The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle, as honestly
recognised by the manager of the most important of the three
laboratories which analysed the cloth by using the carbon 14. This
manager acknowledged a serious mistake in the dating.
The only means we have at disposal to solve the riddle is that of
recognizing that, without any doubt, in such Holy Linen happened
something that we cannot and never we'll be capable to explain : the
Resurrection of Christ.
Website : www.antoniobragadin.com/mystery.htm
E mail :
.
|
|
| User: "James Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 10:09:48 AM |
|
|
In article <de3acfbe-05d2-4206-b7ed-884b7241b557
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Jan 28, 10:09 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <c2214d79-e28d-4d88-9865-af9dd83d9405
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
First, the Shroud is not at all a fraud. Perhaps some claims have
been made for the Shroud that are non-factual, but the Shroud itself
is not a fraud. It is an artifact, and a very old one.
I guess being fraudulent is still covered under being an "artifact".
You are just splitting hairs here.
The shroud does not represent what it was originally purported to be.
Therefore, it is a fraud.
It doesn't take much to be an artifact.
***********************************************************************
Definitions of artifact on the Web:
Any object made, modified, or used by people.www.saa.org/publications/sampler/terms.html
Any object manufactured, used or modified by humans. Common examples
include tools, utensils, art, food remains, and other products of human
activity.www.smu.edu/anthro/collections/glossary2.html
Any manually portable product of human workmanship (see feature). In its
broadest sense includes tools, weapons, ceremonial items, art objects,
all industrial waste, and all floral and faunal remains modified by
human activity.
***********************************************************************
I guess we should be saying that it isn't an artifact of any
significance, OTHER than it duped the religious nuts, once again. Not
so tough to do.
Jim
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least 700 years
old, has much history, and no one knows how it was created. Those
should be enough for anyone with curiosity and genuine scientific
interest.
TCross
Um, I said it was an artifact.
The materials are not of any significance and the "figure" looks like a
simple rubbing off a tomb. Not much there to ponder. If I were an
anthropologist, I might be more interested. If I were a psychologist I
would be more interested in the kooks that just can't let things like
this go.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 11:53:13 AM |
|
|
In article <a2727313-2dee-40b4-a292-
a2b76f5cf33e@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Jan 29, 8:09 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <de3acfbe-05d2-4206-b7ed-884b7241b557
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Jan 28, 10:09 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <c2214d79-e28d-4d88-9865-af9dd83d9405
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
First, the Shroud is not at all a fraud. Perhaps some claims have
been made for the Shroud that are non-factual, but the Shroud itself
is not a fraud. It is an artifact, and a very old one.
I guess being fraudulent is still covered under being an "artifact".
You are just splitting hairs here.
The shroud does not represent what it was originally purported to be.
Therefore, it is a fraud.
It doesn't take much to be an artifact.
***********************************************************************
Definitions of artifact on the Web:
Any object made, modified, or used by people.www.saa.org/publications/sampler/terms.html
Any object manufactured, used or modified by humans. Common examples
include tools, utensils, art, food remains, and other products of human
activity.www.smu.edu/anthro/collections/glossary2.html
Any manually portable product of human workmanship (see feature). In its
broadest sense includes tools, weapons, ceremonial items, art objects,
all industrial waste, and all floral and faunal remains modified by
human activity.
***********************************************************************
I guess we should be saying that it isn't an artifact of any
significance, OTHER than it duped the religious nuts, once again. Not
so tough to do.
Jim
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least 700 years
old, has much history, and no one knows how it was created. Those
should be enough for anyone with curiosity and genuine scientific
interest.
TCross
Um, I said it was an artifact.
The materials are not of any significance
Any manufactured article of that age should be significant and
interesting to a person of curiosity.
and the "figure" looks like a
simple rubbing off a tomb.
What tomb? Do you image that "a simple rubbing off a tomb" could be
done, and no one would recognize the tomb?
Doesn't matter, the "shroud" has been thouroughly debunked.
Not much there to ponder. If I were an
anthropologist, I might be more interested. If I were a psychologist I
would be more interested in the kooks that just can't let things like
this go.
Funny how it goes with you folks - you want to put any contrary
opinions into mental institutions. Your real tolerance for
controversy is showing
If there were a contriversy, then maybe you would have a leg to stand
on.
Deuteronomy 7:5
But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and
break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their
graven images with fire.
Life's a ***** and then you die.
- And isn't "Beck" a Jewish name? What a coincidence that you have
that attitude toward Christian artifacts.
