December 01, 2021, 04:18:44 AM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: How Much is 100 mLs of blood? (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES ATTACHED)  (Read 6094 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 08, 2018, 08:06:53 PM
Read 6094 times
Offline

CalzagheChick



100 mLs = 20 teaspoons
100 mLs = 6 Tablespoons + 2 teaspoons OR 7 Tablespoons - 1 teaspoon OR 6.66 Tablespoons (eek)
100 mLs = 0.42 cups (just shy of 1/2 cup)
100 mLs = 1/10 liter

Any particular conversion that can help you visualize the amount of blood in Lyuda's stomach at the time of the autopsy? I'm not really able to visualize given measurements of any kind, and this really bothered me. Why? Because I think the blood present in Lyuda's stomach is possibly related to her missing tongue. I could be wrong on this. The blood could very well be from a punctured stomach as her rib fractures could certainly have punctured any of her organs in theory. But what exactly does 100 mLs look like? Is it only enough to slightly streak the stomach mucosa red? Or is this an amount of blood that can be collected in a container all its own? I needed to SEE 100 mLs.

My first thought was to hit my nursing books. During my obstetrics rotation, we had a lecture on estimating blood loss in the event of a PPH (Post Partum Hemorrhage which is just fancy talk for "You better know what you're doing quick because the mother is bleeding to death and modern medicine isn't known for it's high mortality rate during child birth.") Of course there are tons of infographics available on the internet to support my rationale here. I find these extremely helpful! I actually have a very good idea/visual of the degree of Lyudmila's injury.

Of course, all of her injuries resulted in significant blood loss. Any broken bones come with blood loss. There's an infographic for that too--very interesting if I do say so myself. My thing is, I'm unsure this really answers the most pressing questions about her missing glossal and hypoglossal muscles, and the autopsy report just doesn't allow for reasonable speculation:
a) Was the tongue ripped/torn out, leaving behind jagged surrounding tissues as we'd expect to see with predation. I don't understand how predation could occur with the rav4 bodies covered significantly in snow, but also Lyuda's body having been face down in a running stream seems awfully tricky for any animal to access. What animal could dig her up, turn her over, take away the soft bits, etc? This raises another question: in this harsh environment, I'm hard pressed to believe any animal feasting off of the dead would resolve to be so picky about the choice cuts. Here they have a buffet but only go for the opportunistic parts? I highly doubt it.

b) Was the surrounding tissue clean cut, as we'd expect to see had the muscle been severed with a sharp instrument that relies mostly on having opposable thumbs?

c) Was there evidence of putrefaction/natural bacterial activity as compared with water samples from the running stream that Lyuda was found in? Sure there is natural fauna and growth in a wild stream, even at that temperature and altitude, right? My problem with this theory: the temperature. We are talking about well below freezing. Naturally occurring bacterial activity from the water source I would think to be severely reduced/hindered by the temperatures of the Siberian winter season. Again, I could very well be wrong.

In any case, the amount of blood present in the deceased's stomach was quite a significant amount when we see exactly what it looks like. What do you think it points to?











« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 09:37:15 PM by CalzagheChick »
 

May 09, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Reply #1
Offline

Marchesk


a) Was the tongue ripped/torn out, leaving behind jagged surrounding tissues as we'd expect to see with predation. I don't understand how predation could occur with the rav4 bodies covered significantly in snow,

I never understood why so many people thought it was predation when the bodies were covered in several meters of snow. Unless that happened sometime after their deaths, but one would think the snow would have something to do with their deaths.

but also Lyuda's body having been face down in a running stream seems awfully tricky for any animal to access.

Her upper body and face were learning against a rock. Is it said she was face down in the running stream because it was washing over her from above? In the photo it looks like her face is tilted away from the water.



Anway, to OP's point, that is a lot of blood.
 

