leonarde

Posted by Datherton: What about Delage? What about
the STURP official photographer? What about the
many Protestant American scientists who never heard of the Shroud of Turin (as I hadn't) before
1978? All those persons came to believe in authenticity in accord with the first two levels
of the 3 point authenticity measure.
The charge of bias wouldn't be so ludicrous if it
weren't coming from someone who defends ideas of
the very, very, very biased Koy.

Cheers!

Asha'man

Um, then perhaps the initial mistake is really yours, Koy. Venous and arterial are opposites. Arterial blood is rich in oxygen, and travels (via arteries) from the heart to the body. Venous blood is poor in oxygen, and travels (via veins) from the body to the heart.

I don’t know how exactly you distinguish the clots from the one or the other, but Meacham seems to be saying it could be either one. However, if you eliminate the redundant wording, Meacham seems to have made a non-statement. He is essentially saying that the blood clots look like blood clots. Given such a poorly worded statement, a misreading seems inevitable. Since leonarde didn’t dispute your reading, I assumed it was a correct representation of his source.


However, I stand by my statement earlier, leonarde is not reading my posts, or has no understanding of what either of us are saying:

Fact #1. An arterial wound in the lower extremities of an upright body will rapidly lead to death from blood loss, and will eventually produce a bloodless corpse.

Fact #2. Roman victims of crucifixion generally did not die quickly from blood loss.

Therefore:

Conclusion #1: Roman victims of crucifixion must not have had arterial wounds in the feet. i.e. The wounds must be non-arterial.

This conclusion is pretty darn easy to reach, but leonarde seems to have missed it dozens of times. He even missed it when I pointed it out to him in pretty direct terms, instead he continues to attack the validity of Fact #1. Maybe he will be able to see it now, since I have numbered it nicely for him.


If you really want to continue to dispute Fact #1, leonarde, I suggest you pick up the Boy Scout handbook for First Aid. It is written for the layman, young boys in fact, so you don’t need any medical background to read it. Look for advice on when to use a bandage and pressure, and when to use a tourniquet. It should be pretty damn obvious how serious an arterial wound is. (Disclaimer: It has been decades since I studied from this book, and they may have revised the book some, so I can’t point you to the exact text.)

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, either way, just more evidence that leonarde is not applying critical analysis to his own sources.

It makes no difference at all to what I have posted, considering I have based everything on what his sources misrepresented and still less difference to the fact that the blood on the scalp allegedly found on the shroud would have to have been fresh blood for it to absorb at all, let alone through two clothes as leonarde continues to posit.

Indeed, the fact that the head wounds were not arterial (contrary to what Meacham suggests), only proves further that the body in the shroud could not have been Jesus, since since that would mean even less of a likelihood that any blood remained pumping through his body during those three hours alive (and two hours dead)!

Either way, it still demonstrates that the shroud could not possibly be Jesus.

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

leonarde

Asha'man,
Tell me on which page and, if possible, at what
time I posted something here about an arterial
foot wound. If you do, I'll look at it and try to
give you an answer. I simply have no recollection
of such a post by me (was it in a URL I gave, perhaps?).

Cheers!

Pomp

leonarde,

I know others have already pointed this out, but I'd like to make a polite request of you, if I may. Please stop hitting "Enter" at the end of every line in the box where you type your posts. Just keep typing and let the sentences wrap around, unless you are making a paragraph break. The odd breaks in the middle of your sentences make it very difficult to read your posts.

Thanks!

leonarde

Sorry, PB, but I'm not hitting enter in MOST instances: occasionally I DO try to make sure (as
best I can to get certain stuff on the SAME line
but it doesn't work out always). I started typing
on a computer in 1977 with, what is now, a very primitive word processor but it was a what-you-see-is-what-you-get type deal: alas that
was my fate until the late 1980s or so. I'll try my best to avoid bugging youses but it's a matter of teaching an old dog........Cheers!

leonarde

Okay, I went back in this thread to try to determine WHERE and WHEN and BY WHOM these "arterial wounds" entered the picture. On page 5
I found a post by Koy: it's long and begins with
a repost of something by me on the Sudarium of Oviedo. Koy then gets into his "dicing" of Meacham, the archaeologist whose URL I had given.
I'm going to delete what has nothing to do with the question at hand (ie the "arterial wounds")
but will leave the time of the post so anyone can
check what I deleted. Leonarde's emphasis added via bold face.
As nearly as I can tell it is HERE that the idea
that so many of these wounds are "arterial" entered the thread: Koy interpolated them into his analysis in such a way that no casual reader can tell what Meacham is saying and what Koy is saying (ie the two are blended together).
I just wanted to get the origin "nailed down".

Cheers!

Datheron

Leonarde,

I went back and found your "three levels of authenticity", which sounds terribly ad hoc to begin with:

1)does it have a image of a true victim of crucifixion on it?
2)does the Shroud (and PERHAPS the image)go back
to ancient or merely medieval times?
3)is the Man of the Shroud Jesus?

So, what does that say? Nothing matters if you cannot show 3) to be true - indeed, it may be possible for a human being to be draped in a white cloth and have his blood and what-not stamped on the cloth. So what? Showing that it is possible does not make it probable; it merely means that you have gone out of your way to string together a very unlikely spectrum of events, molded it to fit the stories in the Bible, and then relied on the authority of a few discredited forensic "experts" and your own loosely-pieced-together theories to make an "argument".

If only you would argue more like him, hm?

The charge of bias obviously is meaningless to the debators themselves - of course they are going to have pre-conceived notions about the issue. However, what is biased is the way you selectively choose which sources to quote, and the way you attempt to "analyze" your sources. Everybody here has been doing all the analysis that you convieniently *missed* in your arguments, and all you have been doing is trying, very unsuccessfully, to manipulate sentences and statements to once again allow the possibility of your vision.

leonarde

Posted by Datherton: So what????? The central
question about the S of Turin is authenticity: you
have just all but conceded that it has been proven in the first 2 senses:
1)the Image is indeed that of a crucified man.
2)the cloth and Image likely date from ancient
times.

The third point/level of authenticity touches, of
course, on religious matters. Therefore it is best
to let individuals decide for themselves. Still the more immersed they are in the particulars of
the Image of the S of Turin, the more likely they
are to notice that there would have been VERY VERY VERY few such victims among the many thousands crucified who would share ALL of the following:
1)had legs which were NOT broken.
2)had the lance/spear wound in the chest/side area
3)had crown-of-thorns blood flows/wounds in the
scalp area.

Again, I think that INDIVIDUALS, keeping their own
counsel, should evaluate that for themselves...
Cheers!

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

From last post by Koy: In the very first post by me on page 3(?)in which I address Koy I noted some jump(s) in logic in what he had already said (ie on page 3).
Here we again have a statement which, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh, well. Perhaps, as Datherton suggests, I should
become more like Koy......

Cheers!