TCross
No, Beck is a German name and I am an atheist to boot, so wrong on all
accounts.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 12:41:23 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:09 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <de3acfbe-05d2-4206-b7ed-884b7241b557
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Jan 28, 10:09 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <c2214d79-e28d-4d88-9865-af9dd83d9405
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
First, the Shroud is not at all a fraud. Perhaps some claims have
been made for the Shroud that are non-factual, but the Shroud itself
is not a fraud. It is an artifact, and a very old one.
I guess being fraudulent is still covered under being an "artifact".
You are just splitting hairs here.
The shroud does not represent what it was originally purported to be.
Therefore, it is a fraud.
It doesn't take much to be an artifact.
***********************************************************************
Definitions of artifact on the Web:
Any object made, modified, or used by people.www.saa.org/publications/sampler/terms.html
Any object manufactured, used or modified by humans. Common examples
include tools, utensils, art, food remains, and other products of human
activity.www.smu.edu/anthro/collections/glossary2.html
Any manually portable product of human workmanship (see feature). In its
broadest sense includes tools, weapons, ceremonial items, art objects,
all industrial waste, and all floral and faunal remains modified by
human activity.
***********************************************************************
I guess we should be saying that it isn't an artifact of any
significance, OTHER than it duped the religious nuts, once again. Not
so tough to do.
Jim
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least 700 years
old, has much history, and no one knows how it was created. Those
should be enough for anyone with curiosity and genuine scientific
interest.
TCross
Um, I said it was an artifact.
The materials are not of any significance
Any manufactured article of that age should be significant and
interesting to a person of curiosity.
and the "figure" looks like a
simple rubbing off a tomb.
What tomb? Do you image that "a simple rubbing off a tomb" could be
done, and no one would recognize the tomb?
Not much there to ponder. If I were an
anthropologist, I might be more interested. If I were a psychologist I
would be more interested in the kooks that just can't let things like
this go.
Funny how it goes with you folks - you want to put any contrary
opinions into mental institutions. Your real tolerance for
controversy is showing
Deuteronomy 7:5
But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and
break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their
graven images with fire.
- And isn't "Beck" a Jewish name? What a coincidence that you have
that attitude toward Christian artifacts.
TCross
The guilty flee when none pursue, and attack their own shadows.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 10:57:06 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
700 years old,
Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
has much history,
None before that date.
and no one knows how it was created.
It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
Those should be enough for anyone with curiosity and genuine
scientific interest.
Those questions have already been answered. The shroud is a
fraud. It comes from a time where such relics were as common as
dogs.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 06:35:28 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Terry Cross wrote:
| On Jan 29, 8:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|> Terry Cross wrote:
|>
|>> You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
|>> 700 years old,
|> Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
|> radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
|> Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
|>
|>> has much history,
|> None before that date.
|>
|>> and no one knows how it was created.
|> It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
|
| Where is the tempera paint in this explanation?
|
| http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~mukluk/miscp2.html#tur
| +++++++++++++++
| Make Your Own Shroud of Turin
| (notes from "The Turin Shroud: Fake? Fact? Photograph?", by Joe
| Nickell, Popular Photography,November 1979, Volume 85, Number 5, p.
| 97.)
|
| Wet a piece of cloth (perhaps thin and shroudlike) and
| mold it to the contours of 3-dimensional object (statue, body, what-
| have-you) and
| allow it to dry.
| Make a half-and-half mixture of powdered myrrh and aloes (ancient
| burial spices; which can be obtained nowadays at stores that sell
| herbs or alternative medicines).
| Wrap the mixture in a piece of soft cotton and then daub and rub onto
| cloth wrapped object until image shows up.
| This results in a sepia tone negative image of the object similar to
| that on the Shroud of Turin.
| +++++++++++++++
|
| You fraud busters should stop falling over each other - you look like
| Keystone cops.
|
Geezus could you be any more stupid?
You just posted exactly HOW to make a fake shroud.
Damn, you don't even see it. You go on and on about how it's the real
deal, then you post a method proving it can be and probably is a fake.
Simply swap out the aloe and myrrh with a watered down paint of red
ocher and vermilion. It ain't that hard to figure out.
Will you please decide who's side you're on?
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHn8ZQf+wl0F6+jvgRAv/qAJ47tiI1OmkPEwFkVojYQjEuC9f6LACfQQM0
h1XczEaYPN/Ph+QnKg3TLvM=
=OhmY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The Holy Shroud Makes Fools of Self-describe Scientists |
30 Jan 2008 12:03:37 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
\ First, you misunderstand, or I did not make myself clear.
