Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 03-31-2002, 08:47 AM

A very good text dealing with the floral images
and the pollen is available at:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/iannone.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/iannone.pdf</a>

leonarde · 03-31-2002, 09:29 AM

Another question is that of the "coin(s) over the
eyes":

This is definitely a more speculative area
in Shroud research: the authenticity of the
Shroud does NOT at all depend on the concept of the coins proving out. In short:
1)A certain Father Filas (he was a Doctor of
something or other)noticed "something" on the
eyes of the image of the Man of the Shroud.
Now others had claimed that there were cirularish objects there too but this Father
Filas claimed to see in photos certain letters, potentially from the coins. (I believe this work would be done with enhanced
photos). This was around 1981. Filas died in
1985 but his line of inquiry was taken up by
a certain Alan Whanger and his wife, Mary.
2)The idea is simple: to keep the eyes closed
post mortem some people put objects over the
eyes. There is some evidence of that in old
Jewish tombs (coins found in tombs and even
occasionally in skulls)but it's not entirely
clear as in those days (1st Century) there
were "secondary burials": after enough time
had elapsed the remains (sometimes only bones
left)were interred a second time (and presumably the coins were superfluous at this
point).
3)Filas consulted (at least one)coin expert
(numismatist?)and there was an assertion that
the coin could be dated to the time of Tiberius Caesar (29 AD). In fact the 4 letters identified on the alleged "coin"
included 2 from the end of the name "Tiberius" and 2 at the beginning of the word
"Caesar" (in Greek though). Only
problem was: even one of these 4 letters was
misspelled: a "C" for a "K". "Impossible"
said certain other experts.
4)Then(this may have been after Filas' death)
a number of misspelled real Roman coins from
that very era started to show up: they had the EXACT SAME MISSPELLING that had been called "impossible". Why the misspelling? These were very small denomination coins (maybe like our pennies or nickels) which were minted locally (the Judea area). Though Latin was the language of the Empire, for practical reasons Greek was used at least as much in the Eastern Meditteranean(it was the lingua franca). Latin didn't use the letter "K" much at all (take a look in
a Latin dictionary under "K"). Even when they
took a Greek word starting with KAPPA (the
Greek k)they usually switched it to a "C"
spelling: "Kosmos" became "cosmos" etc. So a more or less bi-lingual person working at the coin mint in the first century would think that the "C" looked alright even though it was a "K" that should be there in Caesar's name.(Anybody who knows 2 alphabets can testify that it CAN get confusing at times: especially if those 2 alphabets share some letters like Greek and Latin do.)
5)I believe some other researchers (or perhaps the Whangers themselves) have spotted
a SECOND coin-inscription on or just over the
OTHER eye. But you get the general idea.
For more info on this there is a nice E-mail
exchange between a skeptic named Lombatti and
Whanger himself at: <a href="http://www.shroud.com/lombatti.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/lombatti.htm</a>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

leonarde · 04-01-2002, 05:11 AM

I realized that in my last response to Jack the Bodiless I misspoke a tad: at the time I said that
Islam didn't allow the graphic depiction of religious figures (ie the painting of the forms of the Prophets, including Jesus AND Muhammed). But
afterwards I recognized that the prohibition is much broader than that: Islam forbids the depiction of the human form in ANY RESPECT, whether that human form be a religious or completely secular figure, so the odds of a MUSLIM
Shroud forger are infintessimally small.....

leonarde · 04-01-2002, 08:16 AM

Since some lurkers will no doubt not bother to read the URLs I thought I might post here a bit about the scientific findings about the Sudarium of Oviedo (ie the apparent face cloth used in tandem with the Shroud). So here is a bit about the Sudarium:

Quote:

The stains on the sudarium show that when the cloth was placed on the dead man's face, it was folded over, although not in the
middle. Counting both sides of the cloth, there is therefore a fourfold stain in a logical order of decreasing intensity.

