The question of which came first, the blood or the image, is an important factor in the assessment of whether the Shroud is medieval or ancient, and a new paper by Kelly Kearse is the first to explore some aspects of it in any depth since John Heller and Alan Adler wrote about it in ‘A Chemical Investigation Of The Shroud Of Turin.’1 They wrote that the fibres of the Shroud cloth looked “corroded” under phase contrast microscopy, from “slightly” to “very” as the colour changed from “pale yellow” to “yellow” to “dark.” They classed these fibres as “non-image,” “body-image,” and “scorch” respectively. Some 300-year old Spanish linen behaved similarly when heated, from “similar to Shroud pale yellow fibrils” before heating, to “more corroded” after an hour at 100°C, and “similar to Shroud scorch fibrils” after half an hour at 250°C.
They further noted than when “red coated” and “golden-yellow” fibres were treated with a cocktail of proteolytic enzymes, not only did the red particulates and golden-yellow coating completely dissolve away, but in both cases, the underlying fibres then “closely resemble the non-image fibrils when viewed under phase contrast.” The protease had no effect on the image or the non-image fibres.
There is no specific mention of the removal of the ‘corrosion’ by the protease, nor any specific suggestion that there is no “image” on the “blood” fibres in this paper, but it is a valid, if inconclusive, inference. The official Summary of the 1978 investigation says: “the ‘blood’-stain composition poses an interesting problem in itself, and the observations may ultimately give some clues to help us understand how the image was formed. For example, one important question that might be answered is whether the ‘blood’ or the image was applied first.”2
That the question remained unresolved is demonstrated in the postulated 1984 schedule of investigations, in which one of the questions they hoped to answer was: “In what temporal order did the blood and body images physically appear on the Shroud?”3 In 1986, Eugenia Nitowski, who with her colleague Joseph Kohlbeck examined and photographed many of fibres on the sticky tape slides herself, reported: “Corrosion on fiber surfaces. Alan Adler photographed the surface of Shroud image fibers and noted that they appeared corroded. This was not reported, to my knowledge, by anyone else, however, on my own Jerusalem Test Cloth 4, I found image fibers to be corroded, but I never observed this on Shroud fibers.”4
As far as I know, none of Alan Adler’s photographs have been published, but some idea of what can be found on the tapes can be seen in microphotographs taken by Walter McCrone and Eugenia Nitowski. Unfortunately, they are very inconsistent regarding the conditions under which they were photographed, in terms of magnification, lighting, and filtration, so no easy comparison can be made between them.
What exactly motivated the decision behind the selection of sites for the sticky tape samples is unclear, but it is remarkable how few ‘pure’ samples of non-image, image, and blood sites were taken. It is also remarkable how similar the adventitious debris collected appears on each slide, regardless of where it came from. Heller and Adler divided the fibres into seven categories, “very pale,” “pale yellow,” “yellow” and “dark,” followed by “red coated,” “golden-yellow coated” and “birefringent red particulate coated,” and hoped that these corresponded to “backing cloth and patch,” “non-image,” “body image,” “scorch,” “blood,” “margins of blood,” and “waterstain margins and blood scorch areas.” Much of this was inevitably subjective, as it wasn’t then, and still isn’t, possible to divide the spectrum of different colours precisely into these seven classes, to know exactly where each sticky tape was applied, or to know where any particular fibre on any tape originally came from. They suggested that finding 15 fibres of any selected type would be their criterion for establishing what sort of area it came from, but as each tape contained hundreds of fibres, finding 15 of any type on every one was not difficult.
Walter McCrone carried out two blind determinations of tape content, firstly assigning each tape to “image” or “non-image” according to the amount of particles he saw, and correctly identifying 28 out of 32, and secondly asking one of his students to divide all the fibres on 12 tapes, about 10,000 fibres, into “coloured” or “uncoloured,” and calculating the proportion of coloured to uncoloured. These amounted to 10% on a slide from the Holland cloth to 72% on one from a finger, although to my mind the results are not as conclusive as McCrone hoped. The finger is certainly among the darker parts of the image, but the deeply ‘blood’-stained wrist, chest and heel wounds contained only 37% – 46% ‘coloured’ fibres.5
Perhaps the best way to look at the Shroud fibres is not using the microphotographs at all, but instead to examine Mark Evans’s close-ups of the Shroud itself. These show the fibres in context, and without the selection process that comes with the application of sticky tape, looking at tiny areas of the tape under a microscope, selective removal of the fibres from the tape and cleaning them with toluene. Here is a series of three nested photos from the dense blood area in the small of the back (from Shroud Scope):
The head is to the left, and there is another strand of the blood belt immediately to the right of the photo. The larger of the two close-ups bears closer inspection:
It is clearly rather simplistic to talk of a “red-coated” fibre. The blood is represented as clumps or flakes, and does not “coat” any of the fibres.
There is also uncertainty about the protein content. Concerned as to whether the image had a protein component, Heller and Adler tested image fibres with Amido Black, which returned a positive result. However, they found that Amido Black would stain pure linen as well, so that it was not possible, using this test, to say whether there was protein present or not. Walter McCrone also tested for protein using Amido Black, which returned a similar positive result; however, he wrote; “It is true that cellulose itself stains with Amido Black but when the fiber is washed with the drop of dilute acetic acid, the blue is removed from the cellulose but not from any proteinaceous substance.” He published some photographs of his tests in ‘Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud,’ but as they were all described as “blood image,” it is not clear that the image alone tested positive, or was even tested at all. Heller and Adler went on to use further tests, such as fluorescamine, and said, “The fluorescamine tests were definitely negative on all fibrils away from blood areas.”
And about the starch content. Heller and Adler reported that “the uncoated fibrils, body image. non-image and scorch fibrils” were all tested for starch, with negative results. On the other hand they also suggested that “It should be noted that although all of the other organic tests are negative, this does not preclude the possibility that some of these substances may have resided on the cloth in the past and been ‘lost’ over time through oxidation, degradation, etc. […] This would also apply to trace amounts of Saponaria.” The first statement is in direct contradiction to Raymond Rogers observation that “We expected to find starch on the Shroud, so we did not specifically look for it. That was an unfortunate oversight,”6 but the second more or less coheres with Rogers’s “We could find very little confirmatory evidence for the use of Saponaria on the Shroud. The age of the cloth and damage during the fire of 1532 make some chemical testing difficult. More work needs to be done. However several circumstantial bits of evidence that Saponaria might have been present early in the history of the cloth should be mentioned.”
Later Rogers wrote that “The presence of starch, in particular amylose, on the shroud was confirmed by the fact that during testing for sulfoproteins in blood areas with an iodine-azide reagent (which bubbles vigorously when sulfur is present), a reddish background was formed,”7 and that “The observed effects must have been caused by different amounts of impurities that originally coated the surfaces of the threads as a result of slightly different production conditions.” He specifically decided that “the cellulose was not involved in the color-producing chemistry of the image,” although following Heller and Adler he was convinced that “whatever process produced the image, colour must have occurred after the blood flowed onto (or was painted onto) the cloth, and the image-producing process did not destroy the blood.”8
I don’t find any of this convincing, and the more detail is added the less coherent it appears. I can’t, from the observations listed above, positively refute the possibility that the blood was applied before the image, but nobody could say that the opposite had been proved, including, as I have shown above, STuRP itself. My opinion is that the image was applied first, and the blood some time later, possibly years.
Kelly Kearse approaches the matter from a different angle. Suppose the image was indeed applied before the blood, but the blood somehow meant that the image disappeared. Then both sides could be correct. A) The image was applied before the blood, but B) there is no image under the blood. It would be a clever reconciliation of the two sides.
Firstly, he asks, what do we mean by image? Medievalists like myself suggest that it is primarily a discolouration of the primary cell walls of the flax using acid. Miraculists think it is a discolouration of the primary cell walls of the flax using electromagnetic or sub-atomic radiation. Another possibility proposed by Nicholas Allen, is that it is a discolouration of the primary cell walls of the flax from the effects of chemistry related to photography. Kearse prepared samples using all these methods, applied blood, removed it with protease, and photographed the results next to control samples where no blood was applied.
