The Shroud of Turin... how crazy is THIS?

Hi everyone,

I'm going to skip off topic from Mary just a little bit for today's post, umh-kay? Great.
   Jesus, is pretty much the basis of this blog. And now, I am going to blog about something called "The Shroud of Turin". It is a 6-foot long piece of linen cloth, bearing the image of a man, who appears to have suffered physical trauma -- I mean, the whole thing is stained in blood. (Anyone already nauseous with me?) It is believed by most to be burial cloth of Jesus Christ -- now before we analyze it anymore you have to see a picture of it.

This is the original sepia cloth -- look closely. 

And here is the front-and-back pictures in black and white. 

 

The two blood splatters near the face and then again to the knees are said to be the heavy bleeding from Christ's hands and feet, after he was crucified. As former Nature editor Philip Ball said, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling", and he is true. This piece of cloth has undergone many, many tests, each leaving the physiologists and historians much more puzzled than ever. For example, in 1978, a detailed examination carried out by a team of American scientists, called the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), found no reliable evidence of how the image was produced. 

Here are some interesting facts (copied from the Wikipedia) about the interpretation of the "blood" markings on the cloth:

• one wrist bears a large, round wound, apparently from piercing (the second wrist is hidden by the folding of the hands)
• upward gouge in the side penetrating into the thoracic cavity. Proponents say this was a post-mortem event and there are separate components of red blood cells and serum draining from the lesion
• small punctures around the forehead and scalp
• scores of linear wounds on the torso and legs. Proponents aver that the wounds are consistent with the distinctive dumbbell wounds of a Roman flagrum.
• swelling of the face from severe beatings
• streams of blood down both arms. Proponents state that the blood drippings from the main flow occurred in response to gravity at an angle that would occur during crucifixion.
• large puncture wounds in the feet as if pierced by a single spike

 ...what do you think? Nauseous yet?
No one can seem to figure out just what it is made of, and how it was made! Just like I was saying in my previous post (Entitled: "And He said, 'wife' ")   pretty much everyone hates each other in this field. It's either wood powder or it's the Son of God's blood, no one can quite formally agree on anything! But, hey, let's look at the evidence, before I decipher just what I think it is.
  In the 1970s, they did a test for DNA (How exciting would THAT be!?!) but only found submicrometre pigment particles... gosh I have no idea what the heck those are. I looked it up but found NOTHING (Hey, if any of y'all are doctors who read my blog... mind shooting me a email or comment describing these things?). All I know -- they were not very happy about the results. Mark Anderson, a scientist working for the program, was so dis-pleased with the results, he admitted to pretending it was painted on, with something called Hematite, a form of iron. Joseph Kohlbeck, from the Hercules Aerospace Company in Utah, and Richard Levi-Setti, did a study on the dirt particles found on the cloth. Surprisingly, they found they were small substances of limestone! Limestone is a rock, of course "native" to the middle east - heck, limestone is what the great pyramids of Giza are made of!  Back on the blood subject, (don't you just love me?) working independently, forensic pathologist Pier Luigi Baima Bollone concurred with Heller and Adler's findings and identified the blood as the AB blood group! Quite a find indeed. Blood comes in "+"s and "-"s, so it is not specified which of these it was.
  Now, like everything, there is always equally true facts against it. Nickell, in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. Like I said! Something new to ponder.

Sorry for not writing about Mary Magdalene this time around... I got so excited when I found out about this thing! I thought, "I will have to post this on my blog! Oh - wait. Oh well, I'm publishing anyway!" So yeah, sorry faithful followers of mine. :)
   ~~Clarabelle