Translate

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

A tiny bit dead...........

Evening friends, guests and Textaloons


I had so much fun reminiscing about the lunacy that was the Doodle Roadshow that I thought I would revisit another belter.

Sit back and enjoy


Being Alive Is The Opposite Of Being Dead *

* This title won the trophy for the ''Most Fucking Obvious'' statement at the World Pedantic Bastards Championships 

Textusa was beginning to regret asking Fred to pose for her drawing class - never had his lack of genitals been more evident. 


We have determined, at this point, two important things about "The Stroller". 
Ah yes - The Stroller. To explain, the ''Stroller'' is the man seen carrying a child in PdL. Obviously, he needed a special name, otherwise, you wouldn't have a clue who she meant 

One is that he was NOT DISPOSING OF OR HIDING A BODY
Ah right-o. That's good, isn't it? And you determined this how - witchcraft?  

The other is that he was carrying the child with the CLEAR INTENT OF BEING SEEN carrying a blond, barefooted four year old girl, dressed in pyjamas, and so provoke an encounter that had the objective to produce one or more witnesses who would be misleaded into thinking that Madeleine Beth McCann had just been abducted. 
Okaaaaaaay............... 

These are two of the three intermediate objectives we proposed to achieve before advancing to the final one in the Smith Sighting Saga: to prove that "The Stroller" is none other than Dr. Gerry McCann
Oooh. Popcorn. Be right back  

This post, and the others that will follow it, is then aimed to achieve the third intermediate objective: to prove that the carried girl was alive 
 I’ll even add another detail to the objective: to prove that she was alive and sedated
 Right. So by the sheer power of your mind you are going to determine the identity of both, monitor vital signs and run blood tests? Goodness. Well come on then, get cracking 

For this, I’ll be breaking the theme into three parts. 
Three? Three posts? Fuck me.  

- First, this post, is to differentiate, physically, the dead from the live. Simplistically as possible, of course.
Oh, of course 


- Then, I intend to show how, and why, ANY adult carries a small sleeping toddler, under various circumstances. 
Ah ha.  

- Lastly, I intend to show how, and why, is a dead human body, namely that of a child, is transported. 
Okay. Well, that doesn't make any sense, but hey ho!  

 The proving of the sedation, is about a paragraph long, so I’m still thinking if I’ll dedicate a post to such evident evidence. That’s the plan. But you know by now how fickle I am… Let’s then not waste any more time, and get the ball rolling. 
Why, if it's only a paragraph long? 

A Portuguese “socialite”, Lili Caneças, has, in Portugal where she’s known, been much scorned for having one day said that “being alive is the opposite of being dead”. This apparently obvious statement does encapsulate much more than it seems. 
She is obviously a woman of great wit and charm, but is probably, by the sound of it, a bit thick.  

There are, I’ve heard, ongoing discussions about what is the exact moment a person dies. A very good friend of mine has told me that the last thing to go is the hearing, so, on a loved one's deathbed one should continue to speak caring, loving words, as the loved one departs before our very own eyes. 
Well, that isn't necessarily so, is it?

For starters, if they were already deaf, well, it was the first thing to go, wasn't it?

And in cases of decapitation, being run over by a train, or running full tilt into a piece of piano wire stretched between two trees, I think it's probably one of the earlier senses to check out of the building, really, although it's fair to say that ''Look out!'' or ''Duck!'' may well be the last thing they hear 

I certainly would like to go hearing such music. 
There was music?? 

But it’s not the moment of death that I want to talk about today. I intend to discuss what is PHYSICALLYdifferent from a dead body and one that is living, in a conscious state or not. 
Ah, okay. Off you go then. 

In terms of conscientiousness I would say that someone can go from fully alert and conscientious, to being completely unconscious, like when under general anesthesia. 
Okay - do you mean conscious?  Because to be awake and aware of ones surroundings means one is ''Conscious'', the opposite of which is ''Unconscious''

Conscientiousness means you are the sort of person who always finishes their homework. 


