Difference Between Arterial and Venous Dried Blood?
III, 19, Jabba:
- But, which of the points have you answered? You have responded somewhat to my claims about McCrone, but you have not responded to my latest seemingly damning quotes, and now you're saying that you lean towards blood rather than pigments -- which should add to your suspicions about McCrone.
- From my readings, there are several ways in which the suspicion that there is blood on the Shroud in all the right places undermines the forgery theory.
1) Walter McCrone demanded, over and over again, that there was no blood on the Shroud. And, as far as I can tell, McCrone had been the only actual scientist, actually involved with the Shroud, that claimed it to be a forgery. And then,
2) The apparent blood appears to be arterial and venous in the right places.
3) The apparent blood was apparently on the Shroud before the image.
4) There would be a natural variation of color in the blood, and the apparent blood has such variation.
5) The apparent blood appears to be blood exudate rather than whole blood.
6) The apparent wounds show "serum retraction rings."
7) The shape and direction of apparent blood flow make sense.
8) The clarity of the apparent blood stains makes sense.
9) That the apparent blood is red rather than brown also makes sense.
III, 21, Steen:
- I am not sure what you want me to do here? The only persons who have examined the shroud are McCrone, and the ones from STURP. There are not going to be anybody else who can publish papers about the shroud, except for those who try to replicate it.
But OK, I can repeat what you already know that I have said: How can the fact that scientists selected by the Vatican thinks the shroud is genuine be an argument against a forgery?
Surprisingly detailed finding considered that it has been hard to show that there was blood in the first place! This finding is made by people who are willing to consider invisible patches, which says all, in my opinion.
Why would this be an argument against a forgery?
III, 22, Jabba:
- I see your point. The members of STURP could be too biased, simply incompetent or even corrupt -- though, it does seem to me that there have been other (than STURP) scientists pointing out telling aspects of the existing research that had not been previously considered...
- I do have a general excuse for what I am about to do. Very often, I have run into evidence (in this case, supporting the competence, objectivity and integrity of the STURP) that seem to answer your questions, but I can't remember the specifics and I haven't figured out a way to keep track of such things very effectively without using up a large portion of my available time -- consequently, I'm always being stuck with putting you off until I can dig the evidence up. That's what I have to do here...
- But as an introduction here, according to Barry Schwortz, the Holy Shroud Guild had nothing to do with the actual selection of team members (though, I think that some of the STURP team might have become members...), the Guild was simply the team's liaison with the Savoy family. I think that Barrie is currently in Italy and very busy, but I'll see if he will put his description of this relationship in writing.
- And, take note that Barry is Jewish, as are at least 2 other members of the original 24. Rebecca Jackson, not an original member, is (or at least was?) also Jewish.
- I'll take up your other questions in other postings -- and also, see what specific evidence I can gather up re the credibility of the STURP team.
III, 26, Jabba:
- Apparently, the shape and coloration of whatever the stains are composed of are appropriate to where they are found -- over a vein, or over an artery. And, we didn't even know about these differences in blood until some 200 years after the latest date of the Shroud allowed by the carbon dating.
- From http://creationevolutiondesign.blogs...stains-on.html (a clearly religious site, but with seemingly credible information).
"Not only are all the above tests consistent with the presence of blood, but venous blood flows can even be distinguished from arterial blood flows in some of the bloodstains on the man's forehead. In general, venous blood appears denser and darker red, and it flows more slowly than arterial blood. In large wounds or wounds that puncture a vessel and produce a large blood flow, venous blood slowly thickens as it descends because it takes a few minutes for the coagulation process to begin and a clot to form. The large epsilon-shaped clot in the middle of the man's forehead is a good example of a large venous blood flow. .... In contrast to blood from a vein, arterial blood spurts from a wound, driven by the pumping action of the heart. ..." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.25-26)
III, 27, Steen:
What is your argument here? Is it that it would be impossible for an artist to recreate the same effects with some pig's blood and a brush? If you look at the traditional depictions of Jesus with a crown of thorns, would you not say that it is uncanny how the artists have managed to show clearly venous blood flows on his forehead?
II, 29, Jabba:
- According to numerous scientists, it is blood and it is human blood. And, according to some, it has X and Y chromosomes.
- Whatever, what artist in the 14th century would know to use the pig's arterial blood for certain wounds and the pig's venous blood for others?