The web page instructions posted above were cited earlier by
this same group. Notice the ingredients? Later, Davie states
the shroud was painted with tempura paint.
Only a complete idiot like you would get that wrong. I made no
such claim. Those that have studied the piece of cloth in
question made that claim.
I am pointing out you can't have it both ways. Either the
scientific analysis has proven it is tempura, or it has proven
the cloth is colored from embalming spices - one or the other,
but not both.
clearly, no embalming "spices" are involved.
If you argue that the cloth is colored from embalming spice.....
That was how to make one yourself, not how the painting in Turin
was done.
Notice the photographic character of the image?
No.
On the other hand, if painted freehand, you must imagine a
painter who knows photographic quality of images....
Red herring?
There are serious problems with both explanations.
No, only with your interpretations.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 02:33:23 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
700 years old,
Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
has much history,
None before that date.
and no one knows how it was created.
It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
Where is the tempera paint in this explanation?
Why would it have to be in that explanation? It is in others.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
30 Jan 2008 12:04:24 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:33 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
700 years old,
Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
has much history,
None before that date.
and no one knows how it was created.
It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
Where is the tempera paint in this explanation?
Why would it have to be in that explanation? It is in others.
So for you, if "scientists" contradict each other, it is all still
science - just so long as it contradicts Christianity.
I see where you are going with this.....
Obviously you can see only what you want to see.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 11:56:48 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:33 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
700 years old,
Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
has much history,
None before that date.
and no one knows how it was created.
It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
Where is the tempera paint in this explanation?
Why would it have to be in that explanation? It is in others.
So for you, if "scientists" contradict each other, it is all still
science - just so long as it contradicts Christianity.
I see where you are going with this.
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Hoffman was a useless rabble rouser with nothing to add to
civilization other than a will to destroy:
Abbott Howard "Abbie" Hoffman (November 30, 1936 - April 12, 1989) was
a self-identified Jewish Road Warrior, anarcho-communist, social and
political activist in the United States who co-founded the Youth
International Party ("Yippies"). Later he became a fugitive from the
law, who lived under an alias following a conviction for dealing
cocaine.
Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as
a result of his role in protests that led to violent confrontations
with police during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, along with
Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines,
Lee Weiner and Bobby Seale. The group was known collectively as the
"Chicago Eight"; when Seale's prosecution was separated from the
others, they became known as the Chicago Seven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Hoffman
Your kind of hero, I guess.
TCross
Terry/Carol he was an idealist, who may also have been bipolar. He did
what he did out of conviction, and he did it to make the world a better
place for everyone.
Which puts him ahead of you, because he was not a bigot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
30 Jan 2008 10:03:00 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
In other words, he was what you would call a "kook" - he
believed sincerely in unreal things.
Which is exactly what everyone in the various newsgroups this
thread is cross posted to think of you - a kook.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
30 Jan 2008 12:51:39 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:56 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:33 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
700 years old,
Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
has much history,
None before that date.
and no one knows how it was created.
It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
Where is the tempera paint in this explanation?
Why would it have to be in that explanation? It is in others.
So for you, if "scientists" contradict each other, it is all still
science - just so long as it contradicts Christianity.
I see where you are going with this.
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Hoffman was a useless rabble rouser with nothing to add to
civilization other than a will to destroy:
Abbott Howard "Abbie" Hoffman (November 30, 1936 - April 12, 1989) was
a self-identified Jewish Road Warrior, anarcho-communist, social and
political activist in the United States who co-founded the Youth
International Party ("Yippies"). Later he became a fugitive from the
law, who lived under an alias following a conviction for dealing
cocaine.
Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as
a result of his role in protests that led to violent confrontations
with police during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, along with
Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines,
Lee Weiner and Bobby Seale. The group was known collectively as the
"Chicago Eight"; when Seale's prosecution was separated from the
others, they became known as the Chicago Seven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Hoffman
Your kind of hero, I guess.
TCross
Terry/Carol he was an idealist, who may also have been bipolar. He did
what he did out of conviction,
In other words, he was what you would call a "kook" - he believed
sincerely in unreal things.
No, he sought a better world for all of us.
and he did it to make the world a better
place for everyone.
Yeah, sure, and that is why he wrote the book, "Revolution for the Fun
of It," while 1/3 of the world was dying from, or in the chains of,
his dearly beloved Communism Revolutions. http://www.cpop.org/images/Abbie2.jpg
There are good revolutions and bad ones. Most revolutions start out
idealistically, but there is usually a counterrevolution that undoes
much of the revolutionary progress.
