What you are going to want to do after you read this posting is …
- Click on Colin’s posting on his site: Here’s an updated version of my ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud” (probably a misnomer).
- Then scroll down until you see a paragraph that starts with, “Another hero-worshipped figure is “STURP member” Robert V. Bucklin.”
Colin’s posting on his blog is so long and cumbersome it is slowing down my browser and making my mouse jerky. So first, read the comment, below, the that Colin wrote in this blog and I mined from my own site. (BTW: When I gather information from Colin’s site he complains that I am mining his site for content. When I don’t, he mines it for us.) I had said it was a slow news day. He said:
Slow news day? Not on my site… Were you aware that STURP’s Robert Bucklin MD, consultant pathologist, was in fact doing his virtual biopsy a year before STURP’s trip to Turin (which Bucklin may or may not have joined, depending on whose account one believes), so was NOT done on the “Shroud” itself but on PHOTOGRAPHS. What’s more, the photographs used were long-in-the-tooth 1931 Enrie negatives, as this video still from David Rolfe’s “Silent Witness” shows, made in 1977 (released in 78) a year before STURP.
How many people reading Bucklin’s autopsy would realize it was NOT based on the “Shroud” itself, seen in natural colour with his own eyes, but a B/W negative on which he claims to see “wounds” etc and much else besides? One suspects that Bucklin’s “autopsy report for STURP was written well before the STURP descent on Turin, so could not have benefited from the new photography done by Barrie Schwortz, Mark Evans and other documenting photographers, far less the far superior imagery we now have from Durante (2002) on Shroud Scope.
Given the autopsy relied entirely on ancient photographs, why was ‘true-believer’ Bucklin(his own admission) selected as officlal STURP pathologist? Why weren’t the same photographs sent to other pathologists for their opinion? The more I learn about STURP and its largely self-selected personnel, the less I like.
Is Colin’s criticism justified?
“far less the far superior imagery we now have from Durante (2002) on Shroud Scope.”
Too bad, they could not count the toes:
So, “expert A” , a pathologist say, starts with an assumption of authenticity, and proceeds to interpret data based on that model.
B sees the work of A, and says “Look everybody, expert A has assembled impressive evidence in support of authenticity. We cannot afford to ignore the findings of an expert”.
That, needless to say, is fallacious reasoning. It’s begging the question (by proxy) – citing someone as an objective authority when he or she is nothing of the sort, having taken a subjective position that may tend to be overlooked or forgotten as they publish more and more papers, building their reputation as “expert” when it’s really that of enthusiastic proselytizer. There’s nothing wrong with proselytizers as such, provided they operate in a transparent fashion. Beware however proselytizers who don scientific camouflage. Beware pseudoscientific twaddle.
It’s very much of its time, and I doubt if, were David Rolfe to make a similar film today, he would do it the same way. But I don’t think the cursory inspection of a couple of photos which appears to lead to Dr Bucklin’s detailed forensic conclusions was seriously meant to make us think he was performing his ‘autopsy’ there and then. It would be interesting to know how he really worked before writing, and mostly learning, the clearly scripted commentary he gives here. Was the mise-en-scene really necessary? Or true? We see corridors lined with corpses on trollies, only to arrive at a conveniently empty room in order to examine a piece of paper. (We also notice the Dr Bucklin marches through the corridors gloveless, and then quickly, off camera, puts some on so that he can take them off again as he enters the room – why?).
There’s an interesting form of words in Dr Bucklin’s comments on the nail hole. “An injury to this part of the wrist will invariably damage the median nerve, whose function is to flex the thumb across the palm.” So what happens if you damage it? You can’t move your thumb across the palm, and you get ‘ape hand deformity’. I have scoured the internet looking for median nerve damage that might result in the thumb vigorously flexed across the palm as described with no success. Can anybody support the idea that it might?
“Can anybody support the idea that it might?”
I would not. But note there was no consensus among pathologists, Dr Zugibe wrote:
“Even if the median nerve was injured causing mechanical stimulation as Barbet claimed, this would still not cause the thumb to be drawn into the palm of the hand.”
Whether Zugibe or Anoxie consider the nail resulted in the thumb flexing into the hand or not, Barbet reports on not one, but on several repeated experiments on different amputated hands, generally from about two-thirds up the forearm, and on perhaps a dozen or more.
Despite any attempt to steer the nail otherwise, it always found the Destot space, and on each occasion the thumb flexed into the hand. Dissection in each case showed that the median nerve was damaged. I’m unaware that either Zugibe or Anoxie have reported any such replica experiments, but appear to be speaking from merely a position of general theoretical anatomical understanding. Find a few amputated hands Anoxie and try it out. If you don’t have access to them, then you can’t authoritatively criticise Barbet’s actual experiments.
What you can study on amputated hands are mechanical constraints on flexor, tendons and muscles, not nerve stimulation with a nail.
You are badly mistaken.
“Pour se rapprocher des conditions du vivant, il fallait opérer sur un cadavre frais, mais la loi ne permet d’y toucher que vingt-quatre heures après la mort. Il y a pourtant mieux encore à faire, en, se servant de pièces d’amputation et c’est ce que j’ai réalisé. On sait que les tissus ne meurent que peu à peu, après le dernier soupir ; pendant plus ou moins longtemps, les muscles et les nerfs réagissent encore aux excitations électriques et même mécaniques ; nous verrons que cela n’a pas été inutile. Somme toute, mes expériences ont porté, étant faites aussitôt après l’amputation du bras, sur des mains réellement vivantes, mis à part la circulation sang “. Barbet
Barbet was badly mistaken on this one.
Nail through Destot space; Thumb flexed; Nerve damaged. Whatever, the thumb still flexed! On each and every attempt!
And i’m telling you, on this specific issue, he’s wrong, Zugibe’s right.
I’m not saying he’s skewed his observations, i’m just saying there is no causality between a mechanical median nerve damage and a flexed thumb on an amputated hand.
When one reads Robert Bucklin’s “autopsy” report, one could be forgiven for thinking that he had been called in by STURP as an independent expert to take a close look at the “Shroud” and deliver an impartial opinion. What he fails to state in his introduction is that he was in fact described by himself and others as a sindonologist for the duration of most of his 50 years or working life. Indeed it didn’t take long to dig this article from the archives that he penned in 1970 – 8 years before STURP, and 7 years before “Silent Witness”. (Incidentally, I have not claimed or even implied that his appearance in that video clip was the full extent of his “autopsy”, given what follows, where he said he had been working on Enrie and other photographs for many years previously).. Note carefully the IMPLICIT belief in the authenticity of the “Shroud” (my bolding) which I consider renders his “autopsy” valueless as a SCIENTIFIC document, lacking as it does scientific objectivity (e.g. by failing to question the means by which the image came to be imprinted, effectively treating it as though a photograph, which we know it is not).
R.Bucklin: The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ, Medicine, Science and the Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1970.
The body lay in the sepulchre for an unknown period of time and was gone from the place early on Sunday morning when the burial party returned to complete the embalming procedures. At that time only the wrapping cloths were found in the sepulchre. The long linen cloth in which the body was wrapped has been preserved through the centuries and it is this cloth which is known today as the Shroud of Turin. It has a most colorful history which has been traced in detail by a number of European authors. ………. The cloth was first photographed in 1898 by Secondo Pia and again in 1931 by G. Enrie. The photographs of Enrie are remarkable for their clarity and it is the study of these photographs, including life-size enlargements, which are the basis of my medical interpretation of the events of the Crucifixion.
My conclusion (admittedly harsh): Robert Bucklin should never have been copted to STURP as consultant pathologist. Robert Bucklin was not just a pathologist. Robert Bucklin was a sindonologist convinced of the Shroud’s authenticity while other sceptical STURP team members were asking more mundane questions like “Is it just a medieval painting?”. There should be a preamble added to Bucklin’s “autopsy”, a warning that its author had a long-established belief in authenticity that clearly coloured much of his observations (which were based anyway it seems mainly on B/W photos, not the Shroud per se).
Could CB read Bucklin 1981 research paper before passing harsh comments?
Posted on another thread:
How one can take seriously a “mise-en-scène” autopsy for the real thing? Bucklin never studied the TS man’s double bloodied body imprint just for the time of a 10 minutes’ film sequence!
Are PHPL and CB really/deliberately that naive?
Bucklin wrote a research paper on 1981, i.e. three years after the 1978 STURP expedition. Shall I repeat, until proven otherwise, in the late 70s and early 1980s CE, Bucklin based his TS man’s autopsies from both Enrie’s and Miller’s life sized negative and positive photographs + VP8 image analyser 3D reconstructions.
