Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 03-19-2002, 06:00 PM

When I did my 4 page thread on the Shroud at ARN
forum a few months ago I got a few skeptics: one
seemed to be a non-theist, another was Douglas
Bender who is an ardent YEC who is a member here
as well....
Apparently I was able to convince neither(!!!!)

leonarde · 03-19-2002, 07:30 PM

Boro Nut,
The image of the man is NOT 2D, it is 3D.

03-19-2002, 10:10 PM

Miracle indeed! A mediaeval hologram!

Anunnaki · 03-19-2002, 11:21 PM

The only miracle of the 'shroud' is that there are still a few morons who believe it`s real.

Forget about C14 and all that other stuff and do the following:

1.)Talk your friend into letting you paint his face (the color is not important).
2.)Have your friend lay down and put a thin 'shroud like' clothe over his face and slightly press down to transfer image of face on clothe.
3.)Remove clothe from friends face and take a look at what you have. You`ll notice that what you have is a big round and distorted Charlie Brown looking face.
4.)Try to figure out why this happened and what this means to the rag of Tourins authenticity.
5.)Cry with your pastor or do whatever you need to do to get over it.
6.)Write emails to the Vatican asking if they could send the shroud to me. I`m almost out of toilet paper.

The shrouds big round head problem was demonstrated on a Discovery show a while ago and even a small child would have understood it.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]

Boro Nut · 03-20-2002, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Boro Nut,
The image of the man is NOT 2D, it is 3D.

So its a hologram then? I think you will find that all images having length and breadth are 2D. If you are counting the thickness of the cloth as indicating depth them that is as grossly misleading as the rest ot the tripe you have posted.

Perhaps you would like to discuss what a panoramic image should look like with an expert in panoramic images, like say, radiographs of piping welds etc.

The original artist did not represent the correct panoramic image either because
a) It never occured to him because he wasn't that clever.
b) He realised that the peasantry he was trying to trick would not accept that an accurate surface development of a corpse would look nothing like, and therefore not be accepted as, being Jesus.

Apart from the fact that its a crap job anyway.

Boro Nut

Boro Nut · 03-20-2002, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Posted by Boro Nut The owners of today? Well, yes I think
they DO consider it HIGHLY likely that it is the
genuine article.

The Catholic Church tacitly admits it is a fake. Can you imagine they would let it rot in a church in Turin instead of having pride of place in the Vatican if it were real? Do you think the rooms are so full of Jesus' furniture that they couldn't fit it in? This the only alledged true physical remnant of his existence? No. They tolerate it because (in their words) 'it inspires religious devotion'. Statues can do that. Are they the fossilised remains of Jesus or Mary?

Boro Nut

liquid · 03-20-2002, 04:23 AM

"If David Copperfield announced that he would make the Statue of Liberty disappear, then appeared to have done so, would you believe?"

How DID he do that? I was wondering...

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 04:34 AM

Why have none of the last 2 or 3 posters addressed in ANY form what Isabel Piczek has to say about the technical details which rule out a painting?
Indeed, Anunnaki him/herself partly confirms, apparently unwittingly, precisely WHY it is not a
painting.
Using very vehement language to condemn something
which doesn't fit in with one's worldview doesn't
constitute persuasion of even the meagreest type.
Boro Nut, in particular, goes off his. Why should
the RC Church display something in the Vatican
simply because YOU think that that is where it ought to be displayed? History leaves its own
disparate residue: some artifacts of colonial and
early post-colonial America are on display in Philadelphia instead of Washington DC. That in no
way reflects on the authenticity of the artifacts.

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 04:37 AM

liquid,
I don't really see any connection between the
magician, David Copperfield, and ANY purported
medieval/ancient artifact.
Surely you aren't suggesting that NO medieval/
ancient artifacts are genuine?
Cheers!

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 04:42 AM

Can any of the skeptics (the ones who have responded so far OR anyone else)give me a link or
a non-URL citation in which a SINGLE expert in medieval art claims that the Shroud was painted?
(Von Daniken is NOT, to my knowledge, an expert
on medieval art).
Cheers!

03-19-2002, 11:21 PM	#74
Anunnaki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: I`ve left and gone away Posts: 699	The only miracle of the 'shroud' is that there are still a few morons who believe it`s real. Forget about C14 and all that other stuff and do the following: 1.)Talk your friend into letting you paint his face (the color is not important). 2.)Have your friend lay down and put a thin 'shroud like' clothe over his face and slightly press down to transfer image of face on clothe. 3.)Remove clothe from friends face and take a look at what you have. You`ll notice that what you have is a big round and distorted Charlie Brown looking face. 4.)Try to figure out why this happened and what this means to the rag of Tourins authenticity. 5.)Cry with your pastor or do whatever you need to do to get over it. 6.)Write emails to the Vatican asking if they could send the shroud to me. I`m almost out of toilet paper. The shrouds big round head problem was demonstrated on a Discovery show a while ago and even a small child would have understood it. [ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2002, 06:00 PM	#71
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	When I did my 4 page thread on the Shroud at ARN forum a few months ago I got a few skeptics: one seemed to be a non-theist, another was Douglas Bender who is an ardent YEC who is a member here as well.... Apparently I was able to convince neither(!!!!)

03-19-2002, 07:30 PM	#72
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Boro Nut, The image of the man is NOT 2D, it is 3D.

03-19-2002, 10:10 PM	#73
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Miracle indeed! A mediaeval hologram!

03-20-2002, 04:23 AM	#77
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	"If David Copperfield announced that he would make the Statue of Liberty disappear, then appeared to have done so, would you believe?" How DID he do that? I was wondering...

03-20-2002, 04:34 AM	#78
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Why have none of the last 2 or 3 posters addressed in ANY form what Isabel Piczek has to say about the technical details which rule out a painting? Indeed, Anunnaki him/herself partly confirms, apparently unwittingly, precisely WHY it is not a painting. Using very vehement language to condemn something which doesn't fit in with one's worldview doesn't constitute persuasion of even the meagreest type. Boro Nut, in particular, goes off his. Why should the RC Church display something in the Vatican simply because YOU think that that is where it ought to be displayed? History leaves its own disparate residue: some artifacts of colonial and early post-colonial America are on display in Philadelphia instead of Washington DC. That in no way reflects on the authenticity of the artifacts.

03-20-2002, 04:37 AM	#79
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	liquid, I don't really see any connection between the magician, David Copperfield, and ANY purported medieval/ancient artifact. Surely you aren't suggesting that NO medieval/ ancient artifacts are genuine? Cheers!

03-20-2002, 04:42 AM	#80
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Can any of the skeptics (the ones who have responded so far OR anyone else)give me a link or a non-URL citation in which a SINGLE expert in medieval art claims that the Shroud was painted? (Von Daniken is NOT, to my knowledge, an expert on medieval art). Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.