Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Boro Nut · 04-04-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

LeonardeSeveral clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation (Rodante 1982).

They can tell which pipe it came out of? There are other types than venous or arterial?? Fuck me!! I thought blood was blood when it contacted oxygen. Or are they suggesting the characteristic arterial spray pattern was in evidence in this ..erm.. dead body?

Boro Nut

Boro Nut · 04-04-2002, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Still the more immersed they are in the particulars of the Image of the S of Turin, the more likely they are to notice that there would have been VERY VERY VERY few such victims among the many thousands crucified who would share ALL of the following:
1)had legs which were NOT broken.
2)had the lance/spear wound in the chest/side area
3)had crown-of-thorns blood flows/wounds in the
scalp area.

4) and looked like a medieval painting of what a crucified man was thought to look like, and nothing like a real man.

Boro Nut

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-04-2002, 08:40 AM

Once again and for old time's sake, what I presented was based entirely upon what your own sources presented (or mispresented as the case appears to be) so pointing out what I interpolated from your own sources only demonstrates your own sources to be misleading.

The 34 number as I pointed out repeatedly (and you never countered, by the way) was always and forever based upon your own sources.

30 "spike wounds" in the head, which Meacham stated were either venous or arterial, depending upon which pathologist you wanted to believe.

4 wounds to the wrists and feet/ankles.

Whether or not all 34 are, in fact, arterial wounds is a matter of conjecture based entirely upon your own evidence, leonarde, so trying to turn anything around on to me won't wash.

As I have done from the beginning, the point is that you are not applying any form of critical analysis to your own evidence; that the poor quality of your evidence far outweighs the quantity of your evidence, (something you have been relying soley upon); and that the standards your own sources make their conclusions contingent upon (i.e., the "historical documents") prove that the body on the shroud cannot possibly be the body of Jesus.

You have never refuted or even addressed any of the arguments I have made in this regard and since all of them were based on your evidence, any spotlight you think you're shining upon flaws in my own thinking go directly to the flaws in your own evidence.

It is unclear how many of the "30...spike wounds" in the head are venous or arterial according to your own sources so my speculation was entirely in keeping with the evidence you had presented.

Regardless, even if the only arterial wounds were the two wrist wounds, that would still mean that for at least three hours Jesus would have been pumping a continuous flow of a little over a gallon of arterial blood (due to the fact that the wounds would constantly be reopened every time he even thought about moving) as well as draining any remaining blood from the upper body into the feet/shins for the two hours that you granted he hung dead on the cross.

If your own source's "historical documents" standards are to be applied, then we know Jesus did not die of suffocation since he spoke just prior to dying and his legs did not need to be broken to hasten death by asphyxiation (the reason legs were broken).

We also know from these same "historical documents" that he was not poisoned.

So, again, applying Bucklin's and Meacham's standards--the only standards that link the Shroud in any way to Jesus--we see that an unbiased forensic pathologist would have concluded from this "evidence" that Jesus must have died of blood loss and therefore, the blood found on the shroud could not have come from Jesus.

An unbiased forensic pathologist applying the "historical documents" standard would have recognized the following elements prior to examining the shroud:

<ol type="1">[*] Jesus could not have died from asphyxiation.[*] Jesus, according to the stories, decidedly did not ingest poison.[*] Jesus was hanging from the cross for at least three hours prior to death and two hours post mortem (going by your own admissions).[*] The only story in the NT that describes a side piercing as a factual occurrence is the Gospel of John.[*] The Gospel of John states that Jesus' body was wrapped in strips of linen and that his head was wrapped in a "napkin" (i.e., two separate procedures).[/list=a]

So, what would this same unbiased pathologist then conclude based entirely upon this "historical" evidence?