When it comes to the height of the TS man recorded on a 3:1 herringbone twill linen planar surface and estimated on different displays, points in time and techniques, it is not at all surprising it can vary from 174cm-182cm in average depending on the real field of expertise of each expert. This is one of few main disagreements as far as medical forensic is concerned.
Don’t archsceptics make too much of it to misleadingly dismiss all the anatomo-pathological datas that tell out the shroud wrap a real corpse/body, most likely of a crucifixion victim who was severely flogged, crowned with ferocious thorns, nailed, sidewounded.
Reminder: in less than 3.5 years CB –who repeatedly claims to be an expert in biochemistry and chemistry– have had several most contradictory theories to account for the TS image and each time it was a scientific and archeaological dead-end not to say total flop (no bloodstain recorded at all, remotely reminiscent object/body imprints). Most curiously, it does seem Hugh sees CB as the main expert for TS image formation process!
Agree with Max. Colin does only trial and error experiments. However todate noone has found a real mechanism of the formation of the TS image.
No one can achieve that unless they understand the resurrection process of Jesus. Remember this image was formed in either 14th century or 1st century and that time they did not have technology what we are using today.
Hugh appreciates anybody who actually tries to replicate the image formation mechanism rather than just talking about it. Vignon, di Lazzaro, Fanti, Berry, Rogers, Guarlaschelli, Allen, Nickell, etc., even myself. How tired we get of what ‘would have happened,’ when such guesswork is lacking any real practical evidence. Don’t you?
Reminder for Hugh: Just ONE archaeologicallly valid thought experiment based on “intuitive reasoning” can be THE solution and save much time and trial-and-error experiments leading to dead-ends and complete flops in the name of alleged “scientific objectivity”.
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”. Einstein
Hugh, BTW I made two attempts at just reconstructing the TS man’s most likely wrapping in shrouds in light of Christolipsology (studies and research on Christ’s contact relics). I very much doubt you ever made even such a basic attempt. First things first.
Evidence? Report? Pictures? … sigh … I thought not …
An inspired guess may indeed be the answer, but unless supported by evidence, that’s all it is.
On February 18, 2012 at 1:29 pm, I wrote:
“Shall I repeat here, till the end of the 1990’s, John Jackson thought the Shroud was naturally draped over the Shroud man’s body covered with blood. He borrowed “his” side strip hypothesis from a memo (part II) I wrote in 1996-1997 and entitled “La Solution Archéologique de l’Egnime ?” (A memo –part II– I left for free to most congressmen during the 3rd International Shroud Symposium (held in Nice in 1997) John Jackson attended.”
BTW have you noticed CB recycled my own ideas about to TS image formation process in terms of fumigation, alkali solution, compression, mordanting etc to have them fit into his “latest theory”?
I have today re-designed my own “Shroud” site, partly but not entirely in response to this type of comment that Dan allows here.
Needless to say, people were having and extolling “ideas”, with or without claiming priority, long before the scientific method put in an appearance (Europe, 17th century). That method requires critical evaluation and experimental testing of one’s own ideas, something this blogger has been doing for some 3.5 years in a few hundred postings. Yet still the ludicrous charges of plagiarism are allowed to appear regularly on this site.
See the new-look portal:
Besides, I was to present a paper at the International Congress for the Study of the Shroud of Turin
“Science and the Shroud” (The 1998 Turin Symposium)
on SUNDAY, JUNE 7, 1998, 0900
ARCHAEOLOGY SESSIONS – ROOM 500
Moderator: Prof. P. Kaswalder
HAMON, P. (sic)- La soluzione archeologica dell’enigma o verso una nuova orientazione delle ricerche sulla generazione dell’immagine sul lenzuolo mortuario di Torino
Actually, I could not present it for technical reason (I was forwarned just the day before I was allowed only a seven minutes’ oral presentation) and had to write up overnight a substitute paper “En Vue De La Solution Archéologique de L’Enigme”.
I could not present either my second paper:
“Decriptazione Ex-Novo Delle Tracce D”Iscrizioni Sul Lenzuolo Mortuario Di Torino E Messa In Correlazione Col Frammento Del Titulus Damnationis Conservato A Roma”
Methinks CB mistakes plagiarism for recycling myown ideas (after he first rejected the latter as just “eccentric views” see comments in his blog on april 15, 2012)
On April 22, 2015 at 7:54 am, I wrote:
“Re Colin’s latest theory (which is now miles aways from his mummy-baking and scorch theories and the like!), if you do keep in mind his key-words are NOW:
“FUMIGATION/fumes”; “mordant”; “GELATINIZED STARCH”; “printing PASTE”; “ALKALI SOLUTION”; “DRYING”; “pressure/to PRESS DOWN”; “considerable details (= implying high
(and reread all my posting -dozens and dozens– re the TS image formation process from 2011 CE to present)
then you’d get aware he is JUST RECYCLING my pro-authenticity archaeological theory to fit his pro-forgery view INDEED.”
On April 22, 2015, I also wrote:
“Yes Colin, fumigation, so far, is the best theory you can think of via your ‘aping around’; a theory I first had in 1988 INDEED, first presented to the late arch-mirculist Raffard de Brienne in 1994 and still advocate as the most likely to account for the image fromation process! I am flattered that you dropped all your previous ideas and should want to finally take into account my fumigation theory as the most likely (though “recycling it” to meet your anti-authenticist agenda).”
Sadly, telling us of papers for which there is no evidence is not the same as presenting evidence. Why not send them to Dan?
Kindly don’t bother on my account Hugh. Someone who allows his site to be used for systematic harassment – not just months, but years – merely to sustain a reputation for ‘light-touch moderation’ – does not deserve to retain serious commentators (this one at any rate). See my Shroud site for a long-range solution to this ongoing problem.
The fact is the papers date back to the late 1990s CE and would need to be updated. The very fact CB recurs to the same key words I used to describe my fumigation/sellf-collimated pre- or light mordanting theory (namely “fumigation/fumes”, “mordant”, “gelatinized starch”, “printing paste”, “pressure”, “alkali solution”, “drying” etc) to describe “his latest theory” re the TS image formating process does speak volumes: my thought experiment (based on my two attempts at reconstructing just the TS man’s wrapping in shrouds in 1994 et 1997), is no mere words: experimentally speaking it does hold water. It took Colin Berry 3.5 years to sort of reach that TS image consciousness.
Then update them and send them in. Sorry, Max, but “pix or it ain’t so,” as they say.
…or better say it took CB 3.5 years to accept nilly willy/unconsciously my “eccentric view” he kept reading in that blog and I once exposed in his. Needless to say my pro-authenticity fumigation/pre- or light mordanting theory appears more or less in disguise as far as “his pro-forgery latest theory” is concerned.
CB, you can underrate and label Bucklin’s medical report as “travesty of science” (without even having read his 1981 research paper!), you can keep making ad homs on me (while recycling my fumigation/mordanting theory!). Methinks your story is nothing but that of the harrasser feeling harassed.
-Que el clavo que utilizó Pierre Barbet atravesó el espacio de Destot es INDISCUTIBLE gracias a su documentación radiológica
-Los experimentos que soportan el trabajo de Pierre Barbet, con amplísima experiencia como cirujano de “guerra” y como cirujano del Hospital de San José en París fueron del orden de 1 docena.
-Estos experimentos fueron repetidos con idénticos resultados por el Dr. Domenico Tarantini, cirujano del “Ospedal Generale di Trani”.
-La descripción de Barbet es clara y fácilmente inteligible…..salvo para quien no (negación) quiera entenderla:
“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.” Barbet
– Barbet ESPECIFICA que el nervio que lesionaba el clavo quedaba INTACTO en su parte EXTERNA (motora).
-La integridad de la parte motora del nervio mediano PERMITE que el dedo pulgar pueda flexionarse.
-Con los movimientos para intentar respirar el nervio mediano recibe excitaciones mecánicas que pueden flexionar el dedo pulgar.
– El dedo pulgar queda fijado en flexión por la RIGIDEZ CADAVÉRICA.
-Sería muy difícil encontrar en la práctica médica cuadros clínicos similares a los provocados por la ENTRADA y PERMANENCIA de un clavo de gran sección en el espacio de Destot con gran parte del peso del cuerpo gravitando sobre ese clavo.