I don't agree with most of his politics, but I respect his motives.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Abbie Hoffman and his book, Revolution for the Fun of It |
30 Jan 2008 11:20:57 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:51 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:56 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:33 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
700 years old,
Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
has much history,
None before that date.
and no one knows how it was created.
It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
Where is the tempera paint in this explanation?
Why would it have to be in that explanation? It is in others.
So for you, if "scientists" contradict each other, it is all still
science - just so long as it contradicts Christianity.
I see where you are going with this.
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Hoffman was a useless rabble rouser with nothing to add to
civilization other than a will to destroy:
Abbott Howard "Abbie" Hoffman (November 30, 1936 - April 12, 1989) was
a self-identified Jewish Road Warrior, anarcho-communist, social and
political activist in the United States who co-founded the Youth
International Party ("Yippies"). Later he became a fugitive from the
law, who lived under an alias following a conviction for dealing
cocaine.
Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as
a result of his role in protests that led to violent confrontations
with police during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, along with
Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines,
Lee Weiner and Bobby Seale. The group was known collectively as the
"Chicago Eight"; when Seale's prosecution was separated from the
others, they became known as the Chicago Seven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Hoffman
Your kind of hero, I guess.
TCross
Terry/Carol he was an idealist, who may also have been bipolar. He did
what he did out of conviction,
In other words, he was what you would call a "kook" - he believed
sincerely in unreal things.
No, he sought a better world for all of us.
Evidence, please?
From wikipedia:
________________________________________________________________________________
Prior to his days as a leading member of the Yippie movement, Hoffman
was involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC),
and organized "Liberty House", which sold items to support the Civil
Rights Movement in the southern United States. During the Vietnam War,
Hoffman was an anti-war activist, who used deliberately comical and
theatrical tactics, such as organizing a mass demonstration in which
over 50,000 people would attempt to use psychic energy to levitate The
Pentagon until it would turn orange and begin to vibrate, at which time
the war in Vietnam would end.[4] Hoffman's symbolic theatrics were
successful at convincing many young people to become more active in the
politics of the time.[4]
________________________________________________________________________________
and he did it to make the world a better
place for everyone.
Yeah, sure, and that is why he wrote the book, "Revolution for the Fun
of It," while 1/3 of the world was dying from, or in the chains of,
his dearly beloved Communism Revolutions. http://www.cpop.org/images/Abbie2.jpg
There are good revolutions and bad ones.
Name three GOOD Communist revolutions.
I would say that the one that overthrew the Czars was a good one. It's
unfortunate that there was a counterrevolution that undid virtually all
of the gains.
That's the only one I can think of.
There have, however, been a number of "good" revolutions:
The industrial Revolution - not political, but replaced the old order
with a new one.
The American Revolution
The French Revolution
The British revolutions, admittedly low-key, that produced the Magna Charta
The Mexican Revolution and those led by Simon Bolivar in Latin America
The original Chinese Revolution (the actual one) led by Sun Yat Sen
Garibaldi's revolution in Italy
The revolution in South Africa that brought about the end of Apartheid
No doubt there are many others, but those are all I can think of off the
top of my head.
Most revolutions start out
idealistically, but there is usually a counterrevolution that undoes
much of the revolutionary progress.
You gotta love that first revolution in Russian with murdering the
Tzar and his family. That was lots of fun. Then the Pol Pot
Revolution was pretty good, too.
The original revolution destroyed the despotic, feudal Czarist
government. The Communist counterrevolution undid most of the
beneficial effects of the original one.
Romania had a revolution recently in which they executed their "royal"
dictators, the Ceaucescus. That one seems to be working - there has not
been a counterrevolution.
I know you are a royalist, and that killing kings and queens makes you
squirm. But the world is changing. Most monarchs are now figureheads
with very limited powers. It's OK, Terry/Carol, it means humans are
choosing a society of laws rather than people.
I don't know much about Pol Pot, but consider his takeover to be a coup
d'etat rather than a revolution. Revolutions are born in idealism or
desperation, and he exhibited neither.
Remember, the "fun of it" is what we are going for, here. Remember
the Hungarian Revolution, within easy memory of Hoffman's book
publication?
Some revolutions are successful, some not. The Communists were never
known for their humanitarian or democratic impulses. Similar things
happened in Czechoslovakia.
Wow, was that ever "fun." The Chinese Revolution was
just too much fun.
