-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Hurd
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:44 PM
To: ibss
Subject: Re: Project Steve URL

 Steve,

The image I observed as http://wyattmuseum.com/images/internetloop.mpg or the accompanying text failed to provide any scale, or magnification data.  None the less, the image does not appear to be blood.  Human red blood cells are quite easy to identify at even fairly low magnification, and are not present in the mpeg, or jpeg  images I viewed on the Wyatt website.  Bacteria, and fungal spores are ubiquitous and it is a very rare sample that lacks them.  Further, the sample collected by Wyatt (as described in the webpage) would necessarily have had contaminants such as pollen grains, which were not observed in the micrographs.  For reasons below, I doubt that Wyatt ever collected the samples he claimed at any rate.  The closest thing in my experience is bacteria, and as the bodies seemed motile, it could not be blood in any event. 

The procedure used to produce the images seems to be "live blood cell analysis" a bogus bit of medical quackery.  I suggest you read the following: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell.html 

A site of "somatidian orthobiology"  http://www.cerbe.co.za/SomHead.htm which is good for a laugh (or a groan).

 Amateur microscopists are always "seeing" things.  The problem is not "seeing" it is knowing what you are looking at!  I have had a number of microscopes in my days.  I currently own three.  Aside from the trivial learning  the mechanical operation of a microscope, the real learning effort is the interpretation of the images.

 If you could get a sample, I would bet that any histologist would take a look for you.  You might try the "Quackwatch" people.    Speaking as an archaeologist, I would not bother with the analysis of material without provenience.

I had to laugh when reading this, "It must be stated that the mere presence of these particles in no way proves that the sample taken is "the blood of Christ."  These particles would be present an any re-hydrated blood.  What is extremely significant is the fact that the sample taken was proclaimed by Ron Wyatt to be blood from a crucifixion site. The presence of these particles tends to confirm his statement."

First they correctly point out that finding "particles" won't indicate anything, and then in the same breath they claim that, "The presence of these particles tends to confirm his statement."  The observation of what appear to me to be bacteria demonstrates nothing, including the presence of blood cells (which appear absent), Holy or otherwise. 

I just read the bulk of the Wyatt site's "ark" narrative, and feel it is unmitigated foolishness.  I have spoken with archaeologists who have worked in Israel, and the sort of work reported by the Wyatt website would not have been allowed twenty years ago, or thirty years ago.  There are no excavation maps, field drawings, photograph catalog, accession numbers, or any evidence of the dozens of quite ordinary archaeological practices that the Israeli antiquities department properly insist be employed.  Plus, there would have been an Israeli archaeologist and even a Rabbi on site at all times.  There would have been quarterly field reports, and extensive documentation of any objects or even soil samples removed for analysis, with quarterly progress reports on all analysis undertaken.  Further, voucher specimens would have been left in Israel.  This is all without consideration of the unlikely claims made for the nature of the specimen.  The same procedure would be demanded to be followed for a brewery, let alone the Ark, and the "Blood of Christ."   I would be very surprised to see basic documents such as Wyatt's copy of an excavation permit, or his Israeli visa for other than a typical tourist visit.

 There are rather simple methods used for the collection of samples that are going to be submitted to biological analysis: little things, like the proper cleaning of your collection tools to remove contamination before you take the sample, that Wyatt apparently failed to do.  This alone would have rendered any samples taken useless  (even if any samples were actually taken).

 All and all, I find it very fitting that the Wyatt "blood sample" is examined by the "live blood cell analysis" of Gaston Naessens' "somatidian orthobiology."  

 Best wishes,

 Gary Hurd, Ph.D. 

----- Original Message -----

To: Gary Hurd

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 4:32 AM

Subject: RE: Project Steve URL

Thank you for the information about the interesting Project Steve, although my degrees are in theology.

I remember you were interested in dino blood. I thought you might be interested in Christ’s blood. Ron Wyatt claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant with the blood of Christ on it. He is now deceased, but his wife still has samples of the blood in her home in Tennessee. Wyatt claimed the blood is still alive and multiplying. He claims there are only 24 chromosomes in the blood. 23 are from Mary and 1 Y chromosome from God. See the live blood at http://wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07b.htm. What about Somatids? See http://wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07.htm . I was wondering what your opinion was of this? Is there a lab that would be willing to independently test the blood (for free)? I think Wyatt is a fraud, but it would be nice to have a lab test to prove this.

Sincerely,

Steve

 -----Original Message-----
From: Gary Hurd
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 4:57 PM
To: info@bibleandscience.com
Subject: Project Steve URL

Steve, 

The "official" NCSE URL for Project Steve is:

 http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

 Gary