1). Cloth treated with acid, no apparent discolouration, covered with blood, then heated.
2). Cloth treated with acid, no apparent discolouration, heated, then covered with blood.
3). Cloth chemically treated, discolouration apparent, covered with blood, heating not necessary.
4). Cloth irradiated weakly with a laser, no apparent discolouration, covered with blood.
5). Cloth irradiated more strongly with a laser, discolouration apparent, covered with blood.
(for full details, see Kearse’s paper)
As can be seen, some of these treatments resulted in immediate colouration of the cloth, while others needed heat to make anything visible. The point of heating is to simulate “aging,” by which a latent image becomes visible. How visible the image on the Shroud was before heating/aging is a moot point. From an authenticist point of view, there is no specific reason why the Shroud should have had an image on it for years, and some people think that its invisibility at the time of discovery just after the Resurrection explains why no image is mentioned in the Gospels. From a medievalist point of view, it is most unlikely that its creator deliberately produced an invisible image. However, it is possible that, if it were done using visible pigment in an invisible medium, the original image was due to the pigment, and the image we see now is due to the medium ‘developing’ over time. It is also possible that the original painting was hot-ironed to remove wrinkles, and the heat from that ‘developed’ an otherwise latent medium effect.
Anyway, when all these experiments were treated with protease and the blood completely removed, only in cases (1) and (3) was the colour of the cloth returned to its pristine state. It seems that before the acid has sufficient heat/time to discolour the cloth, the buffering qualities of blood effectively neutralises it, but after it has had adequate heat/time for colour to appear, then it doesn’t. In other words the blood prevents the forming of a visible image, it does not remove any image already formed.
In the case of the photographic chemicals, the blood did appear to remove the colour, so that when the blood was removed, the cloth was lighter than it was after chemical treatment. This sample was not, as far as I can see, heated, which might have fixed the discolouration more permanently.
In the case of the laser treatment, both samples were unaltered by the blood, and looked the same after it was removed. Sample 4 remained uncoloured, sample 5 remained coloured. To confirm that sample 4 had been affected by the laser, it was found that before adding the blood it fluoresced under ultraviolet light, and that after adding and removing the blood, the latent colouration could nevertheless be rendered visible on heating.
Kearse’s paper concludes with a separate study, considering the possibility that even if the blood were applied first, the image making mechanism might do its job regardless, through the blood ‘shield.’ This was only tested using the laser treatment, and then only at the weaker ‘latent image producing’ level, as the stronger level affected the blood as well. Finally samples treated with blood and serum alone were treated to very low levels of laser radiation, when it was found that serum did not protect the cloth, but whole blood did.
In conclusion, Kearse begins by saying that it is clear that in some circumstances, blood applied after an acidic degenerant of cloth could negate its activity, giving the impression, after the blood was removed, that there was “no image under the blood,” but only if the acid had not discoloured the cloth before the blood was applied. Otherwise, blood could bleach existing discolouration only in the case of the photographic chemicals.
The conclusion is worth quoting in full:
“In summary, the current report has investigated various circumstances related to the sequential order of blood and image addition to the Shroud of Turin. These studies show that addition of blood to acid treated linen nullifies subsequent coloration, offering a potential example of no image underneath blood involving artistic creation. Additionally, the suggested “bleaching effect” of blood was addressed and shown to be restricted to only one out of three coloration systems that were examined [the photographic chemicals]. Hence, the general conclusion is that blood added after coloration is unable to reverse it. Lastly, these studies document that linen underneath blood (or serum) was affected by energy transfer from radiation, even under conditions corresponding to latent coloration.”
====================================================
1). ‘The Sequential Addition of Blood and Image to the Shroud of Turin,’ Kelly Kearse, International Journal of Archaeology, 2026
– – ‘A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,’ John Heller and Alan Adler, Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, 1981
2). ‘Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, A Summary of the 1978 Investigation,’ Lawrence Schwalbe and Raymond Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta, 1982
3). ‘Formal Proposal for Proposing Scientific Research on the Shroud of Turin,’ STuRP, 1984
4). ‘Criteria for Authentication: A Procedure for the Verification of Shroud Samples,’ Eugenia Nitowski (as Sister Damien of the Cross), 1986
5). Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud, Walter McCrone, 1997
6). ‘An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color,’ Raymond Rogers (at shroud.com)
7). ‘The Shroud of Turin: An Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) may Explain the Image Formation,’ Raymond Rogers, Melanoidins in Food and Health Volume 4, Jennifer Ames (ed.), 2003
8). ‘Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review,’ Raymond Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, 2002 (at shroud.com)
Hi, Dan,
You asked me what is my basis for assuming a miracle produces any energy at all, in a detectable, measurable, physical sense? Well, first of all, I’m not just talking about any miracle. Instead, I’m talking about resurrecting dead bodies in general and then resurrecting Jesus’ dead body which we understand to be glorified yet still capable of being seen, being heard, eating, walking around and, yet, engaging in supernatural acts (like suddenly appearing in a room with locked doors per John 20:28.)
To think that a body can do this without some sort of energy is quite questionable thinking, I think. But, the “cherry on top” which gives us confirmation that Resurrection Energy enabled Jesus’ dead corpse to reverse death and resume life (albeit in a glorified form) is the nature of the body images on the Shroud of Turin–that it is not from paint, pigment, stain or dye but that it is from the dehydration and oxidation of the cellulosic fibers in the linen cloth that it is on. The evidence is compelling that this image was brought about from energy being emitted from the body onto the cloth.
And, since all efforts to reproduce the body images with all of their characteristics and on a grand scale that features two corresponding life-sized body images have failed, and since there is a context that the body of evidence regarding the Shroud’s blood and body images are contained within, we do not have reason to doubt (at least not at this point) that the energy or image formation process was a natural one. So, until someone can demonstrate otherwise, I think that this energy should be categorized as unknown and likely (although not definitively) supernatural. But, I’m not saying that I’m at all certain that it is supernatural energy, but I think that it is more likely than not, and I think that it fits with the grand flourish that God would add to the awe of Jesus’ resurrection.
Best regards,
Teddi
Teddi, et al.
Life Energy. What’s the basis for assuming a miracle produces any energy at all, in a detectable, measurable, physical sense?
If the Resurrection was a genuine miracle — God acting outside the created order rather than through it — then by definition it isn’t the kind of event that has a physical energy signature to go looking for. Energy, in the physical sense, is a property of processes within the created order: chemical bonds breaking, particles decaying, fields interacting. A miracle, properly understood, isn’t one more physical process we haven’t classified yet. It’s not on that ledger at all.
So when we ask “what unknown energy resurrected the body,” I think we’ve already smuggled in an assumption — that whatever happened must have had a mechanism describable in physical terms, even if we don’t yet know what those terms are. But that’s exactly the move that turns a miracle into a natural event we haven’t measured correctly yet. And if it’s a natural event with an undiscovered mechanism, it’s not a miracle in the theological sense anymore — it’s just physics we haven’t caught up to.
That’s not an explanation of a miracle. That’s dissolving the miracle into a mechanism and calling it explained. That’s promoting an assumption almost to the level of a fact.
I’d actually go further: if the Shroud image did turn out to require a specific, identifiable form of energy to produce — something we could someday characterize and perhaps even reproduce in a lab — that would be evidence against it being a supernatural event, not for it. A miracle that leaves a physically legible energy signature stops being outside the natural order and becomes, instead, a natural phenomenon we hadn’t cataloged yet.
This matters beyond just the mechanics of image formation. It goes to what kind of thing we’re claiming happened at all. If it’s a miracle, there is no energy to find. If there’s energy to find, it wasn’t a miracle in the sense the resurrection is supposed to be.
