Someone recently asked why I had become so skeptical. The list of what were once certainties now becoming uncertainties grows and grows and grows. This is the latest and it’s a big deal.
An area of Image can be seen in the Blood slide, and some Image colour can be seen where the blood has been eroded away, but no clear cloth. This suggests that there is image under the blood, contrary to the observations of Heller and Adler.
Mark Evans’ Micrographs @ The Medieval Shroud by Hugh Farey
Read Hugh’s entire posting.
Before anyone writes another proselytizing book, makes another YouTube, or gives a fact-based presentation, check the facts, especially the facts about the following:
- The 3D-ishness of the image
- The true value or lack of value of the pollen spores
- The reason the blood is still red
- The true chemistry of the image chromophore
- And now, is there image under bloodstains
- Etcetera
In the business world – where I came from – we would be screaming “STOP.” We would put together another group to examine everything. We would try for impartiality, but since that is probably impossible, we would try to get a mixture of biases. We would try to get the sticky tapes, micrographs and photographs wherever they are stored. We would endeavor to look at them again with new tools and methods. We would doubt Heller, Adler, Rogers, Jackson, Marino, and everyone else until we could prove them right or wrong.
Even given some questions on these major points, I don’t believe it leads to the conclusion that the Shroud is therefore medieval. I still think one of the best arguments for the Shroud’s authenticity is that it is most unlikely there was a medieval forger proficient in multiple disciplines to the degree that they have able to consistently puzzle 20th and 21st century scientists and researchers.
Hi, Hugh,
I read your blog and saw the pictures –especially the ones that you heavily enhanced and manipulated (as you, of course, explained.) Could you please show us where there is an example of blood that has “eroded away” from the fiber and which shows body image underneath? I am unable to find an example of this. And, it would be great if we could see this on an image that has not been manipulated by you –and, if you want to show us a clear example of where you have worked some Photoshop magic on a photo to yield some interesting information, I’d be interested in seeing that, too. But, I really couldn’t make out make you were talking about from the images that you showed on your blogpost.
And, one other question –if blood has “eroded away” from an area where there is (allegedly) a body image underneath –how do you know that there really was blood there that “eroded away?” Maybe there just never really was blood there to begin with? I don’t know, however –I’ll reserve my judgment until I see better photos.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Teddi
And, let me clarify –I know that you post a photo where you are saying that there is eroded blood and image underneath –but, could you point out where this is on the photo –such as with an arrow or circling the area or something? Because, all we see is the entire photo and not, necessarily, what you are specifically referring to. Thanks!
Teddi makes some good points. One of the micrographs (ME-06) is labelled “Dense Blood,” and the others labelled “Blood” are certainly not dense, so we have to go with that. To me, but I could be mistaken, it seems that it actually covers the edge of a bloodstain, blood on the right and image on the left. This is supported by the fact that if I change the image area colour to bright yellow, the same yellow appears on the left hand side of the blood image. However, it is also apparent that not all the right hand side is “dense.” When the slide is accentuated red, not only the left side, but also parts of the right do not respond, including areas fringed with bright colour, which leads me to suppose that in those areas the blood has eroded away. The colour of those areas corresponds to the colour of the image slide, but not to the colour of the ‘clear cloth’ slide. There are various possible reasons for this, and one of them is that the bits under the blood that look like image actually are image.
Hello, Hugh,
It would be great if you could post the photo that you reference here with an arrow or arrows where you think you see image under blood. Not sure how this could happen since if you see blood in a particular area, then you cannot see underneath that spot of blood, correct? I think that’s just logical –at least to me. If you see image, what’s your proof that blood was ever on top of it?
Thanks,
Teddi
Hi, again, Hugh,
And, could you please clarify what “it” is which you say covers the bloodstains? Are you saying that “it” is body image? If so, that would go against your hypothesis, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t you be showing “blood first, image second?”
And, are you distinguishing body image from serum halos —some of which are viewable with the naked eye —especially in the large bloodstains (like in the chest?)
