond with a horizontal position.

    Has Dr. Zugive given any answer to these objections? Some clarification about the circumstances of the manipulation of the corpse?

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER
      May 22, 2015 at 4:51 pm

      The wounds were then washed and this procedure tried again. This resulted in reasonably good impressions of the wounds ( Fig. 1 ).

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER
        May 22, 2015 at 4:53 pm

        Sorry David,

        Forget this about comment.
        Some problem with my computer.

  42. Carlos
    May 22, 2015 at 2:57 am

    Solamente puede ser lavada, según el ritual judío, la sangre PRE-MORTEM.

    La sangre POST-MORTEM, sangre de VOLCADO retenida en las “cavidades” producidas por los clavos, la lanzada o las espinas, y que sale al exterior durante la manipulación del cadáver, y la sangre que REZUME de heridas superficiales pre-mortem al ser lavadas, NO (negación) puede ser lavada.

    En caso de duda de si la sangre es pre-mortem o post-mortem se permite el lavado de una determinada cantidad de sangre, la contenida en “una copa”….. de la que ignoro la medida exacta.

    La sangre es muy “aparatosa, y TODA la cantidad de sangre que se observa en la Sábana Santa es MUY POCA, unos pocos mililitros.

    Carlos

  43. Carlos
    May 22, 2015 at 4:56 am

    a/ En las heridas que fueron sangrantes de la mayor parte de la superficie corporal, como las debidas a la FLAGELACION, era clara su naturaleza PRE-MORTEM. La sangre ya estaba SECA sobre las heridas y “manchaba” la piel “integra” cercana, FUERON PUES LAVADAS.
    Si rezumaba algo de sangre al lavar alguna de esas heridas era ya sangre POST-MORTEM y esa sangre NO (negación) PODÍA SER LAVADA

    b/ Las heridas PRE-MORTEM de las manos habían producido regueros de sangre, ya coagulados, en los brazos. Al ser “desclavadas” las manos volcaron sangre líquida (POST-MORTEM) SOBRE los regueros de sangre pre-mortem ya coagulada.

    Los regueros pre-mortem coagulados de los brazos, HUMEDECIDOS con esa sangre volcada post-mortem NO (negación) PODÍAN PUES SER LAVADOS .

    c/ La herida POST-MORTEM del costado produjo ya en la Cruz el volcado de sangre líquida, coágulos y suero. Al manipular el cuerpo en posición horizontal se produjo un nuevo volcado de sangre líquida que es lo que se observa en la Sábana.

    Carlos

  44. Max patrick Hamon
    May 22, 2015 at 9:28 am

    Carlito, most obviously, the TS crucifixion victim’s post-mortem shed innocent bloods were not directly washed but left with his body to be purified (= symbolically atoned) though (use of the ashes of the Red Heifer mixed with waters since innocent blood that has been shed is a pollutant and should be purified), which is most telling as far as halakha is concerned.

    Besides, in the hypothesis the TS crucifixion victim is Yeshu’a, most likely the latter’s items of clothing (as spoils for the Roman executioners or quaternion—four Roman soldiers) were bought back + the nails, spear, scourge(s), cap of thorns etc with his shed innocent blood bought to the said executioners + his pre-burial shroud(s) with his shed innocent blood all to be buried with him.

  45. May 23, 2015 at 2:21 am

    Reconstructionist Tahara Handbook for Women and Men, Adat Shalom Chevra Kadisha

    “If there is extensive blood flow that canot (sic) be stopped, the met is not washed. Dress it, put in the aron, and chant the concluding prayers. If the flow of blood is sligth, the wound or hole may be gently plugged with cotton or gauze. A cotton plug may be held in place with a band-air or tape if absolutely necessary. Or Monsel Solution may be applied as a sealer. Avoid that particular area during physical washing (rechitsah) and tahara.” (p. 19)

    (NOTE: are we speaking of modern tahara?!).

    Carlos, can you explain the direction of the blood trails if the corpse was lying in a “horizontal position”? Your point “c”. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=227&v=SNzVc1MqJ2s , 2:23ss and 2:34ss.

    Simply impossible.

