Specifically, Ultraviolet fluorescent detection of elevated bilirubin in dried blood serum by Kelly P Kearse, just published on September 23, 2022, in the Journal of Forensic Science and Research (Open Access). The summary reads:
Increased levels of bilirubin in blood serum may result from numerous physical conditions including hepatitis, cirrhosis, enzyme defi ciency, drug reactions, autoimmune disorders and physiological trauma. No presumptive test for high bilirubin levels in blood serum stains currently exists, which could prove useful in the assessment of crime scenes involving victims with one of the above disorders. Here, the use of ultraviolet 365 (UV 365) is described as a simple, nondestructive method for the detection of blood serum containing elevated levels of bilirubin.
Dr, Kearse has been a significant Shroud researcher for many years.
Hat tip to Joe Marino
Might it be too much to ask, Dan, what the connection might be between Kelly’s new findings re blood and bilirubin, and the subject of your blog site, namely the TS?
No offence intended – merely a need on your part to fill a somewhat curious gap in your otherwise continuing and excellent supply of TS-relevant information…
I see these important connections: leading blood researcher is on board with claims the shroud contains actual human blood stains, the redness of ancient bloodstains has been explained scientifically, those who want to dismiss the shroud as a 14th century mind exercise need to explain why the creator used real blood containing high amounts of bilirubin, when there was no common knowledge of it at the time. Your move Colin.
Sorry Matt – but I gave up commenting on the detail some months ago. I’m merely interested now in following what others are saying – or in this case, not saying… :-)
Ray Rogers, in his book, A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin, page 19, writes: “Incidentally, we found that Saponaria officinalis solutions are hemolytic: they break the membranes of red blood cells and release the red hemoglobin” and from there went on to explain some test results that might explain why the blood was still red. Is that the scientific explanation? Or was it the bilirubin? Or was it Walter McCrone’s visual observations? Matt, I used to feel the way you do, but now, after sifting through the evidence (not just the blood evidence) I’m beginning to believe there is no evidence that I want to rely on.
” … they break the membranes of red blood cells and release the red hemoglobin” and from there went on to explain some test results that might explain why the blood was still red. Is that the scientific explanation? Or was it the bilirubin? “
Can someone, preferably Dan in the first instance. kindly explain where Alan Adler acquired the mistaken idea that bilirubin is and/or was the source of additional (and otherwise unexplainable) red colour attributed to TS “bloodstains”..
Fact: elementary (unconjugated) bilirubin in all its various forms, whether pure state, solvent -dissolved, serum albumin dispersed or whatever, is basically ORANGE – not red!
Bilirubin was cited by Adler all those years ago as a totally needless distraction, with that wild idea being hoovered up and promoted by the President of STERA no less as clinching evidence for TS authenticity.
Kindly spare us please these crazy distractions that divert from the truth…
I’m not sure I follow your comment. Do you think that the pink stains found on the Shroud “have been explained scientifically”? If so, I would be very grateful for the source of your scientific explanation.
As you very well know, Dr. Alan Adler, a college professor of Jewish heritage and religion, and also a blood expert who specialized in porphyrins, was able to conclusively determine that there is blood on the Shroud. Not only that, there were many other tests that proved that blood is on the Shroud.
Why do you ask questions which you know the answers to very well?
PS to my last comment re the misleading description of bilirubin as “red” in colour, allegedly able to mimic the colour of blood.
Here’s a link to a 2013 obituary to J.Donald Ostrow (with whom I worked and co-published n Philadelphia for 2 years in the early 1970s.
Don was one of the world’s foremost authorities on bilirubin. Note his description as a “Yellow Giant”! No, not a RED or even ORANGE giant but YELLOW GIANT. (Pure bilirubin is orange in colour, but looks yellow when seen in most of its dissolved or dispersed states).