II, 30, Jabba:
- Try that again. I don't really understand your question.
III, 31, Steen:
- I did not know that the STURP scientists were "numerous", and they are the only one with access to the shroud samples, right?
- If this can be confirmed (forgive me for being skeptical) it would clinch the part of the discussion that concerned the pigment versus blood.
- The blood is the same, but the force of the flow is different. I believe that with proper brush techniques, you can achieve the correct effect.
- I am saying that the blood on the shroud looks very much like the blood on traditional paintings of the crucified Christ. If the shroud shows a difference between arterial and venous blood flows, then I believe that you will be able to observe the same difference on paintings - simply because artists are well aware of how blood flows.
.III, 34, Jabba:
- From http://shroud.com/78team.htm.
- Investigators for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) include:
Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*
Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office
Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*
Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado*
Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM*
Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University
Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation*
Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum
Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center
Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation*
Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph*
John Heller, New England Institute
John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories*
Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center*
Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios*
Note: The researchers marked with an * participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.
- There was also an Italian team studying the Shroud at the same time. I don't know HOW (so many scientists could work on the Shroud at the same time) ... or how many were on the Italian team.
- In that last article to which I referred you (http://creationevolutiondesign.blogs...stains-on.html), the author discusses the work (supporting the presence of blood on the Shroud) of 10 scientists and technicians in just the first quarter of the article. See below. (Could be that he doesn't mention any more in the rest of the article, but I'm afraid that I'm too busy to check that out. If you have time, I would encourage you to re-read that section -- or even, the whole article.)
3. Italian pathologist Dr Pier Luigi Baima-Bollone
4. Jorio, M.
5. Massaro, A.L.
6. Garza-Valdes, L.
7. Italian microscopist Dr Giovanni Riggi
8. American microbiology professor, Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes
9. Laboratory director of the University of Texas' Center for Advanced DNA Technologies at San Antonio, Texas, Dr Victor Tryon
10. Nancy Mitchell Tryon. I
II, 37, Jabba:
- Arterial blood is slightly more red than is venous blood, due to the additional oxygen in it. Remember, venous blood still in the veins is blue -- look at the back of your hands.
- And, some of the scientists are claiming that what should be arterial blood on the Shroud is, indeed, slightly more red than what should be venous blood. *
III, 38, Steen:
That is only true inside the body. Once the blood is seeping out, it is immediately oxygenated, and both types of blood are the same. I really doubt you will find a serious scientist (as opposed to a religious one) who will claim that you can tell arterial from venous blood outside the body on the basis of colour.
II, 39, BigField:
Venous blood is NOT blue; it is dark red. Oxygenated blood is simply a brighter red.
Which scientists made this absurd claim? According to Adler it is not even blood; it is clot exudate.
III, 40, Flower:
- you can actually see a difference for some minutes (but not after 2000 years!).
- When hunting, the hunter will look for blood spatters after having hit a deer, and if it is a lung-hit, the blood will be a very characteristic red.
-As soon as it has dried, there is no difference.
- A deer can rung surprisingly far after a hit in the lung/heart region, but if it is hit there, it is likely do die quickly, you just have to find it.
- If you hit the legs or the stomach, you'd better contact the guy with the dog to track it. *
III, 41, Jabba:
- I probably shouldn't have mentioned the blue blood while still in the veins -- that just confused the issue.
- And, I probably got hooked on this issue by Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.25-26 -- who is just a lawyer.
In general, venous blood appears denser and darker red...
- But, from my readings, even after being oxygenated and dried, it appears that venous blood is not quite the same color as is arterial blood. Here's something from Wikipedia.
Venous blood is dark red, not blue as it is often depicted in many medical diagrams.
Veins often look blue when seen through the skin, but this is due to Rayleigh scattering – venous blood itself is actually a dark red color (but looks purple through the opaque skin), while arterial blood is bright red.
- I suppose they could be talking strictly about the color while it's still in the vein,but not seen through the skin (however they would do that), or before it has dried outside the vein. But then, according to Medical lexicon: A dictionary of medical science ... By Robley Dunglison:
Arterial blood is of a florid red colour, strong smell; s. g. 1.049. Venous blood is of a brownish red; s. g. 1.051. The difference in colour has given occasion to the first being called red blood; the latter, black. The former, which is distributed from the heart, is nearly the same through its whole extent: the latter is the remains of the arterial blood after the different elements have been taken from it in nutrition, and probably differs in composition. It likewise contains different substances absorbed. Venous blood, taken from a vessel and left to itself, becomes solid, and separates into two distinct parte, — the serum or watery supernatant fluid; and the cruor, coag'ulum, crassamen'tum, hepar seu plucen'ta san'guinis, placcn'ta cruo'ris, in'snla, thrombus, or clot. The serum is chiefly water, holding albumen in solution and the salts of the blood. The clot contains the fibrin, colouring matter—hamatosin, a little serum, and a small quantity of salts.