May 09, 2018, 01:42:03 PM
Reply #2
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



Of course, all of her injuries resulted in significant blood loss. Any broken bones come with blood loss. There's an infographic for that too--very interesting if I do say so myself. My thing is, I'm unsure this really answers the most pressing questions about her missing glossal and hypoglossal muscles, and the autopsy report just doesn't allow for reasonable speculation:
a) Was the tongue ripped/torn out, leaving behind jagged surrounding tissues as we'd expect to see with predation. I don't understand how predation could occur with the rav4 bodies covered significantly in snow, but also Lyuda's body having been face down in a running stream seems awfully tricky for any animal to access. What animal could dig her up, turn her over, take away the soft bits, etc? This raises another question: in this harsh environment, I'm hard pressed to believe any animal feasting off of the dead would resolve to be so picky about the choice cuts. Here they have a buffet but only go for the opportunistic parts? I highly doubt it.

b) Was the surrounding tissue clean cut, as we'd expect to see had the muscle been severed with a sharp instrument that relies mostly on having opposable thumbs?

c) Was there evidence of putrefaction/natural bacterial activity as compared with water samples from the running stream that Lyuda was found in? Sure there is natural fauna and growth in a wild stream, even at that temperature and altitude, right? My problem with this theory: the temperature. We are talking about well below freezing. Naturally occurring bacterial activity from the water source I would think to be severely reduced/hindered by the temperatures of the Siberian winter season. Again, I could very well be wrong.

In any case, the amount of blood present in the deceased's stomach was quite a significant amount when we see exactly what it looks like. What do you think it points to?

To take the last first, the presence of that amount of blood in Dubinina's stomach is one more piece of evidence that this tragedy was murder and not an accident - among other pieces of evidence that both separately and considered together point in that direction.

At any rate, it demonstrates that she was alive when she was injured. The blood could stem from her coughing up blood from her damaged lungs, or it might in addition indicate that her tongue was cut/ripped out while Dubinina was still alive. Here, the difficulty is to know how much blood she swallowed, how much blood she might have vomited and how much she bled. Blood could have been washed away by the water.

However, environmental factors could not possibly cause the tongue and the glossal and hypoglossal muscles to rot selectively while all the other anatomical structures around were intact. Therefore, if the tongue was absent someone or something must have removed it. It is also improbable that predators could have consumed the tongue without also having eaten of her other body parts and without leaving tooth marks anywhere. Tooth marks were not found as far as I can see. There is no indication that any predators had eaten from Dubinina's body.

So we are left with the sensible conclusion that Dubinina's tongue and surrounding anatomical structures were removed by a human being. The reason why the autopsy reports and the investigators were so vague about Dubinina's missing tongue, is understandable. The investigators evidently received instructions that the case should be closed with the official conclusion that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an accident and not murder. That is why Dubinina's missing tongue and all the other injuries were wrongly interpreted from the promise that this was not murder. Regrettably, that misinterpretation has continued to this day.

One might wonder why Dubinina's tongue was removed. Here, any thoughts on "why" must be speculative since we cannot really know. It is conceivable that the attackers wanted to know whether the hikers knew something they were not supposed to know, have seen or observed. In this (of course hypothetical!) scenario, one of the group was then selected to be severely tortured in the front of the others to make them confess or confirm something. "This will happen to you too if you do not tell us!" Various forms of gruesome torture is a well known method to extract confessions or information from a group of people. Also, the cutting out the tongue of a woman may have been a symbolic act. But that is and must be speculative, because we do not know exactly how this happened and why. What we know, is that it did happen. Unless there were clear signs that the tongue was ripped out by a predator, Dubinina's missing tongue tells its tale.
 

May 09, 2018, 06:49:22 PM
Reply #3
Offline

CalzagheChick


So all of that being said, do you believe that of the Rav4, their eyes were removed or were the missing eyes of several of them the result of putrefaction/predation/decomp?
 

May 10, 2018, 01:09:31 AM
Reply #4
Offline

Armide


Had all of them been missing their eyes, I would have lead to believe that putrefaction was the reason, but Thibeaux-Brignolles still had both his eyes, and they were closed, as a matter of fact. That doesn't completely rule out putrefaction though, is there any evidence that proves that Thibeaux-Brignolles body may have decayed slower? And for those who were missing their eyes, could blood pool at some point in the body after they had been gouged out?
 

May 12, 2018, 08:01:26 PM
Reply #5
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
So all of that being said, do you believe that of the Rav4, their eyes were removed or were the missing eyes of several of them the result of putrefaction/predation/decomp?

The OPs pics freak me out!    lol1

I think its tha latter....  Only because birds go for the eyes first, and I think there are many variables such as, was one individuals head under water/snow while the others was exposed?  After all, we don't ultimately know all the dynamics of how the bodies moved with water, snow etc over the three months missing. 
All theories are flawed....... Get Behind Me Satan !!!
 