Here’s what Dr. Alan Adler, the professor who was a not just a random expert on blood but a porphyrin expert, stated about “bilirubin” (which, as I’m sure you know, is Latin for “red bile”):
“The next test we did was to take micro-spectrum photometry on the non-birefringement red-coated fibrils from the Shroud. It was obvious that the spectrum it produced did not match the spectrum of methemoglobin, at least as it is given in the standard references, which is a solution spectrum of blood. But in a film [italicized] of hemoglobin there is a confirmation change; it no longer remains in the “met” form but goes to the para-chemic form.. It is known now that there is a certain species which will spontaneously go to the para-hemic form if there is not enough turn-over in the spleen and the liver to process the blood fast enough. We found a spectrum that was characteristic of only one known group of compounds –the so-called high-spin, high-iron porphyrins. So instead of being wrong, the spectrum peaks were in the right place. What we were seeing was the breakdown products of hemoglobin –bilirubin and biliverdin. And one began to m make sense out of all this There is an extraordinarily high bilirubin count, almost as high as the methemoglobin. Now how does one account for such a high bilirubin in a person? One possibility is that the person had severe malaria, but this does not seem very likely. But a torture, scourging and crucifixion leading to shock –that would produce a tremendous hemolysis. In less than 30 seconds, the hemolyses hemoglobin will run through the liver, building up a very high bilirubin content in the blood. If that blood then clots, the exudate forms, and all the intact cells with the hemoglobin stay behind, only the hemolyzed hemoglobin goes out along with the serum albumin which binds the bilirubin. So what one ends up with on the cloth is an exudate which has an enhanced bilirubin index with respect to the hemolyses hemoglobin. You now mix BILIRUBIN which is YELLOW-ORANGE with methemoglobin in its para-chemic form which is an orangey-brown and you get blood which has a red color. In fact, we have been able to simulate this spectrum in the laboratory by the process described above. This very strongly suggests that the blood stains are of a man who was severely beaten.” [Emphasis added.] (From Adler’s “The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud.”)
So, there is Adler’s explanation, and he refers to bilirubin, itself, as being yellow-orange in color.
So, with regard to J. Donald Ostrow (a.k.a. “The Yellow Giant”), perhaps that was just a more catchy moniker than “The Yellow-Orange Giant.”
From July 21:
Don’t take this personally Teddi, but I’ve decided this is an appropriate time to bow out from sindonology (at least re the fine detail of this and that). All I wish or need to say now is blunt and simple. Prove me and my Model 10 wrong, SSG, sindonology, wider internet etc etc.
Further communication welcome on my private email only
Bye one and all …
I’m confused, Colin. Do you want us to prove that 1) you have not come up with a method of creating an image on linen or 2) prove that you have not shown us decisively how the image was created on the Shrou? Do you want to shift the burden of proof onto us? Why? Is that not a touch of the “argumentum ad ignorantium” fallacy?
While, in a typical situation, I would want to be respectful of your request, I do not think that your request is one that is fair to grant. You want to fire your bullets at the Shroud in public, but then you want YOUR OPPONENT to give you safe harbor by only finishing the discussion away from the scrutiny of the public. This is just not fair, and I am not going to play by such rules.
Why are you not wanting to talk about the details?
With regard to your baked linen with flour and oil experiment, here is what YOU need to prove for your experiment to have more actual relevance (since some 3-D characteristics on a non-VP-8 analyzer are not the only criteria that needs to be met): You need to prove that when you take a photograph of your flour and oil imprint, that you will get a highly detailed image in the photographic negative on traditional film.
I am doubtful that you will get the highly detailed image that is seen on the Shroud with a photographic negative of its image. But, I will reserve my judgment on this until after I see results. Just get a traditional camera, plop some film into it, snap a photograph of it, get it developed and let’s see what the results are. If you do not have a traditional camera, I’ll happily send one to you –just tell me, publicly, that you’ll take a photograph of your flour and oil image and that you will show the photographic negative of publicly, and I’ll send you the camera with some film in it –ready for you to take that photograph. Let’s see whether your hypothesis is still viable or not –it will be rather exciting to find out, right?!
