Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-09-2002, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Orginally posted by leonarde: Therefore to suggest, as
Koy has, that these are just a bunch of Papist
apologists who aren't to be trusted is being a little......silly.

YOUR SOURCES (Bucklin and Zugibe specifically) have been demonstrated to be biased, one of which you freely granted (Bucklin).

ENOUGH OF THIS CONSTANT REDIRECTION!

leonarde · 04-09-2002, 11:30 AM

Bucklin was "biased", among other reasons, because
he did a study, cited by Meacham, in 1961 in which he found forensic authenticity to the Shroud. This was 17 years before he was selected for the STURP. Was Bucklin supposed to die at the age of 85 without making up his mind about the Shroud just so that Koy would say he was "unbiased"? If not, then when could he make up his mind?

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-09-2002, 11:35 AM

So, what, you're hiding now in the number of posts? I can just as easily go back and get the quotes showing Bucklin's christian bias regarding the shroud.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-09-2002, 11:39 AM

From page 6 of this stupidity:

Of note from Dr. Bucklin's obituary, mentioned entirely to demonstrate his bias:

Quote:

I am deeply saddened to hear that our tall, gentle giant of the "Silent Witness," Dr. Robert Bucklin, passed away. I first met him through Fr. Peter Rinaldi in Turin, Italy, in October 1978. As we walked together through the streets of Turin, Bob said, "The man on the Shroud is proof that He was dead and that a living G-d brought back His body and made the imprint on His Shroud. That is my private opinion." And I agreed.

Note the date, 1978, the time when Dr. Bucklin was allegedly there as an "objective" pathologist engaged in, presumably, non-biased research of the Shroud's authenticity.

Quote:

Although he loved the challenges, intuition and expertise necessary to the forensic medical physician, his main interest for some fifty years dwelt in the scientific study of the Shroud of Turin as the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. He was an active participant in numerous scientific groups seeking the cause and studying the evidence left by the image of the man on the Shroud. After all his years of meticulous research, actual examination of the cloth and the facts, Dr. Bucklin became totally convinced that the markings seen on the image... correlated with the reported historical events surrounding the torture and murder by crucifixion of... Jesus Christ.

Of note, of course, are the elipses and the bias that apparently began at least during his "objective" examination of the shroud in '78.

Quote:

Over the past Easter season Dr. Bob spent ten days with me. While here he gave a Shroud talk at my church on Easter Sunday and two other Shroud talks at local churches. He decided to devote full time to giving Shroud talks in which he intended to place more emphasis on the spiritual aspects of the Shroud, which he in-fact did in his last three talks.

Note the "emphasis on the spiritual aspects" of the shroud.

Quote:

All who knew Bob loved and respected him. Although we miss him terribly, we take comfort in knowing that he is in a "far better place" for, as he believed, 'to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord', Who has now revealed to him the great mystery of the Shroud, His love letter in linen, written in His own blood.

Again, of note, the obvious religious beliefs prevalent that I contend biased and clouded his "objectivety" and "conclusions."

Quote:

Having already investigated the Shroud and its message for thirty years, he did a great deal to inform and inspire us

What "message" would that be for an objective, non-biased pathologist? That death by crucifixion is horrific? Doubtful.

Quote:

I first came to know of Dr. Bucklin through his appearance in the film, "Silent Witness," about the Shroud of Turin. It was Bob's professional, matter-of-fact presentation of the 'autopsy' report of the Shroud image which helped fasten my attention and interest in furthering my own Shroud research, and later on, in establishing the New York Shroud of Turin Society.

We can only pray that Bob Bucklin is in the divine hands of our Lord, God Jesus Christ forevermore!

Not so much an indictment of Dr. Bucklin as evidence for the christian bias of those within his circle.

