Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 04-06-2002, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
<strong>Posted by SC: Please read
the thread, SC: you are embarrassing yourself again on this thread.</strong>

Embarassing myself? Leonarde must mean in a different way than how the others on this thread are humiliating him. *laugh*

BTW, if someone cares to quote me, it is just responsible to quote the entire sentence:

Quote:

see no citations but only websites with references to journal articles.

Aside from the one textbook leonarde took quotes entirely out of context, it is up to leonarde to show how he had provided any scientific citations.

Keep up the good work, leonarde. Maybe you can successfully deflect attention to your weak arguments by making Douglasesque reasoning.

SC

leonarde · 04-06-2002, 06:35 AM

Posted by SC:

Quote:

For those who do not know, Zugibe is actually making a better attempt at science than leonarde is.

What a misstatement of the situation!!! For example:
1)neither SC nor any of my esteemed opponents here
had ever even HEARD of Zugibe until reading what
I posted here.
2)I neither agreed nor disagreed with Zugibe nor
with any of the other Shroud-studying forensic
pathologists here: I merely adduced their findings.
3)SC calls Zugibe a "colleague"(!!!!!). Zugibe is
a medical doctor and a respected forensic pathologist whereas SC is an internet flame-war
specialist. Some "colleague"....
4)SC neglects to mention that his "colleague" believes in authenticity (of the first 2 points of
the 3 point scale) as Barbet, Bucklin, Delage etc.
do/did. Therefore they are on MY side in this little debate.

SC, to prove how I "took things out of context"
you have merely to look the textbooks up yourself.
But that would:
1)involve doing something useful.
2)prove you wrongo!

Cheers!

Principia · 04-06-2002, 06:47 AM

Quote:

SC calls Zugibe a "colleague"(!!!!!). Zugibe is a medical doctor and a respected forensic pathologist whereas SC is an internet flame-war specialist. Some "colleague"....

If leonarde *says* so... *laugh* It actually gives me great pleasure to know something that leonarde doesn't about how wrong he is in the above statement. I have nothing to prove to him except his own ignorance.

Quote:

4)SC neglects to mention that his "colleague" believes in authenticity (of the first 2 points of the 3 point scale) as Barbet, Bucklin, Delage etc. do/did. Therefore they are on MY side in this little debate.

Where did I argue or use the word 'authenticity?' I argued that leonarde had little knowledge required to interpret the medical findings. To date, leonarde has shown little improvement in that regard, despite his attempts at teaching himself.

Enough said,
SC

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Principia · 04-06-2002, 07:03 AM

Quote:

SC, to prove how I "took things out of context" you have merely to look the textbooks up yourself. But that would:
1)involve doing something useful.

'Something useful' apparently means to leonarde to read textbooks without the humility of recognizing that the subject material is beyond his understanding. Point of fact, I do not have to look up any textbooks to recognize how leonarde took the one quote from the one textbook entirely out of context.

SC

leonarde · 04-06-2002, 07:03 AM

I had intended to drop the subject of the cause of
death in a crucifixion but on a lark decided to look in an encyclopedia under "crucifixion".
I consulted page 762 of volume 3 of Micropaedia/
Ready Reference , "THE New Encyclopaedia Britannica" , 15th edition, (Encyclopedia Britannica Inc)(Chicago etc). The entry is
suprisingly long and to my surprise, it states
that crucifixion was abolished in the Roman Empire
by Emperor Constantine in 337 AD "out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion." That was a century earlier than I had previously thought that crucifixion was eliminated. Of most pertinence for
us:

Quote:

Death, apparently caused by exhaustion
or by heart failure, could be hastened by shattering the legs (crurifragium) with an iron
club, so that shock and asphyxiation soon ended his life.

leonarde · 04-06-2002, 07:15 AM

Posted by SC:

Quote:

'Something useful' apparently means to leonarde to read textbooks without the humility of recognizing that the subject material is beyond his understanding.

Come rushing, everyone!! SC is going to give "lessons in humility".
No thanks! I can see your great humility on the
"Biblical Equations" thread here. Not to mention
the 4 anti-Douglas threads you started at ARN.
"Humility"....."The corruption of thought begins
with the corruption of language".

Principia · 04-06-2002, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Zugibe:Acceptance of the hypothesis that the crucified was not washed would therefore place the authenticity of the Turin Shroud in serious jeopardy... If the deceased individual had not been washed, these well-defined wound patterns depicted on the Shroud could not be present.

This statement is what I believe is a qualification of what leonarde considers a solid argument of 'authencity.' Zugibe is clearly making authenticity conditional on his hypothesis. Of course, short of taking a brain-dead individual (to avoid the ethical dilemmas), draining it of a good measure of blood ante-mortem and inducing death in a manner consistent with crucifixion, waiting for several hours, washing it, wrapping it in a shroud, and then observing the outcomes after some time, Zugibe has taken his scientific venture to a limit. What is left? A mere conditional argument.

Not only that, Zugibe is careful not to equate conclusively the 'Man of the Shroud' with the Biblical figure in the articles. Because, to establish *uniqueness* he would have to argue that historically, head wounds, chest wounds, and all the other physical indications of the corpse from the shroud were not replicated in any other crucifixions.