So anyhoo, you reckon that people can go from one to the other. Conscious to unconscious. Blimey, nothing much gets past you, does it?



The intermediate degrees in this scale would be to be drowsy, asleep or sedated. 
Hmmmm - there are actually scales for measuring this, but let's not quibble 

I’ll leave the comatose state out as in none of the Maddie’s scenarios is this condition referred anywhere by anyone, nor can I see any reason to be. 

The extremes of this redefined scale, full alertness and anesthesia, can be defined by OPPOSITEresponses of the nervous system to stimuli. 
Oh dear - I have a feeling I might have to quibble after all. For starters, the two states you describe are not at opposite ends of the scale, nor are they defined by ''opposite'' responses to stimuli, but rather by the presence or absence of a response. Anyway, on you go....... 

In the present case, I would like to concentrate on the stimulus originated by pain. The reaction to other different stimuli is identical as the nervous system is the same, the only one existing in a body. 
Well, that's all a load of bollocks, but anyway, we'll let it go...... 

Pain, by the way, is nothing but an alert system. The nerves warn the brain that the body is being subject to danger, and the brain, in turn, or in response, makes the body react accordingly. Feeling tired is a painful state. If the body didn’t feel this tiredness, a runner could run himself to exhaustion and literally to death. 
Er, no. But anyway I promised to let it go......... 

We, when fully conscientious, feel and react to pain, while under anesthesia this “connection nerve-brain” is completely blocked, albeit temporarily, and the brain not receiving information, doesn’t react to it. 
Oooh, this is killing me. Actually, the full mechanisms of most anaesthetics are not fully understood, especially by you, clearly. It's enough to say the body does not react to painful stimuli and leave it at that

But either conscious or fully unconscious, our blood never stops flowing. 
Well, no, we would be fucked if it did.  

And that is the main PHYSICAL difference between being dead and being alive
And finally......... 

The Chinese say that a dead body is one without energy. In a cadaver, the blood flow is inexistent, but in a living being, even if in coma, this flux continues uninterrupted. The heart beats, the blood flows. 
You know, you could have just said when the blood stops circulating, you die, and cut out all the other bullshit. 

When the heart stops, irrigation of cells is stopped, and these start to loose their tonicity, their elasticity, their strength. All living cells die, and decomposition begins, which is, by the way, quite a "lively" process that we’ll talk about later on. Not on this post. When we will talk about cadaverine. 
Did you just google this and throw in a lot of long words? I think what you are trying to say is that muscles lose their tone. Continue........ 

Once the blood stops flowing, so does the energy that we’ve taken in stop reaching the cells intended to receive it. So rightful are the Chinese. 
The Chinese know Jack Shit. If you meant that cellular respiration ceases, you would be right. Of course, you didn't mean that because you don't know what it is, but I digress....... 

Now let’s look how this energy is used when we’re alive and well. We keep ourselves upright due to a multiple chains of miracles, some call it factors, in this gigantically complex thing that we simplify by calling it a body. 
''Multiple chains of miracles''  ''Factors''

Hmmm.

Generally, we keep ourselves upright by the use of our skeleton and our skeletal muscle, but that's what you meant, isn't it? Rather than all that woo......

What a wonderful machine is the human body. Structured by the skeleton, its balance centered at the inner ear, but it’s our muscles, held together to the bones by ligaments, that give us the form we have. So the key element here is muscle
The muscles are not ''held together to the bones by ligaments'' dear. Ligaments join bones together. I think you meant tendons 

When we’re born, we haven’t enough muscular mass to be able to hold our head on our own. We grow, and so grows our muscular mass, but it’s a while before we have enough of it to enable us first to stand upright, then to walk, to run, to jump, etc. 
It's nothing to do with muscular mass. It's to do with strength. A baby lacks the strength in the muscles of the neck to pull their head forward unaided. 

Once able to stand upright, the wonderment of balance happens. Make a voluntary movement such as the lifting of an arm, and just imagine all the calculus that would be required to determine the compensation needed due to the unbalancing just provoked and all necessary muscular reactions involved to compensate it... The body is continuously keeping its "balance status" information updated in a process that still today makes any computer green with envy. 
It's not that complicated, but anyway........ 