    Spanish translation:
    Carlos, ¿puedes explicar la dirección de los regueros de sangre si el cadáver reposaba en “posición horizontal”? Tu punto “c”. Ver https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=227&v=SNzVc1MqJ2s , 2:23ss and 2:34ss.

    Simplemente imposible.

    • Dave Hines
      May 23, 2015 at 5:38 am

      David Mo. Side wound was created when body was in a vertical position, not horizontal. “About a 100lb weight of myrrh and aloes were poured over the body” That is eye witness testimony. Dr. Baima Ballone found myrrh and aloes in the blood of the Man in The Shroud by anti-body antigen testing. Myrrh and aloes poured over the body could cause blood to move in any number of different directions. Yes, including the wound on the hand. We have no idea what position his body was in when that was done. You can “assume” it was in horizontal position, but you do not KNOW that. Huge difference. I saw the video. It holds ZERO weight. Meaningless. To me it is a mirror reflection of your posts, a great of example of what happens when one has CONTEMPT PRIOR TO INVESTIGATION.

      • May 24, 2015 at 1:02 am

        We are discussing about the inconsistency of Zugibe’s theory. Zugibe claims that the trails of blood were produced after (or during) the washing of the corpse. A vertical position is incompatible with the washing.

        And if you rub with ointments a trail of blood you can imagine what happens. But with myrrh or without it the things always fall downward and never upward. It is the gravity, you know.

        • Dave Hines
          May 24, 2015 at 2:52 am

          “A vertical position is incompatible with the washing” Are you sure about that? How do you know that? I took a shower today in a vertical position. Maybe they stood the Man In The Shroud Up and poured myrrh and aloes over him. Aloes are made up of mostly water. Perhaps The Man in The Shroud got a final myrrh and aloes shower standing up. Maybe the mother of Jesus held the hand of her Son to say her final goodbye to him and a blood stain got smeared in a sideways or upward direction. Or while taking Jesus down from the cross a blood stain got moved in a sideways or upward direction. Like the one on his hand. That would be a pretty messy job. Any number of things could cause a blood stain to take a direction not going the way you think it should. Upwards, downwards, sideways, left or right.

          Quote by Antero de Frias Moreira on this site, (thank you for doing that)
          “at the border of the scourge marks and around the periphery of the heavier blood flows,
          there is a white fluorescence, invisible in white light. When tested chemically this was
          identified as serum albumin. Blood degradation products in the form of bile pigments
          were also found”

          What part of that do you not understand? That means a genuine person was in The Shroud and the scourge wounds are genuine. Yes, 100% authentic. Whether you like that or not, those are the facts of the case file.
          I am going to end by quoting Dr. Robert Bucklin who after a thorough examination concluded beyond any doubt, “Indisputable” where his exact words that a man in his 30’s, appx, 5′ 11″ 175 lbs, beard and mustache was,
          1. Beaten
          2. Scourged
          3. Crowned with thorns
          4. Crucified
          5. Side Pierced
          6. Legs not broke
          7. Wrapped in the Shroud
          8. Body was removed from the cloth before decay.

          “Indisputable”

        • May 24, 2015 at 5:26 am

          Maybe Joseph of Arimathea washed Jesus in a shower cabin.

          Etc., etc.

        • Thibault HEIMBURGER
          May 25, 2015 at 2:50 pm

          Just back from a 3 days stay in Verdun.

          David: “We are discussing about the inconsistency of Zugibe’s theory. Zugibe claims that the trails of blood were produced after (or during) the washing of the corpse.”

          Not at all, David.
          We are supposed to discuss about the pre-mortem scourge marks which were washed according to Zugibe.
          This is not true for the post-mortem trails of blood.

        • May 25, 2015 at 3:22 pm

          It’s called rain, David Mo.

    • Carlos
      May 24, 2015 at 5:05 am

      “Carlos, ¿puedes explicar la dirección de los regueros de sangre si el cadáver reposaba en “posición horizontal”? Tu punto “c”. Ver https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=227&v=SNzVc1MqJ2s  ,
      2:23ss and 2:34ss.
      Simplemente imposible.”

      David:
      Yo decía en el punto “c” de mi anterior comentario:

      “c/ La herida POST-MORTEM del costado produjo ya en la Cruz el volcado de sangre líquida, coágulos y suero. Al manipular el cuerpo en posición horizontal se produjo un nuevo volcado de sangre líquida que es lo que se observa en la Sábana.”

