The abstract of the study entitled, “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin,” states that a living volunteer was used in the “investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin.” BPA stands for “bloodstain pattern analysis” in forensic sciences.
Studying the blood stains on the shroud, the research declares the stain markings at the back “are totally unrealistic” if they’re supposed to have come from a body that was lying flat.
https://www2.cbn.com/news/world/new-stu … -heres-why
Actually, it’s not new. The CBN piece is referring to:
A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin
Matteo Borrini Ph.D., Luigi Garlaschelli M.Sc.
First published: 10 July 2018An investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin was performed using a living volunteer. The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45° angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject. The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back-of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse-are totally unrealistic. Simulation of bleeding from the nail wounds contacting wood surfaces yielded unclear results.
This is not actually the first time they published this paper, but had published an earlier version in 2014.
Here is the 2014 paper:
D11 A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin: A Preliminary
Examination of the Left Forearm to Reconstruct the
Crucifixion PracticeLuigi Garlaschelli, Via Ponte Vecchio 52, Pavia 27100, ITALY; and Matteo Borrini, PhD*, Liverpool John
Moores University, RCEAPKSchool of Natural Sci & Psych, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UNITED KINGDOMAfter attending this presentation, attendees will understand how a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) could be performed on the Turin Shroud to reconstruct the original position of the man impressed on the linen.
This presentation will impact the forensic science community by demonstrating the potential of
the BPA approach on uncommon pieces of evidence, excluding the traditional crucifixion position with
arms stretched out on the crossbeam, and suggesting further evaluation of one of the most controversial
and valuable Christian relics.
Following what was proposed previously by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences’ (AAFS)
community, the presumed patterns of blood stains from the crucifixion wounds on the linen of the Shroud
were approached from a forensic point of view in order to reconstruct the arms and body position during blood flow. The goal was to better understand how this ancient death penalty practice – of which almost
nothing is known – was performed.
Reddish stains are evident in the head area, in the wrist and forearm, on the chest, and on the feet
of the image on the Shroud. The present study is focused on the analysis of the left forearm, where all the
traces are visible from the wrist to the elbow. The preliminary goal of a more extensive project is to
reproduce the most similar stain pattern from a dripping point on the wrist in different arm positions.
A ballistic angle finder was used, measuring the arm-body (or forearm-body) angle from 0° (arm
parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the body) to 90° (vertical arm). The end of a transfusion cannula
was fixed at the wrist at Destot’s space to simulate the dripping from a puncture-type injury where it is
usually believed that the nail for the crucifixion was positioned.
However, since the wrist stain is too large to identify a clear injury spot, two other series of
experiments were performed with the aperture of the cannula a little closer to the knuckles or to the wrist.
Whole human blood with anticoagulant was used, the latter having no influence on the flow
direction. A transfusion bag was attached to the cannula and placed above the aperture; a rolling clip on the
tubing allowed control of the blood flow rate.
All the tests performed clearly demonstrate that the angle between the arm and the body must be
greater than 80° in order for the rivulets to flow from the wrist toward the elbow, as it appears on the Shroud.
This is more reasonable considering the position of the sentenced person when attached to the cross.
Results of this study also preclude the use of any kind of ligature to tie the arm or the forearm horizontally to
the crossbeam ( patibulum ) for the “Man of the Shroud. ” Considering these results, the imprint on the
Shroud does not correspond with the traditional artistic image of a crucifix with arms stretched out on the
crossbeam; a position with the arms folded backward at the elbow and bent around the crossbeam, as in the
painting of Mantegna ( Crocifissione , 1457-1459) is also not supported by this interpretation. Further
analysis will focus on the position of both arms to detect if there is symmetry and to reposition the “Man of
the Shroud ” on the cross in the most suitable crime-dynamic reconstruction. The final step of this
investigation will compare the other reddish stains on the linen (head, chest, and feet) to investigate their
correspondence, mutual agreement, and the possible time sequence of their occurrence.
According to the direction of the blood dripping on the left forearm, this study demonstrates that the
traditional image of a crucified victim with arms stretched out on the crossbeam perpendicular to the body is
not supported for the “Man of the Shroud, ” who should have been fixed with the arms outstretched upward
(arm-body angle greater than 80 degrees).
This video from 2014 shows how they did the experiments:
From what I can tell, the 2018 report was recycled from their 2014 report for a media blitz on the 40th year after the 1978 STURP investigation.
Many media outlets had articles in 2018 citing the report:
628-year-old fake news: Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)
Forensic scientist Dr Matteo Borrini of Liverpool John Moores University and Luigi Garlaschelli of the University of Pavia used a living volunteer and real and synthetic blood to try to simulate possible ways that the apparent bloodstains could have got onto the shroud.
They concluded that two short rivulets of possible blood on the left hand of the shroud’s ghostly figure could only have been formed by someone who was upright with their arms at an angle of about 45 degrees.
This could be consistent with someone who had been crucified with their arms held in a Y shape. Unfortunately for shroud believers, however, the forearm blood stains would require the dead body to have been wrapped in the shroud with their arms in a different position – held almost vertically above their head, rather than at an angle of 45 degrees.
The researchers, whose findings have been published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, formed the opinion that the supposed blood spatters seem to have fallen vertically and almost randomly from someone who might well have been standing over the cloth, rather than lying in it.
When it came to the supposed lance wound, their article A BPA [Blood Pattern Analysis] Approach to the Shroud of Turin concluded: “The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back-of a supposed post-mortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse-are totally unrealistic. ”
Scientists Debunk Blood Of Jesus Found On The Shroud Of Turin
Now, two scientists said some bloodstains may have trickled down to the cloth from a man who was standing, not crucified, and not face down. Some bloodstains, meanwhile, were extremely inconsistent to the point that the man’s supposed position was entirely unrealistic and cannot be simulated.
For their study published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences on July 10, the scientists initially wanted to determine whether the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin was from a T-shaped, Y-shaped, or a completely different manner of crucifixion during the ancient Roman times. Instead, the bloodstains suggested that a person standing had created various positions to be able to create the bloodstains on the fabric.
Matteo Borrini, an anthropologist from the Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, and Luigi Garlaschelli of the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudoscience simulated how the rivulets of blood or the smallest bloodstream could have trickled down from Jesus’s hand, forearm, chest, and lower back. They also used a belt of blood at the waist to replicate how the rivulets may have trickled from Jesus’s wound.
“The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a 45 [degrees] angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject,” they wrote in their study.
“The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back – of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine (lying face upward) corpse – are totally unrealistic.”
CSI Study of Shroud of Turin Proves Again: Jesus Relic Is Fake
The analysis, published earlier this month in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, did not study the Shroud itself, which is kept under lock and key in the Cathedral of Turin and is only rarely shown to the public, the last time in 2015. Instead, in an experiment that looks straight out of a CSI episode, the scientists reproduced the supposed blood stains on the linen to see whether they could be compatible with bleeding that would have occurred due to injuries caused by crucifixion.
To reproduce the blood patterns on the hands and forearms, Borrini attached a transfusion tube to a volunteer’s wrist and pumped blood out of it, simulating a puncture wound that would have been caused by a nail going through the victim’s hand.
Borrini’s team used both human blood and synthetic blood commonly employed in forensic tests.
One key problem with simulating the effects of a crucifixion is that we don’t really know how Jesus – or any other victim of this brutal Roman execution method – was affixed to the cross.
The earliest artistic depictions of Jesus’ death were made centuries after the fact, long after the Roman Empire had turned Christian and outlawed this punishment. Also, there are very few archaeological remains of crucifixion as a practice in general. In fact the only known solid piece of physical evidence is a 1st century C.E. heel-bone pierced by a nail, found in 1968 in a Jewish tomb in Jerusalem.
The paucity of archaeological evidence of crucifixion is mainly because people sentenced to die on the cross, a fate reserved mainly for rebellious slaves and enemies of the Roman state, would hardly be given a proper burial afterwards. Also, the person could be tied to the cross with ropes, leaving no marks on bones for archaeologists to scrutinize. Even when nails were hammered into the unfortunate victim, they would have been reused time and again, since metal was a relatively rare and expensive commodity.
Given our ignorance of the process, the forensic scientists repeated their blood-spattering experiments multiple times, placing the arms of the volunteer at different angles to the body and in various positions that may have been likely used in a real crucifixion.
When the arms were placed almost vertically, simulating a crucifixion in a Y position, the dripping blood formed rivulets on the forearms of the victim that were roughly similar to the patterns on the forearms of the image on the linen. But in that position, the spatter on the volunteer’s wrist did not match the stains visible on the left wrist of the man on the Shroud.
To obtain that pattern, the victim would have had to be crucified with his arms roughly at a 45 degree angle to the body – which is similar to most classical depictions of Jesus’ crucifixion. In that position, however, the blood would not have reached the forearms, assuming that blood – even the Messiah’s – obeys the law of gravity.
This means that if a person wrapped in the Shroud had truly been a victim of Rome’s cruelest form of capital punishment, he must have been somehow crucified in two different positions at different times.
The scientists also repeated the experiment with the volunteer lying horizontally in the same position as the man in the Shroud, to test whether the stains might have been caused by post-mortem bleeding. But again, the patterns did not match, Borrini told Haaretz.
Equally contradictory results emerged from the analysis of the chest wound, which was simulated by pouring blood on a mannequin in the same spot where the man in the Shroud sports a deep gash. When the mannequin was placed vertically, as if on the cross, the blood predictably flowed down to the abdomen, just as is seen also in the Shroud. But the liquid did not trickle to the back and form a pool in the kidney area, as appears on the image on the linen.
Also when the mannequin was placed horizontally, again to simulate post-mortem bleeding, the liquid dribbled down to the area of the shoulder blades – much higher than on the Shroud.
“The blood patterns contradict each other and form an unrealistic picture, ” Borrini concludes.
The most likely explanation is that the stains were painted by an artist who knew little or nothing about crucifixion and its effects, he concludes.
There are several issues with the articles and their experiment:
First off, the articles overstate the case by saying it “proves” the shroud to be a fake. Credit though goes to the paper authors which do not state they have “proven” the TS to be a fake and it’s only the news outlets that is sensationalizing the report.
Second, the experiments highly simplified what happened and at most only showed how they think it happened could not have happened that way.
Third, the methods of replication are not really representative of how the crucifixion, side piercing, and burial actually happened. They used a live person and a dummy for the tests. Also, they used blood with anticoagulant and they piped the blood.
Fourth, we don’t really know how the blood stains were formed on the shroud. Even if one demonstrates how it was not formed, it does not argue against how it was formed.
Here are some articles that challenge their claims:
Three are the pertinent objections Garlaschelli and Borrini would have to answer. We summarise them:
1) The authors of the study evaluated the blood dripping by comparing two completely different surfaces. The one of the plastic mannequin, smooth, clean, and intact, and the cutaneous one, dirty, swollen, and lacerated of the Shroud’s Man. It is obvious that the direction of the blood flow is different; the opposite would have been impossible.2) The authors of the study put in comparison two different substances. On the plastic mannequin they poured a bag of blood added with an anticoagulant, which made the liquid more fluid than normal, similar to water (this can be clearly seen in the video they published). The blood come out of the Shroud’s Man, instead, outflew from wounds and had not been prepared in a lab, which is why it presented itself as viscous, also in consideration of the traumatic stress he had undergone (the shroud image shows the signs of the torture suffered by the man). Even in this case, it is a foreseeable banality that some fluidified and some more viscous blood may respectively take very different directions. A comparison between two different situations.3) The authors of the study ignored numerous variables which are very influential on the bloodstains. Beside not knowing the data of the speed at which the blood comes out of the wounds as opposed to the one at which the blood is poured on the mannequin in the lab, they did not consider that the corpse of the Shroud’s Man has been certainly touched after his death, came into contact with the very linen cloth in which the Man’s image was mysteriously imprinted like a photographic negative (by colouring, inexplicably, only the superficial fibrils). Furthermore, the Man certainly had spasms and foreseeably moved because of pain whilst wounds were inflicted. These variables have certainly deviated, obstructed, or interrupted the “normal ” dripping or pathway of the blood on his body. None of this was considered by the two researchers.
In an interview with Vatican News July 17, Emanuela Marinelli, an expert on the Shroud of Turin, said “there was nothing scientific ” about the experiments conducted by Matteo Borrini, an Italian forensic scientist, and Luigi Garlaschelli, an Italian chemist.
“Does it seem like a scientific criterion to take a mannequin – like the ones used to display clothes in a store window – and a sponge soaked in fake blood attached to a piece wood that is pressed on the right side of a dummy to see where the streams of blood fall? ” Marinelli asked.
Garlaschelli posted a video of the scientific experiment on YouTube in 2015 using a live person to study the blood patterns in various positions as well as pressing a sponge against a plastic mannequin to examine the way the fake blood flowed.
Marinelli, however, said the experiments conducted by Borrini and Garlaschelli lacked the accuracy of past studies involving cadavers of men who died of hemopericardium, the pooling of blood in the heart, which is believed to be what ultimately caused Jesus’ death on the cross.
Those accurate studies, she told Vatican News, “yielded different results from those of Borrini and Garlaschelli. ”