From the composition of the main stains, it is evident that the man whose face the sudarium covered died in an upright position.
The stains consist of one part blood and six parts fluid from a pleural oedema. This liquid collects in the lungs when a crucified
person dies of asphyxiation, and if the body subsequently suffers jolting movements, can come out through the nostrils. These
are in fact the main stains visible on the sudarium.

These stains in the nasal area are also superimposed on each other, with the different outlines clearly visible. This means that the
first stain had already dried when the second stain was formed, and so on.

Dr. Villala�n had a specially modelled head made to reconstruct the process of staining and drying, and was thus able to
calculate the time that elapsed between the formation of each stain.

The cloth was not wrapped entirely round the head because the right cheek was almost touching the right shoulder. This
suggests that the sudarium was put into place while the body was still on the cross. The second stain was made about an hour
later, when the body was taken down. The third stain was made when the body was lifted from the ground about forty five
minutes later. The body was lying at the foot of the cross for about forty-five minutes before being buried. The marks (not
fingerprints) of the fingers that held the cloth to the nose are also visible.

The experiments with the model head and the study of the stains also show that when the man died his head was tilted seventy
degrees forward and twenty degrees to the right. This position further suggests that the man whose face the sudarium covered
died crucified.

There are smaller bloodstains at the side of the main group. It would appear that the sudarium was pinned to the back of the
dead man's head, and that these spots of blood were from small sharp objects, which would logically be the thorns that caused
this type of injury all over Jesus' head.

The medical studies are not the only ones that have been carried out on the sudarium. Dr. Max Frei analysed pollen samples
taken from the cloth, and found species typical of Oviedo, Toledo, North Africa and Jerusalem. This confirms the historical
route described earlier. There was nothing relating the cloth to Constantinople, France, Italy or any other country in Europe.

An international congress was held in Oviedo in 1994, where various papers were presented about the sudarium. Dr. Frei's
work with pollen was confirmed, and enlarged on. Species of pollen called "quercus caliprimus" were found, both of which are
limited to the area of Palestine.

Residues of what is most probably myrrh and aloe have also been discovered, mentioned directly in the gospel of john,
19:39-40, "Nicodemus came as well...and he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes...They took the body of Jesus and bound it
in linen cloths with the spices, following the Jewish burial custom."

The stains were also studied from the point of view of anthropology. The conclusion was that the face that had been in contact
with the sudarium had typically Jewish features, a prominent nose and pronounced cheekbones.

Finally, the very fact that the cloth was kept at all is a sign of its authenticity, as it has no artistic or monetary value at all. All the
studies carried out so far point in one direction, with nothing to suggest the contrary the sudarium was used to cover the head of
the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth from when he was taken down from the cross until he was buried.

Since some photos/illustrations could not
be copied I deleted the captions accompanying them.(The illustrations ARE very useful though).

This is particularly informative as to the fluid
from the lungs: this could be the so-called "water" that was seem flowing from the side/chest
wound at the Crucifixion.
Cheers!

leonarde · 04-01-2002, 08:28 AM

I should have mentioned that my last contained
an excerpt from this URL:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm</a>
Cheers!

leonarde · 04-01-2002, 08:41 AM

And from the same URL, a bit of an introduction
to what the Sudarium is and its history:

Quote:

One of the relics held by the cathedral in the town of Oviedo, in the north of Spain, is a piece of cloth measuring approximately
84 x 53 cm. There is no image on this cloth. Only stains are visible to the naked eye, although more is visible under the
microscope. The remarkable thing about this cloth is that both tradition and scientific studies claim that the cloth was used to
cover and clean the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. We are going to present and look into these claims.

Such a cloth is known to have existed from the gospel of John, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7. These verses read as follows,
"Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the linen cloth lying on the ground, and also the cloth that
had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself." John clearly differentiates between
this smaller face cloth, the sudarium, and the larger linen that had wrapped the body.