      El experimento de Borrini-Garlaschelli muestra un profundo desconocimiento de la fisiopatología más elemental.

      1.-¿Qué representa o significa esa ENORME ESPONJA empapada de sangre?.
      La herida de lanza en el costado atravesando el quinto espacio intercostal es una PEQUEÑA apertura “ojival” en comparación con el tamaño ENORME de la superficie “cuadrangular” de la ESPONJA.

      2.- Cuando Borrini aprieta la ESPONJA contra el costado del “simulador”, proporciona a la sangre una PRESIÓN inexistente en un cadáver en el que la sangre sólo puede “rezumar” (si se humedece) o “volcarse” al exterior de acuerdo con:

      – la fuerza de la gravedad.

      -las características del punto/s por las que la sangre encuentre una vía de salida.

      La vía de salida al exterior de la sangre, la herida de la lanza, puede estar “libre” o puede estar parcialmente “obstaculizada” por coágulos que no han salido al exterior.

      Dada la diferencia de tiempo que existió entre el momento en que el cadáver recibió la lanzada (en la Cruz) y la manipulación del cadáver (cuando se produjeron los regueros hacia la espalda) se produjeron más y mayores coágulos que dificultarían el “volcado” de la sangre a través de la herida “ojival” de la lanzada.

      La sangre está presente en la Sábana Santa en cantidades “mínimas”.

      – El cadáver “no (negación) ha reposado en posición horizontal”, el cadáver “se ha manipulado en posición horizontal”, que son 2 cosas muy diferentes.

      Y fue en alguna maniobra de esa manipulación cuando se produjo el “volcado”.

      David, la palabra “imposible” bloquea el intelecto y usted es muy inteligente, en mi modesta opinión debiera prescindir de “ella”.

      Carlos

      • May 24, 2015 at 6:02 am

        Carlos, su respuesta es irrelevante desde el principio hasta el fin.

        Estamos discutiendo la tesis de que los regueros de sangre se produjeron durante o después del lavado (Zugibe).

        Es irrelevante distinguir entre “el cuerpo descansaba en posición horizontal” o “era manipulado en posición horizontal”. La clave para la dirección de la sangre, en la hipótesis de lavado, es la posición horizontal.

        Es irrelevante que la herida estuviera en la quinta región intercostal o en otra parte del costado.

        Es irrelevante que la sangre fuera obstaculizada por coágulos o no. Lo que importa es la dirección del flujo.

        Decir que un líquido cae hacia arriba es imposible en este planeta. Lamento que no se haya dado cuenta todavía. El trabajo de Garlaschelli y Borrini no hace más que poner en imágenes algo que ya era obvio. Yo había adelantado alguno de sus resultados en mi blog. https://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/sangre-o-pigmento-ii-reguerillos/#reguerillos , 29 diciembre 2012. No hacía falta ser muy inteligente (gracias por la suposición), sino evitar ofuscarse.

        Personal translation

        Carlos, your answer is irrelevant from the beginning to the end.

        We are discussing the thesis that the trails of blood occurred during or after washing (Zugibe).

        It is irrelevant to distinguish between “the body rested horizontally” or it “was manipulated horizontally”. The key for the direction of the blood, assuming washing, is the horizontal position.

        It is irrelevant whether the wound was in the fifth intercostal region or elsewhere in the side.

        It is irrelevant whether the blood was hampered by clots or not. What matters is the direction of flow.

        To say that a liquid falls upwards is impossible in this world at least. I regret that you have not noticed this yet. Garlaschelli and Borrini’s work merely puts in images something that was obvious. I had advanced some of their results in my blog. https://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/sangre-o-pigmento-ii-reguerillos/#reguerillos, December 29th, 2012. You don’t need to be very intelligent (thanks for the assumption), but to avoid getting obfuscated.

        PS: Carlos, si entiende bien el inglés me evitará tener que escribir dos veces. Gracias.

        • Carlos
          May 24, 2015 at 6:41 am

          David:

          Si mi respuesta es irrelevante (usted ME PREGUNTABA sobre el punto “c” de mi comentario) debe ser porque su pregunta es entonces ININTELIGIBLE.