– Así que la única descripción médica de SIGNOS INMEDIATOS a la penetración de un clavo de gran sección (8mm) en el espacio de Destot, es decir, la flexión brusca del dedo pulgar en oposición a la palma de la mano, es la de Pierre Barbet refrendada por Domenico Tarantini.
-Y esto es IRREBATIBLE sea cual fuere la fisiopatología del fenómeno.
“Whatever, the thumb still flexed! On each and every attempt.” This would be more convincing if the only photos I have ever seen of Barbet’s experiments did not show flexed thumbs…
“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.” This is a more sensible explanation of a possible action of a damaged nerve, but this: “Le Christ a donc dû agoniser et mourir et se fixer dans la rigidité cadavérique, avec les pouces opposés dans les paumes,” sounds like wishful thinking, as the muscles relax after death, and the idea that rigor mortis would suddenly catch the thumbs in just the right position is unrealistic. I still await some confirmation that the flexed thumb suggestion is not a myth.
HF: ” … as the muscles relax after death, and the idea that rigor mortis would suddenly catch the thumbs in just the right position is unrealistic. I still await some confirmation that the flexed thumb suggestion is not a myth.”
Rigor mortis is irrelevant in this case, as flexure occurs immediately on nailing. Whether the muscles relaxing after death would make any difference, so that the palms are merely hiding the thumbs in a natural position, the fact remains that Barbet demonstrates that the flexure definitely occurs, and his attributing it to damage to the median nerve seems credible as his amputated arms were fresh.
One might speculate a severe case of psychosis scrupulus dubitationis scepticissimi.
The following extracts from Barbet, or better still read the full original, or else merely jump to the last three paragraphs. If experimenting, it is important to use freshly amputated arms immediately!
“I did not appreciate the importance of all this till I had made the following experiment: having amputated an arm two-thirds of the way up, I took, immediately after the operation, a square nail with sides of 1/3 of an inch (like those of the Passion), the length of which I had reduced to 2 inches for convenience of radiography. The hand was laid flat with its back on a plank, and I placed the point of the nail in the middle of the bending fold of the wrist, the nail being vertical. Then with a large hammer, I hit the nail, as an executioner would do who knew how to hit hard.”
“I repeated the same experiment with several men’s hands (the first had belonged to a woman) . Each time I observed exactly the same thing. Once it had passed through the soft parts, and the nail had entered fully into the wrist, I could feel it, in spite of my left hand holding it firmly, moving a little obliquely, so that the base was leaing towards the fingers, the point towards the elbow; it then emerged through the skin of the back of the wrist at about a centimetre above the point of entry, which I observed after removing the nail from the plank. Radiographs were taken at once. I had thought, a priori, that the nail would dig deep into the wrist, and would probably pass through the semi-lunar bone, crushing it on its way. The movements of the nail while it was sinking had, however, made me suspect that it had found a more anatomical path.”
“In fact, in the radiograph taken in profile, the nail, which is a little bit oblique, in a backwards and upwards direction, passes between the projections of the semi-lunar and of the capitate, which remain intact. The radiograph taken from the front is even more interesting; the shadow of the square nail appears to be rectangular, on account of its obliquity. The nail has entered into Destot’s space, it has moved aside the four bones which surround it without breaking one of them, merely widening the space.”
“The dissection of the hand confirmed my radiographic results. The point of entry, being a little outside and medial to Destot’s space, the point of the nail reached the head of the great bone, slid along its mesial slope, went down into the space, and crossed it. The four bones were pushed aside, but were intact and by reason of thus being pushed were closely pressed against the nail. Elsewhere the latter was resting on the upper end of the transverse carpal ligament. (Etc). …”
“I have in fact repeated this experiment a dozen times since then on the hand of an arm which has just been amputated, moving the point of entry all round the middle of the bending fold. In each case the point took up its own direction and seemed to be slipping along the walls of a funnel and then to find its way spontaneously into the space which was awaiting it. (Etc) …”
“But these experiments had yet another surprise for me. I have stressed the point that I was operating on hands which still had life in them immediately after the amputation of the arm. Now, I observed on the first occasion, and regularly from then onwards, that at the moment when the nail went through the soft anterior parts, the palm being upwards, the thumb would bend sharply and would be exactly facing the palm by the contraction of the themar muscles, while the four fingers would bend very slightly; this was probably caused by the reflex mechanical stimulation of the long flexor tendons.”
“Now dissections have revealed to me that the trunk of the median nerve is always seriously injured by the nail; it is divided into sections, being broken sometimes half-way and sometimes two-thirds of the way across, according to the case. And the motor nerves of the opponens muscles and of the short flexor muscle of the thumb branches at this level off the median nerve. The contraction of these themar muscles, which were still living like their motor nerve, could be easily explained by the mechanical stimulation of the median nerve. (Etc) …”
Pierre Barbet, “Doctor at Calvary”, Doubleday Image Books, 1963, ex pp. 116-119
Yes, I thought you’d say that. So the dear old lady we see crucified in his photos was not freshly dead? I suppose not. Or the X-rayed hand freshly amputated? As I have said, I have a lot of time for people who actually carry out experiments, and the chance to repeat Barbet’s seems rather unlikely. However, having flung the thumb across the palm at first nailing, what happened next, I wonder? Carlos’s extract suggests that the median nerve needs to be stimulated to produce the contraction, and then relaxes, only to tighten again as an involuntary movement triggers the nerve once more. He then, quoting Barbet, says that rigor mortis locked the thumb in the contracted position, which seems unlikely. It would be good if anybody at all, ever, had seen a corpse with an adducted thumb, except Barbet.
As a physician – peer – I give Bucklin’s report two thumbs up!👍👍.
Your opinion is much more highly regarded in this area than Colin’s because it is your area of expertise.
Stan,that is what we are looking for.
Since Colin is not a forensic pathologist, doctor, etc., how can he know with certainty that Dr. Bucklin is not correct in his observations? Colin here seems to be attacking Bucklin’s area of expertise from outside his own area of expertise, which discredits any good work he might do.
Hi Stan, good to have a physician on board. In your experience, then, what happens if the median nerve is damaged at the wrist? The internet is full of references to ‘ape hand’ and ‘benediction hand’, which demonstrate that median nerve damage prevents the thumb from closing towards the palm, but I found Carlos’s quote from Barbet not unreasonable, that some partial damage could cause spasmodic flexion as described. After death, however, does it remain fixed across the palm, or do the muscles relax it into its ‘normal’ position?
As a physician I can tell you the likely reason the pope blesses the masses with his ring finger and little pinky contracted – is because the pope (I cannot recall which one) had an injury to his ulnar nerve causing the contracture of these tendons. I learned this in a lecture at my alma mater – Notre Dame. There are other kinds of contractures – such as a trigger finger or Dupuytren’s contracture. This has been debated at length and we had this discussion in gross anatomy lab in medical school. It is well understood that injury to a nerve can cause contractures. Every joint has flexors and extenders. If the extensor muscles are weakened by an injury to the nerve – the contracting muscles will have no resistance – causing continuous contraction.
The other curious issue to me is that it has almost always been the custom to place the deceased person’s hands/arms crossed over one’s chest or one’s abdomen. Look at King Tut’s sarcophagus. Or for that matter – any of the people with crypts in any cathedral in Europe. Hands are folded – over the chest – never the pubic area.
So here comes the Shroud with hands covering the pubic area. This would not be what a forger would try to do – if he was indeed trying to replicate the standard burial customs.
It is also fortunate that the hands are indeed covering the private parts of the Crucified One. We would not – nor would God the Father, Son or Holy Spirit want us to be talking about Jesus” private parts.
So too, if the thumbs were not contracted – but folded – over the pubic area – it could easily be misconstrued that the thumb sticking up was actually not the thumb. Rather something else. Not good for discourse.
The obvious reasons for a physician to see the Shroud as authentic is because of all the other forensic detail on the Shroud. Very fine detail that is easily overlooked.
As an eye surgeon I have also a strong interest in the neuro-cognitive sciences – particularly in regards to reading. It is rather obvious that from this stand point – the shroud was produced outside the normal precepts or visual perception.
First and foremost is that fact that the Shroud is indeed a negative image. Perhaps not a perfect photographical negative – but a negative nonetheless.
Secondly, the size/scale of the image is such that the artist would need to have produced the image – standing at least 6 feet from the cloth – this according to Barry S. and his background in photography. This would be nearly impossible.
