We have already provided the following words from Davor Aslanovski (pictured: the Davor doll) in a previous posting, Wilson the Exoheretic. What? Yes, Exoheretic. It was just that it was part of a larger paragraph and I want to focus on the following words specifically. Is Davor right?
[A] veritable pseudoscience has been created. Sindonology. The study of one single relic, isolated from everything else, conducted outside the world of orthodox academia, and often with deep disrespect and distrust for what the orthodox scientists have to say. And when any orthodox scientist reads the endless on-line discussions of these ‘sindonologists’, the papers presented at their conferences, and the occasional publications that they produce, he will invariably notice one thing: these people veritably despise the academic world.
I do think we should forget the word sindonology. Davor helps us see that the word is silly. But is he right that it is studied outside the world of orthodox academia? Well, yes, for the most part, I think so. But when he says “often with deep disrespect and distrust for what the orthodox scientists have to say,” he is wrong. I would be interested in why he thinks that is so.
Just this morning, I read this from Joe Marino. (I didn’t get his permission to quote this email so I hope he doesn’t mind.):
So all the STURP scientists, who were [part of] the US space and nuclear programs and worked for some of the most prestigious institutions in the world, are nothing more than pseudoscientists who don’t even put the Shroud in the context of mainstream science. They despise the academic world even though many had Ph.D.s and published scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. They distrust "orthodox" scientists, who have done little or no study of the Shroud, and whose opinions should trump the several hundred thousands of hours of analysis done on the cloth. So "orthodox" scientists like Garlaschelli and Tite and Hall should never be doubted about anything, especially the Shroud.
What is the point of this, Dan? I believe you are intelligent and cool-headed enough to see that the only topic I have addressed is the plausibility of the link between the Image of Edessa and the Turin Shroud. Eminent scholars such as Averil Cameron, Sebastian Brock, Hans Belting, Robin Cormack, and Ewa Kuryluk; as well as some others who are not as advanced in their careers as to be called ’eminent’, but are certainly trained in relevant disciplines and have based their opinions on diligent research and much reflection – such as Andrea Nicolotti or my own humble self; have expressed their expert opinions on the topic and have rejected the idea as entirely fanciful. But our opinion is not valued within the ‘sindonological’ circles, and is rejected with intelligent and well-argued explanations such as:
‘Rather turgid prose, straining at gnats, swallowing camels, he doesn’t see the woods, too focused on the trees, twigs and leaves. I can see why academic specialists are unsuitable candidates for jury trials. There’s rather a lot more to it than he’s considered, I should say yet another victim of over-specialisation.’
‘I trust that DA has had “the last part he has to say on the matter”, as despite his extensive verbiage he has contributed nothing to our understanding of the Shroud. He may return to his ivory tower where no doubt a trail of sycophants may admire his further efforts on Byzantine scholarship, and other such related topics.’
You yourself have read my two papers, admitted that they were products of serious study, and then granted them with no other comment but ‘I have not changed my mind’.
And you go out and ask yourself: ‘What could he possibly mean by this ‘disrespect and distrust for the orthodox academia?’
I have been thinking about refuting the idea that the Pray ms illustrations are somehow depictions of the Turin Shroud, or that the Disciplina Arcani is what Markwardt thinks it is – but, frankly, I don’t even know where to begin. So many things have been misunderstood here that I would have to start with questions like ‘So what is art?’. And even if I found a way of debunking these syndonological myths – what would the reactions be? ‘You haven’t changed my mind, you iconologically blind, over-specialized, archskeptical sycopanth. Go back to your ivory tower.’
For the hundredth millionth time: I don’t know what the Shroud of Turin is. I don’t know what the worth of chemical, physical, botanical, or any other research on it is. I don’t even know much about C-14 dating. Because I am not a specialist in any of those fields, and have not had any first-hand information on the subject. So I have no opinion on these issues. But I am trained as an art historian, at a university that prides itself with being one of the first in the world to have introduced the subject of art history, and where it takes you at least 6 years to complete your undergraduate degree – so extensive are the reading lists. And I am currently sponsored by the University of Oxford’s most prestigious scholarship and am reading Late Antique and Byzantine Studies under the supervision of the world-famous Jaś Elsner. And, after having dedicated many, many hours to examining both the textual and the visual sources, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in them to support Wilson’s hypothesis. And I am not saying that Wilson isn’t right. I am only saying that, at the present moment, there is no evidence to support his thesis.
So, rather than pretending not to know why I would say that there is disrespect and distrust for the orthodox academia here, you either start accepting my views as informed judgments made by a sincere and serious person, or let me back go to my ivory tower to mingle with my fellow sycophants whose testimony would be valueless in New Zealand courts of law and whose over-specialized camel-swallowing will never convince you.
And, yes, it is irritation that all these typing mistakes show. It doesn’t irritate me when people disrespect the world of academia, but it does when they pretend not to see what disrespect I could possibly mean.
It’s Sunday morning and I really shouldn’t be thinnk this way, but does this guy have a phallic complex or what?
See what I mean?