          Ahora me dice que es sobre la “tesis de que los regueros de sangre se produjeron durante o después del lavado (Zugibe)”.

          A eso ya respondí en los puntos a y b del comentario de referencia:

          “May 22, 2015 at 4:56 am Reply

          a/ En las heridas que fueron sangrantes de la mayor parte de la superficie corporal, como las debidas a la FLAGELACION, era clara su naturaleza PRE-MORTEM. La sangre ya estaba SECA sobre las heridas y “manchaba” la piel “integra” cercana, FUERON PUES LAVADAS.

          Si rezumaba algo de sangre al lavar alguna de esas heridas era ya sangre POST-MORTEM y esa sangre NO (negación) PODÍA SER LAVADA

          b/ Las heridas PRE-MORTEM de las manos habían producido regueros de sangre, ya coagulados, en los brazos. Al ser “desclavadas” las manos volcaron sangre líquida (POST-MORTEM) SOBRE los regueros de sangre pre-mortem ya coagulada.

          Los regueros pre-mortem coagulados de los brazos, HUMEDECIDOS con esa sangre volcada post-mortem NO (negación) PODÍAN PUES SER LAVADOS .

          c/ La herida POST-MORTEM del costado produjo ya en la Cruz el volcado de sangre líquida, coágulos y suero. Al manipular el cuerpo en posición horizontal se produjo un nuevo volcado de sangre líquida que es lo que se observa en la Sábana.”

          ASÍ QUE NINGÚN REGUERO HA FLUIDO HACIA ARRIBA.

          Carlos

  46. John Klotz
    May 23, 2015 at 7:11 am

    I am not sure which way this cuts (no pun intended) but remember that the pathologists agree that the body was in a state of rigor mortis at the time of the image formation (and assumedly from the time of death to that point at least.)

    That would mean that his chest cavity was elevated at an angle (slumping forward while on the cross would be an elevation when laid out in the horizontal.. Post-mortem blood flows would mimic that after rigor mortis set in.

    There are illustrations of that I haven’t got the time to dig-up right now. Maybe somebody might have one at their fingertips.

    (originally posted on Blind Men thread)

  47. Max patrick Hamon
    May 23, 2015 at 7:23 am

    Reminder for David Mo: the TS man’s tetanized bloodied body is the stiff rigid body of a crucifixion victim ‘hanging on the cross’ (vertical position) wrapped in shrouds after his arms were forced in rigor mortis from adduction to abduction so that his hands could be folded across his groin (horizontal position) on burial.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 23, 2015 at 7:29 am

      Reminder two: in the hypothesis the TS crucifixion victim is Yeshu’a, the latter’s bloodied body was not thoroughly washed but subjected to a specific/Second Temple period taharah/ritual purification of his pre-mortem and post-mortem shed innocent blood.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        May 23, 2015 at 7:58 am

        …and a speedy (not hasty) burial.

        Besides during the first three or seven days, it was customary for the relatives and close friends to visit the tomb then. (Myrrhic?) aloetic fumigation (drying procedure) and bed of granulized myrrh made up for the anointing procedure that could not be performed on burial (women had no time to grind spices and made spicy oily aromatic unguents BEFORE shabbat to reduce the stench of the decomposing body to come). Most likely, in order to abide by the halakha, the women bought spices in blocks, ground them into powder and made spicy oily perfumes during the first night AFTER the great sabbath and, at dawn, went out to the tomb as they meant to anoint Yeshua’s already tightly wrapped up body (not his naked body).

  48. Max patrick Hamon
    May 23, 2015 at 8:14 am

    Most obviously, neither Colin nor David Mo or Hugh are familiar with paleopathology, archelogical bloodstain pattern analyis and Second Temple period funerary archaeology and halakha. What is frankly not credible to them is frankly credible to me (scourge marks included) as a professional cryptologist. The true fact in Shroud literature is both supernaturalists’ and fraudulists’ approaches are just dead ends. The best/most promising avenue to explore and finally solve the enigma is the halakhistic approach.