- But then, that was published in 1874.
- But keep in mind that you do accept a shape difference between the two types of dried blood.
For instance the reversed 3 on the forehead corresponds to a slow and continuous descent of venous blood due to a sharp object (a thorn) driven in the frontal vein and then taken off; the curious aspect of the reversed 3 is due to the corrugation, under the spasm of the pain, of the frontal muscle. The right bloodstain, at the root of the hair, is produced by a circular clot (due to a thorn) of arterious blood because it comes out with an intermittent jet.
- You can answer that by the alleged forger knowing about this difference and deliberately painting wounds so as to show that difference, but then supposedly, at least one of these two differences (1. alleged difference in coloration, and 2. accepted difference in shape) wasn't known to science until about 1600. The alleged forger would have had to be a real genius at least, and da Vinci wasn't born till a century after the beginning known history of the Shroud.
- Ooops. I submitted this by accident, so I have to rush and edit quickly.
- I am having trouble nailing down this particular claim, but I have emailed an appropriate Professor at SUNY asking the question directly, and I'll ask Barrie Schwortz about who should be able to help me if the SUNY professor doesn't reply.
- Whatever, I'll be back.
- Unfortunately, I'll have to cross that guy off my list.
- Me: Is arterial dried blood a different color than is venous dried blood?
- David Vuletich, Assistant Professor of Biochemistry, SUNY at Brockport:
No they would be the same color because of the degradation of hemoglobin to the oxidized form. Studies have been done that show the presence of carbon monoxide can keep dried blood brighter for a longer amount of time, but again, this does not depend on the origin of the blood. Venous blood contains less oxygen and nutrients, but the color of blood is largely determined by the state of the iron in hemoglobin and myoglobin.
- Not to worry. I haven't given up yet.
III, 43, Flower:
- I would not expect you to give up no matter what evidence was piled up against your case.
- Please notice how much speculation has been put into venous vs arterial blood by shroudlovers.
- A very good warning sign concerning pseudo-science it people seeing and concluding on phenomena smaller than the limit of detection. Another one is people ignoring facts contrary to the conclusion they like. Denial does not make facts go away.
- In science, you sometimes have to realize, that some darlings need killing.
- We have seen fantastic examples of people who'd never touched the Rag of Turin being able to read the text on coins placed on the eyelids and even the text on a death certificate that had allegedly been pinned to the shroud by the Romans....
- All that from an old photo! (with a limited resolution)
..... And we still have the case of the C-14 and the magic invisible repair.
- As long as no new C-14 has been performed, there is no use in discussing the age of the shroud.
- Unless a C-14 can be performed that gives the correct age or presents a scientific explanation to why it does not give the correct age, the only other explanation is a "miracle" that puts it outside the realm of science.
In that case, no scientific attempts are worth the effort, because they are irrelevant.
- The scientist should not waste time on the shroud, and the believers should stick to "faith" and give up trying to find their non-existing scientific justification of faith. (Carbon Dating)
III, 44, Jabba:
- I do recognize that I am biased and that I afford more weight to my "evidence" than would someone who was totally objective. The trouble is, I'm sure that you guys do the same thing...
- On this forum, I'm trying to 1) be as objective as I can (which may not be saying a whole lot), 2) present all I consider to be significant evidence for Shroud authenticity and 3) fairly consider your arguments against authenticity.
- To the extent that I can read my own mind, there are some chinks in my own armor, but the vast majority of it is pretty sound. I think that the strongest part of your ("you" being you specifically, as well as the others on this forum) armor is what I'm calling the "indirect" evidence: the improbability of miracles. I think that your direct evidence is pretty weak when lined up against my direct evidence. I assume that you still think the opposite.
- So anyway, I'm trying to lay out both sides in an orderly fashion in my own head so as to best discover the real truth. I am also trying to do that on my website -- but, it's taking me quite a while to figure out how best to do that.