This then results in a miraculous myriad combination of contracting and distending of muscle that makes us continue upright. 
Some of your regulars may be unfamiliar with the concept of walking upright. They should take special note 

All involuntary, all instinctive. Nothing short of amazing is what a living human body is able to achieve millions of times a day. 
Er no. You are talking about skeletal muscles, the muscles used for movement. Nothing involuntary about that, or instinctive. Although rumours that you are unable to walk and chew gum at the same time are very unkind, even if true.  

But loose the structure, by breaking a leg, or loose the balance, through excessive intake of alcohol, and what happens? Pray the ground is soft. 
If you break a leg, that's skeletal. If you hit the sauce, it's neurological. Neither make your muscles fly off. 

Ask, if you enjoy being cruel, any athlete to stand up after he’s pulled a leg muscle. No structure, no balance, no muscle… and verticality is mission impossible. 
Bullshit. It'll just hurt, is all. He's not going to flop about like Helenmeg in a mud wrestling contest 

It’s clear the effect of death on structure: unless death occurs as consequence of body damage, it’s none. It’s also clear the effect of death on balance. Any which way one goes, balance is gone. But what is the effect of death on the muscle mass? 
Okay, let's stop there. 

There is no immediate effect on the muscle mass.

Once stopped being oxygenated, the muscles close shop. That simple. 
The muscles are no longer being supplied with oxygenated blood. The tissue starts to die. The muscles do not, however, suddenly start flinging themselves about with gay abandon, leaving a svelte corpse minus the six-pack they had in life 

When you’re unconscious, asleep, sedated or anesthetized, the blood irrigation continues. When you’re dead, it stops. 
Seriously, can we get you on Mastermind. Name: Textusa. Specialist subject: The bleeding obvious. 

So the muscle mass, that had helped or even been essential to the verticality of the human being, now produces the OPPOSITE effect. Not only doesn’t the muscle mass help, as it contributes, due to its natural weight, to make the body become even a greater victim of gravity. 
What bullshit. I really could go on at length explaining the difference between mass and weight, but all you really need to know is that the muscle mass is unchanged, the effect of gravity is unchanged, unless you were planning on jettisoning it into space or strapping it to the Mars Lander, but inertia certainly becomes an issue as the body can no longer move itself.

Anyone who wants a lesson on the difference between weight and mass come and see me afterwards 

To understand, just go to your local butcher and pick up a boneless piece of meat. It will just droop on your hand. But that same piece of meat, when it was alive and irrigated, was an energized muscle filled with strength. 
That's because it was still attached to the cow, you fucking idiot. 

It alone moved mass, lifted a leg, shook a head, or even made a whole body jump, but now it needs the same bone it mastered to keep the memory “alive”of the shape it once had. 
If a sirloin steak starts running about a field, eating grass and hurdling fences then you have real problems 

So, as Lili Caneças so rightfully said, and only the ignorant scorned, to be dead IS the OPPOSITE of being alive. 
Fuck me. All that to basically get to ''Dead things can't move'' 

 In a dead body, as all muscle has now become useless and soft, all of it would just drop off the body, by gravity, were it not for the ligaments tying them to the bones and for the skin that still maintains their shape.
This really is absolute cobblers. Seriously, in the late 19th century when you went to school, did you do any dissection? Did you do any science at all?

A dead body does not suddenly slough off all it's musculature. And they are NOT tied to the bones with ligaments! Jesus. 

They say it takes 60 muscles to make a frown and only 30 to smile. Add, say, 10 that don’t either smile or frown and subtract 20 that do both, you end up, when the body is dead, with 50 face muscles that are doing something other than you’re used to see them doing: just drooping. 
Are you reading this out from something that fell from a Christmas cracker? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life. 

A question, Textusa. What do those muscles do when you are asleep? Droop, perhaps, so you can attractively drool all over your beloved, or even Fred? 