Thirdly, the image does have 3D qualities. Perhaps not totally understood yet. But beyond the 3D nature of the Shroud is the fact that there is the quality of “linear perspective” in the image of the Shroud. You can perceive how the legs are bent. You can see the hollow of the back. It is obvious to see how gravity affected blood flow. This is different than 3D. Yet we also know the linear perspective was not introduced accurately until Giotto with his frescoes during the Renaissance. Professor Freeman may want to talk about this. It is his area of expertise I expect. Even the carbon dating predates the introduction of linear perspective.
The Shroud is not the construct of an artist.
As for how the brain reconstructs the image in the brain – that is a long and drawn out discussion. Suffice it to say – the brain can best perceive the image of the Shroud from a distance. The actual image – up close – does comply with normal neuro-processing. I suspect something is in play regarding contrast sensitivity.
Thank you so much, Stan. Can I clarify, then, that your opinion is that the flexed thumb was caused more by damage to the nerve to the extensor muscles than damage to the nerve to the flexors? (Or possibly a combination of weakening the extensors and putting the flexors in spasm at the same time?). And, could you say whether this musculature would continue even after death?
Does this help, quoting Barbet from above?
” … dissections have revealed to me that the trunk of the median nerve is always seriously injured by the nail; it is divided into sections, being broken sometimes half-way and sometimes two-thirds of the way across, according to the case. And the motor nerves of the opponens muscles and of the short flexor muscle of the thumb branches at this level off the median nerve. The contraction of these themar muscles, which were still living like their motor nerve, could be easily explained by the mechanical stimulation of the median nerve.”
Any comments, Stan?
daveb, I cannot disagree with Barbet. His analysis is the best I have read.
No one can know if this finding is due to trauma to the muscles or the nerve. Another possibility is that the nails put the flexor muscle/tendon on stretch causing this contracture.
We know from the scripture that the guard lanced the side of Jesus after he was already dead. How long had he been dead – minutes, hours? And by the time Joseph of Arimathea got permission to take the body of Christ down it was likely hours – that is plural – after his death.
Rigor mortis sets in about two to six hours after death. Earlier in the heat.
When I did my training at the Mayo Clinic the ophthalmology residents were responsible for harvesting the eyes for transplantation. I believe it is only the eyes and the marrow that are taken after death. The other organs are harvested before the heart stops beating. We were called to the morgue to enucleate the eyes anywhere from 2-6 hours post mortem. It was apparent to me that rigor mortis had clearly set in in almost every case. The small muscles are affected first – eyelids, jaws, facial muscles, fingers, toes. Large muscles last.
It is certainly consistent that the thumbs on the Shroud would still be contracted at the time of burial. There is no reason they would become un-contracted. The rigor mortis may have abated by the time the image was created but there would be no reason for the thumbs to straighten.
On a side note, the Shroud has a serene quality to it. Very serene. This is a subjective observation. Nonetheless, I have read other opinions sharing this impression. Having enucleated many eyes and dissected a number of cadaver heads – I am still struck with the details on the Shroud. I believe only someone like Da Vinci had an appreciation of anatomical details revealed in the Shroud. The study of anatomy – the dissection of cadavers – came about during the Renaissance.
Stan, the time of death is the time the person is declared brain-dead after a clinical/paraclinical examination.
Then, if accepted by the family/donor, the organs to be harvested are chosen.
Technically, the second “death” occurs when you remove the heart, first to be taken if harvested, or shortly after you stop the mechanical ventilation.
Lungs, liver, kidneys… corneas and vessels last are then harvested.
Now, back to the issue:
Pain is a central mechanism, and one of the confusing factors. Intuitively we think of a “peripheral aggression” as something local, but reaction comes from a central stimulus. That’s why Barbet study on an amputated hand is misleading, and his interpretation a bit far fetched.
If the nerve is directly injured with a nail or a piece of glass or whatever, what you get is a deficit.
This is a dejà vu, is it not? We have already spoken in this forum about the Zugibe’s refutation of Barbet’s claims. I copy here some remarks about the fantastic “respiratory gymnastics” that, according Barbet, the crucified man had to do for breathing.
“Experiment One demonstrates that the position on the cross of our volunteers corresponds to the sagging position hypothesized by Barbet and that it is not physically possible to straighten from Barbet’s sagging position. This appears to be due to the fact that with both feet secured to the stipes or with one foot on top of the other and the knees bent , the range of motion limitation for straightening has been exceeded which precludes any type of straightening or pushing mechanism. It is also obvious that it would be virtually impossible to straighten the body from the sagging position since the arms of the crucarius were so far extended. This experiment also demonstrates that if volunteers who were in good physical condition were unable to push or pull up to straighten themselves no matter how hard they tried when the feet are secured to the stipes or with one foot on top of the other, how could an injured, exhausted person particularly one in severe pain and nailed through the hands and feet have the strength to straighten from a sagging position. This should completely repudiate the theory of straightening and sagging as proposed by Barbet. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how long the crucarius was on the cross and in what physical condition he was in, because it is not possible to straighten as proposed by Barbet and even if it were possible, there would be no reason to straighten because simply stated, there is no problem breathing in the sagging position (…)
Another fact to mull over is that the average respiratory rate is 12 to 16 per minute and in the scenario proposed by Barbet, the crucarius would have had to straighten himself by pushing against the nails in excess of 360 times during the 6 hours on the cross even if he took only about one respiration per minute”.
Frederick T. Zugibe: “EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES IN CRUCIFIXION: INTRODUCTION”, http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/experimental_studies_in_crucifix.htm
Conclusion: The subtle brushed of the median nerve imagined by Barbet is impossible in the very conditions imagined by him. Nothing “irrebatible”, Carlos.
But, once again, I advertise that this debate can be interesting from the point of view of forensic medicine but it is absolutely irrelevant to the matter of the authenticity of the Shroud. The medieval painters used to represent the crossed hands with the thumbs hidden. Dan Porter was kind enough to put one of my comments with pictures in this forum. So, even if Barbet’s theories were correct, we cannot say if the hidden thumbs of the Shroud are a perfect copy of a human corpse or an artistic convention.
“Conclusion: The subtle brushed of the median nerve imagined by Barbet is impossible in the very conditions imagined by him. Nothing “irrebatible”, Carlos.”
-Mi frase era clara: “Y esto es IRREBATIBLE sea cual fuere la fisiopatología del fenómeno.”
Lo IRREBATIBLE en los experimentos de Pierre Barbet (12) y de Domenico Tarantini es la existencia del FENÓMENO (la contracción brusca del pulgar en oposición), no (negación) el “por qué” del fenómeno (su fisiopatología)
-Elevar los resultados del “simulacro” de crucifixión de Zugibe a lo que sucediera en una crucifixión real es “un chiste malo” y aún así sus “atletas” sólo aguantan entre 5 y 45 minutos.
-Zugibe pide a sus “atletas”:
“They were also requested not to attempt to lift the body up at any time by straightening their “
“Subjectively, every volunteer affirmed that they had absolutely no trouble breathing either during inspiration or expiration. A common complaint was a feeling of chest rigidity and leg cramps between 10 and 20 minutes into suspension. When this occurred, they were allowed to straighten their legs or come down.”
“None of the volunteers made any attempt to push themselves up to facilitate breathing as was alleged by Tribbe except in the experiment when they were requested to do so”.
“This should completely repudiate the theory of straightening and sagging as proposed by Barbet. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how long the crucarius was on the cross and in what physical condition he was in, because it is not possible to straighten as proposed by Barbet and even if it were possible, there would be no reason to straighten because simply stated, there is no problem breathing in the sagging position (…) ”
Su frase “…and even if it were possible, there would be no reason to straighten because simply stated, there is no problem breathing in the sagging position…” es antológica ¡que barbaridad!.
El crucificado, Jesús, tuvo que tener forzosamente problemas en su respiración:
1.- Un previo severo castigo sobre tórax y abdomen que perturba la amplitud respiratoria.
2.- Una nariz rota que perturba la respiración fisiológica que utiliza esta vía de manera prioritaria.
3.- Una situación de stress y ansiedad, en que la sensación de ahogo y la hiperventilación vienen a ser actores principales (además de otros muchos)
4.- La hiperventilación facilita la deglución de aire al aparato digestivo (típicamente el abdomen se “hincha”) y esto perturba ya gravemente la función del diafragma, principal motor de la respiración obligando a la utilización de la musculatura auxiliar de la respiración.
Yo soy médico, no preciso ser patólogo forense para tener un criterio correcto sobre “vivos” y Zugibe los olvida.
El abdomen “hinchado” de Jesús ha sido ampliamente recogido por la iconografía, la flexión del dedo pulgar, aunque menos ampliamente, también como tú indicas.