- The basic idea is to separate the different sub-sub-etc-issues and see whose getting the last word in each, then add them up... Simplistic description, but that's the basic idea.
- I'm not satisfied with anything I have right now -- so, for the moment, I won't bother to send you there. But, I do think that I'm slowly getting somewhere...
- We'll see.
- I did write back to the SUNY professor with 2 more questions. I'll forward my questions and his answers as soon as I receive his answers.
III, 45, Flower:
- C-14 dating is 1000 years off the mark, you only have a (very thin) ad hoc answer to that.
- That is major direct evidence, basically discrediting the shroud as a 2000 year old artifact.
- Until the C-14 is checked, the shroud is a later production. (Like almost all the other older RCC relics probably are).
- You really have nothing but speculation, wishful thinking and church lore telling you that it is THE SHROUD.
Even the bible and jewish burial customs speaks against it.
III, 46, Jabba:
- Once again, I got turned down...
- I would assume that if we studied dried blood under a microscope, or certainly by other newer and more exotic chemical and physical methods -- e.g. x-ray flourescense, ultraviolet imaging, hemochromagen tests, etc. (not to imply that I know what these methods are) -- we could tell whether it was arterial or venous. Is that correct?
- And hopefully, the last question: what if the blood was 2000 years old?
- As far as telling the difference between arterial or venous blood after 2000 years, I would call that impossible. It would be difficult to tell from a blood stain a few hours old. The main differences are small, pH, glucose content, oxidation state of hemoglobin, and are washed out upon exposure to oxygen. After 2000 years I would say it would be an extremely difficult task to even say blood was blood unless typical byproducts were detected. I know of research to radio date blood from prehistoric tools (90,000 years old) but they had strong inference that the residue was blood.
- Oh well...
- I've got one more ploy. I'll get in touch with Barrie Schwortz -- he has connections with numerous Biologists and Chemists. If he, or they, can't give me any encouragement, I'll have to say uncle about telling the difference between arterial blood and venous blood based upon anything other than shape of the blood flow...
III, 47, Flower:
........ no matter how hard you whip a dead horse, you can't make it run!
III, 48, Jabba:
Steen, Flower, BigField and Glorian,
- All right! UNCLE, already!
- I wrote to Barrie and he referred me to stuff I had already read...
- Consequently, the only indication we have that the Shroud distinguishes between venous and arterial blood is the appropriate shape of the different blood flows on the Shroud -- and then, it has been argued that a clever artist could recognize that difference and deliberately reproduce it on the Shroud.
- Certainly to me, however, such an explanation stretches credulity to the max in that this clever artist would have had to know about the appropriate places and shapes for the two different kinds of blood about 250 years before science knew about them. (At least from my readings, science didn't recognize either of these differences until about 1600.) Possible, I suppose, just not too likely.
III, 49, Glorian:
I still think, that the club of Hercules would be a more interesting subject to discuss, since Hercules was a much more interesting demigod than this jesus dude.
III, 50, Flower:
-I think we are back in the "seeing things that ought to be there an look like...." area.
- Even if you believe in jesus, he is supposed to have been DEAD at the time of the shrouds production (it would kinda take the coolness out of the resurrection if he wasn't).
- That means no circulation, no blood pressure IE no splashing from the arteries distinguishing them from the seeping veins.
Yes, dead people can bleed, but only by fluids leaving (seeping, oozing) through whatever holes are available, and the cause is gravity, not blood pressure. (and to some extent, the pressure caused by the onset of fermentation can do its part too.... yuck)
III, 51, Jabba:
- Remember, the stains are supposed to be blood exudate (clots). The blood would have flowed out in ways peculiar to venous and arterial bleeding, and then clotted with that shape. The apparent victim didn't have to be alive when the Shroud was placed on him in order for the stains to show the appropriate shapes.
III, 52, BigField:
And how do you know that blood exudate can still be exuded post-mortem? After all, it is supposedly due to the contraction of the wound.
III, 53, Flower:
And what difference would there be in the flows from a dead man?. .
III, 54, Jabba:
- Somehow, we're missing each other. I'm saying that the flows occurred while the person was alive, and the stains were made after his death.
III, 61, Jabba:
- No one has responded to this, so for the moment, I'll assume that we are now on the same page as to how my side can claim that it is possible to distinguish between the two kinds of blood on the Shroud. The shapes of the different stains give it away.