    • Hugh Farey
      May 23, 2015 at 10:26 am

      The life-blood washing issue seems to me to be a bit of a red herring, and I’m afraid I don’t agree about the rules for washing pre- or post- mortem blood which Carlos seems to be citing. Did they really exist? The point seems to me to be that ‘trivial’ spillages such as a slight cut or nosebleed could be washed away, while more major issues had to be kept with the body. This did not prevent them being wiped or mopped up, as long as the cloth bearing the ‘lifeblood’ remained with the body. I have seen footage of devout Jews mopping up the blood of suicide bomb victims so that it can be buried with the victim. As Jesus did not die of blood loss, and as the trickles down the arms and face and the mass of blood which may have covered the back were relatively minor spills, there is no reason why they shouldn’t have been washed thoroughly and away. Subsequent major oozes, such as from the wrist and spear wounds could have been left in place or wiped off, with the cleaning cloth remaining with the body. If the body was being cleaned, apparently while sitting upright, and fresh blood flowed, then wiping it off seems a nice thing to do. Perhaps Zugibe has something that could resolve the question.

      • May 24, 2015 at 1:35 am

        I agree with this. This is what I have read on the subject. (Here, for example: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jewish-funerals/d_Q2SJTIArA). And I remember my reserve because we are speaking or modern tahara.

        Then, Zugibe shows in the text I quoted a small trail of post mortem blood. It is not similar to the large trails of blood of the Shroud man. I don’t know if Zugibe is more specific in his book, but he is considerably vague on this point (and others) in the articles posted on line.

  49. Max patrick Hamon
    May 23, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Reminder for Hugh: The TS heamatic cartography is totally consistent with the halakha (post-mortem blood in liquid form and bodily fluid shall be soaked up with clean white clothes/shrouds and left with the body in the tomb). The TS man’s pre-mortem wound blood flows had not to be washed away on burial since most of them had already been washed out neat and clean through both heavy sweating and pre-burial soaking-up.

  50. Hugh Farey
    May 23, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    The blood trickles down the arms are wholly inconsistent with post-mortem emission. There is no reason why, if the body was washed at all, they should not have been removed.

  51. May 23, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    All this futile argument over washing can be avoided by those who can accept that the scourge marks represent either directly or indirectly Isaiah 1. 6 . So nice sometimes to have a simple solution at hand.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      May 23, 2015 at 3:08 pm

      The “simple solution” is not the solution. The verse is quoted out of context. Any reading of Isaiah chapter 1, clearly shows that verse 1:6 is a reference to the wickedness of Israel. It was written by a proto-Isaiah in the 8th century BC. It has no bearing on the “suffering servant” of chapters 40-55, written by a deutero-Isaiah, an anonymous poet, towards the end of the Babylonian exile, and which the New Testament applies to the sufferings of Christ.

      The picture of a scourged back posted by Max on May 19, 2:44 pm above, shows that it is possible for a person to survive a severe scourging. Note that this scourging shows a pattern systematically covering the entire back with very little overlap, not dissimilar to the Shroud image,and might be said to have been similarly “artistically applied”. Whatever instrument was used, it did not tear the flesh.

      • May 24, 2015 at 1:17 am

        Daveb:
        “The picture of a scourged back posted by Max on May 19, 2:44 pm above, shows that it is possible for a person to survive a severe scourging. Note that this scourging shows a pattern systematically covering the entire back with very little overlap, not dissimilar to the Shroud image,and might be said to have been similarly “artistically applied”. Whatever instrument was used, it did not tear the flesh”.

        “Very little overlap”?? Are the scars of the man the same as the “subcutaneous” marks of the Shroud? Are we seeing the same picture?

        Max’s picture is a perfect example of shooting on his own feet.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          May 24, 2015 at 3:27 am

          Reminder for David Mo:

          the picture of the scourge back I posted was just to show you what SCARS of strokes of canes looked like as opposed to relatively FRESH strokes of flagra. Nervertheless both show just a few overlaps in the form of a diagonal cross, like the shape of the letter X in Roman type. Now, a series/line of three diagonal red crosses can be observed both on the TS man’s scourged back and on the Hungarian Pray Ms lower section folio 28 cross-covered sarcophagus, oddly standing out amid straight lines of red crosses. This is no shooting at all in my foot but in yours.