Parece que el gran pintor del gótico Duccio di Buoninsegna sabía más de crucifixión que el patólogo forense Zugibe.
Carlos: Sorry, but you have not understand correctly Zugibe’s objections. Your answer is misdirected. What is in question is the “respiratory gymnastics” that is the cause of the rubbing of the median nerve, according Barbet. I know your activities in the field of preventive medicine and phonology, I don’t know your activities as physician of “life”.This is a strange specialization!
” I know your activities in the field of preventive medicine and phonology, I don’t know your activities as physician of “life”.This is a strange specialization!”.
“Yo soy médico, no preciso ser patólogo forense para tener un criterio correcto sobre “vivos” y Zugibe los olvida.”
Y usted entendió perfectamente mi frase, escribí “vivos” entrecomillado, pero siendo un experto TERGIVERSADOR ha preferido traducir “vivos” (en contraposición a “muertos”, “alive-dead”) como “life” para tergiversar su sentido original.
2-En mi condición de Jefe Clínico del “Hospital Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas” tuve durante años la responsabilidad del diagnóstico y tratamiento de los pacientes ingresados en las 100 camas del “Pabellón de Enfermos Agudos Infecto-Contagiosos”.
3-En mi condición de Jefe de la Sección de Medicina Preventiva de la “Ciudad Sanitaria “Primero de Octubre”” de Madrid (hoy llamado “Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre”) tuve asumida, además de las funciones propias de la medicina preventiva hospitalaria, la “Medicina General” de los trabajadores de la Ciudad Sanitaria.
4-Mi titulación médica mas relevante en relación a lo que se trata en este blog es la de “Especialista en Medicina Interna”.
5-En otras áreas del conocimiento relacionadas con este blog:
-Estudie la Carrera de Magisterio en la “Escuela de Magisterio Pablo Montesinos” de Madrid, magnífico pilar para ampliar mi cultura.
-Hice estudios de “Dibujo” siendo muy joven en la “Escuela de Artes y Oficios” de Madrid
No soy fonólogo, soy maestro de canto
, con un amplio “curriculum” en el Arte de la Música.
Y usted, David, ¿cuáles son sus “credenciales” que le permiten EVALUAR NEGATIVAMENTE los conocimientos de artistas, físicos, químicos, ingenieros, médicos y un largo “etc” de estudioso en otros campos, en tanto que sean PARTIDARIOS DE LA AUTENTICIDAD de la SÁBANA SANTA?
“Y usted, David, ¿cuáles son sus “credenciales” que le permiten EVALUAR NEGATIVAMENTE los conocimientos de artistas, físicos, químicos, ingenieros, médicos y un largo “etc” de estudioso en otros campos, en tanto que sean PARTIDARIOS DE LA AUTENTICIDAD de la SÁBANA SANTA?”
I evaluate any statement coming from supporters of Shroud of Turin or the Flat Earth when it is contradictory; it is not based on sufficiently verified facts or makes logic mistakes that any person endowed with rationality can ascertain. In cases in which experts discuss issues outside of my knowledge, I try to establish some rational criteria of choice. And if I cannot do it, I refrain from comment. I do not like that someone tries me shut up with arguments of authority that are not based on clear reasoning or are mere opinions.
Under these principles I act in the exercise of my human rationality, which is something that God has given to everybody who prefers not bowing before the authority or irrational faith.
I guess you act in the same way. I have often seen you making comments on history of art, forensics, archeology, mathematics and other disciplines which are outside your field of expertise. You have every right to do it, although sometimes I doubt about the rationality of your assertions.
David Mo: “What is in question is the “respiratory gymnastics” that is the cause of the rubbing of the median nerve, according Barbet. ”
I should like a specific reference from David Mo, wherein Barbet is alleged to have claimed that rubbing of the median nerve is caused by the breathing efforts of the crucifarius, as it would seem he has misunderstood Barbet’s claims, or has not read them, or has garbled two quite distinct phenomena. My reading of Barbet is that it is mere hammering of the nail into the wrist through the Destot space, which Barbet claims results in damage to the median nerve, thus stimulating thumb flexure. I do not recall that Barbet discusses the median nerve in connection with breathing efforts, which is the phenomenon challenged by Zugibe. Perhaps David Mo’s distaste of such clinical details, has resulted in some confusion.
A few paragraphs towards the end of his discussion concerning the hands, Barbet does state the following:
“But, alas, the median nerves are not merely the motor nerves, they are also the great sensory nerves. When they were injured and stretched out on the nails, in those extended arms, … they must have caused the most horrible pain. (etc)”
The gospels indicate that death occurred within three hours of Christ being crucified, and this brevity of time surprised Pilate. It hardly reflects the ease of breathing claimed by Zugibe’s volunteers, and his attribution of death simply by shock and trauma, in such a short space of time, may I think be questioned.
«…le nerf médian … en recevait une excitation mécanique à chaque mouvement ». (Barbet quoted by Hugh Farey).
« … the median nerve…received a mechanical excitation with every movement”
You can search in Barbet’s book if you don’t rely on Hugh. In what concerns me, he has all my trust, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise..
” So the dear old lady we see crucified in his photos was not freshly dead? I suppose not. Or the X-rayed hand freshly amputated?”
Must we understand that the Barbet’s pictures didn’t show the retracted thumbs? I saw these photos some time ago but I didn’t pay too much attention to the detail. Too gore for me.
The tendency of the sindonist friends to keep the mouth open in front to an academic qualification has always amazed me. (When it matches their own opinions, of course).
An ophthalmologist is not an authority on archeology or forensic medicine. Need I to say this?
I’m sorry for this impertinent -a little- warning.
Artistic convention or not, Barbet hammered at least 12 nails into 12 amputated wrists and obtained 12 retracted thumbs. Barbet was not to my knowledge an ophthalmologist but an extremely experienced forensic pathologist. Regardless of whether a person on this site is an ophthalmologist or not, I should assume that if he can affix the initials MD after his name, he knows rather more about anatomy than one who is unable to stand the site of gore.
Zugibe’s scenario appears too contrived to me. He has a volunteer step up to a simulated cross and binds his hands into gauntlets fitted with strain gauges and binds his feet. On that basis he claims that arm tensions do not exceed 67 lbs as against Barbet’s 207 lbs. He does not appear to have considered the mechanics of the actual process involved in crucifixion. The most efficient way a Roman soldier might be expected to direct this operation, would be to nail the prisoners arms on the cross-beam while lying on the ground, and then a squad of no more than 5 soldiers can lift the beam on to the upright (stipes). During this procedure the full weight of the body is taken by the arms, and it matters not if the feet are nailed subsequently, the arms have had to bear a tension of about 207 lbs each as correctly calculated by Barbet. Hence wrist nailing would be required. A scenario of requiring the binding of the prisoner to an upright cross, and nailing his arms to the cross-beam in situ presumably requiring the assistance of ladders, sounds altogether too clumsy and unreliable. To obtain Zugibe’s figures requires the body to be supported by some unknown means (soldiers?, pedestal? ropes?) until such time as the feet are nailed.
I interpret Anoxie’s claims that because the amputated arms of Barbet were severed from the central nervous system, that damage to the median nerve could not have caused the thumb retractions observed by Barbet, and that therefore his interpretation of that being the cause is faulty. I should like to be more persuaded about this point. Barbet is careful to say that his nailing occurred immediately after amputation, claiming that there was still life in the arms(?). Is it not possible for the nerve cells to respond to such a stimulus in that situation, i.e. as soon as they are severed from the central nervous system? I should like a professionally competent based response to that question.
Attempting to hammer an 8 mm thick square nail into a man’s arm to near the end of an unbraced cantilevered cross-beam which is supported only at its mid-point, while standing on a ladder leaning against the cross-beam would be a rather hazardous and clumsy way of doing the job. The cross-beam would tend to pivot on its central support, would vibrate and offer a most unsatisfactory surface for hammering. Far better to lay the cross-beam on the ground where it can offer proper resistance, and hammer the nails in there. Ask any friendly builder. I have known research workers who did all their correct scientific calculations, but failed to take into account the basic engineering requirements of their project, occasionally with near-tragic results. I believe this to be a fault with Zugibe’s analysis, as he failed to take into account the actual mechanics of crucifixion.
Dear Daveb of Wellington
As a Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine doctor I’ll try to respond your question:
« Is it not possible for the nerve cells to respond to such a stimulus in that situation, i.e. as soon as they are severed from the central nervous system? I should like a professionally competent based response to that question.»
