Certainly there’s a blood stain on the wrist. But where’s the puncture wound, exit or otherwise?

This comment has just appeared on The Other Site:

“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.


About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
This entry was posted in Shroud of Turin and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Certainly there’s a blood stain on the wrist. But where’s the puncture wound, exit or otherwise?

  1. Thibault HEIMBURGER says:

    I would be glad to show you where is the nail wound in the wrist.
    How can I do that here ?

  2. colinsberry says:

    Do you have a picture that is superior in its resolution to the Shroud Scope Durante 2002 images – and free of artefacts? If so, is it in the public domain? If not, then why not? If it is in the public domain, then please supply a link?

    • Thibault HEIMBURGER says:

      It is not a question of resolution or “public domain” or so..
      You are asking “where is the puncture wound ?” and I only wish to send you back your own Durante image showing its location.
      Incidentally, I am very surprised that you apparently don’t know where it is ?
      Or did I miss something ?

      • colinsberry says:

        So you are saying that the wound is visible? Now who is seeing what he wants to see?

        As a general rule, the areas imprinted on the Shroud are bodily extremities, not details on plane surfaces. The latter would include any kind of shallow wound or puncture, real or imaginary. In this case I believe your wrist wound to be entirely imaginary…

        • Thibault HEIMBURGER says:

          It seems that we have a problem of understanding.
          You are looking for a “puncture wound” on the wrist similar to that of the right foot, i.e. a red rounded shape within the blood area. I am right ?.

          You will not find it on the wrist for reasons that could be explained and even expected in the context of crucifixion (incidentally, something that a medieval forger did not know : I’ll explain that later).
          But the location of the exit wound on the wrist can be easily deducted (and seen) from the blood rivulets.
          Once again (you never answered, why ?) : how is it possible to display some photograph in a reply on this blog ?

  3. colinsberry says:

    I am travelling at present, so cannot give a fuller reply, but will try to post in a couple of days addressing a number of points to do with the Shroud image, which is NOT a photograph (a ‘tactilograph’ might be a better description), yours included Thibault. I shall get back to you re posting one of more of your own pictures here (but I fail to see how they can be an improvement on Durante 2002).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.