May 13, 2018, 06:14:11 AM
Reply #6
Offline

Armide


I read once that if a person dies with their mouth open scavengers often go for the tongue, lips, and other soft tissues in the mouth because they usually stay warm longer and smell like the food that the person has eaten. It is possible that Dubinina's tongue was taken by scavengers after she died, but that her corpse was still 'fresh' (sorry I can't think of another word to describe it) that blood might have pooled in her stomach?
 

May 13, 2018, 08:18:57 AM
Reply #7
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
I believe the blood pooled in the stomach as a result of here chest injuries.  Think....  coughing up blood. 
All theories are flawed....... Get Behind Me Satan !!!
 

May 13, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
Reply #8
Offline

Vietnamka


I read once that if a person dies with their mouth open scavengers often go for the tongue, lips, and other soft tissues in the mouth because they usually stay warm longer and smell like the food that the person has eaten. It is possible that Dubinina's tongue was taken by scavengers after she died, but that her corpse was still 'fresh' (sorry I can't think of another word to describe it) that blood might have pooled in her stomach?
It so tipical damages caused by scavengers that absolutely non understandable why Vozrogdenniy didnt mention it in Luda's case, but mantioned in Krivonischenko's. But he noticed
Quote
.  extraordinary mobility of the thyrohyal and thyroid cartilages Fracture
 

May 14, 2018, 10:52:27 PM
Reply #9
Offline

Marchesk


It is possible that Dubinina's tongue was taken by scavengers after she died,

Problem is the rav4 were found under several meters of snow. If the snow is responsible for their injuries and being found in the ravine, then there's no way predators would have gotten to them.
 

May 15, 2018, 01:31:20 AM
Reply #10
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


It is possible that Dubinina's tongue was taken by scavengers after she died,

Problem is the rav4 were found under several meters of snow. If the snow is responsible for their injuries and being found in the ravine, then there's no way predators would have gotten to them.


It is doubtful that scavengers removed Dubinina's tongue. Why would predators consume her tongue, while leaving all the other three bodies intact? The four corpses were toghether close to each other.

There is an even bigger problem with the snow mass theory: The results from the exhumation of Zolotaryov and the analysis of his injuries seem to indicate that snow cannot be responsible for the injuries.

In the same way it is also bordering on the impossible that snow could have caused the injuries of Kolevatov and the pointed injury to the skull of  Thibeaux-Brignolle as we see here:

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolai-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png

That kind of injury is hardly what we expect from snow or other "natural" causative factors.
 

May 16, 2018, 08:50:26 AM
Reply #11
Offline

Armide


Why would predators consume her tongue, while leaving all the other three bodies intact? The four corpses were toghether close to each other.

... They didn't. All the bodies were missing soft tissues around their eyes, lips, and noses, including those outside the ravine. Kolevatov was missing his eyebrows and had a straight up hole in his cheek (or a "defect of soft tissue"). No one tortures another human by removing their lips and eyebrows, there are way more efficient methods to torture someone, especially in the blistering cold in the middle of nowhere.

Removing someone's tongue is also a very inefficient way to torture someone. If her tongue were gone but she still had a stub left, then I would understand, but the entire roof of her mouth is missing. It's extremely hard for a human to remove a tongue so precisely. You'd have to tie it to something so that it didn't fall back into her gut, and then reach further back with a scalpel or another small tool of some sort.

If they wanted to torture her, they would have stood on her chest or gouged her eyes out or something. The whole tongue thing seems tiresome and inefficient.
 

May 16, 2018, 09:38:18 AM
Reply #12
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
It is possible that Dubinina's tongue was taken by scavengers after she died,

Problem is the rav4 were found under several meters of snow. If the snow is responsible for their injuries and being found in the ravine, then there's no way predators would have gotten to them.


It is doubtful that scavengers removed Dubinina's tongue. Why would predators consume her tongue, while leaving all the other three bodies intact? The four corpses were toghether close to each other.

There is an even bigger problem with the snow mass theory: The results from the exhumation of Zolotaryov and the analysis of his injuries seem to indicate that snow cannot be responsible for the injuries.

In the same way it is also bordering on the impossible that snow could have caused the injuries of Kolevatov and the pointed injury to the skull of  Thibeaux-Brignolle as we see here:

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolai-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png

That kind of injury is hardly what we expect from snow or other "natural" causative factors.

Im guessing its because its not the snow that is believed to have directly impacted the injured areas.  It was being thrust into a solid blunt object (in this theory rocks/boulders) that caused the damage.  Whether it was a snow collapse of the embankment in which they dug the den that threw them onto said rocks/boulders, or if they fell from the top of the embankment/cliff of snow and onto the rocks/boulders that is the remaining question in that theory. 