And the stress in the sentences starting with ‘But I am trained as an art historian’ is mean to be on the ‘AM’… So: ‘But I AM trained as an art historian’, ‘And I AM currently sponsored’ etc. – in contrast to ‘I am NOT a physicist/chemist/botanist etc’
Seems to me Mr. Aslanovski’s rhetoric has now backfired on him and he doesn’t seem to happy about it. By overstating his case he has actually detracted from the real content of his opinion and work. That’s a shame when anyone does that. Perhaps he would like to restate what he originally overstated?
Quite to the contrary, I think that my case was very much understated. In my opinion, it was a reticent, meticulous, and objective examination of a very particular question. Followed by an equally understated examination of the history of scientific heresy, with particular focus on Velikovsky and Wilson.
If anything has backfired on me, it was rather my decision to discuss this outside the academic world.
Perhaps, instead of slamming Ian Wilson, you might be interested in educating? With your expertise, that would be quite interesting. I am neither a historian nor an art historian. I would find your expertise quite useful.
Davor: I think that raising the issue as a struggle between orthodox and heterodox is a bad approach to be discussed outside the academic world.
The fact that in a hundred years the sindonists have placed only a handful of articles in scientific journals and their presence in meetings and faculties of history is virtually inexistent does not say much for their “orthodoxy”. But that will never be accepted by the sindonists. Especially those with no academic experience, who are the majority.
You have clearly shown that Wilson’s arguments are inconsistent. You have shown a high level of competence. But you can not expect that people who discuss with you have the same competence. You can not even pretend that they realize that their arguments are wishful thinking. Because if it would so it would cease to be wishful thinking.
We are not talking with scientists, Davor. We’re among believers.
Yes, David, you are right. But these believers believe that they are scientists. And that’s why I brought up Velikovskianism and exoheresy. I wouldn’t walk into a village where simple peasants worship an icon that they believe was painted by St Luke and lecture to them on the improbability of such a thing. But this is something else. This is: ‘St Luke was a painter and all the Christian art drew on what he painted and we can prove it scientifically. We have found a crack in the paint on an old icon in the shape of the philtrum – the philtrum was not painted, it is a crack in the paint, but it was misinterpreted by the artists and copied as a philtrum, which you will find on a number of old icons of Our Lady – both on the Virgin AND ON CHRIST! And this proves that every icon stems from this one source, which was painted by St Luke. And we have analyzed the wormholes in the wood on which the original icon was painted. And if you connect the wormholes (consistently with the paleographic and steganographic data made widely known to us by a retired dental surgeon who made several trips to Mount Athos in his life, both alone and in the company of his plumber who is an expert on the Disciplina Arcani), you will get the letters MP ΘY – which you will find on almost EVERY old icon of Our Lady!!! ‘M’, as was conclusively shown at our 1999 international conference in Las Vegas, stands for the Latin ‘mecum’ – we are still working on the rest of the letters in this arcane message.’ I don’t know about you, but I am a weak man and find such temptations very hard to resist.
The nature of the replies to Davor makes his own point for him.
The fact that some amazing space and nuclear programme scientists worked on the Shroud means absolutely nothing because ancient textiles was not a field in which they were trained to work.
I am happy to be corrected by Davor but having worked on the sidelines of similar issues it seems to me that if you want to carry out a research programme on an ancient textile or a fourteenth century painting or whatever.
1) You have to have proper laboratory conditions set up for an examination so that the artefact can be moved there and there can be no further deterioration or contamination from other substances.
2) You have a full examination of the object before you do anything, especially if you want to remove pigment or other substances.
3) You assemble a team of experts covering a variety of disciplines- it is important someone is in charge who can judge on the quality of each member of the team and make sure that the problems you have identified on your preliminary examination can be dealt with.
4) You don’t expect to work under pressure of time.
5) Samples are removed with extreme care and only when essential and are only allowed to leave the laboratory if another specialist laboratory has equipment that you don’t have.
6) Intervention is minimal- of course, a great problem with the conservation of pictures .
One day the story will be told of how it was possible for a self-selected group of nuclear physicists to get access to the Shroud in 1978, not to have had any preliminary physical examination of it before they began research on it, were able to examine it in a draughty hall with nuns on hand to cut off the backing cloth, to improvise the examination within a very short time span of 120 hours, to remove samples and take them out of the system, to have a completely disorganised method of distributing the samples around once they had been taken back to the States ( Who actually owned and was responsible for these possible substances from the body of Christ?). It also seems that there was a preconceived idea of what would be found.When the samples were sent off to Walter McCrone’s laboratory, Ian Wilson in his latest, 2010, edition of the Shroud , notes on p.92, how the apparently brilliant McClone (who had worked on Yale’s Vinland Map) was selected for the analysis of the samples and goes on ‘The expectation ( not least on my part) was therefore that by some equally brilliant feat he might be able to show the Shroud to be authentic’. Further comment unnecessary! Of course, as is well known, McCrone came up with a mid-fourteenth century date to the horror of the team.
Then Wilson tells, us, p.92 , ‘With the benefit of hindsight, the STURP [this was the self-selected US work team on the Shroud]were probably far too undemanding in their sample requirements. Their ‘light touch’ sticky tapes did little more than kiss the Shroud’s surface’. Well, that is one relief -who knows what irreversible damage might have been done with ‘real’ sticky tape?.
