REPLY #36 TO
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
(R) oops, you made a mistake my friend. When i stated that the blood flows on
the feet defied gravity it was in reference to the book "the jesus
conspiracy"pg 293. You see the entire context of this book was to prove the
shroud was real, because the blood flows showed the body was still bleeding
after crucifixion, the man in the shroud did not die, but was rescued.
(MB) There's no way to demonstrate such a thing. All that might be deduced is
that blood was transferred from the body to the Shroud. One cannot say exactly
when that happened or if the body was actually alive or not when the transfer
(R) All wounds showed two blood flows, those which were partially dry(crucifixion)
and more, massave flows which occurred when the body was laid flat.
(MB) Again, there's no way to deduce this. Dried blood is still dried blood.
After nearly two thousand years, it is absolutely impossible to determine a time
difference of mere hours between the drying of various samples.
(R) Example the side wound bled profusely while the body lay on its back(evident by
blood flows), yet the one area the fake shroud maker overlooked was the
feet, it is the only area that doesnt have blood flowing while the body is
(MB) If the body was laid prostrate in a position such that the feet were even
slightly elevated, we shouldn't expect to see much, if any, blood in that area
at all. If the body was carried by hand for any distance (which is very likely,
even if only to transport it to a cart), it would likely have sagged in the
middle due to the higher concentration of body weight and forced blood out
through a side wound. Such a position would also have caused blood to drain
away from the feet and not flow out through them.
(R) If one were to ask any doctor, dead bodies laying on their back
cannot bleed through a side(front lower chest) wound.
(MB) See the scenario described above. Also, while the body was still on the
cross, the side wound would likely have bled profusely. There would have been
ample time and opportunity for significant blood flow prior to any time where
the body may have been laid flat on its back.
(R) Please read the above mentioned book, you will love its insight.
(MB) The "insight" of that book would seem to have missed a few considerations.
In any case, the clincher is that no experiments actually performed on the
Shroud have shown it to contain any blood at all.