I understand you are a strong advocate for the murder hypothesis.  However, please at least make an attempt to understand an apposing theory and refrain from blatantly misconstruing the core foundation of said theory when comparing to another. 

I would also like to ask you please try to stay on topic.  The OP clearly posted information regarding blood loss and what quantities look like in comparison in dif situations.   Perhaps if the information posted here supports your subscribed theory, include it within threads having to do with that theory.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 09:43:18 AM by Loose}{Cannon »
All theories are flawed....... Get Behind Me Satan !!!
 

May 16, 2018, 08:38:53 PM
Reply #13
Offline

CalzagheChick


I'm actually more fascinated by the infographic that I included showing the anticipated blood loss related to specific fractures. Most of our victims exhibited substantial bone fractures. Not just minor cracks here and there either. All out breaking of the major bones. And those major bones come with SUBSTANTIAL blood loss. We are talking liters. It's safe to picture that both Dubinina and Zolotaryov, with their rib fractures, were bleeding internally to the tune of say a big bottle of Coca Cola.

Mind. Blown.

I trashed my ankle a few years ago. I had a tibia/fibula fracture--I effectively broke my foot off of my leg one morning getting out of bed with a foot fallen asleep. I planted my foot on the floor and had the joy of HEARING my own bones snap on impact. I went down immediately not knowing what yet happened and as I started to focus on the excruciating pain I realized that my foot was not in the correct anatomical position. So as I cradled my foot, it naturally went to fall back into place and that's when I heard the second bone break--my fibula (a very difficult bone to break because it's surrounded by the substantial calf muscles).

As I crawled to the bathroom because of course I just woke up and although I just trashed my left leg completely I still had to take care of my morning ritual. By the time I crawled across the hallway to my bathroom, my ankle had swollen to at least three times its normal size. I had also immediately developed these HUGE fluid-filled blisters from the fracture that I'd later find out were trauma blisters filled with interstitial/synovial fluids.

The bruising in the following days. OMG the bruising. My foot of course was practically black but the bruising went all the way up past my knee and into my thigh. An ankle break. I know that the infographic on blood loss related to fractured bones is a safe and accurate assessment. I must have lost liters of blood for the bruising to travel from the distal extremity all the way up to the proximal area.

And for myself, just knowing what those two fractures did to ruin my entire year of 2013 with multiple surgeries to rebuild my ankle, I am only glad that the victims were surrounded by snow and ice when they received their fractures to reduce the trauma to the soft tissues. In other words, I'm convinced that their accident of latitude greatly reduced their suffering while they lay dying. At least...I certainly hope that being packed in snow and ice had something to do with the lack of damage to their soft tissues. I hope that their suffering was less than it could have or should have been for the injuries sustained and the amount of internal hemorrhaging we can safely expect to have occurred given our knowledge of their internal damages.
 

May 20, 2018, 05:31:28 AM
Reply #14
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen



There is an even bigger problem with the snow mass theory: The results from the exhumation of Zolotaryov and the analysis of his injuries seem to indicate that snow cannot be responsible for the injuries.

In the same way it is also bordering on the impossible that snow could have caused the injuries of Kolevatov and the pointed injury to the skull of  Thibeaux-Brignolle as we see here:

https://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/Nikolai-Thibeaux-Brignolle-autopsy-report.png

That kind of injury is hardly what we expect from snow or other "natural" causative factors.

Im guessing its because its not the snow that is believed to have directly impacted the injured areas.  It was being thrust into a solid blunt object (in this theory rocks/boulders) that caused the damage.  Whether it was a snow collapse of the embankment in which they dug the den that threw them onto said rocks/boulders, or if they fell from the top of the embankment/cliff of snow and onto the rocks/boulders that is the remaining question in that theory. 

I understand you are a strong advocate for the murder hypothesis.  However, please at least make an attempt to understand an apposing theory and refrain from blatantly misconstruing the core foundation of said theory when comparing to another. 

I would also like to ask you please try to stay on topic.  The OP clearly posted information regarding blood loss and what quantities look like in comparison in dif situations.   Perhaps if the information posted here supports your subscribed theory, include it within threads having to do with that theory.


Hello, I saw this first today. It needs a follow up.