    • May 24, 2015 at 1:13 am

      Yes, DaveB, the thirteenth and fourteenth theologians who used this text did take it out of context so you need to take this up with them, but this did not stop them using it as a premonition of Christ’s scourging with sufficient success for it to appear in Passion iconography.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      May 24, 2015 at 4:05 am

      A man-made painting that has flaked off leaving a realistic looking 3-D image behind, with a few X-ray attributes, fooling several forensic pathologists, complete with Jerusalem aragonite limestone road-dust on feet, knee, and nose, together with a few Dead Sea pollen grains, supported by an inapt OT verse from Isaiah, and of which there are no other specimens known to exist, is not circumstantial evidence! It’s called desperate speculation!

  52. Louis
    May 23, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    American shroudies can now have a sip of “blessed” beer and read the discussions here:
    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/05/21/first-trappist-brewery-opens-in-america/

  53. Thomas
    May 24, 2015 at 4:31 am

    I find it really interesting that as far as I can tell most depictions of Christ prior to the late 1300s did not have streaks of blood on the forearms. There are several French examples from the late 1300s that do – presumably these artworks were influenced by the Shroud.

    This is not to say the Shroud and its blood could not have been an artistic creation. But the arm streaks would seem a decided departure from the norm of the time.

    And even more difficult to explain rationally in terms of art history is the blood across the small of the back.

  54. Charles Freeman
    May 24, 2015 at 5:04 am

    Thomas- you are quite right- the blood flowing along the arms comes in after 1300 and is found across Europe- in Italy certainly – good examples in the Gallery in Bologna – in Germany (the Roettgen Pieta), in England, the Holkham Bible of 1330.
    So you have two options-1) the Shroud was well known across Europe and people copied it.
    2) the iconography of blood flowing down Christ’s arms was well known across Europe and the artist of the Shroud copied it.
    Some more ‘desperate speculation’ needed!

    • Thomas
      May 24, 2015 at 5:54 am

      Charles how do you explain the blood across the small of the back? Seemingly no artistic precedence for that

      • May 24, 2015 at 6:19 am

        Well, I will leave it to expert opinion but a preliminary suggestion would be that some flagellations shows Christ not naked but in a loincloth and the band of blood would gather there and remain there when the loin cloth was taken off .

        It would seem that the artist would have imagined a band across there against which the blood would have gathered and a loin cloth would be the most obvious solution but we need to look for examples.

        • Dave Hines
          May 25, 2015 at 11:53 am

          Hello Charles, you helped inspire me to make a video, so I am sending it to you. I was hoping you might view it with a open mind, and consider the possibility that the Shroud image is in part a contact image. I am presently conducting a blood experiment which is also seen in the video. I bought some pure linen fabric, herringbone weave and applied fresh blood to 3 different pieces of linen. It has been over 36 hours and all 3 are still red. I monitor it frequently and have taken photos. Some slight fading but not much
          1. Sample was left uncovered, fresh blood on the linen
          2. Another sample has blood with myrrh resin covering
          3. Another sample has myrrh and aloes covering it.

          It is a test to see what happens to blood on pure linen fabric over the course of time. Will it stay red or not?

          The other part of the video is a 3D Figure of a man, covered in myrrh and aloes and then we will unwrap him after 3 days to see what kind of image is left behind as a result.

          This is all part of the fun of Shroud research. If anything at all, perhaps it will bring a smile to your face, a little excitement in perhaps a otherwise dull day .
          Cheers to you in the great country of Great Britain!

        • Thomas
          May 26, 2015 at 1:16 am

          David – love it! Please let us know what happens. Maybe even a special posting (hint hint Dan) in a few weeks’ time?

      • daveb of wellington nz
        May 24, 2015 at 6:58 pm

        An example of the nil value of an opinion when unsupported by forensic science!

        The flow is not from the scourge wounds, but from the vena cava, and has occurred during the short journey from the cross to the tomb. Part of this blood has congealed transversally on the back during this journey, consists of irregular windings which bifurcate several times and then comes together again. A sheet twisted irregularly supporting the lower part of the thorax during transport has been completely impregnated with blood, and a small part of it has coagulated irregularly on the surface of the skin amidst the folds of the material, resulting in this pattern. Barbet, pp 151-152.

