AC:There is real blood on the Shroud, and in the right places.
P: If there is any blood on the Shroud, it is miniscule, and in the wrong places.
- AC (Appellant's Counsel): Numerous scientists who have studied the Shroud, and/or sticky tape samples from the Shroud claim that there is real blood on the Shroud.
- P (Prosecution): They had an agenda, and just saw what they wanted to see.
- AC: Some were Jews; some were atheists; and, many were skeptics. No evidence that they all, or even most of them, started out wanting to prove that the Shroud was authentic.
- AC: Only one real scientist (Dr. Walter McCrone) who had studied the Shroud, or the sticky tape, claimed that the ‘blood’ is actually paint.
- P: Other potential skeptics were not allowed to study the Shroud or sticky tapes.
- AC: Again, a lot of those who did the studying were skeptics at first.
- AC: According to the “owner” of the sticky tape, further access to the sticky tapes was not allowed as the scientist claiming that the ‘blood’ was paint had corrupted the data.
- AC: Dr McCrone was a well-known and acclaimed expert in microscopy, but he had 4 strikes against him:
- AC: (1) Microscopy is somewhat outdated in modern science – it’s too subjective.
- AC: (2) He was devoted to microscopy.
- AC: (3) Much of his writing seemed illogical, emotional and unscientific.
- P: As did some of the writings of the pro-authenticity group.
- AC: McCrone's emotionality and irrationality were worse.
- AC: (4) He was wealthy, with a lot of power, and a stilted reputation to which he couldn’t really live up.
- P: But note that while Dr McCrone received an award for his work on the shroud by the American Chemical Society, none of the other members of STuRP have. [This would include such notables as Dr's John Heller, Alan Adler and Ray Rogers]
- AC: All the peer reviewed articles that have addressed the blood issue, except for one, agreed that there was blood on the Shroud.
- P: The original group studying the Shroud used their influence to prevent skeptics from receiving peer acceptance.
- AC: According to Barry Schwortz, the chief photographer of the original group, that isn’t how peer review works -- and accordingly, the original group did not try to influence any peer-review judges.
- AC: The 'blood stains' were on the Shroud prior to the image. What artist would do it that way?
- AC: The stains were very red -- not the brown (or black) that we would expect after all that time -- but, that turns out to be evidence for, rather than against, authenticity. Redness of old blood indicates that the victim had been tortured. Would the artist have known that?
- A: (1) 'Blood' stains on the Shroud show characteristic shapes of venous and arterial blood flows, and in the right places, and (2) 14th century artists probably wouldn't know the difference between the two -- and, if they did, they wouldn't know where to place them.
- (1)P: Recognizing these differences is very subjective, and the researchers are just seeing what they want to see.
- A: In my research, I’ve found 5 instances of apparent blood stains that are said to bare appropriate shapes considering where they are located, but from the images I have available the characteristic shapes are, in fact, somewhat subjective…
- (2)P: Some artists of the 14th century would know the difference and where to place them.
- A: Any examples?
- P: "Whether the forger used blood, or pigment is not that interesting in the end."
- AC: The one involved scientist claiming that the Shroud is a forgery, claimed over and over again that the alleged blood was pigment.
(to be continued)