So what is leonarde left with? Well, according to him, more humiliation apparently. *laugh*

SC

Principia · 04-06-2002, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
I had intended to drop the subject of the cause of
death in a crucifixion but on a lark decided to look in an encyclopedia under "crucifixion".
I consulted page 762 of volume 3 of Micropaedia/
Ready Reference , "THE New Encyclopaedia Britannica" , 15th edition, (Encyclopedia Britannica Inc)(Chicago etc).

*laugh* Now leonarde is going to use the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a legitimate medical reference for the cause of death by crucifixion???

Enough said,
SC

Principia · 04-06-2002, 07:24 AM

Quote:

I can see your great humility on the
"Biblical Equations" thread here. Not to mention
the 4 anti-Douglas threads you started at ARN.

Is leonarde saying that he actually *supports* Douglas's equations?

Stay tuned for the (not so surprising) revelation,
SC

Principia · 04-06-2002, 07:29 AM

Hey, I can
see now why leonarde posts
as he does. It is
fun.

Hmm. It's my 4th consecutive post,
and, I think maybe it is time
for a page long
quote:

Quote:

The Man of the Shroud died of asphyxiation. Asphyxiation is a physiological and chemical state which results from an inability of a living organism to obtain adequate oxygen for cell metabolism and to eliminate excess carbon dioxide. Usually, a six to ten minute span of complete respiratory obstruction causes irreversible brain damage and perhaps death. The asphyxiation or suffocation theory was first propounded by LeBec in 1925 5, 6 and Hynek in 1936.7, 8 It was, however, Barbet who refined it and gave it its greatest impetus when he argued that three kinds of evidence all, a priori supported his hypothesis:

The first evidence was the bifurcation pattern corresponding to the image of the wound on the back of the hand. This was interpreted by Barbet as representing two positions assumed by Jesus on the cross in order to expire (breathe out). He postulated that Jesus was unable to expire in the lower position and had to push up with his feet in order to expel the air from his lungs. The interpretation of the bifurcation pattern is utterly absurd because this pattern is located on the back of the hand-not on the front. Why should that matter? Very simply, the back of the hand is pressed against the patibulum of the cross by the nailing. How in the world can you get a perfect double flow of blood? The heart is beating and is constantly extruding blood through the wound and I assure the reader that the hand is heavily endowed with blood vessels in vast networks constantly feeding from major blood vessels on both sides of the hand. This would create a large blood smudge with blood all over the hand, wrist and down the arm. This is supported by British Home Office Pathologist James Cameron, a forensic pathologist who indicated that a nail passing through the area of the median nerve would most likely hit a main artery. Every movement on the cross would result in episodes of oozing and over several hours there would be a substantial blood collection. Another important point that militates against the two positions causing a "double flow of blood" is the fact that the wrist does not change its angle even if the victim had to raise himself in order to breathe. The reason-The arms bend at the elbows and not at the wrists. We confirmed this during our suspension experiments described below. An additional consideration derives from the excruciating pain that would be experienced if the cruciarius attempted to raise himself by putting an amount of pressure equal to the weight of the body against the nails.

Barbet's second evidence derived from the crucifragium or skelokopia (breaking of the legs) of the two thieves (not Jesus), postulated by Barbet as preventing the cruciarius from raising himself in order to breathe. The reconstructions of the positions on the cross by both Haas9 and Zias and Sekeles10 from the Giv�at ha Mivtar Excavation of the crucified 7 A.D. Jew, however, present evidence that the legs were not broken to prevent the individual from lifting himself to breathe because the body was already in a maximal, lifted position. Zias and Sekeles, however, contend that Haas� interpretation that the fractured tibia and fibula bones were due to crurifragium is incorrect because the breaks are at different angles and must have occurred after death. This interpretation does not appear to be correct from a forensic point of view, because there may have been more than one blow at different angles. The ritual of crurifragium (skelokopia) was usually performed at a time when the victim was near death. This would be the coup de grace blow which would hasten death by causing severe traumatic shock in a person near death and in some instances, fatty embolism could occur. Some authors have indicated that crurifragium was done to prevent the victim from crawling away following removal from the cross so that wild animals could devour their victims and Graves et al11 and Seneca12 both indicated that crurifragium was also used as a form of punishment. Barbet's third and last argument concerned the findings of the Dachau concentration camp reports, where victims were suspended by their wrists directly above their heads requiring them to raise themselves with their hands in order to expire. Applying these observations to the asphyxiation theory is like comparing apples to oranges. Here's why! When the hands and arms are raised above the head to support the weight of the body, it is an entirely different situation than that of a person suspended at an angle of 60-70 degrees with the stipes (upright). If Jesus was suspended with his hands directly above his head, then there indeed, would be difficulty breathing but not if the victim is suspended with his arms spread apart to create an angle of 65 to 70 degrees. Even Barbet concludes that Jesus was suspended at an angle of about 70 degrees. This is also borne out on the photo of the cadaver he suspended in his book Le cinq plait du Christ and on the crucifix sculpted by Villandre1, 2 according to the specifications given by Barbet. The results of Moedder's experiments are frequently used to support the asphyxiation hypothesis but he suspended students by the wrists with their hands above their heads and with the hands less than 40 inches apart on a horizontal bail. It may be of interest to note that Dr. P.J. Smith disagreed with Barbet's asphyxiation theory in appendix two of Barbet's own book.2

The link, of course, is <a href="http://www.shroud.com/zugibe.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/zugibe.htm</a>.

SC

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.