Best,
Dan
Hi, again,
Hugh, you wrote:
“2)c) “(My guess is that the immediate results will just exhibit corroded fibers from the acid but no yellowish coloration from the acid. I wonder how long the hydrochloric acid would take to create color on the linen and filter paper if not heated.)” Your guess is unlikely to be correct. The acid does not ‘corrode’ fibres by abrasion but but chemical reaction, and the chemical reaction that causes corrosion also causes discolouration. I too wonder how long acid would take to colour a sample if not heated. I very much look forward to your 2036 report.”
I’ve never implied that the acid corrodes by abrasion. In fact, as I have publicly mentioned before, the research that I had conducted about two years ago on cellulosic yellowing used the word “corroded” to describe the appearance of linen that has underwent cellulosic yellowing. I felt like I hit the lottery when I saw that precise word used for cellulosic yellowing! And, of course, that comes about not from mechanical abrasion but, of course, by chemical reaction (via the oxidation and dehydration that induce cellulosic yellowing.)
At minimum, it would be good to see if during the time period that Kelly conducted his experiment if the acid would have caused any yellowing (in order for there to be certainty that any yellowing was due to the heat’s interaction with the acid in order to accelerate the coloration.
As for me ordering and using hydrochloric acid, I’ll leave that experiment to others. Since you like to play with fire, hydrochloric acid shouldn’t be a stretch for you.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hugh, you wrote:
“2)a) ‘Had no heat been applied, the likelihood is that the acid, alone, would have just remained the original color of the linen and the original color of the filter paper.’ No, that is not likely at all. We see a change in colour because of a change in chemistry, and in particular the rearrangement of some of the double bonds in the cellulose molecule. ‘Yellowing with age’ is a common observation, showing that the rearrangement happens whether the cellulose is heated or not.”
Yes, I realize that we see a change in color because of a change in chemistry, but there is the question of REACTION TIME. There’s no evidence presented by Kelly that there would have been any coloration without the addition of heat–that’s why he added the heat (because he almost certainly knew that it would take some time before the acid colored the linen.) How much time? I don’t know, but that seems like it would be an important control to add to the experiment in order to establish that, first. But, regardless, there needed to be the addition of heat BEFORE adding the blood and serum–in order to be consistent and in order to give the acid the ability to rapidly produce the image with the heat that was only applied AFTER the blood and serum were applied. The blood and serum were likely barriers (like sunscreen) that precluded the later applied heat from inducing rapid image production from the acid.
Hi, Hugh,
You wrote: “Having determined that at some concentrations, acid can affect cellulose, Kelly then wanted to find out whether blood would prevent from it doing so. For these experiments, he used a concentration of acid which he knew could react with cellulose, and found that blood did, indeed, prevent it from doing so. This is not a change in protocol, it is a different experiment.”
Just changing the molarity of the HCl doesn’t really seem like a “different experiment” to me. It’s just a different phase of an ongoing experiment.
But, that’s not what I was referring to as a “change of protocol.” What I was meaning is the protocol Kelly specifies for acid coloration in the materials and methods section of his paper on page 18. There, he specifies the use of 20 microliters of HCl are added, allowed to dry, and samples heated at 110 degrees Celsius for 10 minutes. He then goes on to state that with experiments involving blood and serum, acid was added, allowed to dry, and then a similar volume of blood or serum was added and allowed to dry before heating. Protease treatment was performed as previously described.
The “change in protocol” is that with the situation concerning the addition of blood or serum, he does not, first, add the heat for the 10 minutes in order to accelerate the image production with the hydrochloric acid. The failure to apply heat is “robbing” the acid from its ability to quickly provide an image in the short amount of time that Kelly is conducting this experiment. By putting blood or serum onto the dried (but unheated) acid on the linen and filter paper and only applying the heat AFTER the blood and serum are, respectively, applied, is NOT an apples-to-apples experiment. Why? Because the blood and serum are very likely SHIELDING the acid underneath them from developing expedited color from the heat that is applied. So, I don’t think that Kelly has really demonstrated that the blood is really neutralizing the acid from creating color. For the short duration of Kelly’s experiment, the acid would not have created color WITHOUT the heat. So, by not adding heat to the acid BEFORE adding blood and serum, he’s not proven anything–since the blood and serum could easily be shielding the acid from the effect of the heat treatment.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
You mention that “heating acids decreases any reaction time, and enables us to see what reactions they can cause. By heating his test samples, Kelly could show that concentrations less than 0.01M had no effect on cellulose, so obviously adding blood would be pointless, as you can’t prevent or reverse a reaction which isn’t going to happen anyway.”
I wasn’t referring to the 0.01M experiment but the 0.2M experiment which yielded color that Kelly said is “like” the Shroud image. (The word “like” isn’t particularly specific, but, regardless, it is important to note that he specifies that “the DEGREE and TONE of color was variable depending upon acid concentration and heating conditions.” [Emphasis added.]
So, let’s take this back to the whole point of this experiment–which is to see if a legitimate “end-run” can be made around the “blood first, image second” hypothesis. Well, these experiments aren’t really relevant to anything if they just exist in a vacuum and aren’t applied to the reality of what would need to be done to create the full-sized Shroud with its two body images on it. It would take an artist a lot of time to paint these two images with acid–and the notion that there are not going to be lots of areas where the acid overlaps is a given. How’s someone going to even paint with clear acid and no outlines to guide where, specifically, the body image is to go on the cloth.
But, as these two body images are being painted or dabbed on with acid (and dabbing would be less precise than a brush), time is passing where the acid is corroding the linen–and this is PRIOR to the acid’s just drying in air WITHOUT heat. So, there is going to be a lot of time for the acid to corrode the fibers (whether blood fades any yellowish color or not.)
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
With the experiment with the silver salt solution, how does one solve the “laundry problem” in terms of getting all of the silver off of the cloth at the microscopic level? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292253167_Image_formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin_A_proposed_chemical_model
I think that is going to be a big problem since, with the Shroud, the only silver found was in one (or perhaps more–I don’t recall for certain the number of areas) scorch marks (due to the silvery reliquary’s melting during the Fire of 1532.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
I appreciate that you’re trying to understand rather than obfuscate, but you do tend to get carried away by distraction after distraction and lose track of both Kelly’s points and your own pursuit of them. If you just concentrated on one thing at a time you’d get a bit further yourself, and sound more coherent as an ambassador for authenticism.
From five comments ago, working forwards…
5) I think ‘ammonium nitrate’ is a simple typo, based on the fact that the silver salt used was silver nitrate. Ammonium nitrate [note: not nitrite] has no effect on silver nitrate.
4)a) If a chemical causes no visible change to a textile, it is not easy to observe if it has caused any change at all, and not easy to observe if any subsequent treatment has had an effect. Heating acids decreases any reaction time, and enables us to see what reactions they can cause. By heating his test samples, Kelly could show that concentrations less than 0.01M had no effect on cellulose, so obviously adding blood would be pointless, as you can’t prevent or reverse a reaction which isn’t going to happen anyway.
Having determined that at some concentrations, acid can effect cellulose, Kelly then wanted to find out whether blood would prevent from it doing so. For these experiments, he used a concentration of acid which he knew could react with cellulose, and found that blood did, indeed, prevent it from doing so. This is not a change in protocol, it is a different experiment.
4)b) He also investigated whether blood could reverse the effect of an acid reaction after it had discoloured cellulose, so heated the samples first and then applied blood, which had no effect.(Figure 7)
4)c) Your statement, “we don’t know all of the ways that heat (as well as a lack of heat) effect the acid, and we don’t know all of the ways that heat effects (separately) serum and blood on the samples (when the underlying acid has not been heated after being dried.),” is irrelevant. Kelly sets out the questions he wants to answer, and the reasons why he wants to answer them, and carries out experiments that provide the answers. That’s all. No doubt endless other experiments are possible and would be interesting, but they are outside the scope of this paper.
3) You are correct that instead of heating his samples to make any possible chemical reaction visible, Kelly could have left them on a shelf for a decade or two. However the chemistry of cellulose is quite simple and has been extensively studied, and the action of heat is likely to mimic the effects of a long sojourn on a shelf sufficiently well for the experiments that he did to be relevant to the Shroud.
