So what happened to that femur...?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Close, but no cigar. My wife is also a biologist and she knows zilch about this matter.
    It depends on the type of biologist one is. It is very broad. Some biologists may have a very limited understanding of say human biochemistry and human anatomy but a great understanding of plant biochemistry and plant anatomy.

    This also goes for Medical scientists. Some have a limited understanding of pathology but a better understanding of cancer research.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    But then again, it does not when we look at pictures of wolf prey, for example. There may be exceptions, of course, but many of the pictures of wolves devouring prey exhibit red bones with meat attaching to them.
    That's because they are eating and not cutting. They are tearing with their paws and dentition.

    Take an uncooked whole chicken and see if you can remove the meat with just your hands. You will get pretty far and pull chunks away from the bone quite cleanly even without a knife. If a dog got at the same chicken it would look more like something that been scavenging on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    I am a biologist. BSc.
    Close, but no cigar. My wife is also a biologist and she knows zilch about this matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    There's no "pattern" - if you remove the flesh from the thigh then the femur will appear white[*]. Besides, there is actually some meat on it, if you look carefully; little strips of muscle that flop over the bone.

    [* Don't forget that we can't tell precisely how "shining white and spotless" it was from an old photograph.]
    Whther there is a pattern or not is for each of us to decide. You don´t see one, I do, it´s as simple as that.

    I am aware that the photo is old.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Are any of the participants in this debate medically schooled? I think Gareth has a degree in psychology (which is not à point to this debate, I believe) but how about Batman?
    I am a biologist. BSc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    If it had been sloppier done, I may have felt less inclined to see a purpose, but since it is shining white and spotless with no meat on it whatsoever, I´m fine with accepting that it fits the pattern I identify.
    There's no "pattern" - if you remove the flesh from the thigh then the femur will appear white[*]. Besides, there is actually some meat on it, if you look carefully; little strips of muscle that flop over the bone.

    [* Don't forget that we can't tell precisely how "shining white and spotless" it was from an old photograph.]

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Biology was my favourite subject at secondary school and long before then, having read all my great-grandfather's medical books from an early age. I gained an A grade at both "O" and "A" level without even revising. I also took subsidiary modules in physiology and anatomy as part of my degree.

    That is Kelly's exposed femur in that photograph, and Karyo Magellan's suggestion was wrong.
    Thanks for that, Gareth - still hoping that perhaps Paul would be reading this and having a little to say about it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Indeed, that's not by accident, but it's not necessarily much of a "design" either. He might just have decided to "fillet" her thighs on a whim.
    I find that what one does has often an underlying reason, Gareth. It may n ot have been one he carried into the room, it may have suggested itself later on and thus have been "a whim" to an extent - but it is in line with how I see the rest of her damage. If it had been sloppier done, I may have felt less inclined to see a purpose, but since it is shining white and spotless with no meat on it whatsoever, I´m fine with accepting that it fits the pattern I identify.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Are any of the participants in this debate medically schooled? I think Gareth has a degree in psychology (which is not à point to this debate, I believe) but how about Batman?
    Biology was my favourite subject at secondary school and long before then, having read all my great-grandfather's medical books from an early age. I gained an A grade at both "O" and "A" level without even revising. I also took subsidiary modules in physiology and anatomy as part of my degree.

    That is Kelly's exposed femur in that photograph, and Karyo Magellan's suggestion was wrong.
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 11-15-2018, 11:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    But it would have taken an effort, right? We are not looking at something that is coincidental, but instead the result of a conscious removing of all flesh, blood and sinews and such?
    Indeed, that's not by accident, but it's not necessarily much of a "design" either. He might just have decided to "fillet" her thighs on a whim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Are any of the participants in this debate medically schooled? I think Gareth has a degree in psychology (which is not à point to this debate, I believe) but how about Batman?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Correct, and the muscles themselves are bounded by sheaths; it's not as if they're "stuck" to the femur along its entire length. It wouldn't have taken much effort to get Kelly's leg looking like that.
    But it would have taken an effort, right? We are not looking at something that is coincidental, but instead the result of a conscious removing of all flesh, blood and sinews and such?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    Open bone breaks with the bone exposed are quite white. There are no major attachments along most bones except for their ends with tendons. That's why with an open break just the bone penetrates to the outside with nothing attached to it. Should look like a white stick.
    But then again, it does not when we look at pictures of wolf prey, for example. There may be exceptions, of course, but many of the pictures of wolves devouring prey exhibit red bones with meat attaching to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Are we looking at the bone itself, or at a tendon? Is that what Batman suggests? I seem to remember that it has been suggested before that it is not the actual femur, I think it was Karyo Magellan who said something such.
    Yes, it's the bone, Fish. I think it was Magellan who suggested that it wasn't the femur, but he was wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    There are no major attachments along most bones except for their ends with tendons. That's why with an open break just the bone penetrates to the outside with nothing attached to it. Should look like a white stick.
    Correct, and the muscles themselves are bounded by sheaths; it's not as if they're "stuck" to the femur along its entire length. It wouldn't have taken much effort to get Kelly's leg looking like that.
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 11-15-2018, 11:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X