- (I had to give up on a color, or some other exotic, difference between the two.)
- So ... who still believes that the preponderance of evidence favors the conclusion that the alleged blood stains are made of paint?
- I have not replied because nothing new has been said. I have already told you that the blood stains on the shroud look suspiciously like those commonly shown on paintings of the crucified Christ. It would have been interesting to see if any of the experts that you have quoted would have been able to distinguish between venous and arterial flows on those paintings if they had thought it was real blood. :)
- You have provided adequate evidence to make me think that real blood is more likely than pigment (I already stated that). However, the latest discussion of arterial and venous blood has shaken this position, because it seems that these experts are so wedded to the stains being blood, that I doubt if they would reach any other conclusion. In other words, you have undone their credibility.
III, 63, Jabba:
- It's a long story, but the only expert to whom I referred regarding different coloration of scabs due to their arterial vs venous origins was that doctor from 1874...
- In post #34, I listed 10 experts who studied the Shroud and who agreed that there was blood on it, but as far as I know, none of them claimed that they could tell the difference between the venous scabs and the arterial scabs by color.
- If you go to post #41, you'll see that I got my claim about the color from a lawyer (Antonassi), Wikipedia and an articulate blogger (Stephen Jones), and read more into their claims than I probably should have -- though either deliberately, or accidentally, the lawyer and the blogger implied that researchers could tell the difference by the color of the scabs.
- So, my claim here is that the real experts should not be blamed for my mistake -- and likewise, their credibility should not suffer because of it.
- I think that I have added new supportive evidence for the stains being blood since (i.e. after) you allowed that they probably were blood, but I'll have to address that in my next post.
III, 64, Steen:
Well, you certainly fooled me! I thought you were citing the shroud experts.
- I hope that lawyers and bloggers are from now on rated lower in credibility by you!
III, 65, Jabba:
- I urge to explain my credulity in thinking what I did -- but probably, that wouldn't be very useful, so I will abstain...
- Anyway, I appear to have been wrong about that claim – but then, that is exactly why I’m here.
- When we humans come to a conclusion about something, or even just want to believe something, we have a great deal of difficulty gathering evidence against our position, or even presenting (or even thinking about) such evidence -- that we may have accidentally gathered…
- I certainly have that difficulty, and I assume that you guys do also.
- So, I really am here to see how well my evidence holds up against the opposition. This particular piece of evidence didn’t hold up so well. So, at least one of the claims in my “brief” appears incorrect – even to me -- but then, I probably never would have discovered that mistake if left to my own devices...
- But then again, this particular claim was just one of two sub-claims supporting a higher order claim that is itself just one of several sub-claims of an even higher order claim, etc…
- In other words, this apparent mistake is a point against my argument, but there are lots of other points out there that still need to be sorted…
- And in this particular case, I still claim that whatever the stains are made of, they still effectively represent the difference between venous blood clots and arterial blood clots (by their shapes) -- and these differing characteristics appear exactly where they should. Which should be essentially impossible for even a very clever 14th century artist to represent.
- I do think that I have introduced significant new supportive evidence for the stains being blood -- after you first allowed that they probably were blood -- but I will spare you my alleged list for now, and proceed with the hypothetical issue of "so what"?
- But one baby step at a time.
III, 66, Steen:
- Why do you think that knowledge of how blood flows has not been wide-spread in former times? If you look at old paintings, they do in fact differentiate in the blood flows of the different wounds.
III, 67, Jabba:
- Interesting. Do you have an example on the Internet?
- But again, from what I read, Science didn't discover the difference between the two kinds of blood till the end of the 16th century. Are you just suggesting that they knew about the different flow -- and consequently, the shape of the respective scabs -- much earlier, but didn't know the reason for the difference?
- That does sound reasonable, but would even a clever artist know where to effect the differences, or bother to show them?
III, 68, Steen:
- Of a painting of the crucifixion? I am sure there are tons of them!
- I think it belongs to the art of making the image realistic. I am not saying that this ever happened, but that I find it very likely that it happened, particularly on painted crucifixes, because they are often more realistically painted than paintings. I myself have no idea what these blood clots should look like, so I cannot point to any examples.
- The question is really if an artist painted blood clots of different shapes, and if they would be accepted as depicting different kinds of blood flows. The artist may never have bothered to puts the blood stains in the right anatomical places corresponding to actual veins or arteries. I could imagine that the same goes for the shroud: the believers just think it is great that they think they can see a difference in the blood stains, and claim that this must be because of blood from veins or arteries.