The history of the sudarium is well documented, and much more straightforward than that of the Shroud. Most of the
information comes from the twelfth century bishop of Oviedo, Pelagius (or Pelayo), whose historical works are the Book of the
Testaments of Oviedo, and the Chronicon Regum Legionensium.

According to this history, the sudarium was in Palestine until shortly before the year 614, when Jerusalem was attacked and
conquered by Chosroes II, who was king of Persia from 590 to 628. It was taken away to avoid destruction in the invasion,
first to Alexandria by the presbyter Philip, then across the north of Africa when Chosroes conquered Alexandria in 616. The
sudarium entered Spain at Cartagena, along with people who were fleeing from the Persians. The bishop of Ecija, Fulgentius,
welcomed the refugees and the relics, and surrendered the chest, or ark, to Leandro, bishop of Seville. He took it to Seville,
where it spent some years.//snip///

But really it is better to look at the URL.....

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-01-2002, 09:14 AM

Leonarde?

No one cares anymore.

leonarde · 04-01-2002, 11:58 AM

Oh but for the last several pages I have been
working on the lurkers: both current and those
who consult the archives at some future date.

Now then: a subject which came up was that of
bleeding: specifically after death does a corpse immediately cease bleeding due to clotting of blood, or, in some cases, does a corpse continue to lose blood post mortem so that the considerable amount of blood on the Shroud of Turin is compatible with the biological/physical realities?

I had the impression that the latter was (again
sometimes)the case but, not being the wildly
declamatory type, I decided to wait until I had
consulted a textbook which at least touched on
this topic. I had already determined from a cited
source, several pages back on this thread, that
the human body can hold up to 10 pints of blood.
Therefore even severe trauma which costs the body
4 to 6 pints, say, BEFORE death, would still leave
4 to 6 pints in the body(now lifeless). The only
question was: CAN a corpse continue to bleed many
minutes and even hours after death?

I am pleased to announce I found a more complete
source: a text entitled "Forensic Pathology" by
Bernard Knight (MD, MRCP, FRCPath, DMJ(Path),
Barrister), who is/was a Professor of Forensic
Pathology, Wales Institute of Forensic Medicine,
University of Wales College of Medicine, Consultant Forensic Pathologist to the Home Office
. The book is published by Oxford University Press
New York 1991.

Particularly useful is Chapter 13: Complications
of injury. Naturally the first section, called
"Haemorrhage", deals with both pre-death and postmortem bleeding, since ---surprise!---, post-
mortem bleeding CAN occur. From page 308:

Quote:

In some injuries involving arteries, the
musculo-elastic vessel may retract and its wall
invaginate, so that an almost immediate seal prevents copious haemorrhage. Occasionally even
gross injuries such as the amputation of a limb
by a railway wheel may be almost devoid of significant bleeding, because the crushing effect
may combine with arterial wall retraction to seal
the cut vessel effectively. It can sometimes be more dangerous partly to transect an artery than
to divide it completely, as retraction cannot then
take place.[....]

The above is referring to
a still-living human being, so this might apply
to a still-alive crucifixion victim.
In the interests of brevity I will skip further
explication of delayed-bleeding situations to present the following:

Quote:

It is sometimes difficult to know how much of a haemorrhage found at autopsy may be accounted for by post-mortem bleeding. There is little doubt that
the volume may increase after death,but in
most cases this is a small proportion of that which leaked under arterial pressure during life.
[.....]External bleeding can continue after death,
especially from the scalp, and particularly if the head is dependent after death.

All the bold-faced segments above were emphasized by me. Of particular interest for us is the fact that scalp injuries (ie those from
a "crown of thorns") can continue bleeding after
death. This is, no doubt, why NONE of the forensic
pathologists going back several decades who looked
at the Shroud of Turin found ANYTHING amiss in the
large amount(s) of blood on the Shroud and/or Sudarium of Oviedo: the postmortem bleeding is compatible with the basic facts of forensic pathology.

At the very beginning of "Forensic Pathology" there are a couple quotations. One seems pertinent
to our little controversy here about the blood:
it is from Giovanni Morgagni (1682-1771) who is the "Father of Morbid Anatomy" and states:

Quote:

Those who have dissected or inspected many bodies have at least learned to doubt, while those who are ignorant of anatomy and do not take the trouble to attend to it, are in no doubt at all.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-01-2002, 12:19 PM

leonarde, you may continue at will to post what you call evidence, of course, but it is abundantly clear that you do no critical thinking regarding the evidence and, worse, that you have a clear and present bias, which I contend drives your posting.

You are not interested in actually addressing either the evidence you present nor the arguments made. Instead you appear to only desire to persuade through little more than the number of posts, which of course, fools only fools.

Have fun with that.

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-01-2002, 12:57 PM

To demonstrate what I'm on about for these mythical "lurkers" you think are still out there, I'll take your last post for a final hurrah and demonstrate precisely what I'm talking about:

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Now then: a subject which came up was that of bleeding: specifically after death does a corpse immediately cease bleeding due to clotting of blood,

No, that was not a topic that came up. It sounds like one that was brought up, but it was not. Allow me to demonstrate:

Quote:

MORE: or, in some cases, does a corpse continue to lose blood post mortem so that the considerable amount of blood on the Shroud of Turin is compatible with the biological/physical realities?

You have now simply discarded anyone's actual question in order to reform what sounds like an original question into your own wording so that you can, of course, address it. This is what is known as a straw man argument.

Quote:

MORE: I had the impression that the latter was (again sometimes)the case but, not being the wildly declamatory type, I decided to wait until I had consulted a textbook which at least touched on this topic. I had already determined from a cited source, several pages back on this thread, that the human body can hold up to 10 pints of blood.

Which is about a gallon and a half. Again, picture the milk carton in your refrigerator.

Quote:

MORE: Therefore even severe trauma which costs the body 4 to 6 pints, say, BEFORE death, would still leave 4 to 6 pints in the body(now lifeless).

Severe trauma from what? From three hours of arterial bleeding out of some 34 wounds while hanging from a crucifix?

How do you propose that the body stopped what amounts to no more than half of a milk container's contents with over 30 arterial holes in it, four of which were constantly being reopened every single time the victim moved, over at least a three hour period, during which the victim was apparently fully conscious and not dying from anything other than blood loss (since he is alleged to have spoken considerably just prior to "giving up the ghost")?

Quote:

MORE: The only question was: CAN a corpse continue to bleed many minutes and even hours after death?

NO, that was not the question. The question was: CAN a man with 34 arterial wounds who does not die from asphyxiation hang from a cross for three hours and not die from the loss of what amounst to little more than a milk container's worth of blood?

CAN this same man who has apparently died of blood loss (since asphyxiation and poisoning has been ruled out) retain any significant amount of post-mortem blood after having died from blood loss out of 34 arterial wounds over a three hour period and an additional two hour period still hanging dead like a carcas on a meat hook?

Further, CAN a corpse that has been hanging on a crucifix for two hours after dying of blood loss retain any significant amounts of fresh blood in his head and upper body or would all of the body follow gravity down to his feet wounds and legs?

Those are the questions you should be seeking answers to, for those are the alleged "givens" established by the stories of Jesus that you and I agreed upon and you have never addressed.

Oh, you've dissected bits and pieces, like you're doing here, in order to make nothing more than tenuous links here and there that sort of kind of indirectly establishes doubt, but little else.

This is, of course, your job, so well done, but it doesn't work here.

Quote:

MORE: I am pleased to announce I found a more complete source: a text entitled "Forensic Pathology" by Bernard Knight (MD, MRCP, FRCPath, DMJ(Path), Barrister), who is/was a Professor of Forensic Pathology, Wales Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Wales College of Medicine, Consultant Forensic Pathologist to the Home Office. The book is published by Oxford University Press
New York 1991.

Again, the argument from authority.

