Rigor Mortis – Peer Reviewed!

Comments

1. (Nota bene: I composed this reply to Hugh on Feb. 14 and before seeing the comment by Ms. Pappas posted that evening in the U.S. but received in the U.K. at 12:11 a.m. on Feb. 15, some of which I agree with, some not. Without further delay, though it’s now past midnight and thus Feb. 15 here in the U.S. – here is this:)

   Hello again Hugh,

   Thanks for your detailed answer. It’s good to know your position. I’ve addressed some or many of these points earlier on your blog, for example, in my comments on your post of Jan. 2, 2024.

   But here now is a reply, following your own “abc” structure:

   b) Your phrase “closer to the fringe of probability than certainty,” seems an odd choice of words. We all know that a “fringe idea” means a highly improbable, even bizarre idea. I’m hoping you didn’t mean to imply that here about my thoughts on Roman lead-tipped whips. But you did once previously call my lead-tipped whip reasoning merely “not impossible,” implying a chance of about a thousand to one against it. You have such a wonderful way with words sometimes. But I’ll assume that you meant “almost certain” here.

   b) Your citation of Lewis and Short’s Latin dictionary for “pila,” is not as accurate as it could have been. The entry for pila (actually three different types of word) mentions, under “3.,” “a ball, playing ball,” which could be a ball of any size. Let’s recall that a golf ball – in the very popular game of golf today – is a ball, and that a marble is (or was, some decades ago) a child’s-size playing ball. You say a pila can mean a “football,” which implies a very large size, but the reference in L & S is to a “fortunae pila,” translated there as a “football of fortune,” but the “foot” has been added in English for some reason that I don’t understand (see Internet Archive, p. 1381 online, 1376 on paper). Also, the entry lists only about one or two dozen usages from the whole history of Latin literature, often with long Latin quotations containing extra words not relevant to us here. It clearly left out thousands of other passages using the word in a variety of contexts and sizes. In section II. B. “pila” is defined as “anything round … a ball or globe of any material.” As for “the ballots or balls used by Roman judges in voting” cited there, I don’t know the details of Roman voting, but would think that if the pilae or balls so used were cricket ball or baseball sized, the ballot box would fill up very quickly. That L&S dictionary entry also says that “follis” is a “syn” (synonym) for pila, and under follis (p. 765 on paper, 776 online at Internet Archive), one usage listed is “a small piece of money,” which would seem to be a coin. That is very close, if not identical, to the size of the scourge wound marks found on the Turin Shroud.

   c) Even if “cervicem,” neck, means only the (back of the) neck in the passage in question, that is still fully consistent with a lead-tipped whip. Yes, also with a big lead ball used to beat it. So, it seems we have a 50-50 result, or a tie between us two.

   d) As for the Latin word “quumque,” it’s a bit of a puzzle. You write, “quumque does not imply any length of time.” But Lewis and Smith, who do not have any dictionary entry at all for “quumque” alone and only a tiny entry for “quum” indicating it is a mere variant “cum,” do say that “cumque” is used for a “generalizing of any action, event, time, etc.” Also, the Latin root word there, “cum,” typically means “with” or “when,” and “when” is a word definitely indicating time, so the translation “until” here seems a legitimate, though not necessary, translation. The Latin scholar who translated the passage in Zosimus, surely after decades of experience reading and studying Latin, chose to use “until,” a choice which should carry some weight here in our discussion. It was not a mistake but apparently a very real possible reading of the original. If the author had intended simply “to death,” as Hugh suggests, he might have written “ad mortem” instead. But he didn’t. Moreover, in arguing for a meaning that involved such quick killing, you, Hugh, seem to be reducing the number of slow death punishments practiced by the Romans. That is rather questionable.

   e) Thanks for that definition now of “cosh” in British English. But do you really mean to suggest that the Romans used such things? A piece of lead in a sock or with a leather covering? Roman executioners? Or, if not a sock, that they used a contraption with a hinge on it, a flexible shaft? Far-fetched, I’d say. Very far-fetched. And again, is there any evidence at all for their using such a thing – either artistic, literary, or archeological evidence?