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
1) The second “it” in “it seems that it actually covers the edge of a bloodstain, blood on the right and image on the left” refers to whole of slide ME-06.
2) Without knowing exactly where these slides came from, it is not possible to say whether any of ME-06 shows serum rather than image, or even both superimposed. All I can say is that finding and emphasising the colour of “image” has exactly the same effect on the ‘non-blood’ areas of ME-06, and emphasising the colour of “non-image” has no effect on the ‘non-blood’ areas of ME-06. If serum can be distinguished from ‘image’ with the naked eye, then serum areas of ME-06 should not react in exactly the same way as if they were image.
3) I don’t know how to post photos as part of a comment. However, the small rhomboid sections of weft thread, visible as a diagonal series in the middle of the lower third of ME-06, are typical of threads which have blood on their sides, as they dip beneath the adjacent warp threads, but not on their upper faces, suggesting that the blood has been eroded in those places. These places are the same colour as the image slide ME-16, and not the same colour as the non-image slide ME-15.
Hello, Hugh,
I looked, again, on your website to examine the photo you posted of the Mark Evans microphotograph ME-06. I do not see any evidence there of any body image being present there. What I see is evidence of mechanically abraded bloodstains on cloth –from many centuries of the Shroud’s being both folded and rolled up for storage and transportation purposes. I do not see any of the straw-yellow color of the body image. Instead, I see what is the color of the background of the cloth (as in “non-body image” areas.) This is, of course, consistent with the “blood first, body image second” hypothesis –which makes total sense. If a bloodied body (some blood dry, some blood wet or in a semi-wet) is being laid onto a cloth, blood is going to get on the cloth. The image hypothesis that explains why the body image is on the cloth is, of course, the energy used to enable life to go back into a lifeless body –in short, the Resurrection. Since the historical documents known as the Gospels inform us that this occurred on the 3rd day after Jesus’ crucifixion and death, that would, of course, instruct that the body image came later.
Since the body image is so incredibly shallow –1-2 microfibers deep on the effected threads, then it seems quite reasonable to think that the blood protected the cloth underneath it –thus, preventing image formation on the cloth underneath the bloodstains. And, this is what we see evidence of.
Straw yellow is straw yellow –and I do not notice any of this in ME-06. If you see any, could you post another photo on your website with an arrow pointing to where you see examples of this on ME-06. Because, I don’t see it.
Moreover, you reference on your blog post on the Mark Evans microphotographs that ME-29 exhibits a clear difference in the intensity of fibers in the photo. I do not see this at all –if by the “intensity” of the fibers you mean the intensity of the color on the fibers. (But, you might also be referring to the intensity of the clustering of the colored particles.) So, I’m not totally certain what you mean here.
But, as you know, if we have, for example, 100 tiny dots that are all identical in their red color and the intensity of their color, we can see this optical effect occur: if 50 of the red dots are tightly concentrated next to each other, this area will look much darker than another area where the other 50 red dots are configured in a more randomly sprinkled, less concentrated way.
There is, also, the practical issue of the color of blood –it is not all one uniform shade of red –it can range in color with some areas being more orange-red, etc.
Also, with ME-29, you mention that you see color diving deeply into the crevices. Yes, indeed you do. That red color is blood, and the blood does penetrate to the back side of the cloth –that is what contributes to the “cementation” that is seen with the bloodstain areas. Of course, there is no evidence of any cementation in the straw-yellow body image areas. And, I do not see (nor am I aware of there being any evidence of) straw-yellow body image color diving deeply (or even shallowly) into the crevices of the linen cloth.