First; I agree that the discussion has strayed away from the blood loss topic, and I apologize for having been responsible for that.

However, I see a problem with the following statement:

"Im guessing its because its not the snow that is believed to have directly impacted the injured areas.  It was being thrust into a solid blunt object (in this theory rocks/boulders) that caused the damage.  Whether it was a snow collapse of the embankment in which they dug the den that threw them onto said rocks/boulders, or if they fell from the top of the embankment/cliff of snow and onto the rocks/boulders that is the remaining question in that theory.  I understand you are a strong advocate for the murder hypothesis.  However, please at least make an attempt to understand an apposing theory and refrain from blatantly misconstruing the core foundation of said theory when comparing to another. "

Answer: 

- I am glad if we can agree that a direct impact from snow is unlikely to have caused the injuries of the victims mentioned above.  How likely it is that the snow has creatively caused all these different injuries in an indirect way, is then off-topic here and another discussion. 

- But please do not say that I have misconstrued the core foundation of the snow theory.

It was Sergey Nikitin who, possibly as a result of influence from the official premise that the nine who perished at the Dyatlov pass died as a result of accidents, interpreted and stated that the cause of Zolotaryev's injuries was "most likely snow." This is clear from the interview in the message linket to below and from where the relevant passages are quoted:

http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=156.msg580#msg580

"GS: In 1959, the forensic pathologist described that there were two fracture lines of Zolotaryov ribs. "After the extraction of the organs from the thoracic and abdominal cavities, fractures of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth ribs on the right along the parasternal line and midaxillary line are determined." How much did it coincide with what we saw?
SN: This coincided almost completely. Except for a small minor amendment. I would define the axillary line not as an average, but as a back axillary line. Some bones were not examined. We looked at the right shoulder blade, there were three fractures. The act of this was not noted. I assumed first that this is a posthumous injury. The whole grave was covered with pieces of granite, the pressure on the bones of the skeleton can't be ignored. But then I reassessed, because the left shoulder was intact. If there were posthumous damages, it is logical to assume that both the left shoulder blade would be broken and in general would be other multiple fractures on the bones of the skeleton.
GS: Yes, we did not see damages like that. We found much more fragile bones. Even thyroid cartilage. And the skull itself is not crushed. It turns out that this weight had no effect on the bones.
SN: During the burial after the funeral the stones were laid to form a vault. They didn't press down. The ribs were broken on the right, and the right shoulder blade. This fits into the mechanism of fracture of the ribs.
GS: Is it correct to say that the chest as a construction can have structural fractures? In other words, one blow could cause several fractures?
SN: This indicates that at the contact zone, the impact exceeded the sizes from the first to the sixth rib. It was a large heavy mass. Most likely, snow."

I referred to the injuries of Zolotaryev as well as Kolevatov and Thibeaux-Brignolle, and pointed out that it is unlikely that snow could have caused any of these injuries. Yet, Sergej Nikitin explicitly presents snow as the likely direct cause of Zolotaryev's injuries.

Therefore, it is no misrepresentation at all to refer to the snow theory which assumes snow as a direct impactor responsible for lethal injuries. That theory does exist, as we can see.
 

May 20, 2018, 06:13:45 AM
Reply #15
Offline

Loose}{Cannon

Global Moderator
Yes, but again......   the theory is not asserting the snow itself broke the ribs.  Its the snow that slammed them into rocks, which broke the ribs.

Cause and effect.
All theories are flawed....... Get Behind Me Satan !!!
 

May 20, 2018, 06:47:53 AM
Reply #16
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Yes, but again......   the theory is not asserting the snow itself broke the ribs.  Its the snow that slammed them into rocks, which broke the ribs.

Cause and effect.


As a matter of fact, that slamming around scenario is not Sergej Nikitin's snow theory - which I referred to. It is clear that Nikitin does not assume that the snow acted like a giant washing machine that slammed these people around.