He may very well have been a remarkable pathologist when it came to investigating actual dead bodies, but it is clear from everything posted that his christian bias clouded that expertise in regard to the shroud, IMO.

leonarde · 04-09-2002, 11:41 AM

For hyzer:

Quote:

posted March 18, 2002 05:10 PM
Another sub-controversy surrounding the Shroud of
Turin is the question of the (ostensible)blood on
it. Walter McCrone, a microscopist of solid repute
looked at the "blood" and proclaimed it....medieval pigment. The other members of the
Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) challenged this and this led the McCrone's
resignation (ie that the others would not accept
his results uncritically). As you perhaps know
by now, I am an authenticity adherent. Piczek's
URLs indicate why the "blood" could NOT be pigment
----medieval or otherwise.
Yet even if we eliminate paint that still
leaves the question: what is the "blood" really? What convinced me of the realness of the blood was a book by John H. Heller called
"Report on the Shroud of Turin" (1983, Houghton Mifflin Company)that details the efforts by
STURP members to determine whether the "blood" was blood. The book reads a bit like a detective story but this is not the Sherlock Holmesian one-man-knows-all-the-answers story.
Rather it is a picture of the intellectual give and take that, one likes to think, is characteristic of the best in scientific collegiality.
The total STURP team was composed of about
forty members: scientists from a broad array
of specializations. Naturally though, there
was some division of the labor: scientist X looking at just that aspect of the Shroud that was most amenable to his area of expertise.
Author Heller and fellow STURP member A. Adler concentrated to a large degree on the "blood".
Their determination that it was indeed blood is best summarized by reproducing a table on this
subject from page 215 of Heller's book:

Table 5
Tests confirming the presence of whole blood
on the Shroud.

1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence.
2.Indicative reflection spectra.
3.Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra.
4.Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence.
5.Positive hemochromogen tests.
6.Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests.
7.Positive detection of bile pigments.
8.Positive demonstration of protein.
9.Positive indication of albumin.
10.Protease tests, leaving no residue.
11.Positive immunological test for human albumin.
12.Microscopic appearance as compared with
appropriate controls.
13.Forensic judgement of the appearance of
the various wound and blood marks.

Leonarde again: numbers 12 and 13 might be a bit
tendentious but how many tests for blood do we need?

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-09-2002, 11:57 AM

Since I've mentioned the scientific team that
examined, tested and probed the Shroud for
thousand of man hours in the 1970's to 1980's
I thought it might be appropriate to give their backgrounds:

Investigators for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) include:

Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*
Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography* Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography* Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office
Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*
Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado*
Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM*
Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University
Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation*
Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum
Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center
Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation*
Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph*
John Heller, New England Institute
John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories*
Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center*
Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios*

The above list was taken from the big Shroud website run by the above-named Schwortz.

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-09-2002, 12:01 PM

As for the 1961 date, here's what Bucklin concluded regarding the Man on the Shroud prior to his involvement with STURP:

Quote:

MEACHAM: The evidence of death in a position of suspension by the arms coupled with the characteristic wounds and blood flows indicate that the individual had been crucified...Two theories, each supported by experimental or wartime observations, contend as regards cause of death: asphyxiation due to muscular spasm, progressive rigidity, and inability to exhale (Barbet, Hynek, Bucklin) or circulatory failure from lowering of blood pressure and pooling of blood in the lower extremities (Moedder, Willis).

Note Moedder and Willis theorized circulatory failure from lowering blood pressure and pooling of blood in the lower extremities.

Quote:

MEACHAM: "Each of the different wounds acted in a characteristic fashion. Each bled in a manner which corresponded to the nature of the injury. The blood followed gravity in every instance" (Bucklin 1961:5)

Bucklin, regarding the Man on the Shroud, pointing out that the blood flow on the outside at least, followed gravity. I wonder what happened to the blood on the inside, if any remained?

And what did Bucklin say regarding the "historical documents" standard you asked me about, leonarde?

Quote:

MEACHAM: To suggest that science (in the form of direct testing of the cloth) can attain only a certain point, beyond which lies subjective opinion or faith, is to ignore the essentially scientific character of historical knowledge. This attitude is reflected even in the much more reasonable conclusion of STURP member Bucklin (1981:189) that identification of the Shroud man "is not within the realm of science, but may be decided by careful historical inquiry."

And yet more, from Bucklin regarding Meacham:

Quote:

I find the report by Meacham extremely satisfying. His approach is thoughtful, scientific, and rational, and he has objectively combined known results of highly technical research findings with his comprehensive review of historical events and biblical references.

...

Scientifically speaking, one's faith or religious beliefs should play no role in arriving at a conclusion concerning the true nature of the Shroud. On the other hand, it would be a gross injustice to deny to one who believes the biblical account of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that the physical findings on the Shroud of Turin, in correlation with pertinent historical facts discovered thus far, including those related in the Bible, make a strong argument that the Man of the Shroud and Jesus Christ could indeed be one and the same. Obviously, this judgement must, in the end, be a matter of personal conviction.

