Decapitation of the Union
|
10-12-2015, 12:30 PM
Post: #92
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Decapitation of the Union
(10-12-2015 11:36 AM)L Verge Wrote: however, the physicians conducting his autopsy commented on his strong physique. Laurie, like you I have read this in many books. Several years ago I was exchanging messages with Dr. John Sotos (who believes Lincoln was dying of cancer). I asked him about this information concerning Lincoln's physical condition during the autopsy. Dr. Sotos replied as follows: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (1) Curtis wrote a letter a week after the autopsy. This letter mentions nothing about Lincoln's physique. (2) Curtis wrote two more pieces, one in 1903 for the NY Sun, and one about 1907 for a collection of Civil War recollections. Obviously, these were written a long time after the autopsy, and they furnish the opinions so often ascribed to Curtis. Their long delay knocks down their reliability immediately. (3) Curtis's statement is not in the language of medicine. He uses lay terms. This makes his assessment suspect again. (4) Curtis is demonstrably effusive when he says Lincoln had "strong bones." How does he know? There is no way to know that. Older women today get sophisticated x-ray bone scans precisely to learn if their bones are strong. Curtis did not have x-ray eyes and, indeed, x-rays were not discovered until 1895. (5) Curtis is demonstrably nonspecific when he says Lincoln had "well-rounded muscles." What does that mean, precisely? There is no medical reason at all for commenting in the roundedness of muscles. I have never seen anyone with square muscles! :-) Small muscles can be well-rounded, just as large ones can. (6) It is almost more important what he didn't saythan what he did say. He did not say the muscles were large. In fact, he said they were "sinewy." As used at the time, "sinewy" muscles are not large. They are stringy, tendon-like. He is saying Lincoln had small muscles. (7) Curtis had an axe to grind. Not that extreme, of course, but it is clear that his description could easily have been influenced by his beliefs. His 1903 article talks about a weird theory that prominent men have good bodies. He is using Lincoln in support of this theory, and in this article he makes his most-cited comments about Lincoln's physique. (8) Curtis's statements simply do not fit with the large mass of other evidence available from contemporaneous observers. And I ask you, how could a 6'4'' man, who by his own description weighed less than 180 pounds in 1859, and who clearly lost substantial weight after that -- how could such a man possibly be well muscled? I am 6'0'' and 170, with very little body fat (a common characteristic among cardiologists) and no one has ever called me well muscled, or anything other than skinny. (9) The MEN2B hypothesis can explain Curtis's use of "sinewy," his failure to call the muscles large, and even one possible interpretation of "well-rounded." It can also explain why Curtis (and others) were so struck with the appearance of Lincoln's muscles, and thought them athletic when, in 1865, they were not. |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)