From a motor point of view peripheral nervous system I mean peripheral nerves can have motor effects on muscle independently from Central Nervous System either in pathological conditions- I recall for example Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis which causes medullar anterior horn cell degeneration and this condition causes involuntary fascicullations of muscles, or by external stimuli applied on peripheral nerves which is the condition under analysis.
Actually, Barbet experiments were not on nerve cells but the effects of a noxious stimulation (a kind of mechanical parcial injury on the axons of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel of the wrist).
Obviously I have never done such an experiment, nevertheless our therapeutic techniques on disabled patients namely cerebrovascular hemiplegic patients and paraplegic patiens who have no Central Nervous System command on medullar anterior horn motor neuron cell can benefit from electrical stimulalion applied to peripheral nerves- that’s myelin axon stimulation- to obtain a non voluntary functional muscle contraction.
If we consider a severed limb for reimplantation, at room temperature muscles degenerate after about six hours, but peripheral nerves still function because axon Wallerian degeneration begins just about 3 or 4 days after the injury ( This conclusion is applied to the living patient, there is no such information for amputated limbs nevertheless it’s not unreasonable to think that survival interval can be a little shorter)
But what really matters is that a nerve stimulation of a freshly amputated limb can produce a muscle contraction independently from Central Nervous System control
Antero de Frias Moreira
( Centro Português de Sindonologia )
Bom dia, Antero
Por gentileza, entre em contato comigo pelo correio eletronico. Precisamos discutir sobre o que consta na reliquia.
Boa tarde Louis
Não disponho de seu endereço electónico;
pode contactar por favor fazendo um comentário para http://www.santosudariodeturim.blogspot.com.
Boa noite, Antero
Ver meu contato no site academia onde meus artigos estão postados. Precisamos discutir o assunto e isso só pode ser via correio eletrônico, entende?
Segui sua sugestão mas o seu endereço e-mail não me é acessivel no site academia edu dos seus trabalhos.
Sugeria-lhe que contactasse comigo atravez do endereço electónico em Shroud of Turin Centers & Organizations Portugal (Centro Português de Sindonologia) https://www.shroud.com/centers.htm
Fico a aguardar seu contacto
This is my question: we know that the medieval artists used to represent crossed hands with the thumbs hidden. Both in dead and living men. How can you discard that the hidden thumbs are not an artistic convention?
I remember only a picture of Barbet’s experiments: it is a crucified corpse with extended thumbs. Do you know other Barbet’s pictures with the thumbs bended? Thank you.
NOTE: my reference to ophthalmologists was not directed to Barbet, but to someone in this forum.
David Mo – the question is not necessarily whether or not medieval artists depicted Jesus with crossed hands and thumbs hidden. Of course, some did, But from my recollection it was always logical from the point of view of perspective.
If the Shroud was painted, given it was a frontal perspective, one would tend to think thumbs would be shown, although that cannot be certain.
Of course, a painting is not likely at all. However, if – as is far more likely to be the case – the Shroud image was created off a relief or sculpture, then it could make sense that the thumbs were not imaged as on the top hand the thumb would sit away from contact with the cloth.
Thank you, Stan; your expertise is much appreciated. However, when you say that there is no reason why the thumbs should not relax after death, would it not be due to the post-mortem flaccidity of the flexor muscle, previously in contraction, causing the thumb to fall into a position in which neither muscle group (extensors or flexors) were under tension?
“But what really matters is that a nerve stimulation of a freshly amputated limb can produce a muscle contraction independently from Central Nervous System control”
You have to be specific about Barbet’s experiment, it is not about nerve stimulation, it is not about electrical stimulalion applied to peripheral nerves. What Barbet describes is a direct mechanical nerve injury with a nail through an amputated hand.
a/ the nociceptive stimulus is a dead end on an amputated hand since there is no longer the central relay toward a motor neurone.
b/ the direct nerve injury results in a deficit. there is no such thing as a direct mechanical stimulation of a nerve.
I found several references searching on mechanical stimulation of nerves. Example: “The Effects of Mechanical Stimulation on Some Electrical Properties of Axons” by FRED J. JULIAN and DAVID E. GOLDMAN, From the Biophysics Division, Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda;
“Many cells have the property of producing electrical changes in response to
mechanical stimuli. In mechanoreceptors this property is highly developed
and these changes can give rise to nerve impulses, Generally, a mechanoreceptor
includes a transformer element which modifies the applied stimulus,
a transducer element by which the stimulus is converted into an electrical
change, and an electrical element in which the electrical change is converted
into a nerve impulse (Gray, 1959). … ”
“It has been long known that nerve fibers can be excited by mechanical
stimuli (Tigerstedt, 1880), and it has been shown that short mechanical
stimuli act like cathodal electric shocks (Rosenblueth, Buylla, and Ramos,
1953). Since mechanoreceptors seem to contain a nerve fiber or termination,
it is tempting to regard this fiber as providing the transducer membrane.
One may then expect the study of the mechanoelectrical properties of an
axon to shed light on the behavior of the transducer element of mechanoreceptors.”
In light of the above, and in view of anoxie’s contradiction of Barbet’s interpretation, and also Antero’s comment above, I should prefer to be informed of anoxie’s specific qualifications enabling the assertion of this contradiction, and if a specific authority can be referenced.
daveb, there is an “experiment” which is done routinely: hand surgeons operating under locoregional anesthesia.
After an axillary block, the hand is still alive, the blood flow is still present, but it mimicks an amputated hand as long as the central-peripheral nerve transmissions are blocked. What happens? no contraction after direct mechanical stimulations on the motor neuron, yet, with peripheral electrical stimulations you may get contractions.
What is responsible for contraction on an injured hand/forearm is the nociceptive stimulus, absent in a blocked/amputated hand.
But please, ask a specific authority.
I guess once more you are misiunderstanding the physiology of muscle contraction.
As can be deduced from what i wrote if you apply a stimulus to a peripheral nerve in a recently amputated limb it is expected a muscle contration to occur in muscles innervated by that nerve.
The big question is besides electrical stimulation of axons can a mechanical stimulus initiate axon depolarization i. e. an action potential?
Before trying to answer this question I’ve done research on scientific papers available in the web and in m owny library but frankly results were very poor.
Nevertheless previous comment from Daveb contains some relevant elements and I found something useful
In response to a mechanical stimulus, cellular sensors of force are proposed to be extracellular matrix molecules, cytoskeleton, transmembrane proteins, proteins at the membrane-phospholipid interface, elements of the nuclear matrix, chromatin, and the lipid bilayer. Response can be twofold: the extracellular matrix, for example, is a conductor of mechanical forces but its structure and composition is also influenced by the cellular responses to those same applied or endogenously generated forces. Mechanosensitive ion channels are found in many cell types and it has been shown that the permeability of these channels to cations is affected by stretch receptors and mechanical stimuli. This permeability of ion channels is the basis for the conversion of the mechanical stimulus into an electrical signal..» https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_(physiology)
I admit that during Dr.Barbet’s experiments with amputated arms a mechanical stimulus on the median nerve occured when part of the nerve was crushed by the nail piercing the wrist in the carpal tunnel so theorethically a muscle contraction of some thenar muscles would be possible.
Obviously law and ethics now preclude such experiments so we must rely on Dr.Barbet’s honesty describing the results and frankly I see no reason for doubting him
Antero de Frias Moreira
Centro Português de Sindonologia
“I admit that during Dr.Barbet’s experiments with amputated arms a mechanical stimulus on the median nerve occured when part of the nerve was crushed by the nail piercing the wrist in the carpal tunnel so theorethically a muscle contraction of some thenar muscles would be possible.”
This is theoretical.
Once again, evidence based medecine is that a damage nerve results in a motor deficit, even after a trauma.
In order to directly study the mechanical stimulation of crushing, Barbet should have crushed the median nerve in the forearm, not in the wrist just beside/through the ligament and the carpal bones.
“Obviously law and ethics now preclude such experiments so we must rely on Dr.Barbet’s honesty describing the results and frankly I see no reason for doubting him”
Obviously you can take a freshly amputated limb from a rabbit or a cow, and squeeze/brush/pierce the sciatic nerve for example, at distance from an articulation.
I’m not dogmatic, Bucklin was not, Zugibe was not, i’m just thinking of Barbet’s description as a bit outdated concerning the “fresh hand, still living without bloodflow”, and his specific interpretation of “contraction” driven by his a priori.