   f) Your attempt to distinguish evidence from fantasy seems flawed to me in this case — not taking other facts into consideration. I’ve covered such matters before, and years ago, in online discussions with you, also in my comments on your Jan. 2, 2024 post, which are still accessible. To be brief: It’s just common sense that the Romans would at least occasionally have put metal weights on their whips, for a more severe form of whipping punishment than with mere leather lashes alone. Also, you didn’t address the point I made about their prolonging the pain, which was certainly a factor in the Roman executioners’ minds, thus their using lead-tipped whips and not large lead balls for some or many executions.

   f) My “one would think” reasoning is not fantasy but is based on the obvious human practice of copying, of borrowing an idea from one field into another. It’s done everywhere even today. Besides that, the physics of whipping prove that small weights on the tips of the lashes help to carry the ends of the lashes to their intended destination instead of flopping somewhat loosely in the air. The Egyptians, following the same rules or observations of everyday physics, were definitely using sinkers (small weights) on their fishing lines at least 5,000 years ago (google it if you don’t believe me), and certainly continued using them right up to and beyond the 1st century AD. History too, supports the conclusion of weighted whip lashes in antiquity. Have you ever heard of “chain whips”? They were used in various cultures (e.g., ancient China) as battlefield weapons, composed entirely of metal rods and metal rings. We can surely, with good reason, posit an intermediate stage among the Romans between all-leather whips and chain whips, a stage consisting of a mostly leather whip punctuated with some metal bits near its end. And not just one such bit, nor ten such bits, but some sufficient but still small number would make the best sense, a number like two or three — as seen in the Turin Shroud scourging wounds.

   Enough, or so I hope. Thanks for listening.

   John L.

