|
|
Post by davedan on Nov 23, 2011 19:02:56 GMT -5
Correct. The hands can't support much weight, they would rip right off the nails. Actually, this was retested with more modern methods & found to not be true. And, in the time it took between that study & this post, THOSE results may have been overturned, for all I know. Frankly, the Romans' precise methods of crucifixion are still something of a head-scratcher. My understanding of the method of crucifixition was that they tied the person to the cross. The person ultimately dying of exhaustion and suffocation. I do recall that there was a consideration that they might have nailed people as well if they wanted to make it worse but would have actually tied them up as well as using the nails. Given the numbers of people crucified and the Romans notorious pragmatism I reckon rope would have been preferred as it would have been re-usable. |
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Nov 23, 2011 23:19:15 GMT -5
Let's not forget the hosts that turned into REAL flesh! And not only did it happen in Poland last year, it happened years ago in Brazil! PROOF that the Catholic Church wields true divine power! Well, if it weren't for those people who called the police and asked for an investigation of that chunk of dead flesh. Who says that secularism is trying to destroy the Church? It's doing such a great job all by itself! That's really fucking disgusting, even if we're talking about, say, raw red meat/pork used as a substitute. I'm not sure how accurate you could get with a writhing, live human being, in conditions any less ideal than laboratory ones. Its not like a roman executioner could go "FUCK, nailed at the wrong place. Oh well, let me just pull the fucker out again..." |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 23, 2011 23:43:45 GMT -5
They used a device that measures the force at a specific point & actually, you know, crucified the person. Then they could test things like where the "nails" (the force meters) wouldn't be able to hold the weight & what adding things like rope did.
Compare that with nailing a dead hand to a wall & literally yanking it straight down until it comes out, which is quite obviously not how it would work, in hindsight.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Nov 24, 2011 10:53:40 GMT -5
The tests that were done to prove the hands could support the weight of a crucified person were inherently flawed because they did not replicate the structure of a Roman cross (in which the cross piece is attached to the front of the vertical support, NOT flush with is), and the addition of a foot support to take most of the weight of the "test subject."
In reality, crucifixion by nails through the palms would not be a sufficient or desirable arrangement due to the geometry of the position of the body or the sheering forces. The ligaments between the bones of the hand are not really capable of taking that kind of tearing force from that direction. While it is certainly conceivable that some people crucified in this manner may well have stayed up there, in most cases tearing to the arrangement would widen the wounds to the point where the hand could easily slip off the nail, or the thrashing of the victim would tear out the wound entirely. (Because, you know, when you get nailed to something you don't just hang there and say, oh well.)
Historical evidence definitely suggests that the Romans typically tied people to crosses. Rope was far easier and cheaper to make than long, sturdy iron nails. While they did nail people to crosses, it is unlikely they simply put the spikes through the palms; they almost certainly went through the wrists, or the individual was tied up and the nails were just a little extra "fuck you." Considering how.....insignificant Jesus was to the Romans, I doubt they would have cared enough to go to that extra effort. Which suggests the nails went through the wrists.
The problem for "stigmatics," of course, is that if you try to replicate a significant puncture injury at the wrist, you stand a decent chance of accidentally killing yourself by opening up your veins.....
That said, Pio was a lying asshole who defrauded people for decades in the name of "faith." And, worse still, he forced people to sit there through his hours-long masses watching him sway and "have visions" and "suffer." Thanks, Father! That's just what I want on a sunny Sunday morning, sitting in a bigass cold cathedral watching an old priest mumble and bleed all over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Nov 26, 2011 19:46:21 GMT -5
Talking about stigmatics, who was that one disabled girl that was put on display because she inhibited stigmata? I know she just died a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Nov 27, 2011 12:41:11 GMT -5
Put on display? UWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Nov 27, 2011 19:46:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Nov 28, 2011 8:34:10 GMT -5
Looking at that article, and then the internal links in it, I have come to notice something. The vast majority of female saints are basically mystics who did nothing in their lives but pray. Also, it is practically inevitable that a female saint will be claimed to have actually been in communication with Jesus and hearing voices, seeing visions, and the like. Contrast this to the male saints who tend to have actually done stuff, and not had any mild mental illness that went undiagnosed due to fervent religiosity. Latent sexism on the Church's part, perhaps? |
|