It’s good to see anoxie being more open and transparent on this site as to her speciality. It would appear to be medicine and/or surgery (not chemistry and biochemistry, while recognizing they would have been part of a preclinical training). When will she recognize that this biochemist/food scientist does not take lectures (e.g. on chemical and biochemical thermodynamics re Maillard reactions, notably their acute temperature dependence) from those who previously appeared to posture anonymously as chemical/biochemical experts when, as one suspected, that is unlikely to be the case? Horses for courses and all that…
I think there is a whole post about your claim that Maillard reaction is not thermodynamically possible under 100°C, the basis on which you’ve dismissed Rogers’ Maillard reaction 3 years ago.
I still think it was a majestic blunder. And think it’s not really the right post to digress on this issue, again.
But ask Dan for a guest posting instead of harassing people on random posts.
Again anoxie reverts to troll mode. I did not say there were no Maillard reactions below 100 degrees C. I said that bread does not become toasted at 100 degrees C. As we were. I do not engage with trolls.
«In order to directly study the mechanical stimulation of crushing, Barbet should have crushed the median nerve in the forearm, not in the wrist just beside/through the ligament and the carpal bones.»
What is the anatomic basis to support such assertion?
I see none.
«Obviously you can take a freshly amputated limb from a rabbit or a cow, and squeeze/brush/pierce the sciatic nerve for example, at distance from an articulation.»
Obviously that’s a different condition namely different species and different muscle groups involved and besides such experiments are a cruelty to animals and I won’t perform them.
Antero de Frias Moreira
And I should like to be informed of instances of thumbs firmly flexed by muscular contraction remaining fixed in place even after death and the relaxation of the muscles.
Surely we must accept at face value Barbet’s reporting that the thumbs flexed when he hammered nails into the wrists. He says he did it on at least 12 separate amputations. Clearly he was then leaving himself wide open to be refuted if subsequent investigators found otherwise. He also reports that the median nerve was damaged on all such occasions, Zugibe’s subsequent denial notwithstanding; I’m unaware that Zugibe repeated Barbet’s experiment with the nail. Barbet therefore reasonably inferred that it was this damage to the median nerve that caused the flexing. He does not report any damage to ligaments or other tissues such as muscles. It did not occur during amputation, but on hammering the nail. If it was not damage to the median nerve that caused the flexing, what is the alternative explanation?
Did Barbet publish his findings in any scientific journal? I only know his book that is a mixture of scientific experiences and religious exaltation.
I suppose that Zugibe did not repeat the experiences of Barbet for some technical reasons and because he considered that he needn’t to do this: he affirms that the median nerve is not placed in the position that Barbet had supposed.
“The missing thumb on the Shroud was due to injury to the median nerve by the passage of the nail. Barbet indicated that each time the nail was driven through Destot’s space, the median nerve was severed either halfway or two-thirds of the way causing the thumb to be drawn into the palm. This of course is untenable because as we demonstrated above, the median nerve does not pass through Destot’s space but runs along the opposite side (thumb or radial side) of the wrist. Even if the median nerve was injured causing, mechanical stimulation as Barbet claimed, this would still not cause the thumb to be drawn into the palm of the hand. Dr. Ernest Lampe, one of world’s leading hand surgeons who in discussing injuries to the median nerve, relates in his book, Surgical Anatomy of the Hand, that in severance of the median nerve…… “THERE IS INABILITY TO FLEX THE THUMB, INDEX AND MIDDLE FINGERS”. This was confirmed to me by several hand reconstruction surgeons.” (PIERRE BARBET REVISITED, http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/Barbet.htm )
NOTE: “Technical reasons”: it is not easier to play the Frankenstein game in our times as in the Barbet’s times.
-Pierre Barbet tenía experiencia quirúrgica en la muñeca:
“…on constate que ce pli est exactement devant le bord supérieur du ligament annulaire, qui constitue déjà une bride transversale extrêmement résistante ; la chirurgie des phlegmons des gaines nous apprend à avoir pour lui un certain respect.”
-Pierre Barbet NUNCA (negación) dijo que el nervio mediano estaba en el espacio de Destot.
-Pierre Barbet NUNCA (negación) dijo que el nervio mediano estaba en la zona del espacio de Destot.
-Pierre Barbet NUNCA (negación) dijo que al atravesar el clavo el espacio de Destot el nervio mediano se lesionaba.
-El patólogo-forense Zugibe MIENTE.
-Pierre Barbet dijo que al atravesar el clavo LAS PARTES BLANDAS ANTERIORES el dedo pulgar se flexionaba bruscamente en oposición a la palma.
“Or, j’ai constaté, dès la première fois, et régulièrement dans la suite, qu’au moment où le clou traversait les PARTIES MOLLES ANTÉRIEURES, la paume étant en dessus, le pouce se fléchissait brusquement et surtout s’opposait dans la paume. par contraction des muscles thénariens……” Barbet. (las mayúsculas son mías)
El clavo lesiona el nervio mediano porque su gran sección INVADE el lado radial de la muñeca.
¿entiende usted lo que dice Barbet?
Un clavo de 0,8 cm de sección penetrando verticalmente en el medio del gran pliegue de flexión de la mano con el antebrazo significan 0,4 cm a cada lado del punto medio invadiendo la zona radial y unos cuantos milímetros más en la zona radial si como dice Barbet la punta del clavo se desliza espontáneamente por la cara interna del hueso grande para alcanzar el espacio de Destot situado en la zona ulnar (cubital).
Así que el clavo, que Barbet pretendía que penetrara en la vertical, penetró OBLICUO hacia la zona ulnar y OBLICUO, como se aprecia en la radiografía lateral, hacia el antebrazo.
La técnica de bloqueo del nervio mediano a nivel de la muñeca para la NEUROESTIMULACIÓN ilustra bastante bien por qué Barbet LESIONÓ la parte sensitiva del nervio mediano.
-BLOQUEO CON NEUROESTIMULACIÓN DEL NERVIO MEDIANO A NIVEL DE LA MUÑECA:
-La aguja de neuroestimulación es de calibre 22 ( el típico de las agujas utilizadas para inyecciones subcutáneas ), ¡un “alfiler” al compararla con los 0,8 cm del clavo de Barbet!
-La aguja se introduce prácticamente en medio del pliegue principal de flexión de la muñeca, similar al punto por el que Barbet introduce el clavo (Barbet experimento varios puntos distintos alrededor del punto medio con idénticos resultados)
“A este nivel el nervio mediano está principalmente constituido por fibras sensitivas…..
Por ello hay que ser PRUDENTE con el NEUROESTIMULADOR; si se encuentra parestesia no (negación) se debe insistir para obtener respuesta motora.
Algunos autores prefieren realizar el bloqueo del nervio mediano a nivel del codo PARA EVITAR LESIÓN DE LAS FIBRAS SENSITIVAS”
(las mayúsculas y el “negación” es mío)
Carlos, you attribute to Dr. Barbet what he never said. Dr. Zugibe says that space Destot is on the opposite side of the median nerve. And you interpret that as Barbet speaks of “soft parts” should refer to this opposite side. You make an exercise of linguistic juggling.
I don’t know if Zugibe had reason but I see that in the picture you give as example the stimulated zone is far from both the Destot area and the mark of the nail in the Shroud. And I don’t need any authority to see this.
Don’t begin with insults, please. It is ugly and unpleasant. Take it easy.
Yo interpreto correctamente.
Usted no (negación) porque es Zugibe el que hace “linguistic juggling” deliberadamente, y es razonable que escape a su juicio crítico:
-“Zugibe says that space Destot is on the opposite side of the median nerve.”
“Opposite side” se refiere a lado radial – lado cubital (ulnar).
El clavo de Barbet pese a los intentos de introducirlo verticalmente se torcía siempre hacia el lado CUBITAL, por lo que alcanzaba y traspasaba siempre el espacio de Destot, saliendo al exterior por el lado cubital.
Si el clavo de Barbet hubiera sido una PERFORADORA de igual sección (0’8cm) entrando VERTICALMENTE, al atravesar las partes blandas el nervio mediano habría sido destrozado igualmente en su parte sensitiva y su parte motora habría provocado la hiperflexion del pulgar en oposición, la PERFORADORA habría seguido avanzando verticalmente perforando el HUESO SEMILUNAR…….. y el espacio de Destot habría quedado INDEMNE.
-“And you interpret that as Barbet speaks of “soft parts” should refer to this opposite side”.
En mi condición de médico usted me estaría OFENDIENDO si yo tomara en serio este comentario. Sé que no (negación) es su intención.
