Thanks Dan, here is an example of what I might include. This comes from Dr. Gil Lavoie’s work. On the Shroud we see blood that appears to be in the hair. Its not in the hair. The blood was on the face. Since the image came later, the blood only appears to be in the hair when you pull the cloth flat. This is a powerful proof point that the cloth indeed wrapped a corpse. Now why the image is vertically collimated is anyone’s guess.
Haven’t we overlooked something, Mr.Breault, that rather undermines your dodgy, self-serving authenticist position? There is a shroud dorsal as well as frontal image.
Shroud Scope images, brightness and contrast adjusted (Durante 2002/M.Latendresse)
Look at the back of the head on the dorsal image, and there are abundant bloodstains there too on the hair which are clearly intended to represent blood loss from a crown of thorns. But unlike the frontal view, there is no way that blood can be interpreted as having been on skin initially as distinct from hair.
Yet we know that blood could not have flowed from head wounds over strands of hair the way it did in the frontal image – i.e. in rivulets (thus your need, Mr.Breault, to propose it was on the skin initially, only seeming to be on the hair as a consequence of collimation, based on that hoary ‘blood first, body image second’ dogma.
I’ve already pointed out on previous occasions the scanty evidence on which that dogma is based. As for collimation, presumably of radiation, with no realistic mechanism for forming an image, then what we see here is frankly twaddle, hokum, pseudoscience (take your pick)…
My view? The image was imprinted first. Then the blood was painted on. (See an earlier post for what might have been used as a ready source of concentrated, clot-free blood, i.e. medicinal leech digesta). The artist wanted to indicate blood from a crown of thorns, so used artistic licence when painting it on the hair – frontal and dorsal image. How was he to know that sceptical 21st century critics, sick to the back teeth of the pseudoscience, would look at those blood trails on the frontal image and declare that real blood simply does not flow in that fashion on hair… In fact clotted blood does not flow at all, and so peculiar in composition was the so-called “blood” on the Shroud that Adler and Heller resorted to the description “serum exudate from retracted blood clots” (still more pseudoscience).
How much longer must we endure this selective reporting of the facts – chosen to fit a preconceived agenda – this PSEUDOSCIENCE????
Postscript: a passage from a posting by Meacham which while generally pro-authenticity, includes a mention of someone else’s deep scepticism re the blood stains on the hair (see phrase highlighted in italics at the very end).
“The pathology described thus far may well have characterized any number of crucifixion victims, since beating, scourging, carrying the crossbar, and nailing were common traits of a Roman execution. The lacerations about the upper head and the wound in the side are unusual and thus crucial in the identification of the Shroud figure. The exact nature of these wounds, especially whether they were inflicted on a living body and whether they could have been faked, is highly significant. Around the upper scalp and extending to its vertex are at least 30 blood flows from spike punctures. These wounds exhibit the same realism as those of the hand and feet: the bleeding is highly characteristic of scalp wounds with the retraction of torn vessels, the blood meets obstructions as it flows and pools on the forehead and hair, and there appears to be swelling around the points of laceration (though Bucklin [personal communication, 1982] doubts that swelling can be discerned). Several clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation (Rodante 1982). One writer (Freeland, cited in Sox 1981) questions the highly visible nature of the wounds and clots, as if the Shroud man had been bald or the stains painted over the body image.”
Update: Mario Latendresse, who I acknowledged above for his superb Shroud Scope, has just added a comment to the Russ Breault posting, stating that the notion of image projection onto a flattened sheet of linen simply does not fit with the geometrical facts. Here’s a link to his comment: click on the blue 2.
December 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm | #2
Afterthought (prompted by Hugh Farey’s comment): here’s a link to a post
I did a while ago, suggesting how that ‘blood first, body image ‘ might be re-investigated. Here, by way of taster, is a screen grab from that posting:
Angled abrasion of Shroud blood/image areas