All the best,
Teddi
Also, there is the issue of the more “golden yellow” color of some of the serum halos that can even be observed with the naked eye –one of the more famous examples of this is with, precisely, the bloodstain from the lance wound. While I cannot recall from memory right now whether cementation had been observed in the serum halo areas, it would stand to reason to me that there would, indeed, be cementation with the “golden yellow” colored fibers. You might ask –how do we know for certain which fibers are the “golden yellow” areas and which are the “straw-yellow areas.” Well, the answer would be whether the fiber fluoresces or not under UV light. If it fluoresces, the (golden) yellow is from the serum halo –and, additional evidence would be where was the sample taken –at the edge of the bloodstain (where the serum squeezes out of a blood clot of from a body image area that is not near a bloodstain?) If the yellow fiber does not fluoresce, it is from the body image –since, as you know, the body image on the Shroud does not fluoresce under UV light.
Hi Teddi,
I’m confused about this energy you mention. You’ve called it supernatural energy which Jesus used to resurrect himself. So it’s not something from nature and what it will do is possibly a mystery. What do you know about it? Maybe this energy penetrates blood thus making this whole question moot. So maybe Hugh is right and it makes no difference – or wrong and it also makes no difference
If the supernatural energy does not penetrate blood how does it enter Jesus’ body in order for him “to resurrect Himself.”
Hello, Dan,
Yes, this energy that I mention is, I am convinced, supernatural. Why? Because, living things require an energy source. When that energy source is depleted, they are dead. To bring life back to something which is dead would require energy from some source. As far as I am aware, humans are incapable of bringing truly dead creatures back to life, and we have no evidence that I am aware of that Nature can do this on her own. As such, this energy is outside of the natural realm –hence, it’s supernatural.
Even with the fertilization of a human egg and sperm, there is an observable spark of energy –as was observed by scholars from my alma mater. https://utmsi.utexas.edu/blog/entry/zinc-spark#:~:text=The%20spark%20occurs%20when%20an,from%20getting%20into%20the%20egg.
Does it not stand to reason that the Resurrection of Jesus would require some sort of burst of energy that infuses a lifeless body with life energy?
While I believe in the Trinity, and so, yes, ultimately, Jesus resurrected Himself –I think that, also, the Father resurrected His Son.
Regarding the possibility of the energy having penetrated the blood, there is this issue: we have no evidence that the image-making process penetrated the blood since, when protease was applied to bloodstains (in order to “eat” the blood off of the microfiber) the fiber underneath the blood looked like the background/non-image. There was no “straw-yellow” once the blood was removed.
The protease treatment did not remove the straw yellow body image color –and Heller and Adler tried using many different chemicals to try and remove the straw-yellow color from fibers. They kept failing to do so until they tried the reductant divide. Since Heller and Adler’s observations were that the body image was created through a process of dehydration and oxidation of the cellulose, they reasoned that a reductant should reverse the process. HOWEVER, the process of producing the body image damaged the linen fiber by creating a brittle and corroded appearance to it.
But, when the linen fibers underneath the bloodstains were examined (after the protease treatment “ate away” the blood, the fibers looked like the fibers in the background/non-image areas –in that they were NOT exhibiting brittleness or corrosion.
You asked how the supernatural energy would enter Jesus’ body to form the Resurrection if it did not penetrate the blood on the cloth. Well, I would say that there is a difference between energy having an effect on our body vs. leaving a visible mark on our body. For example, I can walk outside for a little while as the sun is shining and my body will absorb rays from the sun, but that does not necessarily mean that I will receive a tan from this short exposure to the sun.
Also, there is a difference between what the sun will do to cloth vs. what the sun will do to a human body.
Additionally, given the precise nature of the scourge wounds, Jesus’ body had to have been, at least, partially washed. As such, even if we were to assume that the blood “blocked” the entrance of the supernatural energy, there would have been lots of washed surface area on Jesus’ body to still receive that life-infusing burst of energy from the Father.
But, ultimately, we are incapable of knowing the precise mechanics of Resurrection. If we knew that, we’d be performing them on a regular basis, yes?
Best regards,
Teddi
What do you mean by the term ‘energy’? It is a physics’ concept, a certain idea that there is some quantity that is useful in theoretical descritpion of behavior (or dynamics) of physical system. It is being defined in different ways in different branches of physics, not always consistent. It is generally claimed that energy is conserved in nature, but theoretical physics knows and can describe physical systems, where energy is NOT conserved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
Have you ever had any theoretical physics courses? Lagrangians and Hamiltonians, etc.?