        • Hugh Farey
          May 25, 2015 at 1:44 am

          Perhaps using the photos available to him at the time, it was possible for Barbet to come the conclusion that the trickles of blood across the back were transfers from a twisted cloth. Had he had better photos, I am certain that he would have changed his mind. They are wholly inconsistent with such an interpretation.

        • Charles Freeman
          May 25, 2015 at 3:31 am

          Well, we just have to disagree on the reality of the human blood. I am an independent scholar, formerly a Senior Examiner of the International Baccalaureate;s critical thinking programme, Theory of Knowledge, and thus used to looking at evidence or asking those who know.
          I had the Heller/Adler papers read by a professor emeritus of physiology who said that their claims that this was blood were totally unconvincing. I show the bloodstains to any forensic expert i can find and they all say they have never seen dried blood that red.
          So I am not working on the understanding that this is blood.
          Why can’t the STURP tests be replicated 37 years on? Have they lost the tapes???

        • PHPL
          May 25, 2015 at 6:28 am

          Charles Freeman :

          “I am an independent scholar,formerly a Senior Examiner of the International Baccalaureate;s”

          Hi Charles, what’s the minimum % that a candidate must achieve to pass the exam ? 50 % ?

          All the best
          Patrick

        • May 25, 2015 at 7:39 am

          Patrick- no they are graded- it was a complicated system and depended on the intellectual quality of the argument in an essay on an issue of knowledge. But it was fun working with some top critical minds from all the different disciplines and taught me how to spot bull****. A great help sometimes!

        • PHPL
          May 25, 2015 at 9:12 am

          Thanks for your reply Charles. Take care.

        • daveb of wellington nz
          May 25, 2015 at 3:57 pm

          Patrick, I can recommend Michael Scriven’s text “Reasoning”, which was the standard text for several universities’ courses in Critical Thinking. First published in 1976, now sadly out of print, but I see it is still advertised and promoted on Amazon. He has written several other texts since. I found it invaluable training for my specialised audit work in a major NZ Corporate.

          Wiki extract on Scriven:
          “Scriven was born in the UK (1928) and grew up in Melbourne, Australia. He holds BSc and MS degrees in mathematics from the University of Melbourne (1948 and 1950), and a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford (1956). Scriven is a past president of the American Educational Research Association and the American Evaluation Association. He is also an editor and co-founder of the Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation. He is currently(?) a distinguished professor at Claremont Graduate University in California. He has spent most of his career in the United States. He became a full Professor at the age of 32.” [Article claims last update 3 May 2015]

      • daveb of wellington nz
        May 25, 2015 at 2:08 am

        Barbet was working from the Enrie 1931 negatives, which continue to be among the best available. You disagree, but I am unaware that you are as qualified in the field as was Barbet!

        • Hugh Farey
          May 25, 2015 at 3:05 am

          In tis particular instance, Barbet’s guess is no better than anybody else’s. He actually changes his mind during the course of his book, and his final explanation about the blood fitting into the folds of a wholly impregnated cloth is wholly unconvincing. Try soaking a twisted cloth in something and making a similar pattern yourself. I have, and nothing remotely similar is achievable.

        • daveb of wellington nz
          May 25, 2015 at 6:08 am

          Well I dare say you weren’t working with blood from a traumatised recently dead corpse which was on the point of congealing, which would have affected the pattern. I’ve just examined the pattern at zoom on Shroudscope, both Enrie & Durante. I see two distinct wavy patterns that crisscross. If it was just a twisted sheet, I would have expected a single pattern of parallel lines sloped according to whether the sheet was Z or S twisted. So maybe it might not have been a twisted sheet. Or maybe some abrasion or movement or adjustment during transport distorted the pattern. Either way, I can still accept Barbet’s explanation of some kind of band across the back for purposes of transport being the fundamental cause of the pattern, however it occurred.

      • Dave Hines
        June 6, 2015 at 6:01 pm

        Hi Thomas, here are the results

        The blood will fade slightly in the first 12 hours but still remains red. It turns into a burgundy/plum type color.

