Art 101 by Walter "Rembrandt" McCrone
Bobbycindi
Turin is a painting. McCrone sure as heck didn't- and he was asked. But that
didn't seem to bother the man. Here, in his own words, is just how simple it is
to paint a shroud. (From his book Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud)
"To help reinforce my conclusion that the 'Shroud' is a painting, I had asked
one of my friends (the late Walter Sanford), a well-known and highly talented
Afro-American artist to paint some shrouds. He had trouble learning to reverse
light and shadow since a shroud in a dark tomb requires a different approach.
The only way to record an image in the dark would seem to be to put paint where
the body parts touch the cloth. If you do that the bridge of the nose,
forehead, cheekbones, and other high points are painted dark. This is just the
opposite of a painted portrait from life with normal lighting. There, the
bridge of the nose, etc., will be lighter. So in effect, the shroud artist
accidentally painted a negative. The result is not, however, a completely
negative 'Shroud' image because the bloodstains were painted dark red and the
hair was painted dark. Both are then registered as light on a photographic
'Shroud' negative. There is then, no mystery over the partially negative nature
of the 'Shroud'. The mystery is maintained by the Church and by STURP because
they will still, even after the 14th century date is confirmed, use that
feature to justify their claim that the Shroud is not a painted image."
I'm convinced- NOT!!! Is it possible Walter McCrone really thought that
sounded plausible? And what was that bit about a shroud in a dark tomb
requiring a different approach? Is he saying that some medieval dude lugged a
fourteen foot length of linen into a tomb to paint a portrait of Jesus? Why? So
the thing would come out in negative? Somebody help me out here. Tell me I'm
not the only one who finds McCrone's explanation goofy beyond belief. I believe
in miracles, but even I have limits.
Bob
Bobbycindi
book and it looks exactly like what one might expect- a face only that reveals
at a glance the hand of the artist. (Bloodstains and other realistic evidence
of physical trauma is not even attempted). One can see immediately that the
image is 'stylized' rather than photographic in nature. Not that one can
compare it side by side to the real thing. Because nowhere to be found in
McCrone's book on the Shroud is a picture of the Shroud! At least not the
magnificent photo-negative image that made the thing famous the world over. The
reason is obvious- McCrone didn't dare.
Which brings up another point. Where does the man get off claiming the Shroud
is a "beautiful" painting in the first place? The Shroud, as it appears to the
eye, could perhaps qualify as mysterious but it certainly ISN'T beautiful. Not
until one sees the photo-negative image, as revealed by the camera, could it be
described that way. Looked at as the work of an artist it could at best be
described as diffuse and unrealistic. Certainly nothing of the serene and
majestic expression can be made out.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20021101004029...@mb-me.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>I would challenge anyone to name a single artist who believes the Shroud of
>Turin is a painting. McCrone sure as heck didn't- and he was asked.
Already done. You still have not answered the list of Kuban, Taylor,
Sanford, Craig, Allen, Gabrielli and Dale I gave some time ago.
Indeed, considering that this is a factual question, you are engaging
in willful denial. Your case has to be pretty pathetic if you can
address their objections only by pretending that they do not exist.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPc7+AqyjdWYzk1A5AQEi7gf+MkvVe6rjNnkoJbSYlLKZee2BXRexgf3G
M71IxBPPCffLWz/fd08LsaXu66wVhTdR25zmh+USa0rbKsrjj5J02UrdoUEob6ym
UzAOqXtqv6U4vP6ITnAsfoYNFTHfUZltRztUwYXbL/mSpbVDAQ9wWn3gcFzrv8gG
XV4V6XmUD7lH1eNVPkgVJfZZkDo05CHulOOj4yBbF38jNhREgBAF/NiRYCxuPiNi
6XXTBBuDflYr+fDbO3RUCF0Hgy3PB5/axE6ggow1SrpnuLgcwSPK9TvEZhSVYumD
3mAQ7NUrPIf2QGKmbbyWMoRnHkZRmRIdkbvRaHswyhr8eRwmbIpMhQ==
=js34
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
him when he was asked to name an artist who agreed with him. (He named nobody)
All Sanford did was follow McCrone's instructions and demonstrate convincingly
that his strange idea (about how an artist would make a shroud in a dark tomb)
was NOT how the Shroud came about.