2. Hi, Hugh,
   With Zosimus’ chronicling of a man’s torture, you give us the Latin text as follows:
   “Plumbeis autem pilis in cervicem ei verbera dari iubet, quumque defecisset.”
   How have you determined that the “pila” are large balls and not smaller (perhaps the size of the round marks that are highly indicative of patterned injuries?) “Pila” just means ball/sphere.
   You mention that you don’t find a “whipping” restricted to the neck to be credible. Well, why not? If someone has a whip tipped with lead balls as a weapon, why not go for a sensitive area like the neck? Additionally, a leaded-lash could, also, have the effect of wrapping around a person’s neck—and the person conducting the beating could, additionally, tug on the leaded lash that is wrapped around someone’s neck to partially or fully choke the person, also.
   Moreover, you suggest that what is being described is a clubbing, yet a club and a whip (and a corresponding clubbing versus a whipping) are two different things. Zosimus specifically refers to a “verbera” which would be defined as a whip/lash/flagrum/scourge, but not a club or cudgel—which I understand to be a “clava.” So, while it might be apparent to you that this execution that Zosimus is describing is a clubbing instead of a whipping, that’s not apparent to me based on what Zosimus wrote.
   Also, why would there be these patterned injury marks all over the body images—in precisely the places that would be expected for someone receiving an unusually brutal pre-crucifixion scourging? (And, of course, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the body images on the Shroud depict a crucifixion victim with bloodstains from puncture wounds on the head which point to a “crown of thorns” consistent with what was placed on Jesus’ head to mock Him.)
   Again, in light of the evidence that the body images on the Shroud depict a crucifixion victim, and we know that crucifixion victims were commonly given pre-crucifixion scourgings, we have a res ipsa loquitur situation here with these patterned injuries on the Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images. Also, with regard to these apparent scourge marks on the Shroud’s body images, as I mentioned in my paper, there is evidence that these (at least some) are bloodstains—although, some might be “images of blood” that never made it through the skin but were still red—and were, therefore, “captured” in the image-making process.
   With Prudentius’ poem, a “hail of blows” points to many objects being hurled at someone—such as when hail comes down from the sky. A club is just one object—but a leaded lash would, undoubtedly, have at least several lead balls/weights attached to it.
   With regard to my Quintilian reference, I’m not sure what basis you have for thinking that “percussos” is not specific to being struck/beaten or pierced given the context of a crucifixion (“cruces.”) Google Translate tells me that the words for “kill” or “slay” in Latin is “occidere,” not percussos. Also, we have the historical account in John 19:32-34 that predates Quintilian’s explanation about how those who have been crucified can be buried (but there is the obvious contingency inserted in the text of the “percussos” occurring. It doesn’t make sense to throw in the word “percussos” for no reason—particularly in the context of a crucifixion.
   What kind of reliable evidence have you heard of that points to the body of the man whose body is depicted on the Shroud as being alive? Aside from the evidence of rigor mortis and cadaveric spasm, there is the blood splatter evidence from the side wound that is not indicative of blood spatter from a body whose heart is pumping blood.
   With the photo of the dorsal upper body image of a man that you posted, and the corresponding photo that you show of the dorsal body image on the Shroud, you can easily see that the top of the Shroud Man’s (Jesus’) head is a lot lower than the man depicted in the photo. This is because the head appears to be caught in between the raised shoulders and the head is bent FORWARD (but this does not mean downward—as the face does not appear downward looking when examining the frontal image of the face.) Zugibe’s suspension experiments confirm this, so it wasn’t like he was just “thinking he saw” this.
   Going from memory, I don’t recall whether or not Bucklin ever mentioned anything about the position of the shoulders with respect to the head. I don’t think he mentioned this in his paper “An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud,” but I don’t recall off the top of my brain (one way or the other) whether he might have mentioned this in any of his other writings. But, for the sake of argument, let’s just assume that he did not. This would not mean that Zugibe is wrong about his observations. It just might mean that Bucklin did not notice this or think to comment on it—that there were other things that caught his attention. This sort of thing happens all the time, as I am confident that you will admit. For example, witnesses can observe the same event and pick out different details to report to the police.
   Also, I see a neck in the image of the living man that you provide, but I don’t see this with the Man of the Shroud. And, again, it is unwise to just look at the evidence on an ad hoc basis—one needs to look at the body of evidence to see whether it’s realistic to seriously think that a medieval forger (or, better yet, to use Giulio Fanti’s very apt term “HA” for “hypothetical artist” (ha, ha, ha . . . ) would deliberately or inadvertently add all of the many very subtle clues of death on the Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images.
   Regarding the back of the neck (not head, as you mention) it appears extended in a way that corresponds with the lack of visibility in the neck on the frontal image AND with a head that is still FACING FORWARD/bent OUTWARD (as opposed to being bent DOWNWARD—which would have caused the neck to then be “unusually” extended. But, again, the head is not bent downward but it is “trapped” between the shoulders, facing forward and bent outward. You assert that if the head is bent forward that more of the top of the head should show, but I totally disagree with this. The top of the head would only show more if the head were bent DOWNWARD. Additionally, as with the drawing that you show of a frontal image of a man with his head bending downward, the position of the face is extremely different from the position of the face depicted on the Shroud (which is positioned, literally, quite straight-forward.)
   Regarding Ruben Enaje and the lack of bleeding, there are a lot of things to wonder about here. Primarily, did the nails really pierce his hand? If Hollywood and kids dressing up as zombies for costumes can create fake injuries, perhaps Ruben did as well. I don’t know. I’m just wondering as it seems rather odd that someone would get pierced by even a thin, surgical nail (as he was allegedly pierced by) and not bleed—particularly while still alive. So, FAKERY is a very real possibility—if not a likelihood. For example, think of how in Hollywood, when they administer a shot to someone, the needle just collapses into the syringe—and there’s not a needle that actually pierces the actor. Did anyone inspect the nails being used on Ruben Enaje to make sure they are real nails and not ones that collapse and leave a mark on his hand that looks like a non-bleeding spot? Honestly, that’s just bizarre that there’s no blood. I understand the lack of blood when the nail is first put in—as the nail acts as a plug. But, when the nail is removed, there should be blood. Something smells a bit fishy about all of this. And, honestly, why wouldn’t it—from someone who is attention-seeking by pretending to be Christ-like and showing people how he can handle some degree of what Christ underwent. Although it might not seem so at first glance, it really is rather shameful and, again, very, very attention-seeking. If he really wants to undergo what Jesus did, let him get scourged and crucified with nails like the Romans used and without supports and a platform, etc. keep him propped him up. (Your photo doesn’t show his feet, but I think from other such photos that I have seen that the person in the mock or quasi-crucifixion is standing on a platform (as opposed to having their feet nailed and having their body being pulled downward.)
   I seem to recall that many Church officials (perhaps even popes) have condemned this type of practice (by Ruben Enaje and others.) Anyhow, it would be very interesting to have a medical professional comment on this.
   Regarding the man hanged at Newgate, since he died from being hanged—and not crucified—this really does not give us the potential for the cadaveric spasm to be present with the chest or anywhere else, since, immediately upon death, primary muscular flaccidity occurs (unless there’s a cadaveric spasm) and this would mechanically induce the body to exhale (if the person died while inhaling.) And, of course, since the Newgate Man did not have the rigor in his shoulders broken, we’re comparing apples and oranges here.
   For the many reasons that I go into in my paper, I still maintain that the knees were bent. I’m not sure if John Jackson’s mentioning that the body was “lying flat”—and were these his exact words???—necessarily means “completely flat”—as in, no knees bent.
   Additionally, the evidence for foreshortening comes from the many details that I mentioned in my paper (which point to the knees being bent), and, I’ll mention here, that when I look at the legs on the frontal body image, I see some foreshortening which is why I, personally, can just see that the knees appear bent.
   And, just because you mention that Zugibe supposedly “nodded approvingly” to Merzagora’s artwork doesn’t negate Zugibe’s very specific findings—from both his Shroud observations as well as his crucifixion experiments—that the knees were bent. Artwork is artwork (and subject to “artistic license” and human limitations in precisely replicating all of the realities of a human body), but observations from a forensic medical examiner who, also, performed crucifixion experiments is quite another thing—and, of course, infinitely more reliable.