Quote:

MORE: Particularly useful is Chapter 13: Complications of injury. Naturally the first section, called "Haemorrhage", deals with both pre-death and postmortem bleeding, since ---surprise!---, post- mortem bleeding CAN occur. From page 308:

From a crucified victim who has died of blood loss? No.

So what is the relevancy of this information? Nothing. Other than implication.

Quote:

MORE: In some injuries involving arteries, the musculo-elastic vessel may retract and its wall invaginate, so that an almost immediate seal prevents copious haemorrhage.

Not to a crucified victim, whose primary arterial wounds reopen every single time the poor dumb bastard moves.

Do you remember your own "evidence"? No, you do not, for you offer no critical thinking to your agenda.

Quote:

MORE: Occasionally even
gross injuries such as the amputation of a limb
by a railway wheel may be almost devoid of significant bleeding, because the crushing effect
may combine with arterial wall retraction to seal
the cut vessel effectively.

Fascinating. What about iron spikes through both wrists and ankles which constantly reopen with every muscle contraction?

Quote:

MORE: It can sometimes be more dangerous partly to transect an artery than
to divide it completely, as retraction cannot then
take place.[....]

In a crucified victim? No.

Quote:

MORE: The above is referring to
a still-living human being, so this might apply
to a still-alive crucifixion victim.

Only in your world, leonarde. Only in your world.

Quote:

[b}MORE: [/b] In the interests of brevity I will skip further explication of delayed-bleeding situations to present the following:

You know what? I don't trust you. You apply no critical analysis to the "evidence" you keep spewing and have shown a marked desire to mislead, so, I doubt very seriously that your interests are "brevity," but so be it.

Quote:

MORE: It is sometimes difficult to know how much of a haemorrhage found at autopsy may be accounted for by post-mortem bleeding.

Is this true of a crucifixion victim who has died of blood loss only to remain hanging from the cross for at least two more hours?

Quote:

MORE: There is little doubt that
the volume may increase after death,but in
most cases this is a small proportion of that which leaked under arterial pressure during life.
[.....]External bleeding can continue after death,
especially from the scalp, and particularly if the head is dependent after death.

Is this true of a crucifixion victim who has died of blood loss only to remain hanging from the cross for at least two more hours?

Quote:

MORE: Of particular interest for us is the fact that scalp injuries (ie those from a "crown of thorns")

Did your forensic pathologist mention anything about case studies involving a "crown of thorns" or was this just your own interpolation driven by a specific agenda in the same manner as all of the other "evidence" you keep posting?

Quote:

MORE: can continue bleeding after
death. This is, no doubt, why NONE of the forensic
pathologists going back several decades who looked
at the Shroud of Turin found ANYTHING amiss in the
large amount(s) of blood on the Shroud

"NONE?" You see? Your credibility is now gone.

Quote:

MORE: and/or Sudarium of Oviedo: the postmortem bleeding is compatible with the basic facts of forensic pathology.

Sorry, now your credibility is gone. The post-mortem bleeding is in no way "compatible with the basice facts of forensic pahtology" since you presented absolutely no evidence here of post mortem bleeding in regard to a crucified victim who died of blood loss and then hung from the cross for two more hours draining and drying away further.

This is why your posts here are entirely without substance and so easily dismissed, yet you keep on thinking that all it will take is volume over substance; quantity over quality.

You are, of course, perversely incorrect.

Quote:

MORE: At the very beginning of "Forensic Pathology" there are a couple quotations. One seems pertinent to our little controversy here about the blood: it is from Giovanni Morgagni (1682-1771) who is the "Father of Morbid Anatomy" and states:

Those who have dissected or inspected many bodies have at least learned to doubt, while those who are ignorant of anatomy and do not take the trouble to attend to it, are in no doubt at all.

Doubt what? The obvious blindness of the people like Meacham and Bucklin who clearly and demonstrably set out to prove the bible right instead of find out the truth behind the shroud?

What's the point?