You missed the revolution. The Communist takeover in China was a
counterrevolution that simply started a new dynasty. The actual
revolution was when Sun Yat Sen overthrew the Ch'ing Dynasty and
declared the Republic of China.
I don't agree with most of his politics, but I respect his motives.
What motives and why?
See above. I may not always agree with idealists, but his heart was in
the right place IMO.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Abbie Hoffman and his book, Revolution for the Fun of It |
01 Feb 2008 02:32:29 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:20 am, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:51 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:56 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:33 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
700 years old,
Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
has much history,
None before that date.
and no one knows how it was created.
It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
Where is the tempera paint in this explanation?
Why would it have to be in that explanation? It is in others.
So for you, if "scientists" contradict each other, it is all still
science - just so long as it contradicts Christianity.
I see where you are going with this.
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Hoffman was a useless rabble rouser with nothing to add to
civilization other than a will to destroy:
Abbott Howard "Abbie" Hoffman (November 30, 1936 - April 12, 1989) was
a self-identified Jewish Road Warrior, anarcho-communist, social and
political activist in the United States who co-founded the Youth
International Party ("Yippies"). Later he became a fugitive from the
law, who lived under an alias following a conviction for dealing
cocaine.
Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as
a result of his role in protests that led to violent confrontations
with police during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, along with
Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines,
Lee Weiner and Bobby Seale. The group was known collectively as the
"Chicago Eight"; when Seale's prosecution was separated from the
others, they became known as the Chicago Seven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Hoffman
Your kind of hero, I guess.
TCross
Terry/Carol he was an idealist, who may also have been bipolar. He did
what he did out of conviction,
In other words, he was what you would call a "kook" - he believed
sincerely in unreal things.
No, he sought a better world for all of us.
Evidence, please?
From wikipedia:
________________________________________________________________________________
Prior to his days as a leading member of the Yippie movement, Hoffman
was involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC),
and organized "Liberty House", which sold items to support the Civil
Rights Movement in the southern United States. During the Vietnam War,
Hoffman was an anti-war activist, who used deliberately comical and
theatrical tactics, such as organizing a mass demonstration in which
over 50,000 people would attempt to use psychic energy to levitate The
Pentagon until it would turn orange and begin to vibrate, at which time
the war in Vietnam would end.[4] Hoffman's symbolic theatrics were
successful at convincing many young people to become more active in the
politics of the time.[4]
________________________________________________________________________________
and he did it to make the world a better
place for everyone.
Yeah, sure, and that is why he wrote the book, "Revolution for the Fun
of It," while 1/3 of the world was dying from, or in the chains of,
his dearly beloved Communism Revolutions. http://www.cpop.org/images/Abbie2.jpg
There are good revolutions and bad ones.
Name three GOOD Communist revolutions.
I would say that the one that overthrew the Czars was a good one. It's
unfortunate that there was a counterrevolution that undid virtually all
of the gains.
At the time, there was in the entire world only one Czar - Nicholas.
Nicolas was on a continuing program of liberating Russia, the program
his father had started. Overthrowing the Czar released horribly evil
forces in the country that would have remained contained if Nicholas
had not been overthrown.
Nicolas presided over the pogroms in the Pale of Settlement in the late
19th and early 20th Centuries CE. His unwillingness to reign in the mobs
cost him the financial support he needed to prosecute the Russo-Japanese
War, and he lost. He may have been a marvelous leader otherwise, but
there were attempts on his life and that of his father. The last one
succeeded BTW. That bespeaks popularity, doesn't it.
But that may be too far down the cause-effect chain for your vision.
You probably do not understand that the primary purpose of government
is to constrain evil.
I disagree with that. The nazis failed miserably at it, and many of the
Soviet puppet states didn't either. That's why Ceaucescu met a
criminal's end, same as Mussolini. I don't trust government, especially
governments of people rather than laws. We have laws to constrain
government, and they often do pretty well at it.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 12:34:17 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
You are conveniently omitting the facts that it is at least
700 years old,
Yes, it shows up in 1537 and that date is consistent with the
radio carbon dating done by Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
has much history,
None before that date.
and no one knows how it was created.
It was done with red ochre and vermillion tempera paint.
Where is the tempera paint in this explanation?
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~mukluk/miscp2.html#tur
+++++++++++++++
Make Your Own Shroud of Turin
(notes from "The Turin Shroud: Fake? Fact? Photograph?", by Joe
Nickell, Popular Photography,November 1979, Volume 85, Number 5, p.
97.)