   So, Hugh, between my first long commentary on your initial review, and this one, I think there’s plenty of “refuting,” “denying,” and “presenting the alternative view” here.

   Cheers,

   Teddi

3. Hi, Hugh,

   Just a quick comment–let’s not forget that from around 300 BC, the Romans were known to attach astragalus bones to scourges. So, leaden balls/plumbatarum were just an easy “upgrade” to the torment that could be inflicted during a scourging.

   Almost nothing–except one’s own consciousness–can be proven to a 100% certainty. But, just because basically all evidence falls short of such certainty does not relegate it to just a preponderance of the evidence–or somewhere around that. We, of course, often have ways of knowing things “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Just think of all of the people whose liberty and/or lives are lost by jurors in the United States based upon this degree of certainty.

   Best regards,

   Teddi

4. Hii John,

   Thank you for your comment. Well worth reading, as usual.

   a) “Lead-tipped balls” was indeed Teddi’s phrase.
   b) You’re probably correct that some of the quotations Teddi uses to support the possibility of a first century lead-tipped whip can be interpreted to include such a thing, and they are certainly better than simple mentions of whips in general. However, in the absence of absolute clarity, I think we must accept that such an interpretation lies closer to the fringe of probability than certainty. Looking up all the references in ‘Lewis & Short,’ the most comprehensive Latin dictionary I know, we find ‘pila’ used for things like footballs and catching balls, but never for pellets, and ‘verbera’ most usually refers to beating with a stick rather than a whip. ‘Ictus’ is another word for ‘blow’ which is never used for ‘whip.’ You say you can’t easily picture a Roman soldier or executioner holding in his hand an apple-sized lead ball and pounding a captive criminal on the neck with it, which is fair enough, but I certainly can. Bashing people with heavy stones seems to have been a common execution method, and stoning people to death is still a recognised practice in some countries even today.
   c) Similarly, extending the very specific word ‘cervicem’ to include a more general area such as the ‘upper back’ to my mind stretches its meaning further than any Roman ever did.
   d) ‘Quumque’ does not imply any length of time. It is a very general word with various possible translations. In this case ‘with the result that’ is probably pretty close. ‘Beaten to death with lead balls to the neck,’ is as good a translation of the whole passage as any.
   e) A cosh in British use is much more flexible than a club. One dictionary begins with “a truncheon of leather-covered lead with a flexible shaft” which I think captures it well, and more informally it is used for the legendary robber’s practice of stuffing something solid into a sock. That’s how I meant it, anyway! It certainly does not imply any kind of mace.
   f) Your next paragraph (concluding “A negligible result, all in all, for drawing any conclusion against metal-tipped lashes on some Roman whips.”), I think, sums up an essential difference between our approaches to historical uncertainty. Although it is true that a hypothesis is strengthened when attempts to disprove it fail, what distinguishes a hypothesis from a fantasy is the evidence for it in the first place. The fact that being ‘verberata’ with ‘plumbum’ is (in your word) ‘negligible’ evidence against a lead-tipped lash, does not mean that it is therefore any better evidence in favour of one.
   g) This leads directly to your “This supporting evidence for the 1st century authenticity of the ball-shaped scourge wounds on the Turin Shroud, while indirect, is massive.” Obviously not. Your evidence is not the existence of Roman necklaces, it is “One would think that the Roman military would occasionally take that craft or technology in a weaponry direction – for such tools of punishment as whips.” Indeed one might, but supposition isn’t evidence at all, let alone massive evidence.