That’s why the face of someone who has passed away, although resembling the person we remember alive, looks completely different. A dead person just looks dead. Not asleep, not drugged. Stone cold dead. 
No it doesn't. 

A drowsy, sleeping or a sedated body is not to be confused with a dead one. 
Why? Because it's doing the Gay Gordons with those special gravity-defying muscles it has?

The first are alive, maintain muscle control. This may be diminished, in different degrees, by the received stimuli in the brain.
A recently dead body looks just like an actually alive body, unless of course it has a vital organ  - like a brain - missing, or a gaping wound where the chest used to be. Of course if you watch for a while you will notice the lack of breathing. I always find that's a big give away.
It’s easy to understand that the further we are into unconsciousness, the less information is passed on to the brain. 
I assume you were deeply unconscious when you wrote this, then....... 

Proportionally, the head is the heaviest part of our body.
Not in your case 
Our neck muscles do miracles every single day of our lives. 
They do what nature designed them to do 

We’re all familiar with the comical head nodding of someone who, sitting, starts to fall asleep. In this instance, the nerves supposed to inform the brain that the neck muscles are straining, delay somewhat this transmission. This makes pain accumulate up to a point where the brain receives all this information at once and reacts accordingly, usually with an exaggerated upward snapping of the head. This immediately alleviates the pain, and so the head due to its weight, drops, restarting the muscle straining. The next cycle is shortened because the “pain” starting point of the muscles is already elevated, so the brain response is earlier…. 
What the fuck are you on about? What ''pain''?

Unless you have prepared the area so that a nodding head plunges into glass shards or glowing embers, the stimulus isn't pain. It's ''Oh shit, I'm falling asleep''

Your readers must know this more than most 

This demonstrates, that although reacting slowly the brain maintains full control of the muscles of the body.
No it doesn't. When you are asleep your brain is not waving your legs about, is it? 

That’s the reason why a child adapts its head on the shoulder of an adult when full asleep, either by turning it or finding a more comfortable position. 
It's just getting comfortable 

Under sedation, the body reacts similarly as in sleep, the main difference is that it’s temporarily is unable to wake up, whilst, when sleeping, if the pain is too great, one does wake up. 
This is entirely dependent on the level of sedation 

In a dead body, trying to keep the head vertical is like trying to balance a pumpkin on top of a straw. The only support it has is the linkage between the spine and the skull, no structural help from the muscles. So the commonly seen “backward flopping” of the head in a dead human, or humanoid, body like in the picture below, when a gorilla holds her dead baby in front of her
A dead baby that never developed the strength in the neck muscles anyway, in all likelihood

And what makes you think a person under heavy sedation, unconscious or comatose is any different? You think they can control their head? Those are voluntary muscles, dingbat. 
Family reunions were always an emotional time for Textusa
A perfect example of this lack of muscular support of the neck to the head is a newborn baby. 

The structure is there, and the balance is irrelevant at this stage. What is lacking in muscle strength. If it’s not EXTERNALLY supported, it falls. Just like the head of a corpse. 
Or an unconscious adult 

Just another reminder of the cycle of life, we end as we’ve begun. 
No we don't. 

This post, as I said, was just for you to differentiate, physically, between being dead and being alive. Not spoken about the "The Stroller", that will come in later posts. 
Oh fuck 

But now you can understand at least one argument in proving that the carried girl was alive. Would "The Stroller" risk walking approximately 500 metres, and back, with a newborn’s uncontroled wobbling head on his shoulder? 
It wasn't a newborn. And any deeply asleep child will be exactly the same 

And head for a stairs?  

None of the three Smith witnesses stated that he was holding the child’s head:
So? One would not need to, unless the route home had involved running rapidly backwards and forwards, or perhaps a spot of ice skating.  
Textusa carried Fred junior with care - one false move and his muscles could all fly off.
 
THAT is something that would be noticed.

As would anyone carrying a corpse, apparently, as according to you at the moment they die all their muscles fly off and detach from the skeleton, leaving them as, essentially, a person-shaped bag of goo.

Idiot. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.