Allen (if you're referring to art professor Nicholas Allen) was convinced the
Shroud was a medieval photograph. He knew perfectly well the Shroud wasn't a
painting. His photographic effort served to corroborate the undeniable
photographic quality of the real thing.
Craig's not a real artist and neither is Gabrielli. Craig's a medical
technician who, like Sanford, demonstrated how the Shroud DIDN'T come about (by
producing yet another smudgy face cartoon). Gabrielli's a museum curator if I'm
not mistaken- not an artist. As for Kuban, Taylor and Dale, suppose you tell
us their qualifications. I'm betting you won't because they too aren't actually
artists. In fact I'm sure of it.
To put it bluntly Weaver, you should be embarrassed by the fact that you know
so little about art that you actually entertain the notion that the Shroud of
Turin is a painting. As the "universal expert" you claim to be, it would appear
you were one of those who learned less and less about more and more until you
ended up knowing nothing about everything.
Bob
Bobbycindi
interesting. She say's this:
"The Turin Shroud- even if it were not the Shroud in which Jesus was wrapped,
and even though it looks worn by the passing of time and the ups and downs it
has been through- it would still be of very great artistic value. Its artist,
with his thorough knowledge of anatomy, would appear to have transfused into
his canvass His geniality and the emotional turmoil of His soul, interpreting
the spiritual meaning of the moral figure of the Saviour."
First of all, one almost gets the impression that Ms. Gabrielli isn't entirely
convinced the Shroud ISN'T the burial cloth of Christ. Secondly she, like the
pathologists who have studied the thing, seems to be at odds with Frank Weaver
when it comes to the issue of anatomy. (She oviously finds it convincing
whereas Weaver does not). But what I find really interesting is that Gabrielli
sees in the Shroud that wonderful expression that is so utterly awe-inspiring.
Why should this grab my attention? Because if the Shroud is a painting, the
artist who "transfused into his canvass His geniality and emotional turmoil"
did it without being able to see what he'd accomplished! Afterall the face on
the Shroud, as a photo-negative image, looks down-right grotesque to the eye.
Not until revealed by the camera can one see ANYTHING of the beautiful image
that made the Shroud famous the world over.
Gabrielli doesn't offer an explanation but I, for one, can't help but wonder if
this is why the women seems not to be convinced that the Shroud isn't exactly
what it looks like- the actual burial cloth of Jesus bearing His miraculous
image. McCrone's explanation of how this happened (that it was a lucky
accident) simply rings false. The image is simply too perfect. Too magnificent.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20021114233453...@mb-fy.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
[snip]
>Allen (if you're referring to art professor Nicholas Allen) was convinced the
>Shroud was a medieval photograph. He knew perfectly well the Shroud wasn't a
>painting.
OHO! So now you're retreating into equivocal language, shifting your
meaning of 'painting' as it suits you.
Let me put this as simply as I can. It doesn't matter squat whether
the image was literally painted onto the shroud cloth or not. It was
placed there by a medieval forger using methods whose consequences
make the fact of forgery obvious to anyone playing with a full deck.
You're not really so stupid that you think the only alternatives are
painted or miraculous. There's rubbing, transfer print, photography
of a sort -- a number of credible methods for the forger to have
worked in. Don't pretend they don't exist just because I've nailed
you in another falsehood.
[snip]
>Craig's not a real artist and neither is Gabrielli. Craig's a medical
>technician who,
Makes forensic drawings for a living. Sounds like art to me, even if
her artwork isn't meant for museums and galleries.
>like Sanford, demonstrated how the Shroud DIDN'T come about (by
>producing yet another smudgy face cartoon). Gabrielli's a museum curator if I'm
>not mistaken- not an artist.
So she's presumably much MORE familiar than any artist could be in
the various techniques artists commonly used in (in her case)
northern Italy in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance. As an
historian of art, she is DEFINITELY more knowledgeable in the themes,
styles, and iconography in use at that time.
>As for Kuban, Taylor and Dale, suppose you tell
>us their qualifications.
Artist, photographer, and art historian, respectively.
>I'm betting you won't because they too aren't actually
>artists. In fact I'm sure of it.
What was the ante again?