        It has been 3 weeks, Blood has not changed at all since it’s initial fading after 12 hours.
        Samples with myrrh and aloes covering blood has a slightly different look, it is a lighter red color. Not as dark as others.

        Linen retains it’s 3D Form. Has not changed since removing the figures from the linen. There is minimal coloring effect on the linen from the myrrh and aloes. Over time the initial coloring of myrrh and aloes fades. Although myrrh resin is a sepia/caramel color like what is seen on the Shroud when making an imprint with a mixture of myrrh and aloes it does NOT color the cloth as one might expect. Only a very light yellow/caramel color residue can be seen. I was not expecting that result. The myrrh resin I used from Egypt was a pretty dark yellow color. The linen did not show that afterwards as much as I thought it would.

        Better to see for yourself. Hope you enjoy the video.

  55. Max patrick Hamon
    May 26, 2015 at 4:12 am

    Re blood rivulets first to wander erratically back and forth across the small of the back and then be recorded onto the shroud, on February 19, 2013 at 9:17 am, I wrote:

    (…) besides the possible yet conjectural use of a pre-burial loin cloth, most likely the Turin Shroud man’s pronounced convex curvature of the spine (lordosis) can account for the two post-mortem half-viscuous blood dribbles zigzagging around below the side wound and flowing from one side to the other of the small of the back as if his stiff rigid body had been placed first on its left side then turned on its right side with no stasis in suspine position so as to more easily force its arms from adduction to abduction and counteract rigor statuaris.

    Reminder: most likely the ritually clean burial cloth was used as an in-soaked –with aqueous alkaline solution– long narrow inner winding shroud first to be tautly wrapped lengthwise from the man’s toes, up the front of his stiff rigid body, over his tilted head, and down his curved back to his heels prior to his whole body being tightly wrapped-up widthwise –and manually compressed– in clean dry outer shrouds. Prior to the purifying and drying procedures, most likely the body, once tightly wrapped-up in shrouds, was laid in extra height first on the left then turned on the right side again to be subjected to a –myrrhic?– aloetic fumigation.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 26, 2015 at 4:23 am

      Typo: no stasis in supine position

  56. Thomas
    May 26, 2015 at 6:08 am

    A thought for Colin, and all…

    I was just looking at Shroudscope in the right sort of light for a change.
    I seemed to observe that the image of the eyebrows appears stronger than the image of the forehead.

    This made me curious. Why would that be? I got experimenting, draping cloths over my head. The cloth would seem to fall just as heavily over the forehead as the eyebrows. If the variations in image intensity are due to distance from the cloth, as they seem to be, then this doesn’t make sense, as the cloth is touching both the eyebrows and forehead firmly….

    On a typical person’s face eyebrows do not project far out.

    However, with a statue or bas relief, it would be natural to expect a slight raising of the eyebrow depiction, for effect.

    If the shroud was draped over a statue, then, the sculpted eyebrow feature projecting (as opposed to nearly flat on a real person) might explain slight lift away of the Shroud from the forehead. And hence the different image intensity.

    • May 26, 2015 at 6:41 am

      Interesting observation. I believe Colin is now working on the premise that a statue was not used but rather an actual body (living or dead) was employed. I’m wondering if the eyebrow protrusion might be related to swelling of the body tissue. If the relic is authentic, and the body is Jesus, we’re dealing with a man who was soundly beaten — the Gospels record he was stuck in the face. He also may have fallen face-first. The most common areas of swelling on a face, that’s taken hard impact, will be the area around the eye (cheek and brow) and the around the mouth (cheek and lips).

      • John Klotz
        May 26, 2015 at 6:47 am

        Have you connected any experiments demonstrating your idea of why those differences occurred? Do you have any calculations of image density variations or are you relying ion your visual observations? Which photographs of the Shroud are you relying on?

        Have you ever met anybody with bushy eyebrows?

        Have you ever measured a hair that had no dimension of thickness?

        • John Klotz
          May 26, 2015 at 6:48 am

          The above was addressed to Thomas

        • Thomas
          May 26, 2015 at 7:49 am

          Durante image on shroudscope clearly shows image around brow darker than forehead. Maybe David’s suggestion is right in terms of swelling of the brow.

      • Thomas
        May 26, 2015 at 7:38 am

        Mmmm food for thought

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