2)a) “Had no heat been applied, the likelihood is that the acid, alone, would have just remained the original color of the linen and the original color of the filter paper.” No, that is not likely at all. We see a change in colour because of a change in chemistry, and in particular the rearrangement of some of the double bonds in the cellulose molecule. ‘Yellowing with age’ is a common observation, showing that the rearrangement happens whether the cellulose is heated or not.
2)b) “There needs to be a control for the hydrochloric acid’s being applied to the linen and filter paper without heat – and then adding the blood and serum on top of these – without heat. Then, let’s see what happens.” By all means. It’s a simple enough experiment. You could easily do it yourself, and report back in 2036.
2)c) “(My guess is that the immediate results will just exhibit corroded fibers from the acid but no yellowish coloration from the acid. I wonder how long the hydrochloric acid would take to create color on the linen and filter paper if not heated.)” Your guess is unlikely to be correct. The acid does not ‘corrode’ fibres by abrasion but but chemical reaction, and the chemical reaction that causes corrosion also causes discolouration. I too wonder how long acid would take to colour a sample if not heated. I very much look forward to your 2036 report.
2)d) “I strongly suspect that the blood and serum PRECLUDED the image from forming because the blood and serum PROTECTED the acid from the heat (and the HEAT was what was driving the immediate coloration from the acid.)” Do you? Fair enough. Kelly concluded that it was because the blood and serum neutralised the acid, and demonstrated that it did so by further experiment (see his Fig. 4). Are your strong suspicions based on anything at all?
1)a) “The more I think…” Again, good for you. I think the demonstrated effect of the alkaline blood on the acid is adequate to explain the lack of colouration under it. Next time you graze your knee, smear some blood on a cloth, let it dry, then iron it hot enough for some discolouration to appear on the unbloodied part, then wash it thoroughly (bleach it if you like) and photograph the result. I’ll be delighted to publish it here for you.
1)b) “Additionally….” You’ve drifted off again. All these questions have been answered thoroughly and in detail previously, and all these fanciful reconstructions comprehensively explored and rejected, several times, in this very blog, so I’m not going to repeat them.
But let me end by thoroughly commending your right to query Kelly’s paper, to ask for clarification where you don’t understand, and to suggest alternatives of your own. It’s exactly what I do when confronted with something I think hasn’t been clearly enough explained, as you’ll see in my next post. I do not agree that “a high school science teacher” has no right to challenge a “world renowned expert” publishing in a “peer-reviewed journal,” and I think that applies to criminal defence lawyers too!
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
The more that I think about this question, I think I’m right (with regard to Kelly’s acid AND HEAT coloration experiments.) It’s not so much that the blood and serum (as Kelly is thinking his data demonstrates) are buffering the acid so as to preclude an image. It’s that the blood and serum are creating RESISTANCE to accelerated coloration from the acid by protecting the acid from the effect of the 10 minutes of heating at 110 degrees Celsius.
Additionally, how would the medieval artist do this without first having an outline of the body image (and, of course, there are no outlines on the Shroud.) You will say via the application of acid on a bas relief. Why would someone risk damage from acid to what would be TWO bas reliefs (frontal side and dorsal side) of a full-sized man? Why do this? Such bas reliefs would take a lot of time and effort and expense to produce–and to make them where the frontal and dorsal images correspond– that makes things exponentially more challenging. Additionally, most people think that the bas relief experiment would just be limited to the face on the Holy Shroud. So, how is the rest of the body image achieved with the acid? More bas relief? Even a medieval artist would realize that acid is very risky in terms of putting a hole through the cloth–especially in the areas where there will be inadvertent overlapping applications of the acid.
And, who in their right mind would want to make a painting out of hydrochloric acid–where you’ve got to deal with mixing very dangerous sulfuric acid (which can easily cause severe skin burns if it makes contact with the skin) with common salt. Think of how much time it would take an alchemist to even make the sulfuric acid (which were typically made in small batches in glass or clay pots and distilling the vapors into a liquid. Sure, let’s believe someone did that instead of an artist using what artists typically use for creating images on linen–PAINT. And, again, iron oxide was extremely cheap and easy to get–my goodness, even the caveman used it.
This just isn’t right–to pretend as if using these materials makes any sense and to sow doubt in the minds of many unsuspecting members of the public who will, undoubtedly, hear you, Hugh, in the future, cite to some of the details in Kelly’s experiment in an effort to get a “gotcha” on a Shroud presenter that brings up the “blood first, image second” hypothesis.
These are distractions that do not restrict themselves to scenarios which don’t require us to suspend our disbelief.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, again,
With the acid on the filter paper and linen where heat is then added, it’s the HEAT that is speeding up the acid’s ability to color the filter paper and linen. Had no heat been applied, the likelihood is that the acid, alone, would have just remained the original color of the linen and the original color of the filter paper. But, by introducing the heat IMMEDIATELY AFTER the acid, THAT’S what gets the “acid coloration” underneath.
There needs to be a control for the hydrochloric acid’s being applied to the linen and filter paper without heat–and then adding the blood and serum on top of these–without heat. Then, let’s see what happens.
(My guess is that the immediate results will just exhibit corroded fibers from the acid but no yellowish coloration from the acid. I wonder how long the hydrochloric acid would take to create color on the linen and filter paper if not heated.)
Anyhow, I think there’s a very good likelihood that with the experiments with blood and serum, that there would be NO DEVELOPMENT of the color from the acid, because HEAT was NOT immediately applied to the acid. Instead, I strongly suspect that the blood and serum PRECLUDED the image from forming because the blood and serum PROTECTED the acid from the heat (and the HEAT was what was driving the immediate coloration from the acid.)
Best regards,
Teddi
Additionally, accelerated aging is just a risky move when used, because it’s fake and it often introduces the variable of heat. I think that this can be especially problematic when, especially, going beyond just doing this with the linen and filter paper but then applying heat to the additional components of the blood and serum.
Changes can result in the blood and serum from that heat that might not have happened with true aging–which typically does not involve heat and is a more gentle process. The heat adds another factor into the equation, and heat is not what happens with, for example, the cellulosic yellowing of paper in a book or a yellow sweat stain on a white t-shirt.
And, I don’t think that there is any reason to posit that an artist would have applied heat to the bloodstains on top of the body images after finishing his artwork. And, if he did, we’d likely see evidence of a lack of uniform heating in these double, life-sized body images.
Hi, Hugh,
There’s a problem with the method instituted for Kelly’s acid experiments which could potentially cause a different result if there had been more of an apples-to-apples approach.
Specifically, in the “Materials and Methods” portion of his paper (pg. 18), Kelly specifies that when performing his acid experiments (to create coloration via acid on linen and filter paper) he applies hydrochloric acid on the linen and filter paper, he allows the acid to dry and then he heats these samples at 110 degrees Celsius for 10 minutes.
However, when he creates such acid coloration on linen and filter paper samples and then adds blood to one group and serum to the other group, the protocol CHANGES, because he does not add heat for 10 minutes (as he did with the non-blood and non-serum samples) after the acid dried. Instead, with the blood and serum samples, he only adds the heat AFTER the blood and serum are applied and then dry. This, therefore, creates a CHANGE in protocol which could result in a different finding since we don’t know all of the ways that heat (as well as a lack of heat) effect the acid, and we don’t know all of the ways that heat effects (separately) serum and blood on the samples (when the underlying acid has not been heated after being dried.)
I’m not a scientist, but I’ve had enough science classes in high school and a college to know that changes like this could result in different outcomes in the experiments.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Hugh,
I’ve got some additional comments which will be forthcoming, but there’s something odd that I’ve noticed. Kelly refers to “initial studies” regarding the silver salt method for coloration (and I take this to mean Nicholas Allen’s studies), but then Kelly then mentions that “in this system” (which I take to mean Kelly’s NEW silver salt experiments) he states that he treats the linen with silver salts, exposes the linen to sunlight, quenches the effects of the silver salts with AMMONIUM NITRITE solution and then washes the cloth (with copious amounts of water.)
