Megatron

This topic sure did run off and leave me...

Excellent stuff, Koy... Asha'Man... hyzer...

leonarde: Please grow some more brain tissue.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Zero Angel ]</p>

Datheron

Leonarde,

Yet, this is precisely what you are doing - providing entertainment.

Wrong. All your posts have to do with establishing some authority, putting up all sorts of walls and screens to cover up the blatant contradictions, suggest that it might be possible that the Shroud could have been covering Jesus, then assert based on your shaky authorities that this is the case.

And that's part of the problem. A debate centers around criticially analyzing and evaluating given data, not producing more and more contraversial data out of various pages and shift them out of context.

It is almost insulting that you keep on insisting that we don't have the expertise to analyze your findings. While none of us here are forensic experts, it does not take a PhD in forensics to come up with what amounts to be a very basic medical exercise; Koy has done that, and none here have seen anything wrong with it. Obviously, you're trying to do this so that we will blindly accept your authority, but this ploy isn't working. It's like trying to say that we aren't qualified to evaluate 1+1=3.

Once again, it's just your undermining of authority. Yea, Koy is infamous around these circles for long posts, but they are entertaining, and certainly informative; more often than not, he's right as well. What you're addressing is all the little things that come with the argument - the style of Koy's writing, his creditials, etc. - without actually refuting the argument itself.

I don't see why they cannot be. After all, it's not as if theists or even "Shroudists" on this board are being prosecuted. Stubbornness and fallacious thinking, however, is.

Asha'man

So, you didn’t actually read my previous post at all, did you? Or do you just have no interest in thinking about this at all?

Let me quote myself here:

I’m not talking about ONE crucifixion; I’m talking about standard practice for the Romans. I’m talking about a method that leaves EVERY victim alive and suffering for days.

Now, let me continue on that same path: why do you think there were 34 arterial wounds? You seem to be counting 2 nail wounds on the hands, 2 more nails on the feet, and (I presume) 30 punctures around the head from the crown of thorns?

Do you even know what an arterial wound is? Exactly how many arteries run along the forehead, on the outside of the skull? How many arteries are there on the back of the head, still outside the skull? Let me give you a hint: there are none. (You don’t take a person’s pulse by putting a finger on their forehead, you put your finger on the side of the neck, where the carteroid artery is close to the surface.)

Have you ever seen a thorn pierce the skull of a healthy adult human? How exactly do you get any arterial wounds from a crown of thorns? I’d really like to know.

Again, you aren’t actually looking at the evidence and thinking about it, are you? Somebody has published a bogus report, and you swallowed it whole: hook, line, and sinker. You aren’t really here to discuss anything, are you? You just want to spit out a bunch of URLs, quote some papers, and feel like you have made your point, right?

leonarde

Posted by Asha'man: If you keep "hearing" about 34 arterial
wounds you are "hearing" it from Koy, NOT from me.
And you claim I'm not reading YOUR posts????

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

Asha'man: No. If you read
from the bottom of page 2 when I entered this thread you will find that I discuss quite a bit
here. However:
1)SOME of my esteemed opponents have been abusive,
sneering, and contradictory.
2)people who have entered since page 9 or so seem
NOT to have read much of the thread AT ALL and
so this leads to LOTS of meaningless repetition,
NOT discussion by ANY stretch of the imagination.
3)the inimitable Koy has his "milk gallon theory"
but foolish me is stuck with the consensus of
forensic pathologists who have spent hundreds of
man-hours over the last century or so studying the
Shroud, both in person, and via samples, spectography, photographic analysis and many many
other means.

Posted by Asha'man: Then how
do you explain why crucifixion is documented by
Romans themselves as being a slow, torturous way
to kill someone? If you don't explain it then I
might claim you aren't reading MY posts....

Principia

*SPECTOgraphy*

That must be what the Ghostbusters used to track down Spirits, Apparitions, and Evil-utionists.

SC

leonarde

Posted by Datherton: The things I have posted here are not MY findings: they are what the most recent forensic pathologists and archaeologists with hands-on experience with the Shroud of Turin
have determined after hundreds of man-hours of study and consultation with other specialists. Moreover their general findings---that the forensic details of the Shroud are compatible with
authenticity in at least 2 of the 3 levels or aspects that I listed a page or two ago----are in general agreement with ALL the anatomists and forensic pathologists and other medical personnel who have looked personally at the Shroud since early in the 20th Century. Posted by Datherton What "medical
exercise"? He has repeatedly claimed----without any proof or support----that a human body bleeds quite like a gallon of milk pours out its contents!!!
THAT is "a very basic medical exercise"?????
What do you do in the philosophy forum, declare
that "life is like a box of chocolates" and then
go around shaking your collective heads?
No thanks, I'll stick to my mere forensic pathology manuals.

Cheers!

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Now I'm just getting pissed.

From Meacham (your own source), emphasis mine:

APPLY CRITICAL ANALYSIS TO YOUR OWN DAMN SOURCES BEFORE PRETENDING THEY ARE AUTHORITATIVE!

leonarde

Posted by Koy: Great! Now we are getting somewhere: as I told
Datherton, archaeologists have to become at least
mini-experts on a myriad of subjects outside the
core themes of archaeology.
In this paper (the URL includes reaction, both pro
and con, to what Meacham has written)Meacham is
trying to SUMMARIZE the state of the study of the
Shroud up to that time (1983).
But to summarize a wide range of studies, whether
done by a forensic pathologist or someone else, one must TRY to make clear to the reader when a particular finding is held by just one investigator(or team operating in his name), or
by MORE than one investigator, or whether the finding is more or less universally held by ALL
the different studies/investigators. This is usually done by a system of footnotes or their
equivalent in the text with an accompanying bibliography. Meacham writes the name of the investigator(s) who hold(s) a particular belief/
finding.
The above stipulation would be important even if
all these investigators were looking at the same
corpse. But of course all they did was examine in
detail the IMAGE of a corpse on a linen shroud, so
one must be even more cautious in making determinations about injuries and other things.

The above post by Koy from Meacham refers to 30
"blood flows". Now a "blood flow" doesn't even
necessarily indicate the number of cuts/punctures involved: if the head moves from side to side as probably happens in a crucifixion, then the same wound on the crown of the head could produce at least 2 blood flows: one when the head is inclined to the left, one when the head is inclined to the
right. Other body movements could, in general terms, give at least 2 blood flows to OTHER bloody
injuries. The second sentence refers to at least
30 torn "vessels" (no further specification). Not
all blood vessels are arteries. In the same sentence Meacham reveals both that some investigators see swelling around the points of laceration AND (in parentheses)that Bucklin doubts
that this swelling can be seen.
THEN, in the next and last sentence, Meacham supplies the source at the very end of the sentence: Rodante, 1982. THAT means that Rodante,
and Rodante only, among the cited researchers holds to the finding in that particular sentence:
That doesn't NECESSARILY mean
that all the other researchers are disagreeing with Rodante: in some cases they may have remained
silent on the subject or were unsure and decided
to err on the side of caution OR perhaps they just didn't notice that particular detail. And what does Rodante find? Several of the clots seem to be from either veins OR arteries!!! Just putting the word "arterial" in bold face, as Koy has done, won't change even Rodante's assessment: venous or arterial blood.
NOWHERE in the text given by Koy here is there a
reference by any investigator to 34 arterial wounds. Whether Koy got this figure from
some OTHER part of the text, or from another source, I don't know.

Cheers!

Datheron

Leonarde,

Can we say.....biased sources? It's like trying to show the inerrancy of the Bible by quoting from several fundamentalist "Biblical scholars". Well, duh they're going to have what you want.

Of course, we have already been through this. Koy has thoroughly deconstructed and destroyed the self-contradictory authority of what you quote; his points, as far as I can tell, remain unanswered by you, as always. If a math professor can profess 1+1=3 and I'm wrong in correcting him just because he has spent more time practicing his art, then there's a problem with that kind of argument, hm?

But soundly enough, you stick to those manuals that only support your case, and even then, it's with extreme obviousness how you try to jam them in to fit with your already decided conclusion. It is indeed quite funny how you manage to complicate a rather simple cruxification into its current status: a suffocating, blood-clotting, artery-wound-rejecting Jesus that pays no heed to Greek plurality or to logical thought. It is not just Koy that has demonstrated the problems with your "sources" - already numerous (formerly) lurkers have also come about and shown how your assumptions are way off mark. No doubt you'll claim that they're baseless too.