It is disputable whether physical concepts can be applicable to the problem of Resurrection.
I just caught an “auto-correct” typo. It was supposed to say the resultant “DIIMIDE” (not “divide.”)
Perhaps it’s time to revise our understanding of the term ” supernatural”, or maybe even replace it. Our current understanding of how energy/light/radiation operates in the universe clearly can’t account for how this part of God’s creation could have caused the Image on the Shroud. Its not, I don’t think, because this energy/light/radiation absolutely could never have acted this way. To suggest seems rather arrogant to me. After all, the Creator can use anything in creation anyway he wants. Just because we can’t understand how it happened doesn’t mean we get to automatically reject it. And, saying that the Resurrection is something that occurred outside the space/time continuum (it just happened instantaneously-POOF”) thereby leaving NO evidence behind for us to contemplate, also seems at odds with what our Church teaches about the reality of God.
I’m not sure I’m expressing this in a coherent way, but I hope you can understand what I’m trying to express.
Thanks,
Pam
Hello, O.K.,
I guess “I’m okay, you’re O.K.” (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!😆)
By “energy,” I think that I am thinking more in terms of biology and chemistry. But, I’m not sure that we really know what “energy” is, do we? We know that oxygen is involved in the production of “energy,” and we know that humans get “energy” from carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. But, I don’t know that we really know what, specifically, this life-giving energy is. I think that knowledge of it and the ability to creates it remains with God in the supernatural realm.
We don’t really even really understand electricity. Why would we think that we would understand that which produces life?
All the best,
Teddi
Yet another “auto-correct” typo –it is the “REDUCTANT” diimide (not the “resultant” diimide.) Apologies.
Can I comment on your:
“I do not see any evidence there of any body image being present there. What I see is evidence of mechanically abraded bloodstains on cloth –from many centuries of the Shroud’s being both folded and rolled up for storage and transportation purposes. I do not see any of the straw-yellow color of the body image. Instead, I see what is the color of the background of the cloth (as in “non-body image” areas.)”
When you say you see “the color of the background cloth,” are you actually comparing what you see to the colour of the background cloth? In my series of three photos in row, the background cloth is the one in the middle, and its colour is not the same as the colour on the bloodstain cloth, where the blood has been mechanically abraded. Those areas do match the colour of the slide on the left, which is “image.”
The question of whether the image fibres are “corroded” is an interesting one. Heller and Adler report that the darker the fibrils, the more corroded they appear. It’s a pity there are no pictures of the sticky-tape slides in the published papers. However, we can see for ourselves in the extensive photographic collection of Eugenia Nitowski – magnification of X400 is necessary for clear observation – that no such correlation is at all obvious.
Hello, Hugh,
You asserted the following: “Heller and Adler report that the darker the fibrils, the more corroded they appear.”
I just have time for a partial response right now, but I must say: I have read (and continue to read) the works of Heller and Adler repeatedly (their books and their published and unpublished papers), and I have paid attention to what they have said about the body image fibers.
Yet, I do not recall ever having seen anywhere either of them state that “the darker the fibers, the more corroded they appear.” While it’s always possible this alleged statement of theirs is floating around there somewhere or that I have (repeatedly) missed seeing such an important characterization of the body image fibers, I’m extremely doubtful of that.
Do you have a source that backs up this claim of yours (as to what they said), because I’m almost 100% certain that you are mistaken with this assertion about what either of them have said about the body image fibers.
All the best,
Teddi
Sorry; I assumed you knew or I’d have quoted verbatim. See Table 2 of A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin. Uncoated fibrils are classified Very pale – very smooth, Pale yellow – slightly corroded, Yellow – corroded, and Dark – very corroded.
Hello, Hugh,
Thank you for providing a source for your statement. You gave the following description for the fibrils discussed in Table 2 of Heller and Adler’s “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin:” Uncoated fibrils are classified Very pale – very smooth, Pale yellow – slightly corroded, Yellow – corroded, and Dark – very corroded.”