-“I see that in the picture you give as example the stimulated zone is far from both the Destot area…….”
La estimulación mecánica o la estimulación eléctrica del nervio mediano es INDEPENDIENTE del espacio de Destot, en Pierre Barbet y en el médico que aplica la aguja del neuroestimulador en la fotografía.
“….and the mark of the nail in the Shroud.”
Está usted viendo la “cara palmar” de la mano, las imágenes de la Sábana son de la “cara dorsal” de la mano. Si observa la radiografía lateral de Barbet verá que el punto de entrada del clavo (cara palmar) es más bajo que el de salida por la cara dorsal de la mano.
-Zugibe NO (negacion) quiso entender los experimentos de Barbet e INSULTÓ muy gravemente la profesionalidad de Pierre Barbet
« J’ai fait l’expérience sur un avant-bras d’homme adulte, en fendant complètement l’espace radiocubital : le point inférieur où le clou s’arrête entre les deux os est à cinq centirnètres au-dessus du pli de flexion du poignet. Ceci n’est d’ailleurs plus la main, mais l’avant-bras. Les Ecritures nous interdisent donc une telle localisation ». (Pierre Barbet, La passion de N.-S. Jéus selon le chirurgien).
“I’ve experienced on an adult male forearm, splitting completely the radiocubital space: the lower point where the nail stops between the two bones is five centirnètres above the flexion crease the wrist. This is no more the hand, but the forearm. The Scriptures forbid us therefore such location. ”
And the Shroud also. No more a mention to cubital space in Barbet’s work that I know. Nor to the cubital (ulnar) nerve.
NOTE: If you feel offended because someone doesn’t agree with you and claim your opponents are lying and perverting every time that they say a thing different to your thinking, you are doing the discussion very difficult. I wouldnt follow you on this way.
It is obvious; is it not?
You say that Barbet said a thing that he didn’t said. Sorry, but I will not waste my time with this.
If a reputable pathologist such as Barbet states that he drove nails into 12 amputated arms at the fold of the wrist, and each time the thumb flexed, no matter where he publishes such a claim, then it is reasonable to accept that the claim is true. His dissection revealed to him that damage had occurred to a nerve, which he calls the median nerve, and it may be that there is a difference in nomenclature. Zugibe does not seem to offer an alternative explanation as to why Barbet obtained the thumb flexures, nor does he seem to challenge the fact of the flexures. No-one else seems able to offer an alternative explanation. Barbet does not report any damage to other related tissues. We seem to be left with either accepting that the thumbs flexed for reasons given by Barbet, or we are left with an inexplicable reason why thumbs flex when a nail is driven into Destot’s space.
I don’t believe that Dr Zugibe ever drove a single nail into any amputated arm. The best he can do is to show an illustration of some poor woman the victim of a stabbing, with a needle through her hand where she just happened to be stabbed, not a deliberate aimed act of hammering a nail into a wrist at all, a pure random act. He has some volunteers step up to a supposed replica of a Roman cross, binds them into position, very comfortable they are, and claims they have no difficulty in breathing, as if that was the way executions were carried out, and there’s no need for wrist nailing. He shows no dissection of wrists to prove his point, and one might think he is getting all his anatomy out of text books. Barbet hammered nails into amputated wrists, always with the same result, and dissected them afterwards, and reports in some detail. I see no good reason to prefer Zugibe’s theoretical interpretation over Barbet’s detailed analysis of actual experiments carried out by him. No-one else has attempted to replicate Barbet’s experiments, and unless and until some other professional makes the attempt and reports otherwise, they must surely stand.
I’m inclined to agree with Daveb here. I cannot think that Barbet deliberately falsified his observations, although I don’t think it impossible that he over-accentuated them. So, the thumbs flexed. What I think is highly disputable, especially with regard to the X-ray photo of a wrist with a nail through it, is that they remained flexed after whatever flexed them stopped working, either because of death, or because the nerve or muscles or whatever stopped being stimulated. Barbet himself seems to suggest that it was the movement of the arm around the nail that stimulated repeated flexions of the thumb, as if he knew that it relaxed as soon as the immediate stimulation ceased.
But as Barbet described, the crushing concerned only the sensitive part, motor nerves were intact. Given individual variations of senstive / motor distributions, even between the median and ulnar nerves, it seems rather unlikely to have the nail “always” driven through the sensitive part, living the motor part intact.
And then, how do you stimulate the intact motor nerves?
Anyway, here is another interesting take on the “crucified clench”:
Interesting paper indeed I’ll keep it, but there is a little caveat
The hands of the crucified in the image on the Shroud ARE NOT IN THE SO CALLED ICONIC CLENCHED POSITION this was rather seen in artistic depictions so these theorethical considerations CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE SHROUD.
If I had to bet between Professor Zugibe and Dr.Pierre Barbet’s hypothesis on this issue I’d choose Dr.Barbet’s hypothesis on wrist nailing, median nerve nociceptive mechanical stimulation and position of the thumb.
Actually NOTHING FROM ANATOMY AND PERIPHERAL NERVE PHYSIOLOGY CAN DISMISS DR. BARBET’S CLAIM.
I think several previous comments from Dr. Stan Walker, Daveb , Carlos and myself have provided a thorough explanation WHY !
(you’re free to believe whatever you want, despite all evidence, and against all evidence)
I’m done with this
Antero de Frias Moreira
” median nerve nociceptive mechanical stimulation”
You’re still confused. Barbet has studied amputated hands, a “nociceptive stimulus” can’t be responsible for a motor response on an amputated hand.
Sehnor Frias Moreira:
“You’re free to believe whatever you want, despite all evidence, and against all evidence”
Is there any evidence about an injure similar to that alleged by Barbet in contemporary medicine? Is there any confirmation of the experiences of Dr. Barbet by an independent team? Are the experiences of Zugibe contradictory with Barbet’s claims?
What is your concept of “evidence”? (I’m affraid your concept is a peculiar one).
One more thing: recent evidence presented by Dr. Borrini and Dr. Garlaschelli is important. See here: http://www.galileonet.it/blog_post/sulla-sindone-ce-unaltra-crocifissione/ (For YouTube lovers here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNzVc1MqJ2s ) Barbet investigated on corpses placed in the iconic traditional position of the Crucifixion (extended arms), but Dr. Garlaschelli has shown that the blood stains of the Shroud are incompatible with this position. This evidence vitiates all Barbet’s conclusions. (And Zugibe’s experiment also!).
Mr. David Mo
«Is there any evidence about an injure similar to that alleged by Barbet in contemporary medicine? Is there any confirmation of the experiences of Dr. Barbet by an independent team? Are the experiences of Zugibe contradictory with Barbet’s claims?
What is your concept of “evidence”? (I’m affraid your concept is a peculiar one).
Certainly there are perforating injuries of the wrists similat to the ones described by Dr. Pierre Barbet in his experiments with amputated arms but don’t be naif because nobody is worried with the effects of the piercing object on the median nerves doctors are rather worried in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and rehabilitation of residual physical disabilities
Dont’t expect doctors (or anyone) to perform experiments with amputated arms because it’s obviously illegal and anti-ethical so either you believe Dr. Barbet’s conclusions or not (as it is expectable) and don’t expect to hear anything from an hypothetical sadistic psychopath either.
The experiments of Professor Zugibe are not by themselves contradictory of Dr. Pierre Barbet’s conclusions they are rather another point of view.
My concept of evidence is the same of everyone with an open mind but unfortunately it seems to be different from yours.
«One more thing: recent evidence presented by Dr. Borrini and Dr. Garlaschelli is important.»
Gimme a break that’s utter garbage.
If you want to know why follow my advice: go to http://shroudstory.com/2015/04/11/new-garlaschelli-and-borrini-study/#comments and read comments from O.K. Dr. Thibault Heimburger and from myself and perhaps you’ll change your mind.
I’m sorry for making you waste your time for a moment I forgot you were a skeptic
“Certainly there are perforating injuries of the wrists similat to the ones described by Dr. Pierre Barbet in his experiments with amputated arms but don’t be naif because nobody is worried with the effects of the piercing object on the median nerves doctors are rather worried in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and rehabilitation of residual physical disabilities”
Gimme a break, the effects are a median nerve palsy.
In all of the above discussion, no-one has offered an alternative explanation as to why Barbet’s experiments with amputated hands resulted in a spontaneous flexure of the thumb into the palm of the hand, not merely once, but on 12 individual occasions. If not the median nerve, what was the cause? A deafening silence is the only reply I’ve so far seen!
Comments are closed.