Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 04-09-2002, 07:17 PM

To clarify my understanding of Bucklin's position
(he is deceased of course): during the course of
his 1961 forensic study of the Shroud his
findings were compatible with those that went before him (ie to at least the time of Delage in
1902): the anatomical and physiological details were so true to life that NO possibility existed
of mere artist's rendering: this was the image of
a truly crucified man. No subsequent information
or examination (including his actitivites for STURP 17 years later)convinced him otherwise and his paper produced in the URL presented in the thread by me was of even LATER
provenance (early 1980s?). Naturally, aware of whose Shroud this was purported to be, Bucklin couldn't help at some point to think about
the Gospel accounts and compare those details to those of
the Man of the Shroud. If someone wants to call
this bias, then so be it.....

Cheers!
and

leonarde · 04-09-2002, 08:02 PM

I was wondering how Koy explains the findings of
Yves Delage 100 years ago this month.....See the
chronology posted by me on page 3 :
posted March 18, 2002 04:55 PM

leonarde · 04-09-2002, 09:26 PM

Since I realize that a LOT of lurkers won't bother
to read URLs, let alone books, I decided to give
an excerpt from a book which gives an insider's view of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project)team activity. The book is "Report on the
Shroud of Turin" by John Heller (1983, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston). From page 1:

Quote:

By faith, I am a Christian; specifically, a Southern Baptist.
By profession, I am a scientist; specifically,
a biophysicist.
By genesis, I am a New Englander, with all the
skepticism and conservatism of the breed.
All this being the case, I have always felt that relics are nothing but flummery from the Dark
Ages.
In 1978, I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin, let alone seen a picture of it. When I did, I was surprised. I thought I would see something analogous to all the paintings and statuary of Jesus that I had ever seen. I had viewed Oriental
portrayals of Christ in Japan and China, and black
ones in Africa, a host of medieval and Renaissance
forms in Florence and elsewhere in Europe, as well
as Byzantine and modern versions.
This was different. It was anything but artistic. In addition, everything was reversed. Its images were like photographic negatives, with
black and white, left and right, reversed. The cloth was also very bloody, with the "nail holes"
in the wrong place; they were in the wrists, not in the palms. There were large scorch marks and burn holes down both sides of the fabric. The man
was nude, his hands folded over the groin. I did
not know at the time that the photograph I was looking at was enhanced; the actual images were so
faint that they could not be seen from up close, but only at a distance of about one or two yards. Yet if one was too far away, they faded into the background of the cloth. I could not imagine a more unlikely object for veneration.
Then I was shown photographic negatives of the
Shroud, which made the human images become positive. This helped considerably by showing a man in a way familiar to our perception. However,
now the blood was negative, or white, which detracted from the whole. To say I was unimpressed
would be an understatement.

That is Heller at the very beginning of his book,
the very beginning of his journey in S of Turin
study. [The only quibble I have with the above is
on the question of left and right reversal: I must
check it]

NOW a quotation from this same Heller on page 219
(first page of Epilogue).

Quote:

So where does all this huge amount of science leave us? The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours
have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available. The physical and chemical data fit hand in glove. It is certainly true that
if a similar number of data had been found in the funerary linen attributed to Alexander the Great,
Genghis Kahn, or Socrates, there would be no doubt
in anyone's mind that it was, indeed, the shroud of that historical person. But because of the unique position that Jesus holds, such evidence is not enough.

My emphasis above- leonarde.

Most of the book, though, is about the workings of
the STURP group.

Cheers!

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

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-10-2002, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
To clarify my understanding of Bucklin's position (he is deceased of course): during the course of his 1961 forensic study of the Shroud his findings were compatible with those that went before him (ie to at least the time of Delage in 1902): the anatomical and physiological details were so true to life that NO possibility existed of mere artist's rendering: this was the image of a truly crucified man. No subsequent information or examination (including his actitivites for STURP 17 years later)convinced him otherwise and his paper produced in the URL presented in the thread by me was of even LATER provenance (early 1980s?). Naturally, aware of whose Shroud this was purported to be, Bucklin couldn't help at some point to think about the Gospel accounts and compare those details to those of the Man of the Shroud. If someone wants to call this bias, then so be it...

A perfect example of the lengths you'll go to, leonarde in order to cling to your beliefs by conflating and equivocating disparate facts in order to avoid applying any kind of critical analysis.

Bucklin states quite clearly that the only link to Jesus comes from the stories in the NT, which, when critical analysis is applied, means only the Gospel of John. There are no other gospels that mention the side piercing, which Bucklin recounts in his conclusion.

Quote:

Bucklin: He will be aware that the individual whose image is depicted on the cloth has undergone puncture injuries to his wrists and feet, puncture injuries to his head, multiple traumatic whip-like injuries to his back and postmortem puncture injury to his chest area which has released both blood and a water type of fluid. From this data, it is not an unreasonable conclusion for the forensic pathologist to determine that only one person historically has undergone this sequence of events. That person in Jesus Christ.

The "in Jesus Christ" is also telling, but the point that you continuously avoid dealing with is that this is the only link to Jesus at all.

NO amount of pathological investigation serves to link the shroud to Jesus, other than Carbon dating. You must understand this first and foremost.

Bucklin has, in effect, completely dismissed all of his pathological investigation at this pivotal moment because he is forcing the results to fit the Gospel of John.

Not "the gospels," just the Gospel of John, because that is the only one that tells us of a side piercing.

This is what it meant by applying critical analysis and this is what I have been talking about regarding the "historical documents" standard.

WHETHER OR NOT THE SHROUD IS AN IMAGE OF JESUS HINGES ENTIRELY UPON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND NOTHING ELSE.

Not hypovolemia, 34 arterial wounds, water-like stains (again mentioned by Bucklin in his findings, BTW, establishing his christian bias has already overridden his professional assessment), NOTHING.

Why? Because we do not have two deaths to compare here. All we have is a shroud and an ancient story.

And not an ancient story from several sources, an ancient story from only one source, whoever wrote the GJohn.

Do you understand now where everything hinges for Bucklin?

Let me repeat:

Quote:

Bucklin: From this data, it is not an unreasonable conclusion for the forensic pathologist to determine that only one person historically has undergone this sequence of events. That person in Jesus Christ.

The conclusion is entirely dependent not upon the forensics, but upon the historical story of somebody who went through "this sequence of events." Then the conclusion is Jesus Christ.

The tremendous hole that destroys this conclusion is found right here.

Bucklin has a shroud. He examines the shroud from the standpoint of a forensic pathologist.

He then throws all of that out the window by making his conclusion contingent upon the Gospel of John, not realizing two fatal flaws:
<ol type="1">[*] GJohn tells us that Jesus was not wrapped in one single sheet at all.[*] As far as we and Bucklin know there could have been literally thousands of "copy cat" crucifixions done by the Romans and/or Muslims over the centuries that were not recorded![/list=a]

For an "expert" professional pathologist to simply dismiss the fact that there could have been thousands of copycat crucifixions that simply weren't recorded and/or lost to us over time is to betray a bias.

To illogically conclude that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus based on the GJohn, is likewise to betray a bias.

To say anything at all with any degree of "official authorization" regarding the identity of the Man on the Shroud is to at the very least, betray a lack of professionalism, since no pathologist could ever state with any kind of certainty at all who that man is.

Do you understand now what it means to apply critical analysis prior to posting your evidence?

The gap between "the shroud is not a fake" and "the image on the shroud is Jesus" is impossible to breech with any degree of certainty, especially when it is all predicated on the GJohn!

The GJohn story does not match the forensic findings and vice versa.

So it all comes down to the GJohn and the bias of the pathologist. Bucklin takes the following:

Quote:

Bucklin:puncture injuries to his wrists and feet, puncture injuries to his head, multiple traumatic whip-like injuries to his back and postmortem puncture injury to his chest area which has released both blood and a water type of fluid.

and then turns to "historical documents" to find a possible identity. That is his stated methodology. Here are the results of my pathological investigation, now I will turn to all of history to find a description of this to find out the identity.

This would mean that Bucklin would literally have to read and research every single instance of crucifixion on the books as well as factor in the knowledge that the majority of crucifixions weren't on the books, but fine, let's assume he did just that.

After twenty years of exhaustive unbiased research, Bucklin discovers that the only "historical document" that comes close to his forensic findings is the GJohn.

So let's compare and contrast what the "historical document" says with Bucklin's findings outlined several times above.[*] Did Jesus have head wounds like those found on the shroud? Yes.[*] Did Jesus have wrist and feet wounds like those found on the shroud? Probably (it doesn't specifically say in GJohn, but let it slide).[*] Did Jesus have a chest wound? No. John says he was pierced in the side, not in the chest.

Hmmm. Ok, so this is somewhat in contention and doesn't quite fit the story. The shroud man was lacerated over the right pectoral, which means just above your right breast.

Let's consider this from the standpoint of an unbiased pathologist, yes? A crucified man is hanging from a cross. How high up, we don't really know. We, too, would only have "historical documents" such as paintings and the like to really know how high up most crucified victims were hung, but it's safe to say the victim would be above us.

We're a Roman soldier with a spear. The story in the GJohn says that we pierced Jesus in his side, which makes perfect sense from a man on the ground jabbing upward into a dead body hanging on a crucifix.

Bucklin discovers that the man on the shroud has a laceration above the right breast. We're a Roman soldier on the ground with a spear presumably jabbing the spear into the dead body in order to determine if the body is actually dead or not.

According to GJohn, they already knew Jesus was dead prior to the piercing, so it's a little puzzling why the soldier jabs him with his spear, but let's assume it was simply to make absolutely, positively sure Jesus is dead.

Piercing in Jesus' side then makes perfect sense, because, in essence, the soldier would be eviscerating him just to make sure this guy is absolutely, unequivocally dead.

Jabbing his spear over the right breast, however, would make little to no sense, unless the soldier just wanted to make sure he was dead in the sense of someone jabbing a pin in someone's leg, kind of thing.

A soldier would certainly know that there are no vital organs above the right breast, so why jab there unless, as I said, it was simply to test the man's mortality.

Tons of speculation, but the key point is that the stories don't match on this point. One could stretch it to fit, but why would one?

So, let's say the stretch is made and the pathologist concludes (as is apparently the case) that the story of the side being pierced and the fact of the shroud man's right breast being pierced is close enough.

After all, the pathologist has found "water like stains" (

) around the chest wound, and that fits the story close enough.

Ok, so the pathologist has made the findings of his forensics fit close enough to the story in GJohn to say, "It could very well be Jesus."

What does he do then? Does he further investigate the story in order to determine whether or not the story mentions anything about a burial shroud, the second most important element of comparison between fact and fiction?

Apparently not, because had Bucklin completed the job he assigned himself, based upon his own guidelines, he would have discovered that there was no burial shroud! In fact, GJohn is quite explicit in its description of how Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body of Jesus in strips of linen, not one whole sheet like the shroud, and the head of Jesus in a separate "napkin," which is found separate from the burial strips in the tomb, so it couldn't have been a "wipe cloth" used to either absorb the facial liquids or otherwise clean the face prior to being wrapped in a single shroud.

Jewish burial practices would never have allowed for Joseph to simply discard such an unclean post-mortem blood and snot rag like that, if indeed that was its purpose.

So, again, what would an unbiased pathologist do with this information? I would contend, that an unbiased pathologist would say, "Well, this doesn't fit at all, then. And now that I know this, I should reevaluate the side piercing/over the right breast laceration paradox as well and officially conclude, at the very least, that the shroud and the historical documents regarding Jesus do not match on at least one seriously irreconcilable level."

Period. Bucklin is not a biblical scholar, so there should be no consideration of translations, etc., there should only be an official conclusion that the basis for his assumption that the man is Jesus (GJohn) proves that it can't be Jesus' burial shroud, since according to John, there is no such thing.

Does Bucklin thus conclude? No, he does not. He (like you leonarde) irrationally and inexplicably ignores this fatal flaw in his deduction. Why?

Why would he do such a thing, if indeed he went into this whole thing without any christian bias clouding his thinking?

I'll tell you why. Because he was not unbiased.

He forces an upper chest lacertaion found on the shroud man into a side piercing and destroys his credibility by proclaiming there are "water like stains" found on the yellow stained linen. As you have previously granted, no pathologist would ever state there were "water like stains" since water makes no stains.

There can be only one reason he keeps repeating the "water like stains" found near the upper chest laceration and that is to force a tenuous link to GJohn. Not "the gospels," mind you, just to GJohn, the only one that mentions both the side piercing and the water that comes out ("copiously" and miraculously, let's not forget, according to Meacham and Origen).

He ignores the rest of GJohn in the exact same way you are doing (and all christians do), because of the christian bias that conflates all of the gospel accounts into one story, thereby further displaying christian bias.

In other words, his christian bias clearly and demonstrably directs his conclusions, forcing him along the way to disregard the very scientific objectivity he claims is so necessary and which is so carefully established as a preamble by both himself and Meacham.

So, was he, as you imply, some sort of convert? An objective fence sitter just awaiting the objective analysis prior to coming to any conclusions as you try so desperately to make it seem?

Clearly and obviously not.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-10-2002, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
I was wondering how Koy explains the findings of Yves Delage 100 years ago this month.....See the chronology posted by me on page 3 :
posted March 18, 2002 04:55 PM

What "findings?" The "chronology" you posted says nothing about Delage or his findings, other than a summation written by whoever put together the same website you've been leeching from.

All I could find regarding Delage was what you had copied from the site:

Quote:

April 21, 1902: (Monday afternoon) Agnostic anatomy professor Yves Delage presents a paper on the Shroud to the Academy of Sciences, Paris, arguing for the Shroud's medical and general scientific convincingness, and stating his opinion that it genuinely wrapped the body of Christ.

(Evening) Secretary for the physics section of the Academy, Marcelin Berthelot, inventor of thermo-chemistry, and a militant atheist, orders Delage to rewrite his paper (for publication in the Comptes rendus de l' Acadmie des Sciences) so that it treats only on the vaporography of zinc and makes no allusion to the Shroud or to Christ.

I could not find Delage's actual paper in order to apply any form of critical analysis to either of these claims.

Applying critical analysis to the author's choice of words in presenting this summation of events, however yields more than enough to see a straw man in the stuffing.

The irrelevant inclusion of the qualifiers "agnostic" for Delage and "militant atheist" for Berthelot tells me volumes.

Do you--oh master of links--have one that would link directly to Delage's paper?

By the way, it's interesting to note what the author of that chronology (I'll assume it is whoever created the whole site that you keep quoting from, giving the appearance of exhaustive research on your part, when in fact you've only presented, in essence, two websites that I can see; it's hard to go back through it all, but Meacham, Bucklin, Zugibe and Piczek have all been from the same site, yes?), prefaced the chronology with:

Quote:

Although there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the Shroud's existence prior to the mid 1300's, much of it is, in fact, "circumstantial" and remains mostly unproven.

Why did you ask me my take on Delage when no direct evidence from Delage was presented or found (at least by me) on the bountiful source of most of your "evidence?"

leonarde · 04-10-2002, 07:31 AM

Posted by Koy:

Quote:

Do you--oh master of links--have one that would link directly to Delage's paper?

Alas not: the internet is
too young and, I suspect, the paper too old to
encourage anyone to put it in a URL; heck, I'm not
even sure whether it was translated from (I assume)the original French!

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-10-2002, 07:47 AM

An account both of the 1898 exhibition and
the 1902 session of the French Academy of Sciences
is here:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/colleg14.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/colleg14.htm</a>

Very brief account though.

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-10-2002, 07:57 AM

Posted by Koy:

Quote:

Period. Bucklin is not a biblical scholar, so there should be no consideration of translations, etc.,

Unless one is reading the NT in the original Greek then
everyone is relying on some translation, so merely saying: this word means
"strips" and that is that, is silly. We have little if any funerary linen from 1st Century Jerusalem so we can't verify it externally.

Cheers!

Bill Snedden · 04-10-2002, 08:03 AM

I haven't posted in this thread in a while, but it's interesting to see what has developed. I just had to comment on this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>(Bucklin): It is the ultimate responsibility of the medical examiner to confirm by whatever means are available to him the identity of the deceased, as well as to determine the manner of this death. In the case of Man on the Shroud, the forensic pathologist will have information relative to the circumstances of death by crucifixion which he can support by his anatomic findings. He will be aware that the individual whose image is depicted on the cloth has undergone puncture injuries to his wrists and feet, puncture injuries to his head, multiple traumatic whip-like injuries to his back and postmortem puncture injury to his chest area which has released both blood and a water type of fluid. From this data, it is not an unreasonable conclusion for the forensic pathologist to determine that only one person historically has undergone this sequence of events. That person in Jesus Christ.</strong>

There is no possible way to know that no one else in history has undergone the sequence of events he details. In fact, there's no way to know (for certain) that Jesus underwent this sequence of events. All we have is the Gospels to corroborate it and with all the copying that went on, some parts of the account could certainly have been altered, either by mistake or by design.

We do know from Roman history that crucifixion was not an uncommon method of execution. The Romans didn't keep detailed records of every crucifixion, so there's no way to know that some person other than Jesus wasn't subjected to torture and crucifixion in the same manner as he was. Therefore, Dr. Bucklin's conclusion is a non sequitur.

To answer one of leonarde's other remarks, if someone were to represent a similar piece of linen as the burial shroud of Alexander, or Julius Caesar, or some other ancient personality and yet be able to produce no more evidence to support it than has been produced to support the shroud, I would no more accept it than I do the shroud or the Sudarium.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-10-2002, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde: Since I realize that a LOT of lurkers won't bother
to read URLs

No need to, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, but I certainly encourage anyone to do as I and other "non-lurkers" here have done and check them out for yourselves so you'll see exactly what we've been talking about.

Quote:

MORE: I decided to give an excerpt from a book which gives an insider's view of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project)team activity. The book is "Report on the Shroud of Turin" by John Heller (1983, Houghton Mifflin, Boston). From page 1:

By faith, I am a Christian; specifically, a Southern Baptist.

Well, there you go. Thank you, at least, for officially acknowledging the bias I have been repeatedly demonstrating.

Quote:

MORE: By profession, I am a scientist; specifically, a biophysicist.
By genesis, I am a New Englander, with all the
skepticism and conservatism of the breed.

Obviously the "skepticism" part is in serious doubt considering his very first qualifier.

Quote:

MORE: All this being the case, I have always felt that relics are nothing but flummery from the Dark Ages.

Un hunh..."flummery" like the Gutenberg Bible, perhaps?

Quote:

MORE: In 1978, I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin, let alone seen a picture of it. When I did, I was surprised.

Why does this sound so familiar?

"I'm a christian cult member first and foremost, but that doesn't mean I believe the impossible can happen and that God actually exists or that Jesus was really crucified and resurrected..."

And, perhaps, just perhaps, he was "surprised" by the fact that he was looking at an enhanced (i.e., altered; not as the shroud actually looks) photo? Ya think?

Quote:

MORE: I thought I would see something analogous to all the paintings and statuary of Jesus that I had ever seen. I had viewed Oriental portrayals of Christ in Japan and China, and black ones in Africa, a host of medieval and Renaissance forms in Florence and elsewhere in Europe, as well as Byzantine and modern versions. This was different.

Different? What a shock! You mean to say that a possible hoax of an actual burial shroud doesn't look like a Bosch painting? Or that an actual burial shroud of some poor dumb bastard killed in the manner of the myth of Jesus?

What about Michaelangelo? Was his paintings different than Bosch's?

Quote:

MORE: It was anything but artistic.

Which is exactly what you'd expect in either a hoax, actual burial shroud or enhanced photograph taken in the twentieth century...

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

Quote:

MORE: In addition, everything was reversed. Its images were like photographic negatives, with black and white, left and right, reversed.

Yeah...like photographic negatives...now where have I ever seen something like photographic negatives? Oh yeah! From photographic negatives!

Quote:

MORE: The cloth was also very bloody, with the "nail holes" in the wrong place;they were in the wrists, not in the palms.

Not according to Zugibe! Remember Zugibe?

Quote:

MORE: There were large scorch marks and burn holes down both sides of the fabric. The man was nude, his hands folded over the groin. I did not know at the time that the photograph I was looking at was enhanced;

I.e., not true to form; altered! I swear to Zuess I'm going to cry!

Quote:

MORE: the actual images were so faint that they could not be seen from up close, but only at a distance of about one or two yards.

Sort of like the effect from some sort of artistic process, where the visual gestalt isn't readily apparent until some distance is between you and it?

Quote:

MORE: Yet if one was too far away, they faded into the background of the cloth. I could not imagine a more unlikely object for veneration.

Now, why do you suppose he includes this little nugget of irrelevant observation? Would it be, oh I don't know, as some sort of canned, pre-emptive response to any possible detractors? Detractors that might say something like, "Perhaps the shroud was an icon painting of some kind meant to be displayed and it just faded over time?"

No, of course not. Because that would betray christian thinking, since only a christian would even consider anyone would make such a possible objection.

Quote:

MORE: Then I was shown photographic negatives of the Shroud, which made the human images become positive.

You mean, the image was altered again and you didn't take this into consideration?

Quote:

MORE: This helped considerably by showing a man in a way familiar to our perception.

Yeah, in much the same way wearing night vision goggles allows us to see how creatures with ultraviolet vision can...wait a minute! You mean, by altering the image around and around you could see things differently? Like when art restorers apply spectrographic analysis to paintings that have been painted over in order to see the original painting underneath?

Or the Secret Service applies a blacklight to counterfeit money to see if the watermarks show up?

Or radiologists apply X-rays to see if someone's bones show up?

Or any number of other image maniplators that allow us to see what our eyes can't readily see due to certain special circumstances, like image degradation, or material erosion, or natural and man-caused damage, or other unknown obstructions and variables?

Wow.

Quote:

MORE: However, now the blood was negative, or white, which detracted from the whole.

NO! You mean to say that what was once black was now white on a photographic negative? HOLY SHIT!

Quote:

MORE: To say I was unimpressed
would be an understatement.

I'll say. To say your observations are in any relevant would, conversely, be an overstatement.

Quote:

MORE: That is Heller at the very beginning of his book, the very beginning of his journey in S of Turin study.

Note the very beginning of the very beginning is the overall qualifier: By faith, I am a Christian.

Quote:

MORE: [The only quibble I have with the above is on the question of left and right reversal: I must check it]

That was the "only" quibble? Well, considering he said nothing relevant other than to overshadow everything with his christian bias, why not?

Quote:

MORE: NOW a quotation from this same Heller on page 219 (first page of Epilogue).

So where does all this huge amount of science leave us?

Nice! We go from, "I'm a christian, but a skeptical christian" to the assumption of a "huge amount of science" to...?

Quote:

The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available. The physical and chemical data fit hand in glove.

What this "data" is, of course, is conveniently overlooked by leonarde; who needs to go into the details, right?

Quote:

MORE: It is certainly true that if a similar number of data had been found in the funerary linen attributed to Alexander the Great,
Genghis Kahn, or Socrates, there would be no doubt
in anyone's mind that it was, indeed, the shroud of that historical person.

Quite an unsubstantiated assertion on his (and, by proxy, leonarde's part), but no matter, right? All of this is just one giant given from the objective analysis of a christian "skeptic."

Quote:

MORE: But because of the unique position that Jesus holds, such evidence is not enough.

And even he concludes the "huge amount of science" is not enough evidence to conclude Jesus.

So, where did all that lead us? Nowhere.

A christian concludes that the "huge amount of science" is not enough to evidence to conclude that the shroud man is Jesus.

Great.

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

04-09-2002, 07:17 PM	#411
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	To clarify my understanding of Bucklin's position (he is deceased of course): during the course of his 1961 forensic study of the Shroud his findings were compatible with those that went before him (ie to at least the time of Delage in 1902): the anatomical and physiological details were so true to life that NO possibility existed of mere artist's rendering: this was the image of a truly crucified man. No subsequent information or examination (including his actitivites for STURP 17 years later)convinced him otherwise and his paper produced in the URL presented in the thread by me was of even LATER provenance (early 1980s?). Naturally, aware of whose Shroud this was purported to be, Bucklin couldn't help at some point to think about the Gospel accounts and compare those details to those of the Man of the Shroud. If someone wants to call this bias, then so be it..... Cheers! and

04-09-2002, 08:02 PM	#412
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I was wondering how Koy explains the findings of Yves Delage 100 years ago this month.....See the chronology posted by me on page 3 : posted March 18, 2002 04:55 PM

04-10-2002, 07:47 AM	#417
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	An account both of the 1898 exhibition and the 1902 session of the French Academy of Sciences is here: <a href="http://www.shroud.com/colleg14.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/colleg14.htm</a> Very brief account though. Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.