• CRM114 •

Keep your religion private.

An Autopsy on a Resurrected Man?

There have been several forensics studies performed on the Shroud of Turin. Long-time experts in the field claim to have found not only blood (type AB at that), but also numerous substances associated with beatings and violent death, and even fragmentary DNA. However, the chemical analysis of the shroud overlooks two major points:

1) Many of the same people who claim the bioplastic growth on the Shroud affected the radiocarbon dating (by 1300 years!) fail to mention any affect it and other contaminants may have had on the forensics analysis, and

2) Even if the Shroud had been used to bury someone 2000 years ago, there would be no trace left of most of the chemicals they claim to have found.

The Chemical Analysis

Substances that forensics experts state are exuded by the body in case of extreme trauma such as the scourging Jesus was said to have undergone were found on the shroud. These included bilirubin, a bile pigment. A number of chemicals associated with blood, such as types of proteins and hemochromogen, were also found. One researcher even found 3 fragments of human DNA.

But are the results of any validity? The DNA is certainly of very little use. The Shroud has not always been locked away. Many people in its 600 or so year history have come in contact with it, and people are always shedding their skin, hair, and other bits and pieces. It's not unlikely, in fact, that injured and sick faithful would have gone to the Shroud in hopes that touching it would cure them. It is almost a given that bits of DNA would have been left behind. And, of course, don't forget the researchers themselves, who may have left a bit of themselves with history. Could the other chemicals that were found have come from contaminants on the shroud? Very unlikely.

How can we say that? Very simply, by drawing on my own research as an engineer. Having worked with microbes and knowing how they work, I've discovered something about proteins. They are relatively fragile things. They have a specific purpose and a specific shape, and if something damages the shape or chemistry, they aren't proteins anymore...at least not the same protein they were before. This can be important when working with microbes, because if they get too hot, the proteins that make them tick will unravel, and that's all she wrote. But don't take my word alone for it, as my experience has been confirmed by medical examiners.1

One of the reasonings some people use for why the shroud isn't a painting is the effect the fire that almost torched it in 1532 would have had on most paints. The Shroud, though, came through relatively unscathed. It did get scorched a bit, but that was it. However, while the shroud may have survived in the low oxygen environment of the reliquary, the heat was intense enough to melt some of the silver that the reliquary was made of.2

The melting point of silver is 961oC (1762oF). Proteins tend not to like temperatures more than the boiling point of water, which is 100oC. The melting poing of silver is in fact near to the temperature used for cremation of bodies3. At over 900oC, it would be amazing that anything at all survived. Even if the temperature in the reliquary wasn't quite as hot as the melted silver, even half of that would be more than hot enough to denature every protein on the shroud. Therefore, any proteins found on the shroud that could have been associated with blood or beatings had to come from another source...they simply could not have survived the fire of 1532. It has been claimed by some that the folded cloth acted as insulation. However, even these people acknowledge that the temperatures are only "significantly below 200oC. This still exposes the entire shroud to temperatures greater than boiling.

The Blood Evidence

There was something of a stir created when Drs Adler and Heller declared that they had not only detected blood on the Shroud, but had typed it AB. This seemingly put to rest the theory that the overly red blood on the shroud was actually paint. But how reliable were their results? Detecting blood is not quite the simple process some would make it out to be. Blood in general can be detected by looking for iron. However, as detractors of Dr. McCrone's research have stated, there are traces of iron all over the shroud. To type blood, an antigen-antibody reaction test is needed. These tests are basically useless on denatured proteins. 4

The Physical Aspects

Some of the physical analysis has been very detailed in how the person on the shroud obviously died of crucifixion after having been scourged. I am still searching for a forensics expert to verify or debate the argument, and have heard reference to another forensics study that stated results were "inconclusive". There is, however, one physical trait of the "bloodstains" on the shroud that can be commented on. When looking at the tracks of "blood", one notices how clear they are. But anyone who has had a cut and placed a piece of cloth on it knows that fresh blood will soak through the cloth and create a large, amorphous blot. If, on the other hand, the cloth is placed on congealing blood, there is no stain whatsoever, with the possible exception of a few small particles that stick. Certainly, nothing as clear and well defined as the purported stains on the Shroud.

