Shroud of Turin was created "by a flash of supernatural light."

[cornbread_r2]

How does paint turn into blood? I have read no credible report about how the image was created. How do explain the below?

*Because a fastidious forger might have included the detail of using real blood on the Shroud, a human blood classification does not rule out the possibility of such trickery. However, regarding the issue of blood being painted on the Shroud, Adler once commented, “The blood must have been taken from the exudate of a clot at a certain point in the clotting process. An artist would therefore have needed the exudate from the wounds of a severely tortured man, or baboon, and he would need to take the substance within a 20-minute period after the clotting had begun.” “**One would need a constant supply of fresh clot exudates from a traumatically wounded human to paint all the forensically correct images in the proper nonstereo register and then finally paint a serum contraction ring about every wound. ***Logic suggests that this is something a forger or artesian before the present century would not only not know how to do but even know that it was required.

And…

A further level of complexity to be considered is that bloodstains are believed to have pre-existed prior to (body) image formation on the cloth, as shown by proteolytic enzyme digestion experiments.

I’m not a blood expert so I’m not qualified to comment on the technical issues. As you note, however, no one knows how the image was formed – and that would include Adler.

Regarding the bolded part above: As I understand it, not only were retraction rings not demonstrated to exist around “every wound” area, but there is apparently a way to obtain blood from a human with the characteristics that Adler notes without torturing anyone. That would be with leeches. Is that pure speculation? Absolutely, but it’s no more speculative than what Adler has proposed. “Ah ha”, you might say, “Why would a 14th century artist use leeches to apply the blood if he couldn’t possibly know that modern microscopy would reveal the presence of retraction rings?” My response would be that the artist might have used leeches merely as a convenient way to obtain and apply fresh blood without any intent to duplicate retraction rings. In other words, the retraction rings, such as they exist, were an unintentional consequence and not a goal. (I refer to them as “wound areas” above because it’s been suggested by other researchers that we don’t actually see the wounds clearly – as they’re obstructed.)

As to the blood-prior-to-body-image issue: If it’s true that the body image is extremely superficial, then it seems possible that any method used to remove blood might also sufficiently remove enough of any underlying body image – at least to the point that it might be uncertain if any such body image existed. Toward that end, I invite you once again to look at micrographs of TS body image areas adjacent to non-body areas and try to definitively determine where one stops and the other begins.

Finally, see this discussion for another example of how dated citation and research becomes shroud dogma in reference to the often repeated claim that bilirubin permanently renders blood red in color.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m not a blood expert so I’m not qualified to comment on the technical issues. As you note, however, no one knows how the image was formed – and that would include Adler.

Regarding the bolded part above: As I understand it, not only were retraction rings not demonstrated to exist around “every wound” area, but there is apparently a way to obtain blood from a human with the characteristics that Adler notes without torturing anyone. That would be with leeches. Is that pure speculation? Absolutely, but it’s no more speculative than what Adler has proposed. “Ah ha”, you might say, “Why would a 14th century artist use leeches to apply the blood if he couldn’t possibly know that modern microscopy would reveal the presence of retraction rings?” My response would be that the artist might have used leeches merely as a convenient way to obtain and apply fresh blood without any intent to duplicate retraction rings. In other words, the retraction rings, such as they exist, were an unintentional consequence and not a goal. (I refer to them as “wound areas” above because it’s been suggested by other researchers that we don’t actually see the wounds clearly – as they’re obstructed.)

As to the blood-prior-to-body-image issue: If it’s true that the body image is extremely superficial, then it seems possible that any method used to remove blood might also sufficiently remove enough of any underlying body image – at least to the point that it might be uncertain if any such body image existed. Toward that end, I invite you once again to look at micrographs of TS body image areas adjacent to non-body areas and try to definitively determine where one stops and the other begins.

Finally, see this discussion for another example of how dated citation and research becomes shroud dogma in reference to the often repeated claim that bilirubin permanently renders blood red in color.

Thank you! I’m not necessarily a believer or a non-believer in the Shroud being the burial shroud of Jesus. My gut reaction has always been no, it’s not, but not being a Shroud expert, there is a lot I don’t understand about it. The blood analysis, I do understand. I understand human physiology, biology, etc., it’s the linen, the weave, the history, etc. that I’m just not up on.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer and thank you for the links. I appreciate it.