So yesterday the media was quick to jump on the findings of a recent study that they claim proves the Shroud of Turin is a fake ("A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin"
J Forensic Sci, 2018 which can be read in full at https://www.rsi.ch/news/vita-quotidiana/eta-beta/Larticolo-apparso-sul-JFS-concessione-di-Matteo-Borrini-10693997.html/BINARY/L'articolo%20apparso%20sul%20JFS%20(concessione%20di%20Matteo%20Borrini) ). I'm sure the media would have ignored it if the conclusions had been different.
The study analyzes the flow of blood on the body as compared to blood stains on the shroud. Have any of you read this? What are your thoughts? I realize there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting the shroud is a fake such as carbon dating. But I've also seen evidence to the contrary. Without going through all of that, this study seems to be poorly conceived and executed relying on quite a few assumptions which the researchers fail to identify or account for. It is also poorly drafted.
So many people seem to just blindly accept any researcher's findings and assume that because a study is published in some journal that the researchers must be the most knowledgeable and trained individuals on the subject who conducted the research using sound objective methodology and who do a thorough analysis. Yet many of these researchers are young PhDs or candidates who really have limited knowledge and training, have an agenda, have the same biases as all of us, and/or aren't any smarter than the next person. Thus their expert studies(like this one) are often not worth much more than the paper they are written on.
Some assumptions these researchers seem to make which cast doubt on this study:
Jesus was nailed through the hands from the front when most recent evidence suggests that he was nailed through the wrists because the body would just tear away from the nails if through the hands.
He was crucified in the position depicted in most artists renderings either outstretched or even with hands and arms up and attached behind the vertical post and cross beams. However, other evidence suggests he may have had arms draped over the cross beam and had hands/wrists nailed on the back of cross beam either with palms facing the beam or out. Also they discard possibility arms may have also been tied to beam.
His body was essentially vertical but some studies show the body wouldn't be in a near vertical position if crucified as depicted but would have leaned forward quite a bit.
When nailed he was vertical but he may have been nailed to crossbeam lying down then raised up the post.
Implies that the amount of time on the cross wasn't a factor which seems erroneous.
He was naked since the torso they tested is naked which is debatable since quite a bit of evidence suggests he at least had a loin cloth which would interfere with and redirect exterior blood flow around the waist.
No evidence that Jesus's side was pierced in the rib cage. Just as likely to be in kidney area. And bible states this was post mortem (soldiers were checking to see if dead).
Rate of blood flow would vary esp compared to person at rest and for person with hands above heart.
Blood thickness would vary depending on hydration.
Handling of the body from removing him to burial had no effect which seems unlikely.
Preparation and/or washing prior to burial had no effect.
They also fail include any exhibit of the shroud which labels the stains they reference in their study that they use as a comparison so who knows what they are really taking about when they say there is no match. They often don't even say why there is no match but rather just make the conclusion and state flow is inconsistent with the shroud or is unrealistic without any real explanation.
Some other points:
The statement that "The authors performed the BPA to understand the different behavior of blood flowing from a crucified individual, rather than to find an explanation for the patterns on the Shroud" seems to be contradictory to their conclusion.
They don't even use the description of the crucifixion contained in the Bible since they don't even use it as a source. The Bible has also proven to be quite accurate from a historical perspective.
This kind of study would seem to be only useful for determining whether it was plausible the shroud was real based on blood stains given certain assumptions and otherwise their conclusion would be inconclusive unless all other variables not tested can be ruled out.
J Forensic Sci, 2018 which can be read in full at https://www.rsi.ch/news/vita-quotidiana/eta-beta/Larticolo-apparso-sul-JFS-concessione-di-Matteo-Borrini-10693997.html/BINARY/L'articolo%20apparso%20sul%20JFS%20(concessione%20di%20Matteo%20Borrini) ). I'm sure the media would have ignored it if the conclusions had been different.
The study analyzes the flow of blood on the body as compared to blood stains on the shroud. Have any of you read this? What are your thoughts? I realize there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting the shroud is a fake such as carbon dating. But I've also seen evidence to the contrary. Without going through all of that, this study seems to be poorly conceived and executed relying on quite a few assumptions which the researchers fail to identify or account for. It is also poorly drafted.
So many people seem to just blindly accept any researcher's findings and assume that because a study is published in some journal that the researchers must be the most knowledgeable and trained individuals on the subject who conducted the research using sound objective methodology and who do a thorough analysis. Yet many of these researchers are young PhDs or candidates who really have limited knowledge and training, have an agenda, have the same biases as all of us, and/or aren't any smarter than the next person. Thus their expert studies(like this one) are often not worth much more than the paper they are written on.
Some assumptions these researchers seem to make which cast doubt on this study:
Jesus was nailed through the hands from the front when most recent evidence suggests that he was nailed through the wrists because the body would just tear away from the nails if through the hands.
He was crucified in the position depicted in most artists renderings either outstretched or even with hands and arms up and attached behind the vertical post and cross beams. However, other evidence suggests he may have had arms draped over the cross beam and had hands/wrists nailed on the back of cross beam either with palms facing the beam or out. Also they discard possibility arms may have also been tied to beam.
His body was essentially vertical but some studies show the body wouldn't be in a near vertical position if crucified as depicted but would have leaned forward quite a bit.
When nailed he was vertical but he may have been nailed to crossbeam lying down then raised up the post.
Implies that the amount of time on the cross wasn't a factor which seems erroneous.
He was naked since the torso they tested is naked which is debatable since quite a bit of evidence suggests he at least had a loin cloth which would interfere with and redirect exterior blood flow around the waist.
No evidence that Jesus's side was pierced in the rib cage. Just as likely to be in kidney area. And bible states this was post mortem (soldiers were checking to see if dead).
Rate of blood flow would vary esp compared to person at rest and for person with hands above heart.
Blood thickness would vary depending on hydration.
Handling of the body from removing him to burial had no effect which seems unlikely.
Preparation and/or washing prior to burial had no effect.
They also fail include any exhibit of the shroud which labels the stains they reference in their study that they use as a comparison so who knows what they are really taking about when they say there is no match. They often don't even say why there is no match but rather just make the conclusion and state flow is inconsistent with the shroud or is unrealistic without any real explanation.
Some other points:
The statement that "The authors performed the BPA to understand the different behavior of blood flowing from a crucified individual, rather than to find an explanation for the patterns on the Shroud" seems to be contradictory to their conclusion.
They don't even use the description of the crucifixion contained in the Bible since they don't even use it as a source. The Bible has also proven to be quite accurate from a historical perspective.
This kind of study would seem to be only useful for determining whether it was plausible the shroud was real based on blood stains given certain assumptions and otherwise their conclusion would be inconclusive unless all other variables not tested can be ruled out.