So far as one can see there are still samples from this 1978 raiding expedition around and they can still be handed around but only it seems, after the McCrone episode to people who will back the Shroud is authentic point of view . Needless to say the samples are pretty worthless from the scientific point of view by now and there does not seem to be a single hint from any of the samples that we have a first century artefact. Davor has explained the immense difficulties in linking a historical narrative which takes the Shroud back to the first century. As he says, surely correctly, it is not impossible that the Shroud is authentic, simply that Wilson et. al. have not yet come up with any usable evidence to suggest that it might be.
It would have been better simply to have a traditional ‘Veneration of the Shroud’ guild and have kept the science out of it altogether. It is pretty worthless and the latest idea to offer a £15,000 prize for explaining how the Shroud ‘s image was made makes no sense unless the Shroud is allowed to be properly examined under laboratory conditions and the samples taken from it that are still floating around returned to the examining laboratory. Perhaps the £15,000 can be diverted towards paying for this! The answer may well come back that in the present state of knowledge we don’t know how the image was made but with further scientific advance it might well be in the future. In the meantime ,don’t fret. Keep to your traditional faith in Christ as a human/divine being and stop worrying so much about any physical objects that might have survived from his lifetime.
Why all this rubbish about “Exhoheretic”? Any thinking Christian knows that his/her faith cannot depend on the Turin Shroud. And, it is also incorrect to state that scientists have not studied the relic.
Todo esto suena a PATALETA escéptica ¡ja, ja, ja..!
Los científicos favorables a la autenticidad de la Sábana son siempre “pseudo científicos”, carentes de formación académica, hacen mal las cosas…¡ja, ja ja…!
¡Y esto suelen decirlo los escépticos que CARECEN de formación científica generalmente !
Escribía William Meacham en 1983:
“Beyond misunderstanding lies invective, and the comments of Cole, Nickell, Schafersman, and Mueller are phrased in an emotive tone not conducive to reasoned discussion. They bristle with intemperate rhetoric: “gullibility,” “credulous bias,” “notoriously subjective,” “sheer whimsy,” “blatant example of human credulity,” “conceit,” and “so-called evidence,” to mention but a few examples. Doubts about personal competence or expertise emanate from Schafersman (graduate student) and Nickell (English instructor) like stones from inside a glass house: Frei’s work is “questionable,” STURP members may be pseudo-scientists, Heller and Adler are “nonforensic scientists,” Filas and Whanger “nonexperts,” and Bucklin and Gambescia “religious devotees of the ‘relic.’ ” Those with views supporting the skeptics are mirabile dictu described in lavish terms: the Turin Commission consisted of “forensic experts;” McCrone is “probably the best-known forensic microbiologist in the world” and “a distinguished expert”; Baden is not only “one of America’s foremost medico-legal experts,” but “one of the world’s most distinguished pathologists.” Naturally, the former group are subject to a pro-authenticity bias, make “subjective inferences,” and find “artifacts of their own hopes,” whereas the latter conduct “impressive analyses” and make discoveries and “positive identifications.” I leave it to the reader to decide whether this is the type of rhetoric usually associated with a carefully reasoned argument, not to mention a “powerful case.””
Yo no soy un científico, pero soy médico y TENGO una formación científica y un “curriculum vitae” bastante envidiable, que abarca entre otras muchas cosas desde la medicina clinica hasta la docencia como profesor universitario.
Creo que teniendo en cuenta el GRAN NÚMERO de médicos que HABIENDO ESTUDIADO la Sábana están convencidos de su autenticidad ( la opinión SIN ESTUDIAR tiene un valor nulo), debo llegar a la conclusión de que hay que ser MUY ESTÚPIDO ( me refiero a NOSOTROS LOS MÉDICOS) para dejarse ENGAÑAR por la pretendida impronta de un ser humano ¡que es una falsificación!.
Una profesión, la Medicina, llena de estúpidos ignorantes que no distinguen una impronta humana de una falsificación pictórica o realizada con una escultura….¡ ja, ja, ja…!
Desde que la Sábana Santa “entró” en el estudio científico de mano del Profesor Delage en 1902, médico, zoólogo, Profesor de Anatomía Comparada en la Sorbona, miembro de la Academia de Ciencias de París y acreditado agnóstico, numerosísimos profesionales de la Medicina se han sentido atraídos por ella.
He confeccionado una relación de médicos ilustres, muchísimos de ellos catedráticos o profesores de Universidad, que avalan la concurrencia en el Hombre de la Sábana de aspectos médicos que no son reproducibles por vía del arte, que corresponden a la existencia real de un ser humano que ha tenido contacto con la Sábana, que ha dejado en ella las huellas de su sangre y que por una vía que escapa al conocimiento actual de la Ciencia, ha dejado impresa en ella la impronta de SU imagen.
Indico en muchos de ellos algún trabajo relevante para una mejor identificación por el lector.
-Accetta A. Nuclear Medicine and its relevance to the Shroud of Turin.
-Baima Bollone.P. The Shroud under the microscope: Forensic examination
-Ball DA. The crucifixion and death of man called Jesus.
-Barbet P. La Passion de Jésus-Christ selon le chirurgien.
-Belcet F, Filippa-Borrono-Bona, Manfredi, Mattio. Riflessioni del chirurgo sull ferita toracica.
-Bucklin R. An autopsy on the Man of the Shroud.
-Brillante C. La fibrinolisi nella genesi delle impronte sindoniche.
-Davis CT. The crucifixion of Jesus: the passion of Christ from a medical point of view.
