Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 04-05-2002, 08:41 AM

Boro Nut,
This is very much a peripheral matter: speculation by me and you about the differences
between clots from veins and those from arteries.
Again my speculation: although both such clots
have indeed been exposed to air (and thus oxygen)
the blood from an artery would have had---at the
moment of exposure----ALREADY a richer supply of
oxygen: the oxygen bound via hemoglobin WITHIN
the red blood cells. The blood from a vein would
have less of such oxygen (ie the oxygen from the
red blood cell would have been distributed to the
cells of the body. Now if and how and how quickly the red blood cells lose this hemoglobin oxygen I
don't know: that is where I would have to do research. NO ONE here but you said anything about
"arterial spraying": there is no mention of any
such thing in the literature.
Cheers!

leonarde · 04-05-2002, 09:39 AM

Another URL which I don't believe I gave before
is at: <a href="http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm" target="_blank">http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm</a>

It discusses, among other things, the C-14 date
and argues that the range given conflicts with
OTHER data and the overall evidence trail. An excerpt from the URL:

Quote:

At this point, I would like to offer a different paradigm for assessing the
accuracy of the 14th century date and the resulting claim that the shroud is the work of a 14th
century forger. Again, this article is not addressing the issue of whether or not the Shroud of Turin
was the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth and its value as a "relic" of Christianity. It addresses only
whether the shroud is a genuine archaeological artifact of a 1st century crucifixion. This paradigm
assumes that the radiocarbonists� claim that the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery is
correct. It is based on what that conclusion tells us about the forger. It tells us that:

1. The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.

2. The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th
century science.

3. The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow
from the wrists at 65� from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.

4. The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had
"spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe
concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and
jaundice.

5. The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be
consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.

6. The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of
the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud"
had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.

7. The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was
"hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.

8. The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately
through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval
representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would
rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces
of Destot.

9. The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous
only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.

10. The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present
day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in
a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so
without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.

11. The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an
unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he
continued.

12. The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks
and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.

13. The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of
the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of
Jerusalem.

14. This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic
pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has
foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated
artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of
DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.

If the Shroud of Turin is a forgery of the 14th century, as the radiocarbonists claim, and
not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval
"forger" must be accepted. If the Shroud was "forged" it would have to have been
painted.

It is an irrefutable fact that there is NO paint or pigment on the Shroud of Turin
leaving the only explanation of the technique of the forger to have used "photography"
to manufacture the relic in the THIRTEENTH CENTURY!! Some authors have gone so
far as to suggest exactly that. This is patently absurd!

CONCLUSION

The Shroud of Turin is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult
Jewish male. The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th
century was flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle
smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532. There is NO paint on the linen of the
shroud and is not the artifice of a forger.

My only quibble with the above is the statement that there is NO paint on the linen: trace elements of tempera and medieval paints WERE
detected but have nothing to do with either the
Image of the Man OR the blood: they were only trace elements.....
Cheers!

britinusa · 04-05-2002, 10:20 AM

Tercel
We must be looking at different threads. This thread has been largely dominated by Koy's demolition of Leonarde, with the latter being about as evasive as Usama Bin Laden. But hey, Koy, like many of us, is a battle-hardened veteran of many skirmishes with slippery xians.
BTW do you think the three teams that examined the shroud were handpicked by Madelyn Murray O'Hair? Is there some vast atheist conspiracy to cast doubt on the shroud?
I'm not in the least bit threatened by it. If it is 2000 years old, so what? The really hard part is proving that it was Jesus's. And if that can be done, I for one would be delighted. It would be really cool. Most atheists believe Jesus was a real person, and many of them think he was an OK guy. A genuine shroud of Turin, however, doesn't prove his divinity; doesn't even come close. So why would we be threatened by it?
I wonder why Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus aren't rushing to defend the shroud's authenticity. If it was claimed the shroud was used to bury Alexander the Great, I'm sure most xians would accept the c-dating and move on.
Tercel, I will admit that I must have got you confused with someone else.
Leonarde, Paul had a vision of christ, years after the alleged resurrection. But that's for a whole new thread.
I'm not saying ALL xians believe the shroud is the real deal. I'm sure many don't, its just that I've never met one

My wife believes its real, but she also believes Richard Nixon was behind the JFK assassination

Leonarde
The "fatboy Pilate" bit was just an attempt at humour. It wasn't important, but typically it was the only part of my post that you addressed. Just typical. I'm surprised you didn't bombard me with links to websites arguing that Pilate was anorexic.

Mageth · 04-05-2002, 10:37 AM

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.

AFAIK, dead men don't bleed, esp. out the top or extremities of the body, after what must have been at least a couple of hours, and after being cleaned up. Not to mention after having lost what must have been a considerable amount of blood when being crucified. Dead men have no blood pressure, so nothing to force the blood out. Gravity pulls the blood still in the blood vessels down in the body, into the back if the body is reclining. Plus, rigor mortis begins to set in and the blood begins coagulating in sutu.

Oddly enough, the theory that the blood stains were "post-mortem" bleeding, IMO, supports the theory that Jesus wasn't really dead!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-05-2002, 10:41 AM

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 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.[*] 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 that Jesus' head was wrapped separately, thereby further proving prior to examining the shroud that it could not possibly be Jesus' burial cloth.[/list=a]

Address these goddamned arguments!

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

leonarde · 04-05-2002, 11:31 AM

Posted by Mageth:

Quote:

AFAIK, dead men don't bleed, esp. out the top or extremities of the body, after what must have
been at least a couple of hours, and after being cleaned up.

