“I’m a physician. From a medical and anatomic perspective, the hidden thumbs are not especially compelling evidence that the Shroud is genuine when examined in isolation. But there are also puncture wounds and a puddle of blood on the wrist, instead of puncture wounds on the palms of the hands. Medieval depictions of crucifixion assume puncture of the hands rather than wrists.
The hidden thumbs merely provide additional verification that the figure in the Shroud sustained median nerve injury or severance, as might otherwise be suggested by the location of the deep puncture wounds.
The above is in addition to other veritable medical evidence that this is not some sort of Medieval drawing or forgery. The presence of bilirubin and blood, amongst other findings, puts the burden of proof on skeptics to explain how all this medical evidence may be explained away.”
I’ve given my views before on the so-called “bilirubin” in the so-called “blood” on the Shroud of Turin. A spot test with diazo reagent or the right kind of fluorescence under uv does not constitute proof positive of bilirubin, far from it, especially when it comes from a porphyrin chemist intent on seeing the evidence that confirms his brainwave. (Personally I consider the late Alan Adler strayed way beyond his area of expertise in porphyrin chemistry into physiology and pathology, especially re his bizarre – yes bizarre- “bilirubin/para-hemic methemoglobin” complex, and with all that self-indulgent waffle about clot retraction). I shan’t mince my words. Writing as someone who spent two years researching bilirubin and its (in)stability towards light and oxygen I regard the bilirubin hypothesis (yes, hypothesis) as nothing less than wacky. Or as my grandmother would have said, “stuff and nonsense” or a “cock and bull” story. Nope, the onus was on STURP members to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a chemical vital to a claim was really present. The means for doing so (chromatography/mass spectrometry) existed at the time. I know, because I used them and published them in 1972.
Moving on, it is that other claim from our Doc Steve that caught my eye, namely that there is a puncture wound under that puddle of blood on the wrist.
Here are some Shroud Scope images, with and without adjustment of brightness and contrast. I see a possible puncture wound on the right foot (included to show I am not selective or biased) but I’ll be darned if I can see one under that blood on the wrist.
Here’s the foot first. “Now that’s what I call a puncture wound” (Do I hear an Aussie twang?)
Possible puncture wound, underside right foot, dorsal view (-7,100,15 settings for brightness, contrast, midrange value in MS Office Picture Manager)
and here’s the wrist at the same magnification, same light photo-editing:
Er, one of our puncture wounds is missing….
For the purists, or those who distrust photo-editing (as indeed they are right to do so) here are the same two images on default Shroud Scope settings:
Right foot, default settings (0.0.0)
Wrist, default settings (0,0,0)
If you are reading this, Dr.Steve, I’d be interested to hear your view on the Robert Bucklin MD professional (pretend) autopsy on the Man in the Shroud and its various stains and images. Be warned. That is a loaded question. Bucklin’s autopsy had me in splits from start to finish, and I don’t just mean that starchy Victorian-era third person narrative (but then I’m just an irreverent biochemist who has worked closely with medically-qualified people, and who from time to time used to to wonder if the letters MD stood for “Minor Deity”…
Forget I said that. Most of the medics I worked with were highly intelligent and perceptive folk, with a level head on their shoulders, and not given to pomposity or the spouting of bullsh*t.