-Delfín Villaláin J. Estudio de la rigidez cadavérica que presenta la Sábana de Turín.
-Canale M. Rilievi e considerazione sul DNA presente sulla Sindone.
-Caminals A. Estudio de la crucifixion según la Sábana Santa.
-Cappi M. La Sindone dalla A alla Z.
-Cinquemani N, Cicchetti S. Le dopple immagini sulle mani dell´Uomo della Sindone.
-Coppini L. Le lesione da punta ed il colpo di lancia visibili sulla Sindone. Rilievi di anatomia topografica e radiologica.
-Dellesite G. Cause fisiche della morte della Sindone: medicina e certezze.
-Domínguez J J. La Síndone. Estudio médico.
-Edwards WD. On the physical cause of death of Jesus.
-Fiori R. La lesioni da inchiodamento ai piedi dell´Uomo della Sindone.
-García Blazquez M. La búsqueda científica de Dios.
-Garza-Valdes L. Wood remnants in the blood of the occipital region of the Man on the Shroud of Turin.
-Gilly R. La Pasión de Jesús. Conclusiones de un médico.
-Giraud F. Le Saint Suaire, étude medicale et scientifique.
-Goldoni. Estudio hematológico sobre las muestras del Sudario tomadas en 1978.
-Guillaud Vallee O. Position en opposition du ponce chez l´homme du linceoul étude critique des travaux de Barbet.
-H. Ur Rerhman. Did Jesus Christ die of pulmonary embolism? a rebuttal.
-Hynek R W. Lo que revela el Sudario a un convertido.
-Huisman H. The Holy Shroud of Turin. Injury of the right eye.
-Judica Cordiglia G. L´Uomo della Sindone e il Gesu dei Vangeli?
-Larato G. L´ignominiosa flagellazione secondo la Síndone: rilievi di fisiopatologia clinica.
-LeBec A. The death of the cross: a physiological study of the passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
-Legrand A. Du Gibet du Golgotha a ceux de Dachau.
-Lavoie G. Forensic studies of the blood marks on the Shroud of Turin.
-Lévêque J. Le Saint Suaire revisité.
-Lorente J A. Examen forense al cuerpo de Jesús.
-Mérat P. The nailing of the feet on the Cross.
-Milanesio A. Le lesioni da inchiodamento agli arti dell´Uomo della Sindone.
-Novelli G. La Síndone un caso ancora aperto.
-Palacios Carvajal J. La Sábana Santa.Estudio de un cirujano.
-Puorrat O. The localization of the chest wound on the right side.
-Revidatti D. Anatomía de la Crucifixión. Las manos.
-Rodante S. Medico-necroscopic enquiry of wounds from the crowning with thorns on a medieval painting. Comparison with corresponding image on the Shroud.
-Rubén Darío Camargo R. Fisiopatología de la muerte de Jesucristo.
-Thibault Heimburger, Le Suaire et la Science.
-Signorini R. Alla ricerca della prova provata.
-Suárez Lledó Alemany J. Informe médico legal sobre el Sudario de Oviedo y la Síndone de Turín.
-Solas J. Blood stains on the Shroud.Distinctive characteristics. The problem of their transfer.
-Truman D. The crucifixión of Jesús. The passion of Chris from a medical point of view.
-Whanger A. Radiological aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
-Wilkinson J. The physical cause of the death of Christ.
– Barragán Jain, Caselli, Cameron, Clerq J M, De Vicentiis, Delgado Roig, Gambescia J, Igartus, Jewell H J, La Cava, Lagraña R, Liébana J, López Gómez L, Marchand, Michel W, Morano H, Novelli, Notowski, Pugeaut R, Sáez Rodriguez, Sava Anthony , Stroud Willian, Terraes A, Tarantini D, Valdés, Wasenar R, Willis D .
Representan tan sólo la “punta del iceberg”, pues son un sinfín los médicos profesionalmente muy bien acreditados, entre los que me cuento, los que hemos reconocido en la figura del Hombre de la Sábana, cruelmente martirizado, todas las características propias de un ser humano que la Sábana envolvió, Jesús de Nazaret.
Corneliotel:
His post is a clear example of what I mean by believers with wishful thinking.
1. Tell us what you know about these doctors with “brilliant” curricula. From what I know of some of them just shines in sindonists media.
2. Tell us how many of these doctors have been able to make a direct study of the Shroud of Turin.
3. Tell us how many of these doctors have published their studies in scientific journals or have presented their papers in academic meetings.
4. Tell us where you got your list.
When we will have this data we can laugh together. Meanwhile let me laugh at your list. That in a hundred years you can only draw up a list with names is very significant. Consider that list shows that the medicine supports the sindonism seems a classic case of wishful thinking.
Finally, let me also smile at your accreditation. Dr. Zugibe said with a good sense that the problem with the medical studies on the Shroud of Turin is that doctors do not are forensic. Then they said nonsense. As Dr. Barbet, big believer that you quote in the list of “brilliant” doctors. To believe that because one is phonologist or pediatrician is able to do a forensic report (“at the distance”) is not wishful thinking, is holy innocence.
PS: I do not see the name of Dr. Zugibe in your list. Any problem with him? He say something do you not like?
Ante la santa inocencia la…. ¡ la santa ignorancia !.