Wet a piece of cloth (perhaps thin and shroudlike) and
mold it to the contours of 3-dimensional object (statue, body, what-
have-you) and
allow it to dry.
Make a half-and-half mixture of powdered myrrh and aloes (ancient
burial spices; which can be obtained nowadays at stores that sell
herbs or alternative medicines).
Wrap the mixture in a piece of soft cotton and then daub and rub onto
cloth wrapped object until image shows up.
This results in a sepia tone negative image of the object similar to
that on the Shroud of Turin.
No, it doesn't. The face on the shroud has the same proportions of
height and width that you'd see in a painting/photo. But if you took a
cloth and laid it over a face and did such an image and then laid it out
flat, you'd find the face would be much WIDER in proportion to the height.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
28 Jan 2008 08:45:07 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross said the following on 1/28/2008 10:00 AM:
On Jan 28, 8:47 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:13 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
DEE wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the shroud?What will
anyone lose one way or the other? You gain nothing by the
shroud being real, and you lose nothing if it is not.
That IS the mystery of the shroud - it's a mystery why so
many insanely ignorant people still cling to a psychotic
belief that it's what they claim it is. No amount of
evidence, or solid proof, to the contrary will ever change
their beliefs.
There is no SOLID proof to the contrary. The Shroud is a
mystery.
If you can read, there IS solid proof the shroud is a fraud. The
only mystery is why some people are too ignorant, or blinded by
their need to protect their god beliefs, to understand it is a
fraud.
Why can't you accept the fact that it is a fraud?
"Why can't you accept the fact that ..." - that is no logical
argument.
I have no intention to "accept" the "fact" of your bold assertions
without solid proof.
First, the Shroud is not at all a fraud. Perhaps some claims have
been made for the Shroud that are non-factual, but the Shroud itself
is not a fraud. It is an artifact, and a very old one.
If you would like to prove it a fraud, I suggest you generate a
similar article from the materials and techniques available in the
12th Century. No one else has done that, and you will be the first.
This page has been mentioned before:
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~mukluk/miscp2.html#tur
At that time, and not before, you may state that the Shroud has been
scientifically shown to be an ordinary article - not a fraud,
necessarily, but not a religious relic.
When we say "fraud", we mean that the Shroud is not a religious relic;
it's a forgery of a religious relic.
So hop to, my man. The world awaits your scientific breakthrough.
Come and gone ages ago. Where've you been?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
28 Jan 2008 12:58:28 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:47 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:13 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
DEE wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the shroud?What
will anyone lose one way or the other? You gain
nothing by the shroud being real, and you lose nothing
if it is not.
That IS the mystery of the shroud - it's a mystery why
so many insanely ignorant people still cling to a
psychotic belief that it's what they claim it is. No
amount of evidence, or solid proof, to the contrary will
ever change their beliefs.
There is no SOLID proof to the contrary. The Shroud is a
mystery.
If you can read, there IS solid proof the shroud is a fraud.
The only mystery is why some people are too ignorant, or
blinded by their need to protect their god beliefs, to
understand it is a fraud.
Why can't you accept the fact that it is a fraud?
"Why can't you accept the fact that ..." - that is no logical
argument.
First you have to present a logical argument for a logical
rebuttal. You have presented no logical arguments, all you've
done is believe in something in spite of the proof to the contrary.
I have no intention to "accept" the "fact" of your bold
assertions without solid proof.
See.... that's the problem; there is solid proof and you refuse
to accept it since it would threaten your compartmentalized god
beliefs.
First, the Shroud is not at all a fraud......
The shroud exists. That part is not a fraud. The claims people
like you are making is where the fraud comes in.
If you would like to prove it a fraud.....
I do not have to. YOU are the one that needs to do the proving.
You are making the extraordinary claim that goes against the
known facts and that puts the burden of proof squarely on your
shoulders.
So hop to, my man. The world awaits your scientific
breakthrough.
No, we're awaiting your scientific backing for your fanciful claims.
Since that will not be forthcoming and all we can expect are
more claims, can you tell us your real reason for clinging to
this security blanket of a shroud? Why do your religious
beliefs depend so heavily on a 14th century painting?
