leonarde

For anyone interested in a paper dealing with
the Sudarium of Oviedo in more detail than my
previous link on that subject (on page 3 of this
thread) see:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm</a>

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

No, I did not "claim" I found a contradiction, I posted the contradiction that Meacham himself was reporting so that the question regarding whether or not blood had absorbed through the shroud was made in order to support my arguments about blood absorption which you have never addressed.

If any blood at all was absorbed by the cloth, then this proves that the blood was still fresh.

If any blood absorbed all the way through the first shroud and into the "napkin" (as you claim is the case), the there would have had to have been a tremendous amount of fresh blood that would have saturated the shroud prior to absorbing into the Sudarium of Oviedo!

Pleas address the arguments instead of making up your own straw men!

Which I never claimed in this regard, but nice try to bolster Meacham using this misdirectional straw man!

Yes, I know. This was never in contention, other than to point out that there was a discrepency between STURP and the Turin Commission regarding the absorption of blood in order to support my arguments regarding blood absorption and what that would necessarily entail; i.e., fresh blood and saturation of the shroud, if in fact the Sudarium of Oviedo was the "napkin" John states was on Jesus' head (as opposed to the shroud around Jesus' body).

These are the arguments I was making in regard to the blood absorption information Meacham presented; not that the contradictory aspect of the STURP findings as opposed to the Turin Commission's findings represented an indictment of Meacham!

The indictment of Meacham had nothing to do with him presenting the contradictory findings of the two teams he was referencing.

Try and pay closer attention to avoid this pointless redirectional straw man crap, yes?

Wrong. Meacham's inconsistency was in regard to the "copious" amounts of blood and water that he claimed matched the biblical account, only to then report the actual findings of "all" of the scientists, who stated quite clearly that the "small" amount of blood proved a postmortum wound.

It goes to the bias of the author and how, just like with the "forensic expert" you posted a link too as well, this bias clouds and discredits the analysis.

Since you attempted this transparent evasion instead of addressing the proper arguments in their proper context, I can only conclude at this point that you aren't capable of addressing the arguments and therefore, indirectly are conceding them.

Please prove me wrong by addressing the right arguments in the right places, yes?

It would be a refreshing change of pace.

As we current New Yorkers say, "Answer the goddamned questions, ya' f*ck!"

Always meant lovingly, of course.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

leonarde

Koy posted: 1) Medical examiners typically examine corpses.
2) The Shroud of Turin is NOT a corpse though it
contains the image of one.
3) Bucklin was THE forensic pathologist of the
STURP team.
4) He examined the Shroud in person in Turin in
1978
AND
5) He made use of photos, fluorescent and infra-
red scanners, and many, many, other technical
means that the STURP team employed.

Yesterday the objection was that Meacham, an archaeologist, was writing about forensics. Today
it is that a forensic pathologist is writing about forensic pathology. Ugh!

leonarde

Robert Bucklin, the STURP forensic pathologist,
died last year and the following link provides
an obituary and tributes which indicate his professional background and involvement with the
Shroud (which overall lasted far longer than that of most typical STURP members).
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/late01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/late01.htm</a>

Koyaanisqatsi

Oh, for f*ck's sake lenarde!

Address the arguments made directly instead of transparently trying to childishly dismiss it all with these pathetic straw men!

ONE ancillary observation I made was that Meacham was an archaelogist who spent the majority of his paper discussing the forensics information. The title of his paper was: The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology and yet he spent the majority of his paper discussing forensics, something he is not qualified to discuss and has no relevane to Archaelogical Epistomology, the alleged thesis of his paper.

Why? Why would an archaelogist whose topic of expertise is not forensics spend the majority of a paper supposedly focused upon the Archaeological Epistomology of the shroud spend so much irrelevant time discussing the forensics pathology?

The question goes to the bias and motive of the author as well as his credibility. He is not an expert in forensics pathology, yet he spends the majority of his treatise on forensic pathology! That's exceedingly unprofessional as well as downright unorthodox, seriously impeding his credibility as either an archaelogist, pathologist or, simply, scholar, IMO.

Regardless, such commentary on my part was ancillary to the arguments I made and you have consistently evaded with these childish straw men.

Why? Explain to us all how a man who has died of blood loss and has been hanging dead for at least two hours in the hot desert afternoon (granting your own conditions) could possibly have any fresh blood left on him to absorb into just one burial linen, let alone two!

Address the fact that the Gospel of John is the only gospel to mention the side piercing, arguably making this Gospel the most accurate if the shroud is authentic (meaning that it's Jesus), yet the same Gospel tells us that Jesus' body was wrapped separately from his head and further, as Shuttlebop informs us from your beloved NIV, that Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body in strips and not a shroud!

These are the pertinent arguments derived from Meacham and Piczek and your posts that you keep evading with these transparent straw man arguments you claim I'm making and never have.

I assure you, with the exception of Tercel ( ), no one in here is that stupid.

Now, for the umpteenth time, would you please address the arguments and stop with these pointless evasion attempts?

Yes, I know. The question I asked was to try and determine whether or not this man examined the actual shroud or just the photographs.

I still don't have a clear-cut answer.

Then they should have found a better specialist, IMO; one who wasn't so biased as to suggest that the "other stains" were like "water" since water doesn't stain linen and would only be used if one is attempting to force a reconciliation of the Gospel of John's account prior to "objective" analysis!

No "objective" forensic pathologist would say that stains on a "Sepia-yellow in color" linen shroud (Meacham) would "resemble water" unless they are disingenuously attempting to force a tenuous link to the Gospel of John claims that when Jesus was pierced in the side (and not "over the right pectoral") blood and water came out!

"Clear" stains on a Sepia-yellow cloth are neither "clear" nor "water," as any unbiased pathologist would immediately recognize. Both Meacham and Bucklin repeatedly attempt to force the connection to "water" for one reaons and one reason only, IMO; to force a link with the GJohn myth.

At best, a pathologist would say that there are other stains discernable in the cloth that do not have the characteristics of blood, but to state that they are like "water" is to commit a blatant fraud, IMO, or, at least, a desperate wish-fulfillment based upon cult bias.

I ask you, what does a "water" stain look like in Sepia-yellow linen? NOTHING! Because water doesn't stain linen!

The only logical reason for either of these experts to include so much speculation and to repeat the word "water" as often as possible is to establish the tenuous link to the GJohn myth, thereby betraying both their agenda and their bias prior to their investigation, which is why I referenced it.

It impedes their credibility by calling into question their "objectivity."

As for Bucklin, we can clearly see this bias in his conclusion, which you also have not addressed.

Then explain to me his exceptionally unprofessional and illogical conclusion:

How is that in any way shape or form a profesional, unbiased, objective assessment of the Shroud's image, let alone the unwarranted and bizarre leap of logic to conclude "Jesus Christ?"

Why would a pathologist use the words "water type substance" unless it is to force a conclusion about "water" where one is not warranted?

Why would a pathologist so brazenly enforce the notion of searching throughout all of history in order to find a similar post mortum in order to determine the possible identity of the victim, only to completely dismiss any such historical search to conclude "Jesus Christ?"

If he were unbiased and/or professional in regard to his "historical search" claims then he would have stated that the only source he could readily call to mind was the Gospel of John, which is the only source of the pierced side with blood and water "miraculously" pouring out.

An unbiased professional would then further investigate this historical postmortum in the same manner to discover that the Gospel of John states that the body of Jesus was wrapped in strips not a whole clothe (as your NIV states) and, further, that the head of Jesus was covered in an entirely different shroud all together!

If he were truly practicing what he preaches, then he would have used that "historical information" to dismiss the claim of "Jesus," not reinforce it as the "historical information" proves that the Man of the Shroud could not possibly be Jesus!

Clearly, then, this man (and Meacham, who made the exact same claims of historical research, by the way) was deliberately biased toward this conclusion and based his entire analysis upon this a priori belief, as is evident from his shoddy analysis, tenuous conclusions and misapplication of his own guiding principles of research and "forensic duty."

Remain logically consistent or sputter and burn in the wreckage.

You may tattoo that to your forehead so you never again forget it.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

leonarde

Okay, if anyone is STILL reading this thread,
please have a seat, put your beer/yoo-hoo/Chablis
to the side. I have a SHOCKING announcement to
make:

I AGREE WITH KOY ABOUT SOMETHING!!!! That's right!
To wit:
1) Koy criticizes Bucklin for referring to a
"water-like" fluid visible in the Shroud since
"water" has resonance with the "water" springing
forth from the lance wound in John's Gospel. Koy
thinks that Bucklin is allowing his religious beliefs to influence his characterization of the
fluid in question.
After careful thought, I agree: if I had been
Bucklin I would have used some wording that had
no such associations.
Cheers!

leonarde

I hope in the next day or so to answer soberly
the objection(s) of Koy. But perhaps I can find
relevant material rather than merely give my own
opinions.
Cheers!

leonarde

oops! Double post!

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

I probably won't be able to do any research today
on the questions raised but perhaps I can respond
now to one, without doing any particular research.
Posted by Koy: I'll assume that these ARE the most important questions for Koy
and that he hasn't forgotten any. I'm sorry that
I frustrated Koy by only answering "ancillary
questions" but when everything is offered up in
the same shrill tone it can be difficult to discern which questions are the most important
to the questioner.
As to John's Gospel: it has a wealth of detail
on the Crucifixion so it is valuable here in a way that the Synoptic Gospels are not. The witness whose account went into John's Gospel was PROBABLY the Apostle John (ie one of the two male disciples who witnessed the Crucifixion). Koy says: I may be
wrong since I haven't read that passage in some
time but I think the only thing that John's Gospel
says is that Peter and John FOUND the two burial
cloths in the empty tomb on Easter Sunday: the headcloth is, if I remember correctly, rolled up
and separate (ie a few feet away from) the larger
burial cloth. I don't have any koine Greek so
whether the translation of "strips" or "cloth(s)"
is better I cannot say.
It is possible that the headcloth was OVER the
larger burial cloth but in the most recent speculations that I have read the more common
interpretation is that the cloths were used consecutively: after deposition the head cloth was
used to absorb blood and other fluids from the
mouth and nose. After some time (?30 or 45 minutes?) the heaviest bleeding from that region
was largely stanched. Only then (under this scenario) was the larger sheet placed on the body.
I'll think about the other questions.
Cheers!