That was just from Meacham's diatribe.

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-09-2002, 12:06 PM

From the URL you gave us to Bucklin's own commentary:

Quote:

Buclin:At this point, the pathologist has garnered much information about the injuries to the body from a purely objective point of view. As a knowledgeable and expertly trained forensic pathologist he has the right and obligation to rely upon available historical and other evidentiary information in order to support or deny his impressions. He will avail himself of other scientific testing, including radiological studies and hematological and chemical testing of the substances which he has found on the body. By these tests, he will be able to confirm the presence of blood. He may also make other observations based on microscopic and genetic studies.

It is the ultimate responsibility of the medical examiner to confirm by whatever means are available to him the identity of the deceased, as well as to determine the manner of this death. In the case of Man on the Shroud, the forensic pathologist will have information relative to the circumstances of death by crucifixion which he can support by his anatomic findings. He will be aware that the individual whose image is depicted on the cloth has undergone puncture injuries to his wrists and feet, puncture injuries to his head, multiple traumatic whip-like injuries to his back and postmortem puncture injury to his chest area which has released both blood and a water type of fluid. From this data, it is not an unreasonable conclusion for the forensic pathologist to determine that only one person historically has undergone this sequence of events. That person in Jesus Christ.

leonarde · 04-09-2002, 12:09 PM

Koy,
I agree 100% with Meacham and Bucklin: though
forensic science and other technical/medical/scientific fields are invaluable
in the end the "identification" question is one of
archaeology/history. Archaeology and history always make use of documents when such are available. That doesn't mean such documents
are regarded as "Gospel" (I'm speaking metaphorically now): religious documents must be viewed critically as well. After reading Meacham
for 2 to 3 years I have full confidence in him and
have learned a great deal from him, not only about
the Shroud but about the general tasks and outlook
of archaeologists.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-09-2002, 12:14 PM

To clarify in case anyone is wondering why I re-posted all of this, it is abundantly clear form Bucklin's own pen that he didn't "make up his mind" regarding the shroud being Jesus based on anything other than the Gospel of John; i.e., the "historical documents" standard, which, it goes without saying, no unbiased pathologist would have done for the reasons previously posted ad nauseum by myself and others that lenoarde never directly countered!

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

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

04-09-2002, 11:30 AM	#402
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Bucklin was "biased", among other reasons, because he did a study, cited by Meacham, in 1961 in which he found forensic authenticity to the Shroud. This was 17 years before he was selected for the STURP. Was Bucklin supposed to die at the age of 85 without making up his mind about the Shroud just so that Koy would say he was "unbiased"? If not, then when could he make up his mind? Cheers!

04-09-2002, 11:35 AM	#403
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	So, what, you're hiding now in the number of posts? I can just as easily go back and get the quotes showing Bucklin's christian bias regarding the shroud. [ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

04-09-2002, 11:57 AM	#406
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Since I've mentioned the scientific team that examined, tested and probed the Shroud for thousand of man hours in the 1970's to 1980's I thought it might be appropriate to give their backgrounds: Investigators for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) include: Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation* Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography* Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography* Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography* Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.* Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado* Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM* Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation* Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation* Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph* John Heller, New England Institute John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy* Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy* Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory* Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory* Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories* Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center* Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios* The above list was taken from the big Shroud website run by the above-named Schwortz.

04-09-2002, 12:09 PM	#409
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Koy, I agree 100% with Meacham and Bucklin: though forensic science and other technical/medical/scientific fields are invaluable in the end the "identification" question is one of archaeology/history. Archaeology and history always make use of documents when such are available. That doesn't mean such documents are regarded as "Gospel" (I'm speaking metaphorically now): religious documents must be viewed critically as well. After reading Meacham for 2 to 3 years I have full confidence in him and have learned a great deal from him, not only about the Shroud but about the general tasks and outlook of archaeologists. Cheers!

04-09-2002, 12:14 PM	#410
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	To clarify in case anyone is wondering why I re-posted all of this, it is abundantly clear form Bucklin's own pen that he didn't "make up his mind" regarding the shroud being Jesus based on anything other than the Gospel of John; i.e., the "historical documents" standard, which, it goes without saying, no unbiased pathologist would have done for the reasons previously posted ad nauseum by myself and others that lenoarde never directly countered! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.