Teddi. you say you are “doubtful that [Colin] will get the highly detailed image that is seen on the Shroud with a photographic negative of its image.” Why? What method has been proposed (or even tried) that does?
The method that has succeeded is singular –the Holy Shroud in Turin, Italy. It has a storied history of containing an image not created by human hands. Moreover, I will go farther than that and say that I believe that it cannot –with ALL of its special features– be reproduced naturally. What evidence is there to support this thought? The fact that Jews and Muslims have traditionally wrapped dead bodies in Shrouds. Yet, we have no cloths with images like what we see with the Shroud. This, along with the many attempts that have been made to reproduce this image –and the repeated FAILURES to reproduce a cloth with all of its special features– gives the Shroud a rebuttable presumption of authenticity. People who want to debunk a miracle need to prove that it’s either a painting of some sort or prove that it can be created through some other means that has, heretofore, not been accomplished.
A simple way to determine if Colin’s experiment is viable or not is to check and see what the photographic negative looks like. That’s something that would be very simple to do. If it’s not performed, especially with my offer to provide a camera and film, and publicly shown, then the question will be “WHY NOT?”
I was able finally to get my mind around the nature and origins of the TS as a medieval simulation, Dan.
It was the product of many years of serial hypothesis testing, culminating in my final Model 10, the first and crucial step of which is contact flour imprinting off (most probably ) one, maybe two live human volunteers (naked adult males!).
That then, briefly summarised, is my SCIENTIFIC contribution where the TS is concerned (while having no access to the TS per se). In other words, it is or was a scientific longshot, albeit strictly science-based in its somewhat limited approach.
So let’s leave it there please where I personally am concerned, having said all I wish or need to say.
. There will be no further internet-mediated comments from this particular peripheral science bod, though maybe, hopefully a now significant player, deploying merely his science-based background as a counter to that massive ‘wishful thinking brigade’, aka authenticity-promoting TS proponents.
Cheerio Dan (and all)..
Once again, you ask for a cease-fire while still firing bullets.
You have stated many times that, many years ago, you did research concerning bilirubin. Well, this is terrific, because I’ve got LOTS of bilirubin questions!
I wish Dr. Alan Adler were still here so that I could ask him, but he’s not. You’ve got the advantage over me. You’re a scientist who has worked in that area [albeit many years ago.] I’m not a scientist. But, it should still be like shooting fish in a barrel for you.
I’m afraid I don’t follow your last comment. I’m aware of Alan Adler’s credentials and have several times agreed that on balance, I think he was correct in concluding that there was blood on the Shroud.
What I don’t think he, or anyone else, has explained, is the pink stain that appears to be associated with it. Your quotation above is questionable. At one point Adler says: “You now mix BILIRUBIN which is YELLOW-ORANGE with methemoglobin in its para-chemic form which is an orangey-brown and you get blood which has a red color.” As it stands, that’s simply wrong: a yellow-orange colour mixed with an orangey-brown colour does not result in a red colour. However, Barrie thought that it wasn’t just a question of colour-mixing, but a chemical reaction between bilirubin and methemoglobin, resulting in a different chemical, which was red. In that case Adler may be right, but I have not seen this explained.
Adler goes on to say, “In fact, we have been able to simulate this spectrum in the laboratory by the process described above.” That too, may be true, but it has not been demonstrated, nor explained.
You wonder why I ask questions to which I already know the answer. As a lawyer, you’ll know that very well, it’s a crucial technique never to ask a witness a question to which you don’t know the answer. It’s a technique to lead to a follow up question, to which the witness doesn’t know the answer. In this case I asked of Matt: ‘Do you think that the pink stains found on the Shroud “have been explained scientifically”?’ to which the answer was clearly yes, he does. I’ve no doubt you think the same. Unfortunately neither he, nor you, nor Alan Adler, at least during this exchange, have answered the follow-up, and actually explained the pink colour scientifically.
Does that answer your question?
(And did you know when you asked it that that would be my answer? As a good lawyer, I bet you did!)
Comments are closed.