<ol type="1">[*] The arterial wounds from at least the wrists and most likely the feet would easily account for death by blood loss, corroborated by the fact that he spoke before dying and his legs were not broken (thereby ruling out asphyxiation) and he did not ingest a poison.[*] After two hours of hanging dead on the cross, any possible remaining blood would have drained down to the lowest point, most likely out the holes in his feet, but at the very least down into his shins/feet.[/list=a]

They would also know from the "historical documents" that the body was wrapped in strips of linen and not a single, uniform shroud and further than Jesus' head was wrapped separately, thereby further proving prior to examining the shroud that it could not possibly be Jesus' burial cloth.

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 08:53 AM

Posted by Koy:

Quote:

Once again and for old time's sake, what I presented was based entirely upon what your own sources presented (or mispresented as the case appears to be) so pointing out what I
interpolated from your own sources only demonstrates your own sources to be misleading

No. "Interpolating" means inserting something which was NOT there to begin
with: that is what you have consistently done on
this thread to Meacham, so much so that even I found it highly confusing, and I have read all the URLs I have provided here over a 2 or
3 years period.
Koy interpolated (ie distorted) what Meacham said:
1)about the blood flows/wounds to the head.
2)about the wrist (nail) wounds.
3)about the foot wound(s).

Koy also added up the distorted Koy-invented arterial woundsfrom the above 3 categories
and said that there were 34 arterial wounds.
Meacham said no such thing.
Each and every forensics man cited by Meacham said
no such thing.

In Koy's hands the Meacham URL and all others Koy
"dices" become unrecognizable.
And it is these distortions by Koy that I am supposed to "discuss" or "refute" in these pages!

No thanks!

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 08:58 AM

Posted by Boro Nut:

Quote:

4) and looked like a medieval painting of what a crucified man was thought to look like, and nothing like a real man.

No, it doesn't look like a medieval painting: the Isabel Piczeck URLs of page 3 make
that clear. But if you want to see what such medieval paintings look like, then go here:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/bazant.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/bazant.htm</a>

This is a fairly recently discovered copy of the
Shroud of Turin: there are 52 copies that were known to have been made. Even us total layman would be able to tell the difference between the
Shroud and its copies.

Cheers!

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 09:02 AM

Posted by Boro Nut:

Quote:

There are other types than venous or arterial??

Yes, capillaries
are also blood vessels.

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 09:17 AM

Posted by Koy:

Quote:

The 34 number as I pointed out repeatedly (and you never countered, by the way) was always and forever based upon your own sources.

30 "spike wounds" in the head, which Meacham stated were either venous or arterial, depending upon which pathologist you wanted to believe.

4 wounds to the wrists and feet/ankles.

Whether or not all 34 are, in fact, arterial wounds is a matter of conjecture based entirely upon your own evidence, leonarde, so trying to turn anything around on to me won't wash.

Meacham did NOT state that the 30 blood flows were
the result of arterial wounds. Meacham throughout
his paper is summarizing what forensics pathologists involved have reported over the years. One of those pathologists, Rodante,
says that several of the clots are similar
to venous or arterial wounds. It is only
in Koy-the-language-butcher's hands that this becomes transformed into:
1)Meacham(!!!) claiming that the head wounds are
all arterial.

Koy mixes "conjecture" with and sometimes in quotations from Meacham so that the ideas/thoughts/statements of Meacham are thoroughtly distorted.

Koy: Datherton's hero.

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 09:30 AM

Posted by Boro Nut:

Quote:

I thought blood was blood when it contacted oxygen. Or are they suggesting the characteristic arterial spray pattern was in evidence in this ..erm.. dead body?

No. At least SOME of the blood clots were
formed ante-mortem. We don't know exactly how many
since the body was likely at least partially cleaned before entombment. Still SOME of the clots
are definitely postmortem.
About the blood: this is just a layman talking but
I think that if the sample is large enough
it can be determined whether the blood came from
an artery (oxygen-enriched) or a vein (oxygen-poor). But I would have to consult a medical or forensic work.

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 09:38 AM

Posted by Koy:

Quote:

Once again and for old time's sake, what I presented was based entirely upon what your own sources presented (or mispresented as the case appears to be)

This is the ultimate in cheek: after misrepresenting Meacham
from page 5 to page 12, Koy claims here that it
is Meacham and the other sources presented by me
who have "misrepresented" the evidence.

Datherton: your Koy and welcome to him.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-04-2002, 10:39 AM

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I did not misrepresent Meacham at all! I did exactly what you are doing, basing my speculation upon the evidence he presented! He clearly states that the head wounds could be either venous or arterial, depending upon which pathologist you believe!

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Nice try, but all you're doing is trying to blame me for what Meacham stated (though you're correct, I used the wrong word; I meant interpreted not interpolated, so there's more grist for your misdirection grill).

I repeat:

Quote:

MEACHAM: Around the upper scalp and extending to its vertex are at least 30 blood flows from spike punctures. These wounds exhibit the same realism as those of the hand and feet: the bleeding is highly characteristic of scalp wounds with the retraction of torn vessels, the blood meets obstructions as it flows and pools on the forehead and hair, and there appears to be swelling around the points of laceration (though Bucklin [personal communication, 1982] doubts that swelling can be discerned). Several clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation (Rodante 1982).

Your own sources are unclear and I qualified that repeatedly throughout my initial posts until shear repetition and lack of counter-refutation resulted in my short hand of saying "34 arterial wounds."

Sue me. If anyone would care to go way back to the beginning of your countless evasions, you'll clearly see that I spelled out precisely where my arguments came from and exactly how I derived them; from your evidence.

The facts remain that you have not addressed the most salient points regarding any of my arguments; that you continue to evade and redirect away from those arguments; and that your own evidence is the source of these arguments.

I FULLY GRANT THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE 34 WOUNDS AS "ARTERIAL" WAS ALWAYS AND FOREVER MY OWN SPECULATION BASED ENTIRELY UPON YOUR SOURCES.

Is that perfectly clear now?

It is granted by me that we do not know whether or not for certain what any of the wounds are, based on the poor quality of your evidence.

They could be arterial they could be venous, regardless, this information was taken from your sources and makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the arguments I have presented and you have never addressed.

Your obstinate and continued evasion on these points is obvious and noted by all here so by all means, please, please, please continue to evade addressing them and prove us all correct.

I shall repeat for the twenty thousandth time now:

Quote:

ME: If your own source's "historical documents" standards are to be applied, then we know Jesus did not die of suffocation since he spoke just prior to dying and his legs did not need to be broken to hasten death by asphyxiation (the reason legs were broken).

We also know from these same "historical documents" that he was not poisoned.

So, again, applying Bucklin's and Meacham's standards--the only standards that link the Shroud in any way to Jesus--we see that an unbiased forensic pathologist would have concluded from this "evidence" that Jesus must have died of blood loss and therefore, the blood found on the shroud could not have come from Jesus.

An unbiased forensic pathologist applying the "historical documents" standard would have recognized the following elements prior to examining the shroud:

<ol type="1">[*] Jesus could not have died from asphyxiation.[*] Jesus, according to the stories, decidedly did not ingest poison.[*]Jesus was hanging from the cross for at least three hours prior to death and two hours post mortem (going by your own admissions).
The only story in the NT that describes a side piercing as a factual occurrence is the Gospel of John.[*]The Gospel of John states that Jesus' body was wrapped in strips of linen and that his head was wrapped in a "napkin" (i.e., two separate procedures).[/list=a]

So, what would this same unbiased pathologist then conclude based entirely upon this "historical" evidence?

<ol type="1">[*] The wounds from the wrists (yes, I've taken out arterial, even though it is your own evidence that states they would most likely be arterial wounds) and the feet would easily account for death by blood loss, corroborated by the fact that he spoke before dying and his legs were not broken (thereby ruling out asphyxiation) and he did not ingest a poison. If not blood loss and not asphyxiation and not poison, then how did Jesus die?[*] After two hours of hanging dead on the cross, any possible remaining blood would have drained down to the lowest point, most likely out the holes in his feet, but at the very least down into his shins/feet.[/list=a]

They would also know from the "historical documents" that the body was wrapped in strips of linen and not a single, uniform shroud and further than Jesus' head was wrapped separately, thereby further proving prior to examining the shroud that it could not possibly be Jesus' burial cloth.

Address these goddamned arguments!

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2002, 08:40 AM	#293
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Once again and for old time's sake, what I presented was based entirely upon what your own sources presented (or mispresented as the case appears to be) so pointing out what I interpolated from your own sources only demonstrates your own sources to be misleading. The 34 number as I pointed out repeatedly (and you never countered, by the way) was always and forever based upon your own sources. 30 "spike wounds" in the head, which Meacham stated were either venous or arterial, depending upon which pathologist you wanted to believe. 4 wounds to the wrists and feet/ankles. Whether or not all 34 are, in fact, arterial wounds is a matter of conjecture based entirely upon your own evidence, leonarde, so trying to turn anything around on to me won't wash. As I have done from the beginning, the point is that you are not applying any form of critical analysis to your own evidence; that the poor quality of your evidence far outweighs the quantity of your evidence, (something you have been relying soley upon); and that the standards your own sources make their conclusions contingent upon (i.e., the "historical documents") prove that the body on the shroud cannot possibly be the body of Jesus. You have never refuted or even addressed any of the arguments I have made in this regard and since all of them were based on your evidence, any spotlight you think you're shining upon flaws in my own thinking go directly to the flaws in your own evidence. It is unclear how many of the "30...spike wounds" in the head are venous or arterial according to your own sources so my speculation was entirely in keeping with the evidence you had presented. Regardless, even if the only arterial wounds were the two wrist wounds, that would still mean that for at least three hours Jesus would have been pumping a continuous flow of a little over a gallon of arterial blood (due to the fact that the wounds would constantly be reopened every time he even thought about moving) as well as draining any remaining blood from the upper body into the feet/shins for the two hours that you granted he hung dead on the cross. If your own source's "historical documents" standards are to be applied, then we know Jesus did not die of suffocation since he spoke just prior to dying and his legs did not need to be broken to hasten death by asphyxiation (the reason legs were broken). We also know from these same "historical documents" that he was not poisoned. So, again, applying Bucklin's and Meacham's standards--the only standards that link the Shroud in any way to Jesus--we see that an unbiased forensic pathologist would have concluded from this "evidence" that Jesus must have died of blood loss and therefore, the blood found on the shroud could not have come from Jesus. An unbiased forensic pathologist applying the "historical documents" standard would have recognized the following elements prior to examining the shroud: <ol type="1">[] Jesus could not have died from asphyxiation.[] Jesus, according to the stories, decidedly did not ingest poison.[] Jesus was hanging from the cross for at least* three hours prior to death and two hours post mortem (going by your own admissions).[] The only* story in the NT that describes a side piercing as a factual occurrence is the Gospel of John.[] The Gospel of John states that Jesus' body* was wrapped in strips of linen and that his head was wrapped in a "napkin" (i.e., two separate procedures).[/list=a] So, what would this same unbiased pathologist then conclude based entirely upon this "historical" evidence? <ol type="1">[] The arterial wounds from at least* the wrists and most likely the feet would easily account for death by blood loss, corroborated by the fact that he spoke before dying and his legs were not broken (thereby ruling out asphyxiation) and he did not ingest a poison.[] After two hours of hanging dead on the cross, any possible remaining blood would have drained down to the lowest point, most likely* out the holes in his feet, but at the very least down into his shins/feet.[/list=a] They would also know from the "historical documents" that the body was wrapped in strips of linen and not a single, uniform shroud and further than Jesus' head was wrapped separately, thereby further proving prior to examining the shroud that it could not possibly be Jesus' burial cloth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.