I’d like to add some comments and context to what you mentioned.
You refer to “uncoated” fibrils as being classified as “very pale.” It is important to note that Heller and Adler also specified that these fibers were from the backing cloth and the patch cloth (both considered “Holland cloth), and that their surface appeared “very smooth” under phase contrast. Since the patches and backing cloth were only put on the Shroud after (and because of) the damage inflicted to the Shroud by the Fire of 1532, Heller and Adler were looking at a cloth (the Holland cloth) that had only sustained oxidation and dehydration of a maximum of about 446 years –and without the damaging effects on cloth from the Fire of 1532 and the effect on the cloth (both the background/non-image areas of the cloth as well as the image areas) from the image-producing process.
But, it is unsurprising that the fibrils from these two, non-original Shroud materials have a “very pale” and “very smooth” appearance with no evidence of corrosion.
Also, just because the image-making process caused the formation of the body image (which is noticeable to the naked eye) does not mean that the image-making process had no effect whatsoever on the entirety of the original linen cloth.
I think that it is, also, noteworthy that Heller and Adler do NOT use the word “yellow” at all in their description of the paleness of the Holland cloth that was used for both the patches and the backing cloth. The (comparatively) “pale” yellow fibers of the non-image areas is, however, readily discernible from Evans’ microphotographs when you observe both in one photo with the same exact lighting. Obviously, when you are comparing two or more different photos, the lighting can change –even quite subtly—despite the photographs having been taken in a room where the lighting has not been changed. Moreover, things get even trickier when comparing separate photos that are taken via microscopy –because there are additional factors that can have an effect upon the lighting and color –and we don’t know how much each photo was possibly enhanced by Evans. So, the “gold-standard” for examining image vs. non-image colors is when one can see both in the same picture under the same lighting. And, even then, shadows and other things can affect color. But, that’s the best we can do in terms of comparing photographs with just the naked eye. But, when observing image and non-image areas in the same photo in Evans’ microphotographs, it is rather obvious which is which.
Also, just as clarification for everyone, the “non-image” areas of the Shroud are the original linen cloth comprising the Shroud MINUS any areas that contain blood or body image. These fibrils from non-image areas are described as being “pale yellow” in color.
What is interesting here is that the linen of the Holland cloth and the patches is not described with any particular shade of “yellow.” This is consistent with Adrie van der Hoeven’s hypothesis that an extremely thin layer of starch and yellow madder dye was put on the original Shroud as part of the manufacturing process (probably as an optical brightener.) (This, also, might account for the very “PALE yellow” color of the non-image/background area.) Perhaps the Holland cloth did not have such an “optical brightener” such as a very thin, uniform coating of yellow madder dye placed on it as part of the manufacturing process. Moreover, the body image color (which is more typically referred to by STURP members as being “straw yellow” might have been tinged this straw-yellow color because of the subtle effect of a possible uniform layer of yellow madder dye throughout the entire cloth. (Of course, as with many Shroud issues, there can often be an alternative explanation. White paper in an old book, for example, turns yellow over time through the process of dehydration and oxidation. So, there is that, too. I have not arrived at a firm opinion yet on this issue.
Next, Heller and Adler only referred to “coated” fibrils in Table 2 as being either the “red coated fibrils” from the blood areas or the “golden yellow coated fibrils” of the margins of the blood areas.
It is noteworthy that for the body image, these “yellow” fibers are not referred to as “uncoated.” I think that the reason why is because –while they are uncoated with blood or serum—they do not retain the baseline quality of the non-image/background area –which has not undergone the very noticeable (to the naked eye) transformation of the body-image formation process. The “slightly corroded” surface of the non-image/background area might, I strongly suspect, be due to just the NATURAL (not-supernatural) dehydration and oxidation of linen over the course of almost 2,000 years. So, there is that, too.