   Overall, though, I think that you and Teddi and myself do have some common ground, which is that dogmatic assertions about what ‘must be true,’ or ‘has been proved,’ or ‘is the only possible explanation,’ are very rarely appropriate to Shroud studies. There is plenty of room for academic dispute!

   Best wishes,
   Hugh

5. Hello Hugh,

   Your latest blog post, “Rigor Mortis – Peer Reviewed!,” is very interesting. Lots of relevant aspects discussed. You may recall my own extensive explorations of some of these subjects a few years ago on a Turin Shroud discussion forum, or my related reader comments here on your blog after your posts of January 2, 2024, “Call Me Crurifragius!,” and August 1, 2024, “Rigor Mortis.” Please consider reading them again if or when you have the time. Thanks.

   Anyway, here follow several comments, either repeats or new ones. I’ll focus on the initial “Crucifixion” subject and specifically the old Shroud authenticity question of whether the Romans, as a preliminary to it, used scourges with lead or other metal tips on the lashes, as it appears on the Turin Shroud image. You write of a section in Pappas’ article titled “Scourges with Lead-Tipped Balls,” but that seems an odd description. You surely mean “Scourges tipped with lead balls.” The apparent mistake may be in the original since you put it into quotation marks. Anyway –

   1) That Latin word “pila” for the lead objects of punishment seems ambiguous. Yes, balls for sure, but maybe big, maybe small, maybe even both in different times and contexts. I’m assuming that smallish lead balls are meant in this passage from Zosimus, which would then also imply a whip to which they were attached. After all, the word is used in the plural (pilis), indicating more than one. And I can’t easily picture a Roman soldier or executioner holding in his hand an apple-sized lead ball and pounding a captive criminal on the neck with it, much less using two such large lead balls. Why not just use a stone instead? And since the leather lashes were very secondary to the solid lead weights on their tips, the leather naturally was not mentioned. As for the word “neck,” Latin cervicem here, it surely means the back of the neck, not the front (which might instead have been called the “throat”), and that back of the neck or nape of the neck could also easily have been meant by the author to include the upper central back, a standard target area for whippings. The Latin word “quumque” used by Zosimus is ambiguous, and a quick look online did not yield the translation “until” as used here. However, the Latin scholar who did the translation presumably knew what he or she was doing, and expertly decided to use “until.” That word implies duration, which is fully consistent with a fatal whipping that might take 10 or 20 minutes. If the victim were beaten on the neck with a big lead ball, death or unconsciousness would surely occur within just seconds. The intended purpose of inflicting pain is a related factor to consider. The idea was not to finish off the victim quickly with one big heavy bash or two, but to draw out the suffering. Moreover, you suggest that the punishment Zosimus describes was a “clubbing,” but if so, why doesn’t he actually write “club” or “clubbing”?