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPdsBYayjdWYzk1A5AQGz+gf/V9A2/oFQAvTPdkdDt5MlTkqOzzgePGdS
Y8g/8/Kfigz17Kb3mhygoKq8cW9Xn2pJAetojgz4em6t8gs67N23razrqBXbh/O1
Wh08BsAluuhGMIKqCUL9KB1IYc4jxKH43kAiKv7YhYJKeaD1/4WSTpwLvYJQ5paK
bH/CfnlGqBxzP15wsTpjMUI28iCH4qd0u6Iq5Sbfa5F3st+fj/JFLK94BsnzLNU+
mw549OWNY2dSdWkkBOqUG0bQIBIlIYJ01BeFOHSFr9RH4m3GrJbTrySRaZD4dJkQ
CroGX+HmEJIEiw1sEymXbxdRNGdcmcsSsET0Jr9plToQvb/iJUaWhA==
=198Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
>the
>>Shroud was a medieval photograph. He knew perfectly well the Shroud wasn't a
>>painting.
>OHO! So now you're retreating into equivocal language, shifting
your
>meaning of 'painting' a it suits you.
Remind me sometime Frank to show you all the paintings of my kids I carry in my
wallet.
Bob
Bobbycindi
>the
>>Shroud was a medieval photograph. He knew perfectly well the Shroud wasn't a
>>painting.
>OHO! So now you're retreating into equivocal language, shifting your
>meaning of 'painting' as it suits you.
>
Remind me, sometime Frank, to show you all the paintings of my kids I carry in
my wallet.
Bob
Bobbycindi
Perhaps Frank feels about my offer the way Winston Churchill did when
confronted with the same opportunity. (I'm still waiting for Weaver to
respond.) On one occasion an acquaintance wanted to show Churchill pictures of
his offspring. He broached the subject by saying; "I don't believe I've shown
you photographs of my grandchildren". Before he could produce the pictures,
Chuchhill responded with; "No, and I've been meaning to thank you for that!"
Bob
Ken Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
> Perhaps Frank feels about my offer the way Winston Churchill did when
> confronted with the same opportunity. (I'm still waiting for Weaver to
> respond.)
Hey...Bob's waiting for Weaver? I'm still waiting for Bob to respond. I
asked him about peer-reviewed papers on the Shroud published lately
("lately" being since STURP in the early 80's). Why? Because Bob makes a BIG
point of all of the peer-reviewed science that supports(?) the Shroud of
Turin and disparages the fact that McCrone published only from his own
journal "The Microscope" (exactly like Mr. Schwortz with his own web-site
"publication"...shroud dot com).
So far, no reply. Could it be that there haven't been any? Could it be that
all of the Shroud-related stuff has been "published" in NON-peer-reviewed
places? Looks that way.
BTW...the last peer-reviewed paper on the Shroud of Turin that I know about
is Walter McCrone's 1990 paper "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's
Pigment?". This was published in the American Chemical Society's journal
Accounts of Chemical Research (vol. 23, pp. 77-83). And, interestingly, this
peer-reviewed paper does not appear in Ian Wilson's bibliographies.
Bobbycindi
>is Walter McCrone's 1990 paper "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's
>Pigment?". This was published in the American Chemical Society's journal
>Accounts of Chemical Research (vol. 23, pp. 77-83). And, interestingly, this
>peer-reviewed paper does not appear in Ian Wilson's bibliographies.
>
I have an idea Ken. Suppose you get hold of McCrone's paper and post some of
the pertinent parts. I already have Adler's and Heller's paper about the blood
on the Shroud they published in Applied Optics. We'll see how they stack up
against each other. As for your question about recent papers, I actually don't
know what the latest is. But now that the Shroud has been scanned
spectrographically front and back at very high resolution, I expect to see new
papers coming out any time. I also know that a petition to the Pope has been
made recently by interested scientists calling for a fair and balanced study of
the Shroud that involves folks from a wide range of disciplines. Hopefully this
will come to pass.
Bob
Ken Towe
published in peer-reviewed journals since McCrone's 1990 paper. Had
there been, you would certainly have trotted them out. The absence of
peer-reviewed papers in "appropriate journals", by itself, speaks
volumes about the quality and/or the validity of much of the nonsense
put out by these "experts" you call upon (but then ignore or downplay
when they are shown to have been contradictory or flat-out wrong).