Nikitin assumes that Zolotaryev lay firmly on his back and that a "large heavy mass" suddenly effected one blow from above as he lay there. The quotation below will illustrate:

"GS: Can you determine when this injury took place?
SN: The presence of blood in the pleural cavity of Zolotaryov unequivocally indicates that he was alive.
GS: In what position was the person at the time of injury??
SN: It can be undoubtedly said that he was lying on his back. And the traumatic effect occurred from front to back, maybe some what from right to left.
GS: The surface on which the person was lying was relatively firm?
SN: Yes. It is unlikely that he was lying in the snow.
GS: You found that not all ribs are broken equally. Is it possible to say that the force that acted on the thorax in full force acted where the ribs are completely broken? And where they are not broken, it seems like the impact was lower?
SN: At a similar compression and at similar fractures on an axillary line of a rib have broken as a result of excessive bending. This is called the flexural nature of the fractures. In the parasternal line, the character of the fractures was extensor. This suggests that the traumatic event occurred at the time when the person was lying on his back, and suggests the direction where the mass came from.
GS: Like as if squeezed a concrete slab? Or is it from the compression of a blow? There is a version that a lot of snow has fallen.
SN: Was it impact or slow squeezing that took some time? When the corpse is examined not to the extent of decomposition in which the corpse of Zolotaryov was at the time of the autopsy, there are soft tissues, subcutaneous fatty tissue, one can estimate the hemorrhage into the subcutaneous fatty tissue. If it was a blow, we would see hemorrhages in the muscles and subcutaneous fatty tissue. If this mass of the snow layer type squeezed gradually, it is unlikely that we would see hemorrhaging.
GS: Hemorrhages were noted at the autopsy. And on histology, and in the act.
SN: This suggests that it was a sudden pressure, a velocity impact. Not gradual.
Cor: It's like a blow, lets say, by a car?
SN: A car is a comparison. In our case, we can say that this was the impact of a large mass.
GS: Could it be caused by explosive blast?
SN: It can be safely excluded. Injuries would be of a different nature."

(From http://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=156.msg580#msg580)
 

May 20, 2018, 07:23:42 AM
Reply #17
Offline

CalzagheChick


Does any of the above belong in this thread? Why not take this to Avalanche or whatever else theory? It's already a crazy mess in general discussion area where several of the site members and top posters insist on bringing every single thread to the conclusion of murder...but I think newcomers and guests to the site are best served being able to see these arguments in their respective topics.
 

June 07, 2018, 03:35:57 AM
Reply #18
Offline

CalzagheChick


I've read in several places about the presence of blood in Lyuda's stomach. The autopsy report calls it a reddish brown mucous mass. Other places call it "coagulated blood" which is speculative in it's own right--coagulated blood can take many forms from a jelly-like mass or clot to a sticky powder-like mass (depending upon age of course) as in the case of the Miracle of Lanciano.* So my point is that all documents that discuss the presence of blood in her stomach can be interpreted to be a mass of coagulated blood. It's maddening how vague and sloppy Vozrozhdenny's work is when so much depended upon his interpretations and notes. I still don't know if he was just a lazy incompetent or he was working within a set of orders. Can we even trust his findings to a T at all? It certainly makes me wonder what could have been left out or added or embellished.



*a eucharistic miracle that took place hundreds and hundreds of years ago in a tiny village in Italy that left physical evidence in the form of flesh and blood tissues from the bread and the wine that still exists of which produces a yearly miracle to this day--witnessed by thousands, even millions combined over several hundred years.
 

June 07, 2018, 08:37:33 AM
Reply #19
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


I've read in several places about the presence of blood in Lyuda's stomach. The autopsy report calls it a reddish brown mucous mass. Other places call it "coagulated blood" which is speculative in it's own right--coagulated blood can take many forms from a jelly-like mass or clot to a sticky powder-like mass (depending upon age of course) as in the case of the Miracle of Lanciano.* So my point is that all documents that discuss the presence of blood in her stomach can be interpreted to be a mass of coagulated blood. It's maddening how vague and sloppy Vozrozhdenny's work is when so much depended upon his interpretations and notes. I still don't know if he was just a lazy incompetent or he was working within a set of orders. Can we even trust his findings to a T at all? It certainly makes me wonder what could have been left out or added or embellished.


Sad to say as it is, there is no way to tell whether the resultant report was vague because of Vozrozhdennij's  personal sloppiness or because he knew that he had to be vague and stop short of describing what he found. Either way, the vagueness reduces the value of his report.
 

June 09, 2018, 09:58:23 AM
Reply #20
Offline

CalzagheChick


I say we figure out the science for time travel and we go back to the autopsy room and when Vozrozhdenny starts acting shady, we regulate.

My plan is just as good as any.
 

June 09, 2018, 05:30:00 PM
Reply #21
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


I say we figure out the science for time travel and we go back to the autopsy room and when Vozrozhdenny starts acting shady, we regulate.

My plan is just as good as any.


Yes indeed :-(