-Yo me he referido a que cualquier médico que haya ESTUDIADO la Sábana RECONOCE que se trata de la impronta de un ser humano. Que no se trata de una pintura u otro artefacto.
– Y con ESTUDIAR me refiero a que haya visualizado la imagen a TAMAÑO NATURAL, positivo y negativo, y haya dedicado a ello al menos unos cuantos minutos.
– El tema de la Sábana Santa, como otros muchísimos diversos temas, no es de conversación habitual en los medios profesionales. En varias ocasiones la casualidad me ha hecho conocer, después de muchos años de ignorarlo, que colegas con los que había trabajado durante muchos años eran magníficos conocedores del tema….
– Si pongo una lista es simplemente porque esos médicos lo han explicitado PÚBLICAMENTE a través de sus escritos.
– La especialización y la super-especialización son hechos muy recientes en la Historia de la Medicina. Un médico foniatra o un médico pediatra son ante todo MÉDICOS.
– Todos los médicos, al menos en España, han estudiado medicina forense.
– Los forenses y los anatomistas, en la práctica diaria suelen ser anatomo-patólogos, cirujanos o clínicos.
Pero la cosa es mucho más SIMPLE y SENCILLA.
He querido decir que en los tiempos de HIPÓCRATES un médico griego o un médico egipcio, por poner ejemplos, NO CONFUNDIRÍA una impronta similar a la de la Sábana Santa con una pintura o artefacto similar por muy bien que estuviera realizada.
¿Está clara mi propuesta?
Usted es buen conocedor del idioma español castellano, ¿confundiría un texto escrito en OTRO idioma distinto con un texto escrito en español-castellano? ¿ tendría usted que ser LINGÜISTA para no confundirse? ¿ se confundiría aunque hubiera errores ortográficos o de sintaxis?.
No. I have not this type of temptation. My temptations are different. It would be hypocritical if I said they are no better. Perhaps they are not. But I try not to get carried away by false arguments, serious inconsistencies and obvious frauds. This is what the Secret Dictionary of the Oxford University said it is common sense. 1726.
Carlos or whatever is your name:
No. Your proposal is not clear. You started by saying that there were many doctors with “brilliant” curriculum who guaranteed that the image of Turin was not a work of art. Then you provide a confused list without clear references, which includes general practitioners, surgeons, surnames (???), without reference to publishing titles, editorials, etc., etc.
Now you hold that any physician who sees the blurry image of the Shroud of Turin is able to distinguish a true mark of a human body because he has studied a course in forensic medicine. Apparently not: I have quoted a forensic doctor who says this is impossible. I explained why and I have got no answer. Do any of the doctors on that list you put may explain how it is possible that streams of blood run over hair?
To draw up a confused list of believer doctors is easy. To draw up a confused list of doctors and to maintain they say the image is of a real human being is also easy. Let’s be serious. You do not know if that the names you mention are all doctors, you do not know what is written in titles you quote (some are badly copied, some repeated) and to attend a course of surgery do not prepare you to make an open-heart surgery.
Moreover, I may explain you how some of the “famous” doctors that appear in your list commit blunders for not knowing the medieval art. All thumbs hidden history, for example, is explained simply by the position of the corpses in the burial of the time and also the way to represent the hands crossed in medieval painting. They are hands of Christ, Santa Margarita or nobles of the Sforza’s court. I can put a lot of examples. No need to know comparative anatomy. We only need to know what we are talking about: history of Art.
Good, you are a believer and you’re doctor (but you do not know how to write a bibliography). Bringing together these things makes some doctors think more with their desire than with their reason. It’s called “wishful thinking” and is typical of sindonist world. But their speech does not reach the academic world. He stays in their circle. And what you have demonstrated with your confused list does not lead anywhere. When you present a correct list with the conditions I asked you, we can talk.
1.-Mi propuesta no será clara para usted, pero seguramente será muy clara para muchísimos lectores, sobre todo los de habla hispana, que lean el blog de Dan.
2.-He dicho que NO hay que ser médico forense para RECONOCER que es una impronta humana y no es una obra de ARTE u otro artefacto.
3.-Su “forense disidente”, Michael Baden, dijo:
“From my knowledge of dead bodies, and the wrapping of dead bodies, this kind of transfer never occurs. And blood never oozes in nice neat rivulets, it gets clotted in the hair. The anatomic accuracy is more what Michelangelo would have done in a painting than what actually happens to a body.”
– “From my knowledge of dead bodies, and the wrapping of dead bodies, this kind of transfer never occurs.”
Cierto, el hecho es tan EXCEPCIONAL que ha justificado precisamente el que muchos científicos y expertos en diferentes disciplinas se hayan interesado por la Sábana de Turín. “The Jospice Mattress Cover Image” es un ejemplo de esa EXCEPCIONALIDAD que seguramente nunca vió Michael Baden.
Para Baden es un obstáculo insalvable que condiciona su criterio, para otros muchísimos médicos NO es un obstáculo insalvable y buscan la explicación.
– “And blood never oozes in nice neat rivulets, it gets clotted in the hair.”
No hay “rivulets” sobre el cabello en las zonas alejadas del cuero cabelludo.
Esos “rivulets” sobrepuestos a la imagen frontal corresponden a las MEJILLAS.