While you're thinking up some new excuse for not supplying
scientific evidence to support your claims, you can read a bit of
the scientific proof that the shroud was painted in the 14th
century here:
http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
28 Jan 2008 10:27:30 PM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
While you're thinking up some new excuse for not supplying
scientific evidence to support your claims, you can read a bit of
the scientific proof that the shroud was painted in the 14th
century here:
http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/
Thanks for the link. It's one that I missed, though I have read some that
are provided therein.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
28 Jan 2008 11:00:45 PM |
|
|
Darrell Stec wrote:
David V. wrote:
While you're thinking up some new excuse for not supplying
scientific evidence to support your claims, you can read a
bit of the scientific proof that the shroud was painted in
the 14th century here: http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/
Thanks for the link. It's one that I missed, though I have
read some that are provided therein.
You're welcome. I searched for "shroud skeptic" and that popped up.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 10:10:58 AM |
|
|
In article <090b2177-3abd-4575-8c1c-4674f5670209
@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
It came from a time when no one knew how to create such a thing. Even
if they had fraud at heart, it is too good to be a fraud.
What time would that be?
They didn't have cloth?
They didn't have cloth dyes?
Jeez, let it go.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 06:37:21 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Terry Cross wrote:
| On Jan 29, 8:10 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
|> In article <090b2177-3abd-4575-8c1c-4674f5670209
|> @k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
|>
|>
|>
|>> It came from a time when no one knew how to create such a thing. Even
|>> if they had fraud at heart, it is too good to be a fraud.
|> What time would that be?
|> They didn't have cloth?
|> They didn't have cloth dyes?
|>
|> Jeez, let it go.
|>
|> Jim
|
| They did not have the painting techniques or the human anatomical
| knowledge.
|
Really? I's sure Leonardo would be surprised to hear that.
Since the shroud dates from the time of Leonardo Da Vinci, they did in
deed have painting techniques for the anatomical human form.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHn8bBf+wl0F6+jvgRAoqLAKCF0BKC/5WTaqgzjjiHbvA95xW14QCgisCG
6P+cT2s1YUAxe1JcCgB8R/A=
=xuIc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
30 Jan 2008 12:07:38 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
As of 2005, there is no universally accepted carbon dating
result for the shroud in the scientific literature.
Why should there be? Why should science even give a ***** about
that silly piece of cloth? It is obviously not what some
psychotic christians believe it to be. The only "science" that
cares are the psychiatrists and the sociologists. Their only
concern is why people need to believe in something that is
obviously a forgery.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
30 Jan 2008 10:01:23 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:07 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
As of 2005, there is no universally accepted carbon dating
result for the shroud in the scientific literature.
Why should there be? Why should science even give a *****
about that silly piece of cloth?
For the same reason you are obsessed with this thread.
I'm fascinated with your psychotic obsession and inability to
process new information. I'm trying to figure out what DSM code
you fall under.
It is obviously not what some psychotic christians believe
it to be.
Nor what some psychotic Atheists believe, either. Where are
you going with this?
You have some deep seated psychological problems. I have no doubt
that you will never get treatment for it though. Most people like
you cannot accept the fact they have serious problems.
The only "science" that cares are the psychiatrists and the
sociologists. Their only concern is why people need to
believe in something that is obviously a forgery.
How was the Shroud created, David?
Not by coming in contact with the biblical jesus.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
01 Feb 2008 10:04:27 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 30, 8:01 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:07 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
As of 2005, there is no universally accepted carbon
dating result for the shroud in the scientific
literature.
Why should there be? Why should science even give a *****
about that silly piece of cloth?
For the same reason you are obsessed with this thread.
I'm fascinated with your psychotic obsession and inability
to process new information. I'm trying to figure out what
DSM code you fall under.
It is obviously not what some psychotic christians
believe it to be.
Nor what some psychotic Atheists believe, either. Where
are you going with this?
You have some deep seated psychological problems. I have no
doubt that you will never get treatment for it though. Most
people like you cannot accept the fact they have serious
problems.
The only "science" that cares are the psychiatrists and
the sociologists. Their only concern is why people need
to believe in something that is obviously a forgery.
How was the Shroud created, David?
Not by coming in contact with the biblical jesus.
How was the shroud created, David?
Frogs. A whole pond full of frogs got together and used spiders
and their spinnerets to weave the cloth then the birds from the
forest got dirt on their feet and "painted" the image you now see.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 11:57:03 AM |
|
|
In article <87bfc505-7c1a-4eb9-914a-
719d0399b8cf@d21g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Jan 29, 8:10 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <090b2177-3abd-4575-8c1c-4674f5670209
@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
It came from a time when no one knew how to create such a thing. Even
if they had fraud at heart, it is too good to be a fraud.
What time would that be?
They didn't have cloth?
They didn't have cloth dyes?
Jeez, let it go.
Jim
They did not have the painting techniques or the human anatomical
knowledge.
The very fact that it was done destroys your argument.
That being said, the shroud was examined and there was nothing out of
the ordinary for the time it was produced. If you are holding this
thing out as some sort of proof of a higher being, it is a pretty lame
example.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 02:32:39 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
They did not have the painting techniques or the human
anatomical knowledge.
Obviously they did.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
30 Jan 2008 12:05:20 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:32 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
They did not have the painting techniques or the human
anatomical knowledge.
Obviously they did.
Who paints in embalming spices?
No one has claimed they did?
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 11:57:58 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:32 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
They did not have the painting techniques or the human
anatomical knowledge.
Obviously they did.
Who paints in embalming spices?
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
You measure a fool by the fools he idolizes.
TCross
Terry/Carol, you mismeasure most of the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 01:15:43 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:10 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <090b2177-3abd-4575-8c1c-4674f5670209
@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
It came from a time when no one knew how to create such a thing. Even
if they had fraud at heart, it is too good to be a fraud.
What time would that be?
They didn't have cloth?
They didn't have cloth dyes?
Jeez, let it go.
Jim
They did not have the painting techniques
They couldn't paint pictures?
or the human anatomical
knowledge.
They didn't know what a face looked like?
Actually, what they DID seem to lack was the understanding that a 3-D
face projected onto a 2-D surface causes distortion. If you took a straw
and cut it lengthwise and flattened it out, it is a lot wider than it
looks when it's in a tube form. Same with the face. If you took the skin
off and flattened it (or wrapped a cloth around it and did a rubbing or
other type of transfer) then it would be a lot wider than in the shroud
image. But that lack of understanding does NOT show it to be real. It
just goes to show how it's a fake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 01:41:25 PM |
|
|
In article <fnnu0v$b4$1@news04.infoave.net>,
says...
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:10 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <090b2177-3abd-4575-8c1c-4674f5670209
@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
It came from a time when no one knew how to create such a thing. Even
if they had fraud at heart, it is too good to be a fraud.
What time would that be?
They didn't have cloth?
They didn't have cloth dyes?
Jeez, let it go.
Jim
They did not have the painting techniques
They couldn't paint pictures?
or the human anatomical
knowledge.
They didn't know what a face looked like?
Actually, what they DID seem to lack was the understanding that a 3-D
face projected onto a 2-D surface causes distortion. If you took a straw
and cut it lengthwise and flattened it out, it is a lot wider than it
looks when it's in a tube form. Same with the face. If you took the skin
off and flattened it (or wrapped a cloth around it and did a rubbing or
other type of transfer) then it would be a lot wider than in the shroud
image. But that lack of understanding does NOT show it to be real. It
just goes to show how it's a fake.
No, man, aliens did it. Those primitive screw heads didn't know what a
person looked like, what cloth was, or how to make pigments. They may
have even needed an entire chorus of angels in there somewhere too.
OR, maybe not........................
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
30 Jan 2008 01:55:33 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:15 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:10 am, James Beck <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
In article <090b2177-3abd-4575-8c1c-4674f5670209
@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
It came from a time when no one knew how to create such a thing. Even
if they had fraud at heart, it is too good to be a fraud.
What time would that be?
They didn't have cloth?
They didn't have cloth dyes?
Jeez, let it go.
Jim
They did not have the painting techniques
They couldn't paint pictures?
Not in photographic negative. Prove me wrong with another example
from that period.
What's so hard about reversing the colors?
or the human anatomical
knowledge.
They didn't know what a face looked like?
Look at the paintings from the period.
They all prove the point. That they DID know what faces looked like.
Actually, what they DID seem to lack was the understanding that a 3-D
face projected onto a 2-D surface causes distortion. If you took a straw
and cut it lengthwise and flattened it out, it is a lot wider than it
looks when it's in a tube form. Same with the face. If you took the skin
off and flattened it (or wrapped a cloth around it and did a rubbing or
other type of transfer) then it would be a lot wider than in the shroud
image. But that lack of understanding does NOT show it to be real. It
just goes to show how it's a fake.
Here you shoot off your mouth without ever having seen the Shroud.
Look now before you shoot off the other foot. http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm
You need to look up "map projection" before you look like even more of
an idiot. If the shroud had been wrapped around someone and then "energy
projected out from the person to the cloth" it would NOT have had the
same proportions as a painting.
The shroud is a photographic image - in negative.
No, it's not. It's a painting done with the colors reversed.
And that goes to
show that YOU are the fake, not the Shroud.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