HOWEVER, in the earlier “Materials and Methods” section of Kelly’s paper, with regard to the silver treatment, he mentions using NH4OH (which is AMMONIUM HYDROXIDE) to quench the samples that were treated to the silver nitrate solution.
In the “Materials and Methods” section, it is usually understood that this is a mention of the “materials and methods” that one is using in the experiments that the author of the paper is engaged in. So, not sure which chemicals were used to actually quench the silver salt solution in Kelly’s experiment.
In Figure 5, Kelly, again, makes mention of NH4OH (ammonium hydroxide) to quench the activity of the silver salt solution–and he references the Materials and Methods section of his paper for details.) So, the ammonium nitrite solution (for quenching )–as is seen on page 19 of Kelly’s paper–seems to me to be coming out of left field. Is this just an inadvertent error? It would be good to have clarification of this issue.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi Teddi,
Have you in fact read Kelly’s paper? It seems not, or at least if you did you don’t seem to have understood it. There is nothing in it that suggests that either the colour or the corrosion was reversed as a result of adding blood. Even the abstract clearly comes to “the general conclusion that blood added after coloration is unable to reverse it.”
And yes, you have completely missed the point about lasers, as is clearly demonstrated by your repeated insistence that “they were not available in medieval times,” and thinking that “the point of the experiment is to try to explain that an artist could have created the image.” That was not the point of the experiment at all, as you would know if you had read the paper.
This post will no doubt raise your blood pressure to dangerous levels, but before leaping in with a rebuttal, please read Kelly’s paper properly. If you find you don’t have the time, then don’t comment on it until you have, and if you never have the time, then don’t comment on it at all.
Best wishes,
Hugh
CORRECTION: I had stated in my last comment: “Additionally, it cannot be under-emphasized that the reversal of COLOR on a fiber does not equate with the reversal of CORROSIVE DAMAGE done to the fiber through an acid or laser.
I should have stated that it cannot be understated (or, in the alternative, that it cannot be overemphasized.)
Additionally, it cannot be under-emphasized that the reversal of COLOR on a fiber does not equate with the reversal of CORROSIVE DAMAGE done to the fiber through an acid or laser.
So, with Adler’s work, it was never just about the lack of the straw-yellow color of the body image being found when the blood was removed with the protease treatment. It was about how the fiber underneath the blood was like that of the fibers from the non-image area.
I seem to have a strong recollection that I have read somewhere from Adler’s writings on this matter that some of these fibers looked even better than fibers from the non-image area. This would make perfect sense as the non-image fibers would have had some degree of aging as they are unprotected by the blood.
While Kelly mentioned that this issue was outside of the scope of this particular paper, it needed to be, because it is crucially relevant for the public to consider when assessing how to view his findings with respect to the “blood first, image second” hypothesis.
Hi, Hugh,
It’s not too narrow of a restriction with regard to what is posited for an explanation as to the image formation process to restrict things to what is rational, reasonable AND viable–not just pertaining to one criterion regarding the Shroud’s body images but that can be accomplished while achieving the other criteria, as well.
I’m not trying to “command” what is worthwhile–I’m merely expressing arguments which demonstrate that people should not read Kelly’s paper and then come away with the impression that an end-run has been made around the “blood first, image second” hypothesis. Starting with a presupposition that is not viable only serves to try and “poison the well” while trying to proclaim neutrality. There’s nothing neutral about this experiment when it starts off with an untenable presupposition. The experiment is down in a very MOTIVATED way–and protestations to the contrary are not convincing to me.
Kelly’s paper is not short and it is heavy with a lot of data on several types of experiments. The average person is not going to spend the time to carefully read it, and they will only look at Kelly’s conclusion (or the conclusion of someone writing about it.) As such, I am alerting people that they need to take a much closer look at what Kelly is presupposing and what he is claiming.
Yes, I agree with you that there are are several pathways to degraded cellulose within conventional science, and that chemically-based treatments are certainly among them. But, experiments that do not take all of the criteria and certain requirements into consideration only serve to confuse the public and to help them arrive at a false conclusion (that the “blood first, image second” hypothesis can be defeated in the context of all of the other things concerning the body images on the SHROUD–not just any image on a piece of filter paper or a piece of linen cloth. This all has to be performed on two full-body images of an adult human (where each image corresponds with the other) and where the coloration is all nearly the same and without areas where the acid or image formation process creates holes in the cloth (from overlapping applications of the acid without an outline of the body for reference) or capillarity. And, in areas where there is overlap from the acid (if it is painted on) there is the problem of the acidic solution going beyond 1-3 fibers deep. And, if no colorant is put in the acid, then there’s bound to be a LOT of overlap of the acid–and the superficiality issue then becomes a very serious problem. And, if colorant is put in the acid, there is still the problem of overlap.
I have, for example, with large watercolored paintings that I have done, find that I end up with a tremendous amount of overlapping paint when I apply the paint with a brush–same thing would happen with the pouncer you’ve used–perhaps even more so given it is less precise than a brush.
No, I haven’t missed the point about lasers. The point is that this is the point–they were not available in medieval times–so, they have no business in an experiment concerning the Shroud if the point of the experiment is to try to explain that an artist could have created the image. If Kelly’s got to use a laser to get the closest to producing the effects of the body images on the Shroud, then this should be a great indication that it takes something far outside of what a medieval forger could have used to create the body images on the Shroud.
A primitive brass rubbing with acid or a colorant is going to create either capillarity (and probably holes in at least certain areas of the cloth) with the acid or remaining residue from the pigment (even after being vigorously washed–as you did with your experiment.)
Perhaps there are different “smell tests,” but some smell of roses and others smell of rubbish.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi Hugh, a drop of water research is also a very wide ranging discipline
Best wishes
Patrick
Hi Teddi,
Shroud research is a very wide ranging discipline which I think you’re trying to restrict too narrowly. Although I dare say that your conclusion that the Shroud is authentic was not based on pre-suppositions, having committed yourself to it you’ve set a whole lot of limits on how anybody else should research it which many of us, medievalists, authenticists and undecided alike, don’t accept, and you command that only experiments within these limits are worthwhile.
There are several pathways to degraded cellulose within conventional science, and chemically-based treatments are certainly among them. If their activity is inhibited by blood, then that makes a significant contribution to the blood first, image first debate.
I think you’ve missed the point about lasers. The point is not whether they were available in medieval times, but the fact that they are the closest anyone has got to producing the effects of whatever supernatural “Resurrection Energy” you propose was the source of the image during the Resurrection.
Finally, clinging to the “ridiculously complex process” idea is, I’m afraid, rather blinkered. A primitive ‘brass-rubbing’ style print is not at all ridiculously complex, and easier, for the effect it was trying to achieve, than a watercolour painting. We all have have different ‘smell-tests,’ and none of us should insist that ours is the best.
Best wishes,
Hugh
In the same way that it would not make sense to have a chemical experiment start with a presupposition that it’s “possible” that a base metal can be turned into gold (because the natural response is: prove that this can happen first before you move to the next step), the same holds true with regard to having as a presupposition that the body images on the Shroud could have been created with acid.
Generally speaking, I’m not in favor of making presuppositions–because if the foundation for the rest of your argument or experiment is not demonstrated to–at minimum– be viable, then anything that follows from that and WHICH RELIES UPON THAT is of very questionable use.
I’m not trying to say that there is nothing of interest in Kelly’s experiment–there is (just in terms of scientifically knowing certain things.) So, in that respect, sure, these are interesting findings–but not with respect to undercutting the “blood first, image second” hypothesis.
Additionally, why use a laser in this experiment when lasers did not exist during medieval times? Kelly should have restrained himself in his experiment to that which Hugh did–which was Hugh’s only using things that were actually available to a medieval artist–Hugh used malt vinegar and pigment and a bas relief for his most recent attempt (which even he agrees failed) at the image formation process. But, how useful can an experiment be when fancy tools are being used that were not available when the purported artwork was made?
And, as I keep saying: why would someone go through a ridiculously complex process that great minds today still cannot replicate in full when an easy way of achieving the same visual results (to probably almost all of the observers of the cloth–at least the ones who did not get a chance to see it very closely) with just using dilute watercolor paint on linen? For someone to have done otherwise just doesn’t pass the important “smell test.”
While I habitually agree with the concept that “anything is possible,” I think that we all agree, also, that not everything is probable.
Hi, Hugh,
As I had mentioned in that comment concerning Barrie’s paper, I tried to attach a link to Barrie’s paper but was unable to–so, instead, I just figured I’d copy-and-paste it (for the ease of the readers.) But, I certainly understand that it was rather long. Thanks, however, for keeping the rest of my comment.
Best regards,
Teddi
It is vital to pay attention to what Kelly, himself, wrote on page 18 of his paper:
“[T]he possibility has been raised that some type of acid treatment may have been used in creation of the Shroud image. If true, then it is reasonable to assume that blood addition may serve to counterbalance the chemical etching effect of H^+ treatment in such areas.”
The operative word is “if true.” But, where’s the evidence that such acid treatments are viable as a reasonable explanation for the Shroud’s image making process?
Teddi’s next comment consisted almost entirely of an article by Barrie Schwortz entitled “Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?” which is readily available at shroud.com. This forum is not the place for a simple data dump, so I’ve disallowed the comment. However, her introduction to the article is perfectly sensible, and anybody wanting to understand Nicholas Allen’s hypothesis should read it, with reference to Allen’s own book: “Turin Shroud: Testament to a Lost Technology.”
The opening to Teddi’s comment was:
“For Barrie Schwortz’ excellent paper discussing Nicholas Allen’s “proto-photo” hypothesis, I could only find it in downloadable form, but I was unable to attach it here. So, I’ve copied and pasted it – however, the photos did not get included in the copy-and-paste. But, here it is.
I think it’s helpful for the public to see the fantastical effort that an artist would need to exert to create such body images which still will not meet all of the criteria necessary to make them functionally equivalent to the blood and body images on the Shroud of Turin.”
Kelly mentions the following in a response to me here: “Heat was never used in the silver salt solution system in my experiments. In Allen’s system heat is not required. Your issues regarding this are nonsensical.”
I’m not sure why my issues regarding “heat” (and accelerated aging”) are “nonsensical.” You claim (in the text of yours that I quoted, above) that “heat was never used in the silver salt solution system” in your experiments for your paper at issue. However, you specifically mention on page 18 the following:
“For silver treatment, a 0.5% solution of AgNO3 solution was added to linen, and AFTER DRYING, EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT for 8-16 hours.” [Emphasis added.]
Well, that doesn’t seem to me that heat wasn’t involved in your silver treatment experiment. Sure, sunlight is light energy and does not provide heat on its own. However, IT DOES TURN INTO HEAT when an object (such as the linen that you were exposing to sunlight with the 0.5% solution of silver nitrate) absorbs that light energy and transforms it into thermal energy.
Additionally, while silver nitrate is a salt, my understanding is that when it reacts with water it can become acidic to some degree. Unless I missed it, did you provide for what the humidity level was when the linen was exposed to sunlight for 8-16 hours?
In Nicholas Allen’s experiment, while Kelly states that heat was not required, we, nonetheless, have another situation where, in order for the body image to develop on the linen that had the light sensitive emulsion coated on it, it had to be (as our dear Barrie Schwortz wrote about in his paper addressing Allen’s experiment) exposed to bright sunlight for four days for the ventral body image and four days for the dorsal body image. Bright sunlight shining down on a cloth for four days (for each of the two body images) sure does sound like heat is involved in Allen’s process (but in Kelly’s, also.)
We have a long discussion about heat here, but I believe you misunderstand much of what is going on.
Heat was never used in the silver salt solution system in my experiments. In Allen’s system heat is not required. Your issues regarding this are nonsensical.
Very mild heating treatment (10 min @ 150oC) was used in the acid-treatment experiments; the aging of cellulose which you refer involves much longer time periods. These are not in the same league. As I mentioned in one of my comments, you can do it without heat in the acid system. I just chose this way.
Very brief heating at a higher temperature (60 seconds @ 190oC) was used in laser treatment experiments to further visualize the effects of latent coloration as described by Paolo and colleagues. In my experiments, I also included uv photography, both before and after heating, which shows the result. I could have just as easily left the post-heating step out, but it makes the affected area easier to see. This was all done after the experiment was run, as a diagnostic. It was not done beforehand as a type of catalyst. I mention the problem with heating beforehand in the discussion. Your issues regarding this are nonsensical.
Regarding the laundry problem, I explain in the article discussion that I believe the washing is incomplete and provide a molecular basis for the observation of reduced color. Allen was the one who initially proposed a “bleaching effect” for blood, so naturally another scientist is going to investigate in that system to see what the baseline looks like, to see if they obtain the same results. It would be poor science, in my opinion, to jump right into other systems without investigating the platform on which the original observation was made. Investigating it and showing the results, is not equivalent to an endorsement for the image formation mechanism, it is just standard scientific procedure.
I am not asking anyone to jump through amazing fantastical hoops. I just like to investigate things from multiple angles to try to remain objective. In this paper I used three systems and present 13 figures. 4 involve the acid system, 2 involve the silver system, and 6 involve the laser system (all but 1 of which is multipaneled). It’s not runaway imagination, it seems like a pretty balanced approach to me, if anything, it’s slanted towards the radiation side.
I have heard forever that because there is no image under blood, this is scientific proof that the Shroud must be authentic. There is no other way this could happen. This is not solid scientific thinking, it’s an observation, not a form of proof. Some smart, sincere people (Hugh Farey and Joseph Accetta) that practice the Catholic Christian faith (and have no theological axe to grind) believe that acid was likely used in the creation of the image. I included a verbatim quote from Adler in the paper that he found that fibrils “identical in all chemical and microscopic characteristics to those found on the Shroud” could be prepared by exposure of linen to concentrated sulfuric acid. Maybe there’s something to it. Maybe there’s not. Maybe with some tweaking it could develop into a model system that could be used to investigate certain aspects of the Shroud image properties, even if it has nothing to do with the actual image formation mechanism. Just because one person has failed using certain conditions does not guarantee that all future investigations are worthless. If scientists followed this general rule, we would still be in the Stone Age.
In summary, I believe you are confused about several details about what was done and how it was done. Your discussion is often condescending in tone, typically demonizing those who do not agree with you. I am unable to spend any more time discussing this with you. Would rather direct my Life Energy elsewhere.
Hi, Everybody,
It is important to highlight something that will, likely, be ignored by skeptics reading Kelly’s paper and that is that Kelly, himself, states the following: “Recognizably, there are limitations in trying to approximate the specifics of unknown events that may have been important in the creation of the Shroud.”
I’d like to add on to this by stating that it’s not just a matter of unknown events but (I personally think quite likely) unknown energy that resurrected Jesus’ dead body.
I won’t say that I totally dismiss the idea that radiation or other forms of natural energy can be used by God in a supernatural way, but my personal opinion is that the energy of Life is not something that mere humans can harness. Adenosine triphosphate (“ATP”) is often thought of as being “life energy,” however my amateur understanding of it is that it is not, in and of itself, energy but it carries the Life Energy to different parts of the cell.
But, what really is the Life Energy? I suspect that the answer to this is critical to understanding the image formation process that created the body images on the Shroud. But, it is not just specifying the energy but accounting for the method in which it was delivered.
Best regards,
Teddi
Correction: “acerbated” aging is supposed to be “accelerated” aging.
Hi, Everybody,
Some very interesting comments and analysis by Stephen Jones regarding Nicholas Allen’s proto-photo hypothesis–which is what Kelly has mentioned in his paper.
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2016/08/medieval-photography-nicholas-allen.html
There are some issues with accelerated aging (as Kelly as acknowledged.) One is that with the use of the silver salts, there is the question of what heat does to blood’s interaction with the silver salt solution.
I’ve wondered whether the body image exhibits a sudden contraction of the fibers/shrinkage due to rapid moisture loss that the rest of the cloth does not exhibit. Interestingly (at least to me) is that the body images on the Shroud do not exhibit puckering around the body image areas–that would demonstrate this type of shrinking. One might argue that the entire Shroud was subjected to this heat, but it that were the case, then there should be fibers that are damaged to the same degree as the body image (from the oxidation, dehydration and heat.
Additionally, a problem with acerbated aging with heat is that it adds another factor–heat–which is not present with all forms of energy. Additionally, with typical cellulosic aging (such as the yellowing of a book’s pages over time) there is not the addition of heat–just dehydrations and oxidation.
Also, with the use of silver salts, there is the ever-persistent “laundry problem” which involves getting rid of the silver salt residue from an approximately 14-foot by 3.5-foot cloth with double, life-sized body images of an adult male human. Hugh and Garleschelli couldn’t get rid of all of the residue (when they were using much smaller test samples–especially Hugh with his very small test sample and scrubbing the acid-pigment image with a toothbrush), so why do we think someone else could do better?
But, again, one must bring all of this fantastical surmising to reality and ask: why would someone go through such extraordinary efforts to achieve what a simple, dilute iron-oxide watercolor painting would have VISUALLY achieved to the medieval audience perceiving it? That remains the ever-persistent question.
Just look at the amazing, fantastical hoops that Garleschelli, Hugh and Kelly are having to invoke for us to jump through as it is posited that some medieval artist may have created the body images on the Shroud in this way. This is all absurd. It flies in the face of common sense, and it only serves to sow doubts in people who, in fact, are either uncritical thinkers or who are eager to delude themselves (and, possibly, others) into thinking that this is yet another reason to think that the Shroud is a medieval artwork.
We know that the many artists who were making authorized COPIES of the Shroud never bothered to use such unrealistic and extraordinary measures to achieve what they simply achieved–a painting.
There are many who have very colorful and active imaginations (which can often be a great thing), but this can be–in certain situations–taken too far. And, this is what we are seeing with these image-reproduction efforts. It’s a runaway imagination that doesn’t square with the reality of ALL of the evidence that has to be accounted for with both the blood and body images. Just because I can image wild scenarios for completing a task that only needed a simple scenario (in terms of what almost everyone seeing the body images would have been noticing) does not mean that it is reasonable to think that this is what happened.
We don’t make life decisions (and, here, I invoke Pascal’s wager) based on anything that could have happened. When I bake cookies and some of them end up being missing (and I didn’t eat them and my dog couldn’t reach them), then it’s reasonable for me to think that my husband or son ate them (if I knew with confidence that nobody else was in our house.) It’s not plausible (although it’s still possible) to think that aliens could have beamed down into my kitchen, taken the cookies, and then mysteriously left without leaving a trace that they had entered or exited my home. But, we can all realize that this is not a plausible explanation that reasonable people would make.
Again, with this particular situation–with the body images–there is the issue of WHY would a medieval artist use a complicated process that involved a corpse or a double bodied bas relief (where both parts of the body corresponded with one another) and acid and/or pigment or silver and the need to wash all of this where no microscopic evidence is present of the silver or pigment (a miracle would be needed just for that) when simple paint would have accomplished the same effect?
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi Kelly,
Good of you to drop by, and thank you very much for your comments. Sorry about the last sentence; I think it was I being confused rather than you being confusing! I’ll delete my bracketed words.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Teddi P. wrote:
[But, Kelly challenges the “blood first, image second” hypothesis by positing that, perhaps, there are some straw-yellow fibers underneath bloodstained areas on the body images but that the what Heller and Adler applied the protease treatment to just happened to be the uncolored fibers that can still exist in body image areas]
It was actually Hugh who suggested this one, not me. I thought it was rather clever observation. Scientifically, it’s a potential variable that should be considered when studies are done at the fiber level. In reality, it is unknown exactly how many fibers were tested (likely multiples though, I would think). However, as I myself did posit “the number of samples available for these original studies was quite limited, it is unknown if the lack of color is a general characteristic of fibers underneath most of the blood marks in image areas of the Shroud.”
[Our ultimate goal should be to use Science as a TOOL–not to treat Science as our golden calf that we bow down to.]
As someone to whom faith is very important in their life, this is borderline insulting.
[Additionally, we must remind ourselves that Science is rather incapable of ever giving us 100% certainty about anything. There will always be the “what ifs.”]
Thanks for the reminder. Never crossed my mind.
Hi, Kelly and Hugh,
Here is an interesting discussion of Nicholas Allen’s technique–and why it’s not viable (even by Allen’s own data.) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273294114_On_proto-photography_and_the_Shroud_of_Turin
Just like we see with the two separate experiments (with acid and pigment) of Garlaschelli, as well as Hugh, there’s a serious laundry problem. that has to be dealt with before one can even begin to think that this method would work. And, both have readily admited that there are problems with their image-formation hypotheses.
Also, I seem to recall (please correct me if I am in error) that Allen’s image-producing results had sharp edges–unlike the Shroud’s images.
Also, I think that we are all in agreement that in the body image areas, there are fibers which are both colored and uncolored. Additionally, we know that when Heller and Adler were applying protease treatment to bloody fibers from the body image areas, when the blood was removed, they noticed that (1) there was no straw-yellow body image color and (2) the fiber (having the blood removed from it) looked like the non-image fibers of the background. (If memory serves, I think I even recall having read somewhere that these fibers might have even been in BETTER condition than the non-image fibers–because they had not aged due to being protected by the blood. But, Kelly challenges the “blood first, image second” hypothesis by positing that, perhaps, there are some straw-yellow fibers underneath bloodstained areas on the body images but that the what Heller and Adler applied the protease treatment to just happened to be the uncolored fibers that can still exist in body image areas.
Well, that’s certainly possible–but how probable is that given that Heller and Adler did not just test one fiber but many? We can be assured that they tested many such fibrils because (1) they were quite aware that some fibers in body image areas lack the straw-yellow color, (2) they refer to underlying fibrils (plural) as lacking the straw-yellow body image color when viewed under phase contrast (pg. 203 of Heller’s book “Report on the Shroud of Turin,” and (3) they test multiple image fibers with (all in the plural) “shards,” “orange blobs” and “brown blobs” (Heller and Adler’s “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin.”) Is it really reasonable to think that the body image area really did have images underneath the bloodstains but that–but sheer chance–ALL of these bloody fibers that Heller and Adler tested from the image area managed to escape receiving the straw-yellow coloration? I think that strains credulity.
Additionally, because such a possibility relies upon the body images on the Shroud being artwork (and it’s absurd to think that an artist would go through a ridiculously complex process for absolutely no rational reason when a simple, inexpensive dilute watercolor painting of the body images would have achieved, basically, the same result to the casual viewer) that instructs us that such doubt is really not “reasonable doubt.”
It’s just like in a criminal jury trial–the standard isn’t that the jurors must not have any doubts whatsoever that a defendant is guilty (in order to render a conviction.) Instead, it is that they cannot have REASONABLE doubt.
As I often mention, the Shroud is not something that exists in a vacuum. It has a context that surrounds it and which informs us that it is the burial shroud of Christ. If that is, indeed, true (by examining the body of evidence that assesses this matter), then it would be expected that Jesus’ blood transferred onto His burial cloth before the Resurrection Energy created His image on it three days later.
There will, of course, always be those who are conspiratorially minded who think, well, of course, a forger took that into account and added those little details to fool everyone. Except, a forger back then would have KNOWN that his work was never going to receive the type of scrutiny that we are giving the images on this cloth. So, again, it becomes unreasonable to think these things. These are not, therefore, “reasonable doubts.”
Kelly does mention –with regard to how a blood first/image second scenario is in opposition as to how an artist might likely work” and then he mentions that “extrapolation is not equivalent to scientific confirmation.” Well, sure, I can agree with that. But, so what? Our ultimate goal should be to use Science as a TOOL–not to treat Science as our golden calf that we bow down to. We assess evidence derived from Science to help us make rational and reasonable arguments and, ultimately, decisions about what to believe–and what not to believe. Additionally, we must remind ourselves that Science is rather incapable of ever giving us 100% certainty about anything. There will always be the “what ifs.” But, in the meantime, there is the need to figure out “what is.”
More comments tomorrow . . .
All the best,
Teddi
Hugh,
Thank you for your interest and comments. My thoughts: I’m unable to use bolding or underlining, so I placed your original comments in [brackets].
[There is no specific mention of the removal of the ‘corrosion’ by the protease, nor any specific suggestion that there is no “image” on the “blood” fibres in this paper, but it is a valid, if inconclusive, inference.]
It was simply beyond the scope of this initial investigation (which was condensed to 13 Figures) to include a detailed examination/discussion of corrosion. In my opinion, this needs to be looked at in more detail with multiple types of microscopy, which is the focus of a separate study. Unfortunately, no comparison photographs of the protease treatment experiments were provided by Adler (blood fibers before/after treatment vs. image, non-image, etc.), which would be useful. I have always been a little uneasy with the necessity of removal from a tape matrix and toluene washing of samples as a starting point, but all samples were treated equally, so it is what it is.
While the current study didn’t present examination of corrosion per se, the data do show that even when the blood was “protective” relative to serum at low latent laser settings, the linen was clearly affected as the uv fluorescence profile is increased when brief heating is used to further reveal altered areas. Serum, on the other hand, did not serve an effective “protective” function as even under low latent conditions as coloration and a shift to uv non-fluorescence (revealed by brief heating) was observed. I would add that even at lower latent settings than shown in the article, serum does not effectively “protect” and the linen is altered (K.P. Kearse, unpublished observations). If samples were permitted to be taken from the Shroud (via forceps preferably, a la Baima Bollone approach), similar experiments examining corrosion/coloration of fibers from a bloodstain within an image area, samples from the same bloodstain on the reverse side of the cloth, and a bloodstain outside of the image area, e.g. off of the foot, dorsal region could be informative.
[As can be seen, some of these treatments resulted in immediate colouration of the cloth, while others needed heat to make anything visible. The point of heating is to simulate “aging,” by which a latent image becomes visible.]
The heating used in this study was very brief and in the case of acid treatment was at a relatively low temperature. As Adler described, heat is not necessary, which I also found using several acids at various concentrations. I decided on a relatively mild concentration of acid with a quick heat, because I imagined that might have been one way to help the image to “set”; it also allows the buffering capacity of blood to work effectively which is one route for “no image under blood”. In such a scenario, it is most plausible that the blood would be applied while the treated (but not yet heated) cloth was still present on a bas-relief to assure correct placement, if one goes that route.
On a side note relative to a comment by Teddi P: [For people who think that this [accelerated aging] is truly an approximation for what you get with normal aging, you might want to think again].
I agree. I even make a point in the discussion about the non-equivalence. “While artificial aging through brief heating is useful to visualize areas involved in latent coloration, it is not equivalent to aging by natural means.” Parallel samples were set aside in reserve to allow them to age naturally for comparison. I was also fortunate enough to be befriended by Thomas Rosenau, an excellent cellulose chemist (see Acknowledgement) who has provided very helpful advice and much friendly discussion.
[How visible the image on the Shroud was before heating/aging is a moot point. From an authenticist point of view, there is no specific reason why the Shroud should have had an image on it for years, and some people think that its invisibility at the time of discovery just after the Resurrection explains why no image is mentioned in the Gospels. ]
To me, this is one of the most interesting aspects! Was the image immediately visible when the disciples went into the tomb on Easter morning? My inclination is that most solid authenticists would vote yes, but it might be interesting to take a poll. As you know, I choose a personal honest opinion of I’m not sure either way on authenticity (when I hear hoofbeats, I think of zebroids), if authentic, my first inclination would be to think it would be visible immediately; however, I too, have wondered about the omission of an image mention in the Gospels. These studies are experimental approximations of unknown mechanisms, but could they be a clue that the Shroud image was latent?
Another important point I think is that there are now two studies which show that bloodstains are significantly affected by irradiation conditions that are necessary for the immediate coloration of linen. It is certainly possible that future research will show that energetic conditions may be defined that fulfill both aspects: instant coloration and lack of perturbance of bloodstains. For medievalists, I guess that question has already been answered!
[Anyway, when all these experiments were treated with protease and the blood completely removed, only in cases (1) and (3) was the colour of the cloth returned to its pristine state. ]
A technical point, but in case (1) it’s more of a preventative measure, it allows it to remain in a type of pristine state.
I employed the silver system in case (3) because it was Allen that suggested a “bleaching effect” for blood. As I didn’t observe an effect with acid- or laser-treated linen, I don’t believe this is a general property.
From Teddi P.’s comment: [Occam’s razor would point to a simple explanation for why the linen fibers underneath the bloodstains (when the blood was removed through with the protease treatment) were about the same (or even better) than the non-image fibers: the blood acted as a barrier to the energy (from Jesus’ resurrection) which caused accelerated aging of the linen fibers in the body image areas. In some ways, the blood can be thought of as “sunscreen” that protects the “skin” underneath the sunscreen–while the rest of the “body” gets tanned. ]
Adler described that both blood and serum coated fibers showed a similar appearance following protease treatment. The current data indicates that serum may have a very low SPF rating.
[“Lastly, these studies document that linen underneath blood (or serum) was affected by energy transfer from radiation, even [but only?] under conditions corresponding to latent coloration.”]
I chose this language to emphasize that even when irradiation was dialed down, there was still an irradiation effect. It’s not really only as linen underneath blood was affected under both immediate coloration and latent coloration conditions. Refers to affected, not protected. Sorry for any confusion.
Hi, Hugh,
When it comes to whose work to trust–Heller and Adler’s vs. Eugenia Nitowski’s (who had a PhD in Byzantine and Early Islamic archeology), I’m going with H & A. It was their observations which were going to be “under the gun”–not Eugenia’s. While Kohlbeck was certainly an expert (I seem to recall he worked at Hercules Laboratory), Nitowski was not. And, while Kohlbeck, initially, got involved in this project (and I seem to recall that he took some or most or all of the microphotographs), I recall that he had to abandon working on this project due to work demands. So, really, (from what I recall), the comments and observations were mostly (if not all) Nitowski’s (a non-expert in this area.)
I, also, do not know much about how careful and thorough Nitowski was with her work. But, I have a great sense of how Heller and Adler were with their work from Heller’s first-hand account of it in Heller’s book “Report on the Shroud of Turin.”
The body image fibers exhibit corrosion–which perfectly fits with the explanation of cellulosic yellowing from the dehydration and oxidation of cellulose. About two years ago, I was studying cellulosic yellowing, and I was just ELATED when I found that these fibers were specifically described as “CORRODED.”
If you read much about cellulosic yellowing, you’ll learn that there are LOTS of problems that come with accelerated aging. For people who think that this is truly an approximation for what you get with normal aging, you might want to think again. The results are not necessarily reliable–numerous factors can skew the results to create a conclusion that doesn’t square with the natural aging process of cellulose.
Occam’s razor would point to a simple explanation for why the linen fibers underneath the bloodstains (when the blood was removed through with the protease treatment) were about the same (or even better) than the non-image fibers: the blood acted as a barrier to the energy (from Jesus’ resurrection) which caused accelerated aging of the linen fibers in the body image areas. In some ways, the blood can be thought of as “sunscreen” that protects the “skin” underneath the sunscreen–while the rest of the “body” gets tanned. The other explanations are as fanciful as a medieval forger creating the images on the Shroud.
This all just ignores what is obvious to so many people. But, for those who hear hoofbeats and want to think of zebras, that’s just what they’re going to do. A miraculous explanation meets David Hume’s criteria for one, and, therefore, it becomes the “horse” in this situation.
Best regards,
Teddi