III, 69, Jabba:
- Superficially, at least, that answer does not support your case.
- Can you come up with just one example to support your claim?
III, 70, Mikkel:
He doesn't have to, you have made the positive claim and thus it falls on you to attempt falsification.
III, 71, Jabba:
- I don't understand. Steen just made a positive claim (that he is sure there are tons of them).
- Welcome aboard.
II, 72, Jabba:
- Just as a preface, I'm not quite sure what you're saying in regard to "painted crucifixes" being more realistic than paintings. I think you're saying that paintings of the crucifixion of Jesus were often especially realistic -- more realistic than were other paintings.
- Going with that understanding...
- I thought that I had spelled out what clots should look like more often than I actually did, but back in #'s 26 and 41, I did offer quotes describing the differing shapes.
- And, back in #31, you seem to know, at least roughly, what to look for in terms of shape.
- And then, if you actually "have no idea what these clots should look like," your claim that these differences show up in early paintings seems, at best, a poorly educated guess...
- Maybe they do, but in my meager research, I haven't seen any difference -- and, I don't have much incentive to scrutinize Google for examples.
III, 77, Steen:
I do not think that I ever said that paintings of the crucifixion were more realistic than other paintings: If I did say this, I was wrong! What I meant to say is that there are lots of very realistic paintings, and I have added that painted crucifixes are probably even more realistic. Just to give an example, you can take a look at these pictures:
- I am not claiming that these are venous, or arterial flows, but I am asking if the shroud scientists would have been just as amazed at the remarkably detailed blood flows in this picture as they are of the far less detailed blood flows on the shroud (probably the clear details on a picture like this speaks against the artist; the shroud is blurred, contact with the body does not seem to have been close, and consequently it is easier to conjecture that the stains are real)
You did (and I notice that your shroud scientist in #26 actually mentions colour as a distinguishing feature in a hint that this can be seen on the shroud also ). On the lower picture I found, you can see some venous blood collecting under the thorns, while the arterial flow from other puncture wounds have caused the blood to run down his forehead - if you want to see it!
- (The top picture, though a carving, leaves a lot to be desired in realism, particularly glaring is the unrealistic blood flow from the eyes).
As indeed it is!
- When I was a child I actually studied the blood stains on crucifixion pictures. this was not because of an interest in venous or arterial flows (that I had never heard of), but because I was intensely compassionate about the sufferings of Christ, and imagined what it felt like to wear the crown of thorns. I distinctly remember how I felt that one particular picture that I had on my wall (donated by loving parents) had not very realistic blood stains compared to another picture I had seen. But of course, it is impossible to trace the pictures today, and I no longer keep pictures of torture victims on my walls.
III, 78, Jabba:
- What you said in post #68 was, "I think it belongs to the art of making the image realistic. I am not saying that this ever happened, but that I find it very likely that it happened, particularly on painted crucifixes, because they are often more realistically painted than paintings." (My emphasis)
- These paintings do look very realistic in a sense, but they are just what viewers would expect to see. The alleged stains on the Shroud are, to a significant extent, not what viewers would expect to see, and do not look like the stains on those two paintings, but do, apparently, look like what pathologists would expect to see. *
III, 80, Steen:
I never got the impression that the pathologists found something that viewers would not have expected to see. (Link)
III, 82, Jabba:
- In http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm, Zugibe notes several appropriate characteristics of the apparent blood flow on the Shroud that viewers wouldn't understand.
Imprints depicting the various wounds that had been inflicted on the Man of the Shroud include numerous dumbbell-shaped scourge marks over the trunk, an exact pattern of rivulets of blood on the left arm, a single tortuous flow of blood on the forehead, a precise bifurcation pattern on the back of the hand and a small clump of blood on the heel. Studies of these patterns with ultraviolet light are even more vivid in terms of preciseness; the scourge marks show well defined borders and fine scratch-like markings appear to be mingled in-between.
- About half a page down, Zugibe explains the bifurcation pattern on the back of the hand.
- A little further down, Zugibe explains why the scourge stains would show up at all (A thoughtful layman would expect those clots to be totally dry by the time the Shroud was placed on the body, and basically leave no stain at all.) and why the preciseness of the stains makes sense. (The thoughtful layman would expect blood stains to be smudges rather than precisely shaped stains.).