Las manchas de sangre SÓLO pueden producirse por contacto directo, y la distancia entre los “rivulets” del lado derecho y los “rivulets” del lado izquierdo NO es compatible con la distancia entre el cabello del lado derecho y el cabello del lado izquierdo.
– “The anatomic accuracy is more what Michelangelo would have done in a painting than what actually happens to a body.”
(debieran tomar nota los que pretenden ver una imagen medieval. La PRECISIÓN ANATÓMICA de la imagen NO es compatible con el arte medieval)
Estoy de acuerdo con Michael Baden, se ven en la Imagen más cosas de las que debieran verse en la imagen de un cuerpo humano real, por ejemplo la impronta del ESQUELETO ÓSEO DE LA MANO.
3.-He dicho que NO hay que ser médico forense para RECONOCER que es una impronta humana y no es una obra de ARTE.
¡Seguro que usted podrá MOSTRAR alguna pintura medieval que pueda ENGAÑAR o CONFUNDIR a algún médico……..! ¡MUÉSTRELA!
4.- ¿Bibliografía? ¿ Confunde usted una relación o listado con una bibliografía?
No he puesto ninguna bibliografía. He puesto una relación o listado de médicos que PÚBLICAMENTE reconocen la autenticidad y algún escrito de ellos que facilite al lector interesado su búsqueda en el Google…..
5.- La “historia” de los pulgares NO AFECTA al reconocimiento de si “estamos” o “no estamos” frente a una impronta humana, sino a la práctica de la crucifixión. La opinión médica mayoritaria (me refiero obviamente a la de los médicos interesados en el estudio de la Sábana) es la de aceptar la hipótesis de Barbet por muchos motivos, entre ellos el soporte experimental del que es carente la hipótesis de Zugibe.
( carlos, corneliotel, co, el editor es el que hace los cambios, yo me limito a hacer click en el post comment)
Info: Zugibe made several experiments to disprove Barbet. And Baima Bollone acknowledged it at least once. You can see the experiments described here: “Experimental Studies in Crucifixion” (www.crucifixion-shroud.com/experimental_studies_in_crucifix.htm).
I know the miraculous explanation of how the streams of blood that appear in the hair were originated on the cheeks. It comes from Lavoie. It is an ingenious explanation. But it has some problems. The main fault is that it can explain how in the back of the neck of the image streams of blood are still running over the hair (from right to left!). (See; http://people.bridgewater.edu/~rschneid/FocusProjects/Shroud/ShroudMeasure/enrieImg.html). And that excludes the miraculous corrections proposed by Lavoie. Then, it shows that the streams of blood are painted. As Dr. Baden said and no one can deny.
I think you do not understand that the disappearance of the thumbs has nothing to do with the crucifixion. It is a common way to represent hands folded in the Middle Ages. Here’s an example. Bonifacio Bembo (1420-1482), Court of the Sforza family, Bergamo, (http://www.myartprints.com/a/bembo-bonifacio/people-of-the-court-of-th.html ).
Sorry: follow all your reasoning is tired. Sometimes I think you are a joker. Baden quotes Michelangelo as an example of a painter. Nothing else. That he alone could paint rivulets as the shroud is a joke. Please.
I can show medieval images that have the same characteristics as “discover” the gullible doctors in Turin cloth. Even some features that are not characteristic of any human body. Naturally these images do not deceive any doctor who is willing to believe that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Because these doctors are not willing to be convinced by anything. Just like you.
“…it can’t expalin…” Sorry.
“…explain…” (Oh My God!)
¡Su comentario me es ININTELIGIBLE!
Carlos: I repeat for you in Spanish.
Puedo mostrar imágenes medievales que tienen las mismas características que “descubren” los medicos crédulos en el lienzo de Turín. Incluso algunas características que no son propias de ningún cuerpo humano. Naturalmente esas imágenes no engañarían a ningún medico que esté dispuesto a creer que el sudario de Turín es auténtico. Porque estos medicos no están dispuestos a dejarse convencer por nada. Como Usted
Infórmese: Zugibe hizo varios experimentos que desmienten a Barbet. Y Baima Bollone lo reconoció al menos una vez. Puede ver los experimentos descritos aquí: “Experimental Studies in Crucifixion” (www.crucifixion-shroud.com/experimental_studies_in_crucifix.htm).
La explicación de cómo los regueros de sangre que aparecen en el pelo fueron originados en las mejillas la conozco. Procede de Lavoie. Es una explicación ingeniosa. Pero tiene algunos fallos. El fallo principal es que no puede explicar como en la nuca de la imagen sigue habiendo regueros de sangre que corren por el pelo (de derecha a izquierda!). (See; http://people.bridgewater.edu/~rschneid/FocusProjects/Shroud/ShroudMeasure/enrieImg.html). Y ahí no valen rectificaciones milagrosas como las que propone Lavoie. Entonces, eso demuestra que los regueros de sangre son pintados. Como afirmaba el doctor Baden y nadie ha desmentido.
Creo que no ha entendido que la desaparición de los pulgares no tiene nada que ver con la crucifixión. Es una manera corriente de representar las manos cruzadas en la Edad Media. Aquí tiene un ejemplo. Bonifacio Bembo (1420-1482), Corte de la familia Sforza, Bergamo,
(http://www.myartprints.com/a/bembo-bonifacio/people-of-the-court-of-th.html ).
