Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 12:25 PM

The problem was this: Ian Wilson (and/or someone
else) had proposed a scenario for the pre-1350s
(reconstructed) history of the Shroud. It involved
many years to centuries spent in Edessa (Turkey)
and Constantinople (the latter as the Mandylion)
until the latter city was looted by Frankish (ie
French)Crusaders in 1204.
This general scenario was upheld by Frei's pollen
results and it was THIS that Schafersman thought
too good to be true.
Another suspicious aspect was that many of the pollen specimens were NOT wind-borne types of pollen but insect borne and so the likelihood of so many being carried by winds onto the Shroud was miniscule.
Schafersman concluded that human interference had
placed the pollen there.
[to be continued]
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 12:42 PM

Naturally questioning the evidence in this way impugned the late Max Frei's character. And yet it
was intellectually understandable.....20 years ago.
Today however we have a second skein of evidence,
one that Frei knew nothing about: the floral images on the Shroud. For a look go to:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/danin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/danin.htm</a>

Alan and Mary Whanger did the first research in
this area; in recent years their work has been
confirmed, and in some cases, elaborated upon by
Israeli botany experts. The flora seen overlap nicely with the pollen samples found by Frei almost 30 years ago.
The Israeli botany experts cite Jerusalem or its
general vicinity as the likely place of origin of
the Shroud based on the images and the corresponding pollen found on it.
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 12:53 PM

The source of the floral images on the Shroud is
ASSUMED to be the same as the source of the body
image. From the last URL cited:

Quote:

The best explanation for the appearance of the plant images on the Shroud of Turin is the one proffered by physics teacher
Oswald Schewermann, who noticed the images on it in 1983 and conducted many unpublished experiments on the phenomenon of coronal discharge, which involves the discharge of radiation from a surface charged with static electricity. Flat
objects like leaves lose electrons on their edges when they touch cloth, for instance, forming a dark line that follows the contours of the points of contact. The images are sharply defined where the body touched the cloth and fuzzy where it did not.[...]

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 01:21 PM

I should have mentioned that due to the different
states of the flowers seen in the Shroud, the Israeli botany expert, Danin, says that the time
of picking must have been the spring....

Cheers!

Tercel · 05-04-2002, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae:
But, it would seem then that Tercel is not quite as convinced as you are about the Shroud's authenticity. Does he have near 100% certainty about the Shroud as you do?

I am not nearly as knowledgeable in the evidence regarding the Shroud as Leonarde is.

Yet it seems clear to me that the experts are divided over the evidence for the shroud. And given the disagreement between the various strands of evidence as to the authenticity of the Shroud, I can but remain agnostic on the issue until further testing settles it clearly.

leonarde · 05-05-2002, 07:26 AM

Since Koy will be distraught that I ignored all his points I looked at one on the first page which
disputes, apparently, the violent nature of crucifixion (!!!):

Quote:

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it, yes? How does he define a "violent death?" Let me guess. He doesn't in any specific terms, because if he did, he would have to state that a person who dies from a "violent death" would be someone who himself either instigated the violence or was in some way a criminal in order for his burial rites to be at all altered.

Koy is talking about
Ian Wilson whose book, "The Blood and the Shroud" I both recommended in general, and cited on the question of the conformity of the Shroud's features to 1st Century Jewish burial customs.
Sorry, Koy, but you are on your own on this one:
if anyone here agrees with you that a crucifixion is NOT a violent death, then so be it!
I won't try to convince such a person; evidently
we live on different planets anyway....

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde · 05-05-2002, 08:00 AM

Again from page 1, posted by Koy:

Quote:

I cannot take any more of your obvious lies, leonarde, so go now directly to my first post and cut and paste it and go through it point-by-point so that we can actually have a debate instead of me having to chase after your posts.

I have no
intention of "cut and past(ing)" any of your diatribes which you somehow mistake for a "debate". Did you ever belong to a forensic or
debate team/club in high school? If you had, you would realize that your manner of disputation here
and on the 18 page Shroud of Turin thread is abusive and illogical. You cite sources that tell
you what you want to hear. When I cite contrary sources, you label it "propaganda" or "lies" and claim that I am being illogical.
It is your illogic which more than anything will probably push readers here towards
authenticity: you aren't just misinformed on the
Shroud and the Crucifixion, you are the Typhoid
Mary of misinformation on those subjects. The people who were agreeing with you on the 18 pager
were those who obviously weren't reading all of it
or weren't reading it very carefully (like our pal
Asha'man).
I find your constant citing of "deductive logic" in this thread to be as empty as your citing of
"critical" thinking in the 18 pager. If only you
knew how to practice such things you wouldn't have
to rhetorically wave them above your head. I know
you will be back on this thread: your "departure"
on page 8 of the 18 pager was followed by an unexplained return on page 10. Can't stay away, eh
Koy? Well you better! If you study the Shroud too much you too will opt for authenticity!
Cheers!

Principia · 05-05-2002, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by the Troll(e): You cite sources that tell you what you want to hear. When I cite contrary sources, you label it "propaganda" or "lies" and claim that I am being illogical.

leonard(e),

In case you are unaware, there is this concept of burden of proof. Koy has the luxury to cite whomever he wishes. If you choose to ignore him, as you are stating in the above post, then at best, his citations and analyses can only work against you... no matter your indignant protestations. One only needs reasonable doubt... Also it is fair to say that your sources are not always in agreement about crucial events surrounding the Shroud. Take for instance, your posts about washing bodies before burial on pg 1 of this thread. How do you reconcile those accounts versus, say,<a href="http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm" target="_blank">Zugibe's</a>? Or do you cite Zugibe <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000148&p=14" target="_blank">only when he describes something you want to hear</a>?

SC

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

leonarde · 05-05-2002, 09:26 AM

"Reasonable doubt" is a phrase from our legal system; our legal system is devised to be stilted:
to make it very very difficult to convict someone
since error in that regard can have catastrophic
and indeed even fatal consequences for the accused.
Outside of that system (heck even in some European
legal systems) the "burden of proof" is different,
in many cases even reversed.
You will find on the 18 page Shroud thread that I
don't "lean" on any one forensics man: I merely presented the most prominent findings in that field related to the Shroud over the past century
or so. I myself noted that Zugibe's findings were
at variance with those of some other forensic pathologists whom I mentioned (and BOTH of Zugibe's papers available via URL were brought up). Those findings were at variance both
on the question of the most common cause of death in a crucifixion and on the question of a body cleaning for the Man of the Shroud.
As I mentioned, the most likely scenario is that
a partial cleansing was done: NOT the utterly scrupulous one prescribed by Jewish custom for corpses who had undergone a NON-violent death but a more limited one in which, as per my citations), blood which was shed BEFORE death was cleaned and the postmortem bleeding was staunched via the Sudarium. Of course, there will always be limits as to our knowledge of the cleaning proceedure and the exact sequence of events but the study of the Sudarium of Oviedo has given us yet another window on the Crucifixion, deposition,
and entombment.
Yes, Koy can cite whomever he wants and I welcome
it but since he evidently didn't discover in his
research that there were differences in burial proceedures between those for the non-violently
deceased and those for the violently deceased, citing sources which talk about the former aren't
terribly applicable to the case of a crucifixion
victim.
Cheers!

Principia · 05-05-2002, 10:15 AM

leonard(e),

You set the "reasonable doubt" standard by asserting that the Shroud is near 100% authentic. It follows that one only needs enough evidence to find your assertion unbelievable. The burden of proof falls on the person with a positive claim (yes, leonard(e), that would be you), it is the quality of the burden that may differ.

So, I am still at a loss how you are dodging Zugibe. His research conditions the transferal of blood onto the Shroud on the body being washed. You still talk of 'post-mortem bleeding' as if the blood were moist enough to be 'staunched' by any cloth. Zugibe (and most forensic path.'s) apparently would disagree given the schedule of events you described.

Then there is the matter of rituals. From <a href="http://www.shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-JewishBurial.html" target="_blank">your source</a>:

Quote:

Another reason why the blood must be buried with the body is because it was considered unclean. To touch a corpse was to touch something unclean and therefore become unclean yourself. One would then have to go through a ritual process of becoming clean again.
[...]
Blood that flowed after death was often mixed with blood that flowed before death, this was called �mingled blood�. If there was more than a loss of a �quarter log� of mingled blood, it was considered unclean and must be buried with the body. A log is the content of 6 eggs. A quarter log is 1 � eggs. The volume of blood lost from the side-wound must have easily exceeded this measure and is why the man on the shroud is unwashed.

Just out of curiosity, given so many Crucifixions, are there no other record of another one involving Jews? And, how exactly did these people know whether or not the 'blood' was unclean ('mingled' or otherwise)? Given that the spear stab was the then-standard proclamation of a 'time-of-death,' and that some time elapsed after this event, how could the people have known what blood was clean or not? Your source seems to indicate that no washing was performed, contrary to your hypothesis.

So, let's try to put the relevant facts together. Blood on the body was likely to be clotted at time of burial (as explained by medical science). Transferal of blood requires clots to be moistened (Zugibe). Body was unlikely to have been washed (Lamm) because of ritual. Am I missing anything here?

SC

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

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

05-04-2002, 12:25 PM	#61
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	The problem was this: Ian Wilson (and/or someone else) had proposed a scenario for the pre-1350s (reconstructed) history of the Shroud. It involved many years to centuries spent in Edessa (Turkey) and Constantinople (the latter as the Mandylion) until the latter city was looted by Frankish (ie French)Crusaders in 1204. This general scenario was upheld by Frei's pollen results and it was THIS that Schafersman thought too good to be true. Another suspicious aspect was that many of the pollen specimens were NOT wind-borne types of pollen but insect borne and so the likelihood of so many being carried by winds onto the Shroud was miniscule. Schafersman concluded that human interference had placed the pollen there. [to be continued] Cheers!

05-04-2002, 12:42 PM	#62
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Naturally questioning the evidence in this way impugned the late Max Frei's character. And yet it was intellectually understandable.....20 years ago. Today however we have a second skein of evidence, one that Frei knew nothing about: the floral images on the Shroud. For a look go to: <a href="http://www.shroud.com/danin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/danin.htm</a> Alan and Mary Whanger did the first research in this area; in recent years their work has been confirmed, and in some cases, elaborated upon by Israeli botany experts. The flora seen overlap nicely with the pollen samples found by Frei almost 30 years ago. The Israeli botany experts cite Jerusalem or its general vicinity as the likely place of origin of the Shroud based on the images and the corresponding pollen found on it. Cheers!

05-04-2002, 01:21 PM	#64
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I should have mentioned that due to the different states of the flowers seen in the Shroud, the Israeli botany expert, Danin, says that the time of picking must have been the spring.... Cheers!

05-05-2002, 09:26 AM	#69
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	"Reasonable doubt" is a phrase from our legal system; our legal system is devised to be stilted: to make it very very difficult to convict someone since error in that regard can have catastrophic and indeed even fatal consequences for the accused. Outside of that system (heck even in some European legal systems) the "burden of proof" is different, in many cases even reversed. You will find on the 18 page Shroud thread that I don't "lean" on any one forensics man: I merely presented the most prominent findings in that field related to the Shroud over the past century or so. I myself noted that Zugibe's findings were at variance with those of some other forensic pathologists whom I mentioned (and BOTH of Zugibe's papers available via URL were brought up). Those findings were at variance both on the question of the most common cause of death in a crucifixion and on the question of a body cleaning for the Man of the Shroud. As I mentioned, the most likely scenario is that a partial cleansing was done: NOT the utterly scrupulous one prescribed by Jewish custom for corpses who had undergone a NON-violent death but a more limited one in which, as per my citations), blood which was shed BEFORE death was cleaned and the postmortem bleeding was staunched via the Sudarium. Of course, there will always be limits as to our knowledge of the cleaning proceedure and the exact sequence of events but the study of the Sudarium of Oviedo has given us yet another window on the Crucifixion, deposition, and entombment. Yes, Koy can cite whomever he wants and I welcome it but since he evidently didn't discover in his research that there were differences in burial proceedures between those for the non-violently deceased and those for the violently deceased, citing sources which talk about the former aren't terribly applicable to the case of a crucifixion victim. Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.