ShottleBop

I'll have to try a cup next time I'm in NY! Downtown LA, not having sufficient pedestrian traffic to support a corps of sidewalk carts, shunts you into Starbucks or the like. Even the convenience stores here charge more than 50 cents.

. . . sorry for the detour, folks. I'll stay on topic in future.

As for "on topic": NIV's version of John 20:40 refers to "wrapping" in "strips" of linen:
The Shroud does not look like something that could fairly be characterized as "strips" of linen.

Koyaanisqatsi

Slamdunk from Shottlebop!

I'll buy the coffee!

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, kiddies, the first from the Forensic expert. Actually, the second, but beside lenarde, who cares?

See if you can spot the flaw(s), beside the fact that the author has an annoying habit of referring to himself in the third person.

Consider first that Meacham has already told us, "The cloth itself has been described (Raes 1976) as a three-to-one herringbone twill" made out of "linen":

Yes, that's right! The confusing parts are "over the right pectoral area" and a linen twill that is stained by something "resembling" water!

Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of, "Fraud of Turin!"

Buh - bye!

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

leonarde

Is there anyone out there from the first 2-3 pages of this thread or anyone who is NOT interested in talking about coffee(????)AND who might know SOMETHING about the Shroud, interested in participating? If so, give us a call! I feel like
the Maytag repairman on the moon!

leonarde

Posted by Koy: No.

leonarde

For another look at the Sudarium of Oviedo and
its relevance to the Shroud see:
<a href="http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve_full.cfm?RecNum=3953" target="_blank">http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve_full.cfm?RecNum=3953</a>

leonarde

Well for anyone who read several posts ago, Koy
claimed to have found out Meacham in a contradiction concerning the blood and its degree
of penetration. I first post a larger part of
the text than Koy did:
Note this is Meacham reporting on what the Turin Commission found/stated about the blood and stain.
Only then does Meacham go into the finding of the
Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)(which was a later and far more thorough group of scientists who worked from 1978 to 1981):
In other words, far from being a blunder or inconsistency by Meacham, it is Meacham himself who is pointing out the inconsistency between the findings of STURP and the Turin Commission on the degree of penetration of the blood into the Shroud. The STURP's findings were later and superseded the Turin Commission's findings.
It is ONLY the fact that Koy chose to (koyly?)
quote partially from these sections that the impression rendered is that Meacham is being inconsistent.
As we (ex)New Yorkers say, Oy vey!

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

The URL for Meacham once again (see for yourself!)
is:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm</a>

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, kiddies, here's the conclusion of the forensic expert that lenarde has just curtly informed us was part of the actual team that reviewed the actual shroud.

I'll deal with your confused logic regarding Meacham and the blood thing in a moment, lenny. Again, the pertinent dubious qualities are emphasized:

This is patently absurd. First of all, the constant use of the term "water" to describe a stain in the linen is obviously deliberate and by no means scientific. Water doesn't stain linen and the only reason this person keeps making this ludicrous tenuous link is so that it a priori coincides with the GJohn myth.

Had this person been a serious pathologist, he would have stated that there appear to be stains other than bloodstains near the wound and left it at that, since he would have absolutely no possible means of determing what those other stains were or whether or not those stains were made at the same time as the blood stains or centuries later!

Water does not stain linen, so to keep saying it's a "water like" stain or that it looks like "water" can have only one purpose; to make it coincide with the GJohn.

This blatant fact alone discredits any claims of "objectivity" this person could possibily make, but no matter. The ludicrous declaration that a pathologist would search through all of history in order to find an historically comparable postmortum in order to come to a "reasonable" identity and, further and even more ludicrous, that the only comparable postmortum is that of Jesus, so, therefore, it's Jesus is absurd, especially since the only link to Jesus is the pierced side described in the GJohn.

We have absolutely no way of knowing how many people were crucified throughout history, let alone how many were crucified with some form of spiked crown on their heads, let alone if the puncture wounds on the head of the shroud were actually inflicted by a crown of thorns (there have been many forms of torture used on victims throughout history, why assume its a crown of thorns unless you're already biased to prove the Jesus myth?) let alone the fact that he had described the "side" wound as being "over the right pectoral," which isn't on a man's side and above and to the right of the heart!

Everything this man wrote betrayed his a priori assumption that this "Man on the Shroud" was Jesus and it's clear that he was consistently forcing the story of John onto his examination, most obviously evident in his "conclusion" where he states that it is "not unreasonable" to conclude this man is Jesus based entirely on the fact that one story written thousands of years ago describes a similar (not identical, just similar) story.

That would be like me declaring that a skull I found in my backyard with a hole in it must be Abrahma Lincoln because Lincoln was shot in the head.

Koyaanisqatsi

Then explain to me why he writes this at the end:

This clearly states that he did not perform any such actual examination.