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

03-31-2002, 08:47 AM	#221
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	A very good text dealing with the floral images and the pollen is available at: <a href="http://www.shroud.com/iannone.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/iannone.pdf</a>

03-31-2002, 09:29 AM	#222
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Another question is that of the "coin(s) over the eyes": This is definitely a more speculative area in Shroud research: the authenticity of the Shroud does NOT at all depend on the concept of the coins proving out. In short: 1)A certain Father Filas (he was a Doctor of something or other)noticed "something" on the eyes of the image of the Man of the Shroud. Now others had claimed that there were cirularish objects there too but this Father Filas claimed to see in photos certain letters, potentially from the coins. (I believe this work would be done with enhanced photos). This was around 1981. Filas died in 1985 but his line of inquiry was taken up by a certain Alan Whanger and his wife, Mary. 2)The idea is simple: to keep the eyes closed post mortem some people put objects over the eyes. There is some evidence of that in old Jewish tombs (coins found in tombs and even occasionally in skulls)but it's not entirely clear as in those days (1st Century) there were "secondary burials": after enough time had elapsed the remains (sometimes only bones left)were interred a second time (and presumably the coins were superfluous at this point). 3)Filas consulted (at least one)coin expert (numismatist?)and there was an assertion that the coin could be dated to the time of Tiberius Caesar (29 AD). In fact the 4 letters identified on the alleged "coin" included 2 from the end of the name "Tiberius" and 2 at the beginning of the word "Caesar" (in Greek though). Only problem was: even one of these 4 letters was misspelled: a "C" for a "K". "Impossible" said certain other experts. 4)Then(this may have been after Filas' death) a number of misspelled real Roman coins from that very era started to show up: they had the EXACT SAME MISSPELLING that had been called "impossible". Why the misspelling? These were very small denomination coins (maybe like our pennies or nickels) which were minted locally (the Judea area). Though Latin was the language of the Empire, for practical reasons Greek was used at least as much in the Eastern Meditteranean(it was the lingua franca). Latin didn't use the letter "K" much at all (take a look in a Latin dictionary under "K"). Even when they took a Greek word starting with KAPPA (the Greek k)they usually switched it to a "C" spelling: "Kosmos" became "cosmos" etc. So a more or less bi-lingual person working at the coin mint in the first century would think that the "C" looked alright even though it was a "K" that should be there in Caesar's name.(Anybody who knows 2 alphabets can testify that it CAN get confusing at times: especially if those 2 alphabets share some letters like Greek and Latin do.) 5)I believe some other researchers (or perhaps the Whangers themselves) have spotted a SECOND coin-inscription on or just over the OTHER eye. But you get the general idea. For more info on this there is a nice E-mail exchange between a skeptic named Lombatti and Whanger himself at: <a href="http://www.shroud.com/lombatti.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/lombatti.htm</a> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

04-01-2002, 05:11 AM	#223
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I realized that in my last response to Jack the Bodiless I misspoke a tad: at the time I said that Islam didn't allow the graphic depiction of religious figures (ie the painting of the forms of the Prophets, including Jesus AND Muhammed). But afterwards I recognized that the prohibition is much broader than that: Islam forbids the depiction of the human form in ANY RESPECT, whether that human form be a religious or completely secular figure, so the odds of a MUSLIM Shroud forger are infintessimally small.....

04-01-2002, 08:28 AM	#225
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I should have mentioned that my last contained an excerpt from this URL: <a href="http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm</a> Cheers!

04-01-2002, 09:14 AM	#227
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Leonarde? No one cares anymore.

04-01-2002, 12:19 PM	#229
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	leonarde, you may continue at will to post what you call evidence, of course, but it is abundantly clear that you do no critical thinking regarding the evidence and, worse, that you have a clear and present bias, which I contend drives your posting. You are not interested in actually addressing either the evidence you present nor the arguments made. Instead you appear to only desire to persuade through little more than the number of posts, which of course, fools only fools. Have fun with that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.