Even should the physical examination prove to show a crucifixion victim more accurately than expected from a medieval artist, that in and of itself still does not warrent elimination of the shroud as a forgery. We in this time of scientific advancement often have a very egocentric attitude towards the "primative and superstitious" people of the Middle Ages. But just because they didn't know science and the scientific method, we shouldn't disregard their common sense and powers of observation. Ancient people have shown time and again a remarkable ability to do things we don't think they should have managed...the Pyramids, Stonehenge, etc. Could not an intelligent artist simply have observed dead bodies, noticed what occurred, and extrapolated that to what would happen to a man dead on a cross? Or, even more likely, perhaps crucifixion wasn't completely gone in the Middle Ages..perhaps the artist actually witnessed a man dead from it and copied it (or even used the corpse!). Stranger things have happened. Considering the overwhelming preponderance of evidence against the shroud genuinely being the burial cloth of Jesus, this seems to be far more likely should the physical forensics be accurate.

1 Dr. Jack Frost, Medical Examiner, City of Morgantown, WV
2 Kilmon, Jack The Shroud of Turin: Genuine artifact or manufactured relic? The Glyph Vol. 1, Nos. 10 - 12
3 Dr. Jack Frost, Medical Examiner, City of Morgantown, WV
4 Ronald Singer, Laboratory Director, Tarent County Medical Examiners Office

I am truly honored to publish an article today by John L. Brown titled Microscopical Investigation of Selected Raes Threads from the Shroud of Turin (.pdf format) [190k]

John was a Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology until his retirement in 1984. He is an expert microscopist specializing in the field of forensic analysis of material failures, and was enlisted by Ray Rogers to examine samples of selected Raes threads taken from the Shroud in 1973. These threads are important because they were taken from the area immediately adjacent to the sample used for carbon-14 analysis of the Shroud in 1988. In this article, John provides an independent review of the samples he examined, along with seven previously unpublished photomicrographs and scanning electron microscope views that supplement and support the conclusions drawn by Ray in his recent peer reviewed paper. I want to thank John again for taking the time to write the article and provide it to us for today's update. John's article can also be accessed from the Website Library and Scientific Papers & Articles pages of this site.

Posted January 21, 2005

Of course, we scientists must always be grateful to STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project, a group of scientists overwhelmingly interested in proving the Shroud genuine] for allowing us to get the correct radiocarbon date in the first place: STURP's overwhelming certainty of the authenticity of the Shroud--derived from the massive self-deception of believing their own bogus scientific data and illogical conclusions!--gave the Catholic Church the confidence it needed to permit dating the Shroud and proving once and for all that it was 1st century in origin. Members of STURP literally convinced the Catholic Church to proceed with the radiocarbon dating program, allowing truly neutral, skeptical, and mostly secular scientists (and thus completely different in character from STURP personnel) to get their hands on a piece of the Shroud and subject it to a real scientific test. If the Church thought it was possible to get a 14th century date, it would never have permitted the sampling and dating, since its goal has always been to milk the Shroud for its faith-strengthing qualities. For two decades, STURP has been attempting to make up for their error and get back in the good graces of the Church. I always smile when Rogers and the other believers in the Shroud's authenticity suggest another dating experiment. As they well know, it will never happen!

Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century—when a bishop reported the artist’s confession—as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “blood” stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators. These facts argue against Rogers’ assertions that the shroud is neither a forgery nor a miracle—that “the blood is real blood” [3] and the image was produced by “a rotting body” (Rogers 2004).

And should there be more testing, and the new sample dates the shroud to the first century, I doubt Schafersman would be so gracious. He (along with many others) has staked out his position as a non-believing believer, and because of that he exhibits the same traits as the believers he heaps scorn upon.