Koyaanisqatsi

Nothing I'd like better, Sci!

Koyaanisqatsi

Not in the slightest. You've proved conclusively that blood loss (aka, Hypovelimia and the shock accompanied by it--hypovolemic shock) is the common denominator between at least two of your pathologists (Zugibe and Bucklin).

You've also established that one of your sources (Barret) has determined that the Man on the Shroud died of asphyxiation, thereby ruling out the possibility that the man was Jesus.

You also presented evidence from Zugibe to counter this, but his conclusions are regarding Jesus, not the man on the shroud.

Not to mention (but I will again) Zugibe's obvious non-scientific/non-professionalism regarding his a priori assumptions:

Note his "historical documents" standard adherence as well.

You're trying to avoid addressing my arguments, not what you want to pretend my arguments are or what you think you can redirect my arguments into as all of the above and below demonstrates.

You are avoiding the argument regarding the "historical documents" standard and how your own sources who presented the standard do not follow it, for if they had they would have proved the shroud could not be Jesus', but also the demonstrable a priori christian bias of your sources that I have shown (and you have granted) and how it effects their "conclusions" as well as the fact that there is only one piece of physical evidence that exists (not a comparison of two deaths) and, most annoying of all, you haven't addressed the fact that any remaining blood would have long drained from the upper body!

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

Examine the shroud as if Jesus never existed; examine the "historical documents" (aka, the Jesus myths) as if the shroud never existed; then compare results.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly here, the two do not match, so whatever the shroud may actually be, it cannot be an image of Jesus.

Regardless, as others have pointed out ad nauseum (including Tercel), even if it could be declared to be Jesus depicted in the image, this still means nothing.

Beyond those who think no such person ever existed, the fact that a man named Jesus died on a cross is not in contention.

Did that man resurrect from death and was that man God is in contention.

A "photo" of Jesus as a man in death would certainly be interesting to add into the debate, but hardly conclusive. After all, if his own disciples cared so little about such a "miracle," why the hell did they give it away in the first place (another observation of mine from way back you never addressed)?

Now, kindly stop avoiding the salient points.

Once again, for auld lang syne:


Answer the goddamned questions!

All you've been doing is trying to keep the doubt plate spinning, primarily by conflating the biased a priori assumptions of your pathologists, but also by deliberately confusing what evidence comes directly from the shroud and what evidence comes from disparate sources that amounts to nothing more than pure speculation regarding crucifixion "in general" and then attempting to mix it all up with the myth of Jesus.

It's nothing more than a piecemeal plate spinning act and it's exceedingly tiresome.

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

leonarde

Posted by Scientiae: I would remind
everyone that in the early going Koy had developed
his "milk gallon theory": the body of Jesus would
have bled to death, bled to death SO totally, that
there would not be sufficient blood in the corpse
to leave significant blood on the Shroud and/or
Sudarium of Oviedo. This was because a human body
bleeds, don't you know, just like a milk gallon
empties its contents: relentlessly, non-stop, down
to the last drop. It was in THAT context that I
originally brought up the immediate cause of death
, since if it was NOT blood loss, that ALONE would
eliminate the objection. What was Koy's reaction
at that time to the perusal of the subject? "Who
cares?" (!!!!!!!!). I expressed my astonishment that one who bases inauthenticity on the impossibility of there being sufficient blood in
the corpse on deposition SIMULTANEOUSLY doesn't
CARE what the cause of death is/was. That is what
set me off to the forensic manuals and the like.
What I was expressing in the two most recent posts
by me is this:

1)bodies do NOT normally bleed like milk gallons
empty their contents (ie down to the last drop).

2)sometimes corpses DO bleed postmortem.

3)given the above one could have a crucifixion death BOTH caused by bleeding AND one which had
considerable postmortem bleeding (ie the body could have had 1 or 2 or 3 pints left after death).[We established early that there are 10 pints or so in the human body when alive/healthy].

I'm happy about the no-long-posts intention though.

Cheers!

britinusa

Yes, but remember, we're not talking about any old shroud, right? This Shroud of Turin is magical, yes? That's the point I was making. If you "shroudies" insist on introducing the supernatural into this debate (and lets say you're right to do so) then anything is possible. All bets are off. Some god (not the biblical god) created this shroud 7,000 years ago(or 200, it really doesn't matter) for a joke. Being omniscient, he knew that 5,000 years later the Romans would use crucifixion as a means of punishment. If you believe in the supernatural, then you CANNOT deny this is a possible scenario. Now do you see what I mean? Once again, if you introduce the supernatural into this, then you must admit that anything is possible.

leonarde

Tell me succinctly, Koy, what are YOU saying about
"historical documents"? (succinctly here=300 or so
words).

Cheers!

leonarde

No, the shroud is NOT magical.

britinusa

That's right, Elvis Presley did it. It said so in the National Inquirer so it must be true (just kidding )
Oswald did it, and he did it alone.
But that's another thread, so please, you JFK conspiracy theorists out there, save your ammo

britinusa

I am, are you? Sure, we can discuss Schafersman's ideas. Lets see if we can break the world record for longest thread

Cheers! The next round is on you

leonarde

Posted by Scientiae: I quite agree but
if Barbet is indeed the source then that means
that the "Shroudie" investigators have been doing
research which has enjoyed credibility by those
not directly involved in Shroud-related activities. Or, put another way, Shroud investigators, going back decades, have been "pushing the envelope" on the details of crucifixion A LA ROME. 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.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

Not a theory, an analogy so that people understood just how little blood humans have in their bodies.

Dance the dance and spin those plates!

Which you still haven't addressed, in particular the fact that any remaining blood would have drained to his feet, if not out the holes in them...

Nice try. The analogy was to show how little blood there is and how such little amounts of blood would easily drain out of the 34 arterial wounds I derived from your sources, incorrectly as has been pointed out repeatedly and I have fully granted.

Regardless, none of this is relevant if we take Zugibe and Bucklin who both have the common denominator of hypovelemic shock (blood loss) as well as the simple fact that a gallon and a half of blood pumping out at least four primary wounds and most likely two arterial ones (in the wrists, unless you can demonstrate how a nail large enough to suspend a man could miss the artery; which, by the way, you could if you affirm Zugibe's analysis, possibly, by granting that the nails in the Shroud Man were through the palm, but then you'd have to give up that primary argument debunking the forgery based on palms vs. wrists, so it's a double edged sword) over a three hour period of a person who spoke prior to death and wasn't poisoned most likely means death by blood loss (hypovelemia).

Spin that plate, baby!

And what was the rest (i.e., salient) reaction?

As always, conveniently avoided by leonarde.

Spin, spin, spin...weeeeee!

Crucified bodies? BIG FAT NO!

Conflate while you spin and equivocate around, that's what it's all about!

Ones that have been crucified for three hours, who have most likely died of hypovelemia (blood loss) and have remained hung on the cross for two hours dead, further draining any possible remaining blood if not out the holes in the feet, at the very least into the shins/feet?

APPLY HONEST CRITICAL ANALYSIS TO YOUR EVIDENCE

Bullshit! Nothing you have presented has demonstrated this is possible at all!

Piecemeal quotes regarding how some bodies do this and other bodies do that have no bearing whatsoever on what crucified bodies do!

Especially those that have the same conditions as it is alleged (by you) that Jesus went through!

STOP CONFLATING AND EQUIVOCATING DISPARATE PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A CRUCIFIED BODY!

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

Which is, roughly, a gallon and a half, which is why I instructed everyone to think of a milk carton in order to properly gauge exactly how little that is!

Regardless, you still haven't addressed the fact that any remaining blood would have drained out of the upper body!

Then please stop avoiding the salient issues in favor of this non-responsive, redirectional pablum!

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