This is another example of what
I was saying to Asha'man: people enter the thread
late or skip several pages and then they want to
go over stuff we already touched on. Okaaaaaay,
somewhere back there (forgot the pages)I gave info
from at least 2 forensic pathology texts. In ONE
of them I specifically quote the author(s) on the
phenomenon of postmortem bleeding. Sorry, you will
have to find it yourself. Dead men don't wear plaid but they do indeed SOMETIMES bleed (and sometimes for hours later).
Cheers!

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde · 04-05-2002, 11:50 AM

Koy, thanks for your participation. You ask me to
respond to certain things. Before I even attempt
to though, I ask that YOU respond to my last question directed at you on this very page:

Quote:

posted April 04, 2002 12:59 PM

Partial post by Koy:

quote:

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)

What of "MY own evidence" states that they would
most likely be arterial wounds?

Until you do answer that question, I'm going to
more or less ignore you.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-05-2002, 11:51 AM

AFTER THEY HAVE DIED FROM BLOOD LOSS AND DRAINED ANY REMAINING POST MORTEM BLOOD FOR TWO HOURS HANGING FROM A CROSS?

APPLY CRITICAL ANALYSIS TO YOUR GODDAMNED SOURCES!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-05-2002, 11:52 AM

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 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.[*] 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 that Jesus' head was wrapped separately, thereby further proving prior to examining the shroud that it could not possibly be Jesus' burial cloth.[/list=a]

Address these goddamned arguments!

leonarde · 04-05-2002, 12:02 PM

It's been taken care of, leonarde.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

Okay. It's copacetic.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

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

04-05-2002, 08:41 AM	#311
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Boro Nut, This is very much a peripheral matter: speculation by me and you about the differences between clots from veins and those from arteries. Again my speculation: although both such clots have indeed been exposed to air (and thus oxygen) the blood from an artery would have had---at the moment of exposure----ALREADY a richer supply of oxygen: the oxygen bound via hemoglobin WITHIN the red blood cells. The blood from a vein would have less of such oxygen (ie the oxygen from the red blood cell would have been distributed to the cells of the body. Now if and how and how quickly the red blood cells lose this hemoglobin oxygen I don't know: that is where I would have to do research. NO ONE here but you said anything about "arterial spraying": there is no mention of any such thing in the literature. Cheers!

04-05-2002, 10:20 AM	#313
britinusa Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: State College, PA Posts: 283	Tercel We must be looking at different threads. This thread has been largely dominated by Koy's demolition of Leonarde, with the latter being about as evasive as Usama Bin Laden. But hey, Koy, like many of us, is a battle-hardened veteran of many skirmishes with slippery xians. BTW do you think the three teams that examined the shroud were handpicked by Madelyn Murray O'Hair? Is there some vast atheist conspiracy to cast doubt on the shroud? I'm not in the least bit threatened by it. If it is 2000 years old, so what? The really hard part is proving that it was Jesus's. And if that can be done, I for one would be delighted. It would be really cool. Most atheists believe Jesus was a real person, and many of them think he was an OK guy. A genuine shroud of Turin, however, doesn't prove his divinity; doesn't even come close. So why would we be threatened by it? I wonder why Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus aren't rushing to defend the shroud's authenticity. If it was claimed the shroud was used to bury Alexander the Great, I'm sure most xians would accept the c-dating and move on. Tercel, I will admit that I must have got you confused with someone else. Leonarde, Paul had a vision of christ, years after the alleged resurrection. But that's for a whole new thread. I'm not saying ALL xians believe the shroud is the real deal. I'm sure many don't, its just that I've never met one My wife believes its real, but she also believes Richard Nixon was behind the JFK assassination Leonarde The "fatboy Pilate" bit was just an attempt at humour. It wasn't important, but typically it was the only part of my post that you addressed. Just typical. I'm surprised you didn't bombard me with links to websites arguing that Pilate was anorexic.

04-05-2002, 10:37 AM	#314
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	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. AFAIK, dead men don't bleed, esp. out the top or extremities of the body, after what must have been at least a couple of hours, and after being cleaned up. Not to mention after having lost what must have been a considerable amount of blood when being crucified. Dead men have no blood pressure, so nothing to force the blood out. Gravity pulls the blood still in the blood vessels down in the body, into the back if the body is reclining. Plus, rigor mortis begins to set in and the blood begins coagulating in sutu. Oddly enough, the theory that the blood stains were "post-mortem" bleeding, IMO, supports the theory that Jesus wasn't really dead!

04-05-2002, 10:41 AM	#315
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	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 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.[] 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 that Jesus' head was wrapped separately, thereby further proving prior to examining the shroud that it could not possibly be Jesus' burial cloth.[/list=a] Address these goddamned arguments! [ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

04-05-2002, 11:51 AM	#318
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	AFTER THEY HAVE DIED FROM BLOOD LOSS AND DRAINED ANY REMAINING POST MORTEM BLOOD FOR TWO HOURS HANGING FROM A CROSS? APPLY CRITICAL ANALYSIS TO YOUR GODDAMNED SOURCES!

04-05-2002, 11:52 AM	#319
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	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 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.[] 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 that Jesus' head was wrapped separately, thereby further proving prior to examining the shroud that it could not possibly be Jesus' burial cloth.[/list=a] Address these goddamned arguments!

04-05-2002, 12:02 PM	#320
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	It's been taken care of, leonarde. [ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ] Okay. It's copacetic. [ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ] [ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.