(September 15, 2015 at 7:40 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(September 15, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: What books about the Shroud have you read, Jenny?

I just used a ruler.  That is sufficient.  That's not a human head.

Ah. So, you've not been to Turin? Not measured the Shroud up close and in person? Not earned a degree in the many science disciplines that were represented by the commissions which did the studies?



I quoted a dozen or so scientific studies which have concluded that the Shroud is anatomically flawless and you question it with a ruler held up to your monitor?

Read. Some. Books.

(September 15, 2015 at 7:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 15, 2015 at 7:01 pm)Iroscato Wrote: You are not a 'guest' here - nobody is. This is a public discussion forum, and that means people might say some mean words. Boo hoo.

If Min - and presumably me, since I (entirely justifiably) called you a cuntstain - have confirmed the angry atheist stereotype, then you have more than confirmed the Catholic stereotype as a creepy, preening, self-satisfied delusional little twit.

Not to mention plagiariser, staunch paedophilia apologist, passive-aggressive, condescending...I really could go on and on. You are not, however, worth the effort. I will say that this forum has been incredibly accommodating to you, and other boards I frequent would have hoofed you out a good 2000 posts earlier. If you think this is bad, why not sniff around?

You may be right.

You might be one of the angry atheists who lower the standard of the forum.

Yes...I'm almost sure of it.

Kudos to Nestor, btw. He gets it.

I couldn't give a whistling shit if you think I'm angry (and since when did being angry become such a bad thing? There's more than enough reason to be so, a quick read of your detritus can easily confirm this), I'm normally quite easy going and tolerant. You, however, have a special talent for rubbing me up the wrong way, mostly for the above reasons.
I'm not angry, per se - I just find you moderately annoying to entirely repulsive...but entertaining nonetheless.

(September 15, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Iroscato Wrote:

(September 15, 2015 at 7:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: You may be right.

You might be one of the angry atheists who lower the standard of the forum.

Yes...I'm almost sure of it.

Kudos to Nestor, btw. He gets it.

I couldn't give a whistling shit if you think I'm angry (and since when did being angry become such a bad thing? There's more than enough reason to be so, a quick read of your detritus can easily confirm this), I'm normally quite easy going and tolerant. You, however, have a special talent for rubbing me up the wrong way, mostly for the above reasons.
I'm not angry, per se - I just find you moderately annoying to entirely repulsive...but entertaining nonetheless.

You could change the game by:

1. actually interacting politely with anything that I post demonstrating with logic and reason why I'm wrong in anything that I post.
2. avoiding my threads altogether
3. adding me to your ignore list.

But if I'm entertaining, why not relax and enjoy the show?

(September 15, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 15, 2015 at 7:40 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I just used a ruler.  That is sufficient.  That's not a human head.

Ah. So, you've not been to Turin? Not measured the Shroud up close and in person? Not earned a degree in the many science disciplines that were represented by the commissions which did the studies?



I quoted a dozen or so scientific studies which have concluded that the Shroud is anatomically flawless and you question it with a ruler held up to your monitor?

Read. Some. Books.

Measuring, I can do myself.  And in every image I've seen that forehead is not just a little short it's preposterous.  No human face looks like that.

(September 15, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

---

(September 15, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Iroscato Wrote: I couldn't give a whistling shit if you think I'm angry (and since when did being angry become such a bad thing? There's more than enough reason to be so, a quick read of your detritus can easily confirm this), I'm normally quite easy going and tolerant. You, however, have a special talent for rubbing me up the wrong way, mostly for the above reasons.
I'm not angry, per se - I just find you moderately annoying to entirely repulsive...but entertaining nonetheless.

---

Quote:You could change the game by:

1. actually interacting politely with anything that I post demonstrating with logic and reason why I'm wrong in anything that I post.
2. avoiding my threads altogether
3. adding me to your ignore list.

But if I'm entertaining, why not relax and enjoy the show?

My conclusion is that you are the ultimate Poe.  Your arguments mainly consist of absurd BS from religious nuts.  Every once in a while you reveal your true character.

And there are tons of sculpture from the middle ages that makes the same anatomical mistake:



And I didn't need to Google the mistake, just statuary from the Middle Ages to find a bunch.

The ancient Greeks and Romans didn't make this mistake and they learned not to do it in the Renaissance, but about the time the Shroud turned up, not so much.

(September 15, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Your arguments mainly consist of absurd BS from religious nuts.

Then you should have no problem breaking one of them down, line-by-line, and convincing me, by the strength of your own counter-arguments, why they are wrong.

I'll watch for it.

(September 15, 2015 at 8:15 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Measuring, I can do myself.  And in every image I've seen that forehead is not just a little short it's preposterous.  No human face looks like that.
.
.
.
The ancient Greeks and Romans didn't make this mistake and they learned not to do it in the Renaissance, but about the time the Shroud turned up, not so much.

How many books have you read about the Shroud, Jenny? Which titles?

(September 16, 2015 at 2:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 15, 2015 at 8:15 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Measuring, I can do myself.  And in every image I've seen that forehead is not just a little short it's preposterous.  No human face looks like that.
.
.
.
The ancient Greeks and Romans didn't make this mistake and they learned not to do it in the Renaissance, but about the time the Shroud turned up, not so much.

How many books have you read about the Shroud, Jenny? Which titles?

Irrelevant.  That head is not human.  It is grossly not.  I gave you a citation for it about three posts back in this thread.  But frankly, that was just looking for confirmation of what my own eyes tell me and a ruler confirms.

How is my measuring different than your laying down and trying to put the arms in the same position as the shroud?

(September 16, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(September 16, 2015 at 2:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: How many books have you read about the Shroud, Jenny? Which titles?

Irrelevant.  That head is not human.  It is grossly not.  I gave you a citation for it about three posts back in this thread.  But frankly, that was just looking for confirmation of what my own eyes tell me and a ruler confirms.

Then you have discovered something that dozens, if not hundreds, of trained medical professionals have somehow missed in the course of their hands-on study of the shroud...

Quote:How is my measuring different than your laying down and trying to put the arms in the same position as the shroud?

RationalWiki - Head Too Large
The Shroud is rectangular, measuring some 4.4 by 1.1 meters. The cloth (specifically linen) is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. It shows faint but distinctive sepia images of the front and back of a naked man with his hands folded across his groin. The body image is muscular and 1.70 to 1.88 meters, or about 5'7" to 6'2", tall, with wound points as though they could have been caused by the process of crucifixion, but there is no generally accepted theory to explain how the image was impressed onto the cloth. However, it is accepted that the image is not anatomically correct — the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long. Source.

Secular Web Kiosk - Head Too Small
That the shroud head is too small is visually obvious when it is compared to normally proportioned humans on the same scale. The dimensions of the small and narrow head of the shroud are about nine-tenths the male norm. This may not sound like much, but because of the square-cube law modest differences in dimensions result in big changes in volume, so the capacity of the cranium was at least 30 percent below expectations. Source.


Jenny, this is the kind of pseudo-science that people glom onto when they are desperate to prove a pre-determined outcome.

"This CAN'T be the Shroud of Jesus...let's figure out why."

If you want to make a compelling case, Jenny, read books by scientists who are either neutral or supporters of the Shroud's authenticity. Then prove them wrong.

Heck, you can start here tonight:

The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:
An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology
by William Meacham - Archaeologist
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - N° 3 - (June 1983)
Published by the University of Chicago Press
Copyright 1983 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
All Rights Reserved
Reprinted by Permission
https://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm