leonarde

A few notes not directly on the substance....

I would like to thank PB for shutting down this
thread for 24 hours: it enabled me to cool off and
rethink things. Perhaps it was of benefit to those
whom I angered/insulted as well.

I'm no longer going to address Koy or Scientiae
directly on this thread: my personal struggle with
each has, to an ominous degree, overshadowed the
S of Turin and THAT'S not a good thing.

Still I might yet answer some arguments made by
Koy in this thread, just in a non-confrontational
way. My last post from a forensics manual was, of
course for Scientiae.

A word ABOUT Koy: though my anger toward him was
centered on his vehemence and what I felt was a thorough distortion of Meacham's paper, on reflection neither one is SO strange and in the case of Meacham's paper, I believe that Koy believed that he DID understand it (ie he misread
it, and did NOT purposely misrepresent Meacham).

A word ABOUT Scientiae: my anger towards him caused me to stoop to rhetorical tricks and half
truths and ad hominems. I regret that. Scientiae
is an intelligent young man of good education and
is knowledgeable about science, math, ancient history, and the classics. I believe he did/does
work with medical doctors so his reference to Zugibe as a "colleague" was by no means so strange. I just wish that Scientiae were more honest: it's not really such a hard thing to be.
Because of our having been on opposite sides in a
recent brouhaha at ARN forum, it is difficult to
put all that aside and begin afresh. I intend to
avoid confrontations with him for the duration.

Cheers!

leonarde

Posted by hyzer: This is an EXCELLENT question and is one of the
quandaries that scholars studying the Shroud (the
general field is sindonology or the study of burial cloths)have grappled with for many decades.
When I get the time I will look for references etc.
This touches on one of the more interesting aspects/controversies: manner of image-formation.
The last I heard, the best conjecture was that a
type of "coronal discharge" could well have caused
the image. The image also resembles "soft x-rays"
(ya got me!).
Your question draws attention to the fact that the
dimensional relief ('3D') aspects of the Shroud seem to be related to the distance of a given segment of a man's body from the cloth: beyond a
certain distance (centimeters but I forgot how many)NO IMAGE is formed.

For something else, a theory/methodology advanced
as a possible forgery method (I don't agree with
it but present the URL nonetheless), look here:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/craig.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/craig.pdf</a>

Cheers!

Principia

&lt;previous statement presumably read by intended audience&gt;

SC

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

hyzer

So, the supposed "coronal discharge" only went ‘up’ and ‘down’?

When I try to imagine the "coronal discharge" that fixed this image into the cloth I picture rays emanating in all directions.

I also think about those ‘people shadows’ formed by the atomic blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (where the blast effected various building surfaces except where people absorbed the energy instead leaving a “shadow” on the surface).

So, it has been suggested that the human-form portion of the image was created supernaturally (but the blood parts of the image were created by, well, by dripping running blood). But the human form is two dimensional (I know it appears to be three-dimensional, I mean two-dimensional in that there is a front image and a back image but no side images) and the cloth bears no evidence of the image forming while the cloth was wrapped about the body (or we would see evidence of distortion of the features due to the cloth tightly enveloping the body, creasing and overlapping). Rather, it appears to me that the back image was formed while the body was lying on it and the top image appears as though the cloth was held stationary and taught, parallel to the bottom portion.

leonarde

hyzer,
Sorry, don't have much time today. You asked:
No, I THINK the general notion (may be wrong) is that the material
closest to the sides of the Man were outside the
X centimeter range of the image-formation mechanism (?radiation?).
The BLOOD is another thing: it ISN'T an IMAGE of blood but blood itself and where it is the image
isn't, which implies two things:
1)the image-causing agent (let's call it "radiation") was NOT penetrative (ie couldn't get
through the blood to the top fibrils of the cloth.
2)the blood was there BEFORE the image (ie there
isn't any image UNDER the blood of the blood-encrusted areas of the Shroud).

Of course NO ONE KNOWS for sure: one cannot even
rule out other strips of linen being used along
the side of the body etc.

Maybe when I get the time I can find more on this.
My response was just an-off-the-cuff one.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

I will, of course, bow to the wishes of the moderator and attempt to keep a civil tone. It is exceedingly frustrating to post legitimate arguments that are never directly addressed, however, so I can't promise much.

To what leonarde did address, however:

"Piecemeal." Like your straw men.

In other words, IMO, I'm going to stall addressing anything directly while tossing out a smokescreen of words and observations so that it gives the appearance of an answer.

And here we go. You have now jumped the track and put us off into your own agenda.

The only reason there is any link to Jesus is based on the Gospel of John, so it's exceedingly important for you to get your critical thinking in line with that primary fact.

To do this, try one simple thought experiment: assume there never was a man named Jesus and the NT was never written.

Now what does that mean regarding the shroud?

You are clearly not comparing two deaths at all; you (and your sources) are attempting to make the shroud fit a fictional story written two thousand years ago in order to (attempt to) prove that the story isn't fictional.

That fact is of primary importance to what everyone is saying here, you included leonarde, so please stop with the a priori assumptions.

We have a shroud. We have a myth. What your sources are trying to do is see how the shroud matches the myth.

So, does it?

No. It does not and that's the basis for my repeated points and the thrust of my argument that you have continued to avoid.

You've certainly tried piecemeal to make it seem as if all of the evidence points to the myth being true, but that's all it does, point. It doesn't establish anything, it merely keeps the doubt plate spinning.

We don't know, so it could be...anything at all.

Why? IMO, because that's the basis of all cult indoctrination, doubt. So long as the doubt is kept alive, fears and hopes are malleable and the sheep follow.

So, the question for us would be, how fast is that plate spinning and to what lengths will you go to in order to keep it spinning?

The answer to that one is quite obvious.

The myth...

Well, doing as you have done, if we go by your own sources and look to the "historical documents" (aka, the myth) for any clues, we know it wasn't asphyxiation, since he spoke just prior to "giving up the ghost."

People suffocating to death cannot speak.

We know it isn't poison, since these same documents state clearly that he did not drink any poison.

That leaves blood loss, aka, hypovolemic shock.

So, we're once again back at the most obvious cause of death based entirely upon the historical documents that Bucklin and Meacham claim to be their primary source of identification as well as another of your own sources, Zugibe, which we'll get to in a minute.

Direct evidence of something; what we aren't sure...

I didn't "take it as a given" I did as your own sources did and ruled out everything else by deductive reasoning.

For whom? The Man on the Shroud! That is the only question involved here, since that is the only evidence of any possible post-mortem to investigate!

As you have pointed out many times, we have no body, all we have is a shroud with an image on it.

You are presenting critical analysis of an image and sources who are speculating on the possible cause of death based upon absolutely no expertise whatsoever regarding crucifixion. They are just speculating and, as I have shown prior and will show in the body of this response, they are speculating from an obvious bias that clearly clouds their reasoning.

Regardless, you keep presenting this "evidence" as if it means anything at all! It does not, for we have no body to perform a post mortem upon!

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

All your sources are doing is trying to fit the image found on the shroud to the myths of Jesus. That's the only thing conclusive about anything you've presented and this is no mere declaration on my part as you'll see later when I quote Zugibe (again).

Regardless, the blood loss goes directly against any critical comparison between the image found on the shroud and the myth of Jesus!

This is why I repeatedly attempted to force you to address the "historical documents" contingency that your own sources declare as their only link to Jesus!

You keep skirting the issues, which, believe me, only speaks volumes to your plate spinning.

What possible difference would that make? It is your sources that are making the mistakes and the biased attempts at reconciling what was alleged in the myths!

"Water like stains" ring any bells?

As opposed to a twenty-first century pathologist with no crucifixion pathology experience?

Rendering all of your source's speculation highly susceptible to bias and therefore of primary importance, as evidenced by the fact that they keep making the "historical documents" standard contingent!

Not according to your own sources, who not only consider it possible, but make the comparison directly, concluding (at least in Bucklin's case) with the inescapable implication that the image on the shroud is Jesus and the shroud is Jesus' burial shroud, directly contradicting the very "historical document" that he basis his "identification" upon.

Spin that plate!

And offer nothing more than their own contradictory speculations so that the plate just keeps on spinning.

Nice with the "dead center" straw man.

The wounds on the image in the shroud! Please stop trying to conflate the two so disingenuously. The paintings of Jesus are the paintings of Jesus; the shroud is the shroud.

If the nails in the shroud are in the wrists (as we'll soon see from Zugibe, they may not be, but more on that later) then all that means is that the image on the shroud has nails in the wrists!

Do you see now why the bias is so influential? There is the shroud. That's it. Constant back and forth comparisons of the shroud to the myth are not allowed unless you are seeking to demonstrate the a priori bias of your speculators, which has already been firmly established and granted by you (at least in the case of Bucklin).

Christ!

Well, anyone applying any kind of critical analysis to any of this nonsense would immediately point out that dead men can't flex their muscles or exert a will, but then, he's the expert.

Yes, you (and your sources) make a big to do about the position of the nails in relationship to the assertion that 13th and 14th century artists wouldn't know how a crucified victim was nailed to the cross, thus their paintings of christ being crucified in the hands.

It's interesting that you don't now quote Zugibe to counter this, because I went to the Zugibe link you provided and found, curiously, a contradiction regarding the nailing of the hands as opposed to the wrists:

How fast is the plate spinning now? Your own source states now that a primary argument for the shroud not being a forgery (the nail through the wrists) is actually still prevalent, since the entry wound was most like the upper palm.

I think I know why you didn't care to mention this. Zugibe is clearly a biased source who betrays an a priori agenda. Such evidence is bolded in the following, from the same link:

Hardly the observations of an unbiased scientist, wouldn't you agree?

I know Tercel will, loath as he is to admit it.

Then Barbet has confirmed that the Man of the Shroud could not possibly be Jesus, since Jesus spoke just prior to dying.

Yes, thanks for that, BTW.

Why not the fact that Zugibe has demonstrated the plausibility that both Jesus and the Man of the Shroud were both nailed through the palm and not the wrists?

Don't you think that would be pertinent in your house of cards, especially as further evidence against what I had stated earlier about arterial wounds from the wrists?

No, because you're intent on building piecemeal doubt about any definitive conclusions regarding the shroud. I get it now. It makes perfect sense.

So long as the plate is still spinning, the show goes on.

Too bad the second anyone applies critical analysis to the sources you've presented the plate shatters like the cheap knock-off it is.

"Space" eh?

It should be reiterated at this point, of course, that "hypovolemic shock" is death by blood loss; that's what it means to say someone has died of blood loss, they've died of shock induced by the "Abnormal decrease in blood volume (strictly speaking, in the blood plasma)" or "<a href="http://www.medterms.com/script/main/Art.asp?li=MNI&ArticleKey=3871" target="_blank">Hypovelimia</a>."

Aka, blood loss...

So, death by blood loss...

Would have, but couldn't. It wasn't linked to on the site (that I could find).

Yes, after a lengthy is somewhat circuitous discussion of Hypovelimia and the shock associated with it; in other words, the shock associated with blood loss.

Indeed, I highly recommend it. You'll see first hand (pardon the pun) how Zugibe

<ol type="A">[*] Establishes the plausibility that Jesus was nailed to the cross through his palms, thereby debunking the argument regarding 13th and 14th century artists allegedly depicting Jesus death incorrectly proving the shroud to be, at least, not a forgery[*] Zugibe's clear and present a priori bias[*] His lengthy discussion of death to be a combination of hypovolemic (blood and fluid loss) shock and traumatic shock, putting us right back at the beginning of death by blood loss[/list=a]

It really is amazing the way you've kept the plate spinning, leonarde, but, as I've repeated so many times now the mind literally boggles, had you simply applied a modicum of critical analysis to any of these sources you wouldn't have started spinning the plate to begin with.

Well, let's not waste any time then...

Which proves the man of the shroud isn't Jesus.

Hypovolemic shock conflated with traumatic shock. I.e., shock trauma by blood loss and pain.

It's very telling how you keep trying to avoid blood loss at every step of your straw man stuffing.

But which one of them is discussing the man on the shroud and which one is discussing Jesus?

The common denominator, however, is blood loss, but just keep that plate spinning so you never have to address how a man who has most likely died of Hypovelimia shock can have any blood left in his upper body after hanging dead for two hours from a cross!

Spin that plate!

As well as death by blood loss! You just referenced Zugibe and Bucklin who stated that blood loss was a significant factor; Zugibe especially!

There is no controversy, other than in determining how the man on the shroud (if it is a man) died, since that's the only death we have any direct evidence for!

And in that little nutshell lies the entire agenda. Keep the plate spinning at all costs!

And so it goes.

I'll say this for you, 15 pages of plate spinning is certainly impressive, but that's more to the fact that we just can't stand to let bad arguments, shoddy evidence and deliberate smokescreens stand.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

leonarde

For those who might be interested in other discussions on the S of Turin, here's one that was
argued politely and intelligently: it's from the
II archives: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000143" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000143</a>

I take primary responsibility for the veering off
into invective that this thread took.

Cheers!

leonarde

I'm continuing to peruse the archives here for stuff on the S of Turin. One interesting post:
This is an excellent point and agrees substantially with everything that I have read about Jewish attitudes towards funereal clothing:
it TOO was regarded as unclean in a religious sense. However what we make of this fact in the
case of the S of Turin depends on our CRITICAL
ANALYSIS (for Koy is 100% correct: critical analysis is just as important as data collection).

So coming down to us from the 1st Century are (arguably) 2 funereal shrouds: the one I presented
a few pages back which was recently discovered and
(more controvertially) the S of Turin. So the question is: WHY did 1st Century Jews (the apostles and friends) who ordinarily thought of
funereal garb as unclean and to be avoided save
and indeed preserve one and only one such shroud?
Could it have been that that shroud was connected
with some extraordinary event? Could it have been
that the Man of the Shroud's influence was such
that it caused them to change their attitude toward (at least) one such shroud? Could it be that these Jews saved this Shroud because they
thought of it as a sign, not of death, but of life
beyond the grave? Food for thought.
Cheers!

britinusa

Tercel
I apologize for my outburst in my previous post (on page 14, I think). You're right, it was uncalled for. I am participating in several other threads, and it can get frustrating sometimes. I even had a fight with my wife over the Shroud of Turin. I asked her if she believed it was authentic, she said yes, I asked her why, she said "because my minister told me." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> I asked her if her minister claimed the moon was made entirely of English Cheddar, would she believe it?
She sulked for the rest of the afternoon. But enough about my marital squabbles.
I objected to two points you made in that one brief paragraph. You claimed that we atheists feel threatened by the very idea of the shroud's authenticity. I can't speak for other atheists, but I for one was actually disappointed when the c-14 results came out in the late 80's. As I've said before, it would be sort of cool if itwas genuine. No, I feel threatened by people with a religious agenda going to any lengths to persuade people (including themselves) that the shroud is authentic.
I also objected to you (and others) tossing around words like "supernatural" and "miraculous".
If you introduce the supernatural into this or any other debate, then... well, anything goes.
I conceded the point that if the shroud does contain miraculous properties (and that's a BIG if), any kind of measurement could lead to badly skewed results. I mean, the shroud could actually be seven thousand years old.
There is no point in discussing c-dating, blood, paint, cause of death, pollen or any of that fun stuff if at the end of it all a xian will simply dismiss all results that don't point to the shroud's authenticity with the simple expedient of stating: "ah, yes, but this is no ordinary shroud..."

Take care

Martin

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

britinusa

This thread contains a shitload of website links (most of them provided by our good friend, leonarde), so I thought I would add another one. I think you'll like it.
<a href="http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptics/shroud/appro-sindone/schafersman.html" target="_blank">Unraveling The Shroud Of Turin</a>