   2) As for the Imperatoris Theodosii Codex passage, you suggest the leaden or lead-tipped weapon or instrument was not a whip but a “cosh.” But is there any evidence – written, artistic, archeological – for the use of such coshes by the Romans or the Greeks? Besides, a cosh is not a ball but typically just a heavy stick, isn’t it? (a “billy club”) Perhaps reinforced with metal and occasionally even with an oval or rounded metal tip on it. But weapons consisting of a stick with a heavy metal ball at the tip are typically used in war, in battle, to break through helmets and other armor, or to kill with a single blow. They are called maces, as you well know. Do the British police today carry coshes tipped with large lead balls? Surely not. And I’m not even sure that the Romans used maces much in warfare. They preferred their pilum and gladius (lance and short sword), didn’t they?

   3) As for that passage by Aurelius Prudentius, it certainly seems to refer to a whip, indeed a metal-tipped one, implied by the “back,” the “many strokes,” the “hail of blows,” and the “leaded strokes.”

   You also say that these three extant sources are fourth century or later. But of course the Romans used plenty of lead everywhere in their earlier centuries, certainly also in the 1st century. Technology and the materials used for it did not change much over the course of Roman civilization.

   I’ve mentioned it before but might say so now again: Our art historical evidence for any Roman whips at all is very meager, consisting of merely about two dozen depictions, perhaps fewer. Most are tiny or vague, not detailed. On coins, for example. Archeological evidence is nil because whips almost by definition are mostly made of organic material, leather, which disintegrates over time. As for Roman references in writing, they are all understandably vague, rarely going into the details of material composition. A negligible result, all in all, for drawing any conclusion against metal-tipped lashes on some Roman whips.

   On the other hand, and as I mentioned to you in a certain online forum some years ago, there were millions and millions of necklaces worn by the Romans and Greeks, especially women but some men too. (See Google Images for “Roman necklaces”). They all or almost all involved a flexible string-like material such as leather or metal wire, mounted with small, often rounded objects (beads, pearls, polished precious stones, etc.), which were threaded on by means of holes drilled through those objects. One would think that the Roman military would occasionally take that craft or technology in a weaponry direction – for such tools of punishment as whips. This supporting evidence for the 1st century authenticity of the ball-shaped scourge wounds on the Turin Shroud, while indirect, is massive.

   Cheers (oh, and – si vales valeo),

   John L.

6. Hi, Hugh,

   Those several typesetting errors with my paper have now been corrected. The corrected version of my paper has now been published and substituted for the initially published paper. https://urfjournals.org/open-access/beyond-imagination-evidence-of-rigor-mortis-and-cadaveric-spasm-on-the-shroud-of-turin.pdf

   Thank you for having brought those errors to my attention as you were reviewing my paper.

   Cheers,

   Teddi

7. Apologies–I just noticed that there is still part of your paragraph in my response–its the paragraph starting with “Both Zugibe and Bucklin…” Obviously, those are your words (not mine.)