Espero que esta vez haya entendido. Mi inglés es muy malo, pero creo que no lo bastante para hacerse ininteligible. Dan Porter parece que lo entiende. (Thank you, Dan). Pero estamos en un foro en inglés. Creo que debemos hacer un esfuerzo para escribir en ese idioma. Yo, al menos, lo intento. Así que no voy a escribir otro comentario en español. Lo siento.
Translation:
I hope this time you understand. My English is very bad, but I guess not enough to be unintelligible. Dan Porter seems to understand. (Thank you, Dan). But we are at a forum in English. I think we must strive to write in that language. I try it at least. So I will not write another comment in Spanish. Sorry.
Lo que IGNORABA tan el doctor Baden (que no es arqueologo) como el doctor Lavoie es l’usanza del sudario de Oviedo en la economía específica de las imagenes de sangre en la nuca y el pelo….
-Pruebe usted a ENGAÑAR a algún amigo mostrando una imagen medieval ( mejor en blanco y negro para que el color no le haga sospechar el engaño) y dígale que es un ser humano REAL ¡verá la risa que le da!…….
-He estudiado MUY BIEN a Zugibe y a Barbet. Las hipótesis de Barbet siguen siendo MAYORITARIAMENTE aceptadas, Zugibe NO hizo experimentos REALES de crucifixión, sus simulacros de crucifixión son realmente ridículos, y NO hizo experimentos en cuanto a la introducción del clavo en la mano se refiere.
Decir, como dice usted en la Wikipedia que Zugibe “demostró que es imposible que un clavo pasara por el espacio Destot” es una ABERRACIÓN que debiera corregir.
Zugibe NO HA DEMOSTRADO NADA…… ¡más que su mala intención hacia Barbet!.
http://lasabanaylosescepticos.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/sobre-el-espacio-de-destot-y-algunas.html
y
http://lasabanaylosescepticos.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/sobre-el-espacio-de-destot-y-algunas.html
(llevo meses resistiéndome a publicar la parte III, lo tendré al final que hacer, porque forzosamente es una crítica muy dura hacia Zugibe)
– La explicación de Lavoie es la ÚNICA posible para una Sábana que ha estado en contacto con un cuerpo.
-Las manchas de la NUCA no ofrecen ningún problema pues la sangre está en contacto inmediato con el cuero cabelludo y sus heridas. La sangre en un cadáver se desplaza hacia la periferia ( los cadáveres pueden “sangrar” pasivamente) y su acúmulo y por lo tanto su presión es mayor en la zona dorsal por efecto de la gravedad.
– Yo diría que NADIE ha demostrado que la sangre sea una pintura. Es sorprendente la CARENCIA de crítica al respecto de los escépticos.
– Decir que la posición de los pulgares no tiene nada que ver con la crucifixión es un GRAN EXCESO. Si hubiera leído bien a Barbet ( Zugibe NO lo hizo) sabría que la posición retraída de los pulgares la imputa al DOLOR y su posterior fijación por el rigor mortis.
– Le agradezco su atención, pero es que su comentario me parecía ininteligible.
Carlos:
That depends: a) If my friend is pretty gullible. b) If the image is blurred enough. c) If you con convince him that all physicians who have studied the issue say it is the body of Christ. In other conditions, probably he will not believe. As not believe that the image of the Shroud of Turin is the body of Christ. Perhaps I have friends very critical.
Let’s see if I understand what you mean: A person becomes injuried at head. I apply on his wound a cloth and let him lies (horizontally, of course). Then the blood will not soak the cloth or hair in patches. It will run on hair and cloth forming net streams here and there. You really are a doctor? Because I’m not a doctor but I have seen some similar cases and I know that it is impossible what you say. I need not invoque Dr. Baden. Although he also says it is impossible and has seen many corpses. Apparently many more wounds and corpses than you.
PS: Again you are misinformed. If you’ve read the book, you read it wrong. Barbet said that there is pain, but is nerve damage which causes the thumb shrink
. «La contraction de ces muscles thénariens, encore vivants comme leur nerve moteur, s’expliquait facilement par excitation mécanique du nerf médian (…) Le Christ a donc dû mourir et se fixer dans la rigidité cadavérique, avec les pouces opposés dans les paumes. Et voilà pourquoi, sur le Linceul, les deux mains vues d’en arrière ne presentent que quatre doigts, pourquoi les deux pouces sont caches dans les paumes.»
Pierre Barbet, La passion de N.-S. Jésus Christ selon le chirurgien, Dillen, Paris 1950, [3, p.136].
Translation (aprox.) to English:
“The contraction of the thenarian muscles, still alive, and their motor nerve, was easily explained by mechanical excitation of the median nerve (…) Christ had to die and rigor mortis set in, with his thumbs opposed into the palms . And that is why, on the Shroud, the views of both hands behind present only four fingers, for the two thumbs are hidden in the palms.”
I can give you the digital version if you want to compare the quotes.