You say that magnification of 400x is necessary for clear observation (presumably you mean of the fibers from the body image.) Yet, I find that Evans’ low-magnification images provide excellent examples of how easily the color of the body image can be distinguished from the color of the non-image/background area.
Now, with the “yellow” (and often referred to as “straw-yellow”) color (as opposed to the “PALE yellow” of the non-image areas) colored fibrils of the body image (non-blood) areas, these are described by Heller and Adler as exhibiting “corroded” (as opposed to “SLIGHTLY corroded”) fibrils under phase contrast. So, they are rather clearly expressing a readily observable distinction between the non-image areas and the body image areas through the modifying word of “slightly” in reference to the degree of the corrosion.
With regard to the scorched areas, these fibrils are not described as being any version of the color “yellow.” Instead, these scorched areas are described as being “VERY corroded” but of the colors ranging from light to dark BROWN (not “pale” yellow or just “yellow.”) So, these seem to be noteworthy distinctions that are useful when determining whether a fibril looks like it came from a non-image area or an image area or a scorched area.
And, with the “GOLDEN yellow COATED” fibrils that are at the margins of blood areas, they DO exhibit a coating –BUT, they do NOT exhibit corrosion. Moreover, these fibers, also, are distinguishable from body-image fibers due to their fluorescence under UV light.
So, getting back to what your conclusion was of what Heller and Adler were reporting: that “the darker the fibrils, the more corroded they appear,” here is what I would like to clarify about that statement. We know that certain fibrils were “darker” due to scorching -yet these were a different color from “pale yellow” or even “yellow”/“straw-yellow” fibrils. Moreover, while Heller and Adler declared the body image fibers to be “uncoated” –it would not seem that McCrone would have agreed with this description –as he thought that the straw-yellow body image was simultaneously created as a result of the yellowing of the gelatin paint binder in the iron-oxide paint that he claimed formed the body image –all the while, he was still maintaining that the body image was formed from red ochre paint. (That’s what lawyers refer to as “arguing in the alternative.” The problem is that McCrone was not arguing in the alternative –he was attempting to SIMULTANEOUSLY state these as ONE explanation.) (?!?!?)
Now, the color “GOLDEN yellow” is commonly understood to be a “deeper color” than “yellow”/”straw-yellow.” And, there are “golden-yellow” fibrils from the serum area (which, again, fluoresce under UV light.) However, these DARKER yellow fibers do not exhibit evidence of corrosion. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the serum from the blood exhibited the same protective “coating” (from the image formation process) to the fibrils that the red blood did on the linen fibrils.
And, of course, the scorch marks, again, are distinguished by their “VERY corroded” surface, their color being light to dark brown and the fact that scorch marks fluoresce under UV light, whereas body image fibers do not.
Lastly, there are darker fibrils from natural variations in the color of the hanks of thread/yarn that were used to weave the Shroud. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any mention as to whether these darker fibrils (from background/non-image areas –to keep things simple here) exhibit any more or less “corrosion” to their surface than the paler of such fibrils.
So, anyhow, a lot to distinguish and clarify, regarding your conclusion (in your own words) that Heller and Adler were (allegedly) reporting that “the darker the fibrils, the more corroded they appear.”
All the best,
Teddi
I forgot to mention that in addition to the corroded appearance of the body image area (as opposed to SLIGHTLY corroded appearance of the background/non-image area), there was also the separately mentioned aspect of the fiber of the body image being BRITTLE, as well. Given the use of both of these terms, I don’t think Heller and Adler saw the two as being identical. We know that the fibers from the background/non-image area were surprisingly strong and flexible –especially for such an old cloth.
Also, this paper by Giulio Fanti might be of interest with regard to the optical features of the flax fibers on the Shroud. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276400494_Optical_features_of_flax_fibers_coming_from_the_Turin_Shroud?enrichId=rgreq-119861fee4245ad1a1a780a2bae8f4e0-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3NjQwMDQ5NDtBUzozNzU3OTIxMTU2OTk3MTdAMTQ2NjYwNzIzMDMyOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf