Shroud of Turin Bloodstains Likely Fake, Not of Jesus Christ: Forensic Experts

Christian Post ^ | 07/17/2018 | Stoyan Zaimov

[SeekAndFind]

Bloodstains found on the shroud of Turin burial cloth, believed by many to have once wrapped the body of Jesus Christ, are likely fake, according to new research reported in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

In June 2017, researchers at the Institute of Crystallography found traces of blood on the 14-foot-long relic, with initial analysis of the particles discovering "a scenario of great suffering, whose victim was wrapped up in the funeral cloth."

The nanoparticles uncovered were found to not be typical of the blood of a healthy person.

The Journal of Forensic Sciences report on July 10 revealed that the bloodstain patterns were analyzed in a type of crime scene scenario. In the test, researchers found that the linen seems to have been patched with bloodstains from a standing model, and not from a crucified man or a facedown corpse.

"This is the kind of forensic work done all the time in police investigations," forensic scientist Matteo Borrini from Liverpool John Moores University told BuzzFeed News.

"Even a crucified or hanging person should leave a distinct blood pattern on the cloth, which would be fascinating information to have."

Borrini, a Roman Catholic, said that he carried out the investigation with the aid of chemist Luigi Garlaschelli of the University of Pavia in Italy, initially looking to determine whether the blood patterns match the crucifixion of a person in a T-shaped or Y-shaped manner.

The researchers pumped blood onto a model at the wound points found on the shroud and studied the angle in which gravity pulled the liquid down.

The bloodstains did not match up with any pose, however, with the evidence suggesting that a standing model was used to imprint the patterns for the hands, the chest, and the back.

"This is just not what happens to a person on a cross," Borrini said, noting that the comparison model displayed very different blood angle patterns than the shroud.

He said that his own faith doesn't rely on the legitimacy of the shroud, however.

"The church itself would like to know what things are real, and what are not," he added. "This isn't the Middle Ages anymore."

Jonathyn Priest of Bevel, Gardner and Associates Inc. in Norman, Oklahoma, who is a bloodstain pattern expert, said that while the science and the methodology used in the study were sound, they may not be accounting for when the body was moved such as being carried and prepared for burial.

Priest also told BuzzFeed that the amount of blood from the wrists on the shroud would "more than likely" have needed the heart to have been beating at the time the bloodflow formed, however.

"The fact that flowing bloodstains exist at all on a deceased body that was reportedly cleaned also raises questions," he added.

Besides the blood stains, the imprints and the age of the cloth itself continue to fascinate believers around the world.

In 1988, radiocarbon measurements suggested that the shroud was a forgery made somewhere between 1260–1390 A.D., but later research found that the fibers tested at the time were from a patch added later on the shroud, and not part of the original cloth.

DNA sequencing tests in 2015 found pollen and dust particles from the shroud belonging to plants from South America, the Middle East, Central Africa, Central Asia, China, and other regions.

The Catholic Church has never declared the shroud to be a genuine religious relic, but regards it as an icon, attracting millions of people when it is put up for public display at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, where it is kept.

[longfellow]

Did you see the story of a photographer that was assigned to a group trying to prove it false and he was a non believer going in? He was a believer when they were finished.

[imardmd1]

I know that one does not use blood for DNA samples but ought there not to be flakes of skin or some other body materia to test for DNA?

Even then, there is no assurance that the results would be those of Jesus rather than from a model used to make it.

[karnage]

Yes, of course, reading Scripture is always the best way to connect with Our Savior. Going to Mass, listening to sacred music, Adoration before the Blessed Sacrament, etc. There are many ways to pray. Whatever brings us closer to the Holy Spirit.

Relics, like Apparitions, Shrines, the lives of the saints, etc. are as good as their effect of bringing us closer to living as true Christians. Something that seems to be very challenging in this aggressively secular modern culture.

[Salvavida]

It’s almost like the Lord himself knew there would be idiots prone to focusing on meaningless idols rather than on Him and His Word.

[Bob434]

[[The nanoparticles uncovered were found to not be typical of the blood of a healthy person.]]

How about a Healthy God/Man?

[ducttape45]

It’s a fake, get over it.

[oh8eleven]

He was a believer when they were finished.
More power to him, but we're talking about PROOF, not just changing one's belief.

[KavMan]

They have to make you believe the shroud is fake becausec if it was real than Jesus Christ is REAL!

[Pelham]

“It’s a piece of Art”

So far no one has been able to duplicate the way that the image is formed on the cloth. It is only on the very surface of the fibers. It isn’t paint, which would leave identifiable traces and would soak into the fibers.

It’s also unusual for being representational art that accurately reproduces physical phenomena at a time when the rest of the art world wasn’t.

[j.havenfarm]

Agreed. The surface nature of the phenomenon. The photonegative properties of the image, the coin over the anatomical right eye including the rare but historically documented misspelling of “Caesar,” (frankly I can’t see the purported coin over the left eye,) the depiction of Christ nude when he was never depicted nude in art, the wounds in the wrists vs in the hands as usually depicted but which could not support a crucified body, etc etc etc. the blow off line “it’s art” can’t withstand any good faith analysis of this extraordinary artifact

[Missouri gal]

1) The radiocarbon dating was debunked by the principal author of the original radiocarbon study when he discovered the rc samples were dyed cotton, not linen. This was explained as a “reweave patch” placed by Marguerite de Charnay in mid thirteenth century. RC dating cannot be repeated because they then coated the shroud with an organic preservative.
2) The blood and internal fluids leaked onto the head wrapping, and stains match the head wrapping (Sudarium of Oviedo, kept in Spain for centuries) in shape and content.

3) Very obvious that the blood flow alternates consistent with alternating position of a crucifixion victim. The victim actually was standing on the nail in the feet.

4) Impossible for anybody in 13th century to know to mix lung fluid with blood from the mouth.

No way does this alleged study meet the “smell test.”

[panzerkamphwageneinz]

No it is not.

It is the burial cloth of Jesus. I once didn’t believe until I researched it and watched the videos of the scientists who went to disprove it and they were all skeptics. They all did a 180.

The blood has bilirubin. There is pollen only found in the Hinnom Valley, The image in IN the cloth, not on top or either side, it was created by a force no one can explain, and it is an X ray: before anyone knew what xrays were.

It is not art. It is death and resurrection.

[bkopto]

The bloodstains did not match up with any pose, however, with the evidence suggesting that a standing model was used to imprint the patterns for the hands, the chest, and the back. "This is just not what happens to a person on a cross," Borrini said, noting that the comparison model displayed very different blood angle patterns than the shroud.

I don't see any insurmountable problems here. So the body was wrapped up after being removed from the cross, and was wrapped up by moving the corpse around, causing oozing blood to flow in different directions. Also, the wrapped corpse would likely be moved into various positions when transporting it to its burial place, also causing variable oozing directions. Why would this be hard to understand? These variable corpse positions would explain the observations.

[j.havenfarm]

I agree that this study is very fishy. Of course you’re right about the carbon-14. They didn’t follow the protocols they’d established. The cloth is heavily contaminated, the sample taken from a repaired area. To my
Mind the “Pray Manuscript” is dispositive of the invalidity of the carbon 14. For those unfamiliar with this document, it’s, if I recall, a 12th century painting depicting the shroud that depicted a distinctive series of burn holes and the distinctive weave pattern of the shroud. It is undisputed that the manuscript is older than the earliest age for the
Cloth assigned by the c14 testing.

[Pelham]

Yep. I’m not Catholic and I think all relics are foolishness. But once you become familiar with the very unusual characteristics of the shroud you really begin to wonder.

One of the NASA researchers who got to inspect the Shroud is a Jewish guy who certainly had no dog in the fight. And IIRC he became so convinced of its authenticity that he set up the website where all of the info on the Shroud gets collected.

[Ancesthntr]

Priest also told BuzzFeed that the amount of blood from the wrists on the shroud would “more than likely” have needed the heart to have been beating at the time the bloodflow formed, however.

“The fact that flowing bloodstains exist at all on a deceased body that was reportedly cleaned also raises questions,” he added.

---

That is just scientific fact. Also, someone who died from crucifixtion would have been very dehydrated, which impedes blood-flow - and would mean that once the heart stopped beating, the congealing of the blood would occur that much more quickly (vs., say, a person who was well-hydrated who dropped dead of a heart attack). Add to that the fact that in the Jewish religion, a dead body is washed - well - prior to being clothed in linens (plural - not one). There would likely have been little or no blood on the burial cloths (again, PLURAL).

BTW, a reading of the appropriate passages in the Christian Bible indicates that there were cloths (PLURAL) found in the tomb.

I don’t understand why there is such emphasis by some regarding the genuineness of the Shroud of Turin. It would seem to me that you either believe that Jesus was who the Christian Bible says he was, or you don’t - and that depending upon a piece of cloth and its markings for one’s faith is rather silly. Of course, I’m Jewish and don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, but that is wholly apart from the science, and also wholly apart from matters of faith.

[Ancesthntr]

Dumb. Jesus was taken down from the cross. Why would anyone expect he was laid flat on the ground, and not wrapped in the shroud as he was taken down from the cross? What the researcher means is “the blood flows don’t match the way I wrapped him.”
____________________
Jesus was Jewish. Jews then, as now, wash a body as part of the preparation for burial, as a way of showing honor and dignity to the vessel that carried a person’s soul for a human lifetime (however long or short). A washed body that doesn’t have a beating heart, and which had a serious blood loss before death, isn’t going to leak as you think it would, if at all.

Either you believe in Jesus’ divinity, or you don’t. Why do you depend on what a particular piece of cloth may (or may not) indicate?

[Ancesthntr]

“They have to make you believe the shroud is fake becausec if it was real than Jesus Christ is REAL!”

---

I see that you don’t put much stock in logical reasoning.

What if the shroud is a fake? Does that change whether (or not) Jesus was what the Christian Bible says he was? Would your beliefs REALLY change if the shroud is proven to be a fake? If so, then you don’t have much faith.

[the OlLine Rebel]

OK, I haven’t read all of this yet.

But I have to wonder if they are checking ALL the blood all over it? Or just “traces” - which implies one can hardly see it with the naked eye.

Anyway, I never worry too much about this shroud. It could be Jesus, but who’s to say it isn’t just another punished victim from that time period and area? The shroud didn’t seem to be known until much later, so it’s still possible it was just a curiosity kept for generations out of interest in criminal punishment and how images could be made. Then someone surmised it was Jesus and it went from there.

The problem with research on this is they are assuming just 2 possibilities: Jesus, or some later creative forgery. That’s a poor premise.

[the OlLine Rebel]

No. Just because it might be real and truly from c. year 0/AD 33. does not mean it is Jesus.

It could just as well be another victim of that era and location.