8. Hi, Hugh,
   Thanks for taking the time to read my paper and providing us with your comments on it. With regard to my Zosiumus reference, you say that the “pila” were large balls and not pellets. What makes you think that—especially since they would be on a “verbera” (which would be unlikely to have large leaden balls attached?) That just doesn’t seem like a very likely weapon. As I mention in my paper, the pagan historian Zosimus was chronicling important events within the Roman empire that spanned from 27 BC until AD 305. I am not aware of any indication as to when, during this span of time, this weapon was used. But, since it overlaps with when Jesus was scourged, it would seem to be “fair game” for consideration. And, I’m not sure why you think that the Theodosian Code is more likely to be a cosh (what I understand to be something akin to a club) than a whip? Also, you seem to agree that Prudentius’ poem—as it states—refers to a leaded lash. But, of course (rightly so, and as I mention in my paper) this is not evidence of this weapon from prior to the 4th century. But, to that, I say (as I mentioned in my paper) this doesn’t really matter that much (given how it is not uncommon for lots of information to get lost due to the passage of time.) But, given the weapon with the leaded balls (of unknown size) existed (and this reference could span from as early as 27 BC), and since we know that the Romans had been attaching astragalus bones to scourges since before the 1st century, why should we doubt that they then “upgraded” their method of torture from astragalus bones to lead balls?
   Regarding the “custom” of crurifagrium on crucifixion victims, there is more than just Lactantius’ reference. We have Quintillian writing about how executioners would not forbid burial to crucifixion victims if they had been pierced or struck (an obvious reference to crurifragium.) And, of course, as I had explained in my paper, this was, especially (or mostly) pertinent to the Romans trying to be tolerant with regard to Jewish religious practices (to help prevent the Jews from having uprisings), since Jewish law stated (per Deuteronomy 21:22-23) that a crucifixion victim should not remain suspended on a cross overnight lest the land be desecrated. But, as we know, the punishment of crucifixion was meant to be long and drawn out. So, when the Romans were not at war with the Jews, they would use the practice of crurifragium to expedite the death of a crucified Jew. So, that seems like quite a “custom” to me.
   Regarding rigor mortis and Zugibe’s mention of the head in the body images on the Shroud looking “bent forward,” I would say that I think that there can be a difference between a head being bent FORWARD and a head being bent DOWNWARD. The head on the frontal body image on the Shroud does not appear to be bent downward. Instead, it seems to be looking forward—although “caught” between the shoulders (resulting in the lack of an appearance of a neck—unlike the picture that you show of a man (where the neck is clearly visible.)
   Regarding the bending of the elbows, I am just going from a recollection here, but I seem to recall reading that even the Egyptians used this particular pose when burying their dead—perhaps it’s a classic pose? But, regardless, the pose “it what it is” for whatever the reason. And, with this pose, as Isabel Piczek’s experiment showed, for the arms in this position to cover the modesty of the Man of the Shroud, his knees would need to be bent.
   The photo of Ruben Enaje that you show where the nail is not in his hand is of particular interest to me since we do not see any blood. We don’t really know if, before this picture was taken, if the blood had been wiped away (or not?) That looks like a particularly bloodless wound—which seems strange. While I seem to recall that there are no major arteries in the hands, this could account for a lack of a large flow of blood, but I doubt that being punctured with a nail would result in no blood whatsoever. That just seems really doubtful to me, but it would be very interesting to further investigate this point.
   Both Zugibe and Bucklin comment that the blood flows down the arms must have occurred while the arms were suspended above the body (at an angle of 65° from the horizontal according to Bucklin), but at the same time Zugibe notes that bleeding would not have occurred before death because, as paraphrased by Pappas, “the arms were in an elevated position and the blood pressure would have been very low.” There is no doubt that the blood pressure would have been even lower after death. Also hypostasis in the time between death and deposition would have drained almost all the blood from the arm, making it even more unlikely that any blood would flow at all.
   Here is Ruben Enaje, who has been crucified 35 times since 1986. His nails are surgical, very thin, and very smooth, but as we can see, even after they have been removed, after 20 minutes or so on the cross, he does not bleed at all. And he’s still alive, and his arms are barely elevated above the horizontal. Also, your picture does not show Enaje’s feet, but from prior photos of him that I have seen, I seem to recall that his feet are standing on something (I don’t think they were nailed or if they were, I think there was some sort of support for his feet, and you can see from your pictures that his arms are being supported. I suspect that there could be blood coming down from those nail wounds even with the nails in place because of possible movement of the arms—but, I’m not sure. Perhaps, as one is hanging, perhaps the weight of the body prec
   Regarding Piczek’s drawings as well as the picture taken of the artist model in the position of the Man of the Shroud, those sure look like bent knees to me! https://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm
   With regard to the convicted murdered hanged at Newgate, there is no reason to think that he had a cadaveric spasm. As such, immediately upon death, primary muscular flaccidity would occur immediately throughout his body, and his last breath would be, mechanically, exhaled (resulting in a different specific position of the chest [where it is expanding] that was observed by Bucklin.)
   I think that the details provided in my paper point, quite overwhelmingly, to the existence of bent knees, and this can be seen just by looking at the body image.

   Anyhow, my paper provides a lot more of the details (no sense in just repeating all those details here.)

   But, as always, you raise very interesting points that are worth thinking about and considering. Thanks for your thoughts about these various matters.

   All the best,

   Teddi