-“Toujours les nerfs des court abducteur, opposant et court fléchisseur, qui se détachent en dehors à ce niveau du médian, étaient intacts. La contraction de ces muscles thénariens, encore vivants comme leur nerf moteur, s’expliquait facilement, par excitation mécanique du nerf médian. Il ne peut donc s’agir de paralysie de ces muscles, comme on l’a prétendue Au contraire, le nerf médian, tendu, dans sa partie externe, motrice, intacte, sur le clou, en recevait une excitation mécanique à chaque mouvement. Le Christ a donc dû agoniser et mourir et se fixer dans la rigidité cadavérique, avec les pouces opposés dans les paumes. Et voilà pouquoi, sur le Linceul, les deux mains vues d’en arrière ne présentent que quatre doigts, pourquoi les deux pouces sont cachés dans les paumes”
y
“Mais, hélas, les médians ne sont pas seulement des moteurs, ce sont aussi de grands nerfs sensitifs. Blessés et tendus sur les clous, dans ces bras étirés, comme des cordes de violon sur leur chevalet, ils ont dû provoquer des douleurs atroces. Le nerf, partiellement coupé, tendu sur le clou par sa portion intacte, en recevait aussi à chaque mouvement une violente excitation sensitive.”
-Mi alusión al DOLOR es una crítica a Zugibe, que pretende que el pulgar no podía flexionarse.
Pierre Barbet demuestra en sus experimentos que la parte motora del nervio mediano está INDEMNE ( de ella depende el que el pulgar pueda flexionarse) y la parte sensitiva del nervio mediano gravemente LESIONADA ( de ella depende el intensísimo dolor).
Con INDEMNE me refiero a que no está SECCIONADA, no a que no esté “excitada” por las graves lesiones contiguas.
Con respecto a la sangre, Baden no dijo que fuera imposible, sino que tenían que haber sido lavadas…. Es decir que Baden admite que hay FACTORES que pueden modificar su criterio.
Usted no ha podido ver casos similares a los acontecidos en el Hombre de la Sábana
«Blood never oozes in nice neat rivulets, it gets clotted in the hair.» (Dr. Baden). I do not know another opinion of Dr. Baden about washed the corpse. Do you not are thinking in Zugibe? I do not understand the conection between to wash the corpse and the bloodstains on the hair.
I have seen many wounds. I have seen head wounds. I have seen to heal wounds with cloths. I have done it myself. And I know the liquid streams fall downward and not from left to right. It is the gravity force, you see. I do not need Dr. Barbet, Villalaín, “Notowski” or someone else to say me that the “rivulets” winding on the neck hair are impossible.
“Sindonology: Oh, what an awful word?”
‘AWE’ is here the key word of it all. Just think of the day (methinks this day is not so far in time) when the Turin SINDON shall be proved authentic beyond all rational doubt…
It will be quite AWSOME for both archadvocates and archsceptics…. as they’ll realize they were both TERRIBLY right and wrong and should have known better.
AWE like in YHWH? ; -)
Mistypin: “AWESOME”
Mystipin: ‘they were both AWFULLY right and wrong and should have known better”
Davor Aslanovky the Ultratoxicorthodox? What? Yes, Ultratoxicorthodox.
What should you call his pseudo-academical, deliberate and self-serving ignorance and omissions?
Aslanoskism.
Yes.
Sorry Aslanvokism…
Or even better Aslanovskipticism…
DA an aslanovkipticademics from Deadendland.
Typo error: “DA, THE aslanovskipticademics from Deadendland”
What I find amazing is the Asimov article which is a part of blog that started this Medieval (maybe not so medieval) adopted of the language of analysis of the Inquisition. Thus we “orthodox” science defending us against the heretics who dare to publish without imprimatur.
It is a very elitist view and anti-democratic. It’s not that scientific issues should be decided by a majority vote. It’s that even crackpots have a right to free access to what Madison called “the market place of ideas.”
Given the scientific investigations of the Shroud of Turin and the published results of those investigations anyone who still argues or tosses off the opinion that the Shroud is, or must be studied as, a painting, is either lazy or a fool, or both.
They are also what Marcello Truzzi called “pseudoskeptics.” They are not seeking to discover truth but to sustain their predetermined point of view. They are truly “true believers.” And yet in the posts to this blog the pseudoskeptics label those who take the scientific findings concerning the Shroud seriously “believers” as if that were a curse word. When it comes to “belief” those who maintain the Shroud is a painting and attack the credibility of those who deny that are the Taliban of science.
Corrected copy:
What I find amazing is the Asimov article which is a part of blog that started this discussion. It’s Medieval (maybe not so medieval). He adopted of the language and analysis of the Inquisition. Thus we have “orthodox” science defending us against the heretics who dare to publish without imprimatur.
It is a very elitist view and anti-democratic. It’s not that scientific issues should be decided by a majority vote. It’s that even crackpots have a right to free access to what Madison called “the market place of ideas.” The essence of the Asimov view is that only approved ideas can be shared.
Given the scientific investigations of the Shroud of Turin and the published results of those investigations anyone who still argues or tosses off the opinion that the Shroud is, or must be studied as, a painting, is either lazy or a fool, or both.
They are also what Marcello Truzzi called “pseudoskeptics.” They are not seeking to discover truth but to sustain their predetermined point of view. They are truly “true believers.” And yet in the posts to this blog the pseudoskeptics label those who take the scientific findings concerning the Shroud seriously “believers” as if that were a curse word. When it comes to “belief” those who maintain the Shroud is a painting and attack the credibility of those who deny that are the Taliban of science.