- Then, there's the serum clot retraction rings that show up under microscopic scrutiny that the thoughtful layman wouldn't even see; and, what layman would expect the epsilon shaped blood flow on the forehead?
- This is sort of sparse, so let me know if you need more. I feel sure I can provide it, but it will take me awhile, and I'm sort of rushed right now...
III, 85, Steen:
When I read this article, it strikes me that Zugibe is trying explain a pattern that lay people would have expected, but which forensic pathologists can only understand if the body has been washed. In other words, lay people - and presumably, the forger - would have thought nice clear imprints were fine, but the pathologist knows that this is not the case.
The bifurcation pattern is the only pattern that sounds just a little bit unusual to me.
Why do you think that?
- Would these retraction rings not show up if the forger had used real blood? And Zugibe does not mention the blood flow on the forehead other than in the introduction.
III, 86, Jabba:
- I'll take the "easier" ones first.
- I read it somewhere and didn't really think about it that much. But roughly, I wouldn't expect old scabs (from scourging), which might have precise shapes, to show up on the Shroud -- I'd expect any stains to be caused by liquid blood, and consequently be pretty indistinct.
- But then, I didn't add the washing part to my expectations, and the good artist we're considering might well have considered that probability -- and possibly even, the correct results of that probability...
- But then again, even this highly intelligent and accomplished artist would probably think, like Lavoie's group, that there wouldn't be time to wash Jesus before Shabbat...
- For the time being, I'll leave it at that, and just say that this is another indication that if an artist actually painted the Shroud, he had to be damned smart,and "picky." Which, I would say is another strike against this being a painting (though admittedly, in this game, "striking out" takes a lot more than three strikes).
- I'll be back.
III, 91, Steen:
You also need to consider if an artist could have made these stains randomly, and if the pathologists see them as special evidence because they want to see them as such. Consider for instance, if there might be specially shaped stains that happen not to be where a pathologist expects them.
III, 92, Jabba:
- Here's the other part of my new tact.
- Keep in mind that part of my reason for being here is to work on my idea for effective written debate.
- At this point in time, in this particular debate, I'm trying to show that the existence of blood on the Shroud -- in the right places -- is just about proven. You suspect that there is blood on the Shroud -- and in the right places -- but you're not nearly as convinced as am I.
- As you know, I think that to best "get anywhere" in a debate, the opponents need to keep narrowing their foci.
- Unfortunately, as you also know, a debate "tree" naturally widens exponentially, and can become extremely tedious. So far, my answers to this problem are that slow and forward is still a lot better than fast and circular -- and also, that often, we should be able to see a distinct pattern, or smoking gun, early on and effectively avoid much of the tedium.
- What I'm thinking now is that we might be able to limit the tedium by being very careful as to what sub-sub-etc-issue we take. Up till now, I've used a sort of chronological order attached largely to your (plural) objections to my early claims. Hopefully, I'll be able to say that better as we go along -- but then, I seek now to change that orientation anyway...
- So for now, I'll leave the shape of the stains issue hanging (assuming that you still suspect that there is blood on the Shroud) and see if I should pick a better -- for my purposes -- sub-sub-issue to take.
- This points out another likely detail to my plan, which is that you should have the same right. In other words, we would act as attorneys in a trial, and each get our full chance to direct the conversation. In still other words, you and I would make this into two sub-threads -- I would control the direction of one, and you'd control the direction of the other. Though, I suspect for now, you just want to get this over with...
- Though, in truth, I'm sort of happy that you're the only one interested enough to keep talking to me --this way, I can better apply the details of my current plan, and better develop new details.
- For now, I plan on going back to my "brief" describing the different reasons for thinking that there is blood on the Shroud, and picking my favorite reason (sub-issue) for development -- i.e., the reason (sub-issue) that I think has the best chance for increasing your belief that there really is blood on the Shroud (and in the right places).
- Just as a thought, you had posed an interesting question awhile back (I can't seem to find it in a hurry) basically asking, "So what if there is blood on the Shroud?" If you wanted to direct a discussion on that, I'd be happy to participate.
- Though, you'd probably prefer to direct a discussion on something in which I would not be happy to participate. But then, maybe, I said I'd be happy participating in the "So what?" discussion as a trick to make you stay away from that topic... Did you ever see the movie, "Princess Bride"?