Bobbycindi
>peer-reviewed papers in "appropriate journals", by itself, speaks
>volumes about the quality and/or the validity of much of the nonsense
>put out by these "experts" you call upon (but then ignore or downplay
>when they are shown to have been contradictory or flat-out wrong)
The absence of RECENT peer-reviewed papers speaks volumes about the fact that
the Catholics tend to lock the Shroud away for decades on end. Plenty of
papers have been written about the Shroud of Turin that were peer-reviewed and
published in appropriate journals. As for it having been shown that the
experts are "flat out wrong", I assume you're referring to the work of Walter
McCrone? What can I say? He thought the Shroud was a painting. STURP didn't.
Common sense tells me STURP was right. Plus STURP's science was far more
involved than was McCrone's. McCrone looked through a microscope, saw what he
thought was a particle of pigment and determined that an artist had therefore
painted the Shroud. I know of not a single artist that would agree and plenty
who don't.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <BA29493E.2...@alumni.duke.edu>,
Ken Towe <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>Hey...Bob's waiting for Weaver? I'm still waiting for Bob to respond. I
>asked him about peer-reviewed papers on the Shroud published lately
>("lately" being since STURP in the early 80's). Why? Because Bob makes a BIG
>point of all of the peer-reviewed science that supports(?) the Shroud of
>Turin and disparages the fact that McCrone published only from his own
>journal "The Microscope" (exactly like Mr. Schwortz with his own web-site
>"publication"...shroud dot com).
In fairness, Ken, these two are not the same or even close.
Regardless of whether McCrone (or, rather, an institute he founded)
publishes the Microscope or performs editorial duties, submissions
to it get sent to independent experts for critique before being
accepted. Often, as you know, some of the chosen experts can be
hostile to the author's proposals, if they've got good reputations in
the same area of expertise.
Shroud.com does not operate that way at all. Schwortz publishes what
Schwortz wants to, the end.
>So far, no reply. Could it be that there haven't been any? Could it be that
>all of the Shroud-related stuff has been "published" in NON-peer-reviewed
>places? Looks that way.
With a very few exceptions (Heller/Adler; the repetitive 3-D claims of
Jackson, Jumper, Ercoline and Downs; and Whanger's coin-on-eye claims)
all of which are deeply flawed, the peer-reviewed output of STURP is
remarkably vapid. The conclusion of one paper was the well-known
factoid that dark colors hold more heat than light colors! And
remember that, as the self-defined 'experts' in the subject, STURP
was largely allowed to review its own work.
Just about every single pro-Shroud claim of any substance has NOT
been peer-reviewed and has NOT appeared in anything close to an
academic publication. Any fool can set up a website and become his
own publisher. Putting "Scientific Papers" on top of some pages
doesn't mean squat. Neither do privately published essays or
popular-consumption books ($$$).
>BTW...the last peer-reviewed paper on the Shroud of Turin that I know about
>is Walter McCrone's 1990 paper "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's
>Pigment?". This was published in the American Chemical Society's journal
>Accounts of Chemical Research (vol. 23, pp. 77-83). And, interestingly, this
>peer-reviewed paper does not appear in Ian Wilson's bibliographies.
Perhaps for the same reason he dropped mention of the Frache, Rizzati
and Mari forensic tests?
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPhEQh6yjdWYzk1A5AQHaFgf9F/xqpQNZYYdhEg7lj8JGJg4MJWhQ88AH
gz+G/A7TN9ynnEe6G4r/4N7m6Jyym+f5z9CK27U/mZt17U9aqiIk2beBQ9U2DVrF
niQrh99ljtqc4wgBGjVj5cN8/AToCmZtFX0BB5/QO98/OsvxC1nMNvQZazEQJu/E
vRUZPbQiLY6SNuZVzCPpBcvey2VG9gLAL3Nwqqm1EbJ1AyFhjBHU/t5sC+oPaMSB
qEpj1xoc7b4CLliZmKdWUFk3rOhZNPQo61ODHhLSEHeoS9FBB1SqMITqMjJ6Dnzm
AuNUVVnz4y+nOh84+y7R7tlfbHAFV1ypsmL+xo2TdZadEC2mEt18bw==
=MiVd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
>Just about every single pro-Shroud claim of any substance has NOT
>been peer-reviewed and has NOT appeared in anything close to an
>academic publication.
As I recall Frank most, if not all, the science STURP did on the Shroud was
peer-reviewed and published in some of the very best journals available. I know
because I own almost all of it and I'll be happy to list the papers yet again.
The fact that those guys concluded unanimously that the image on the Shroud was
that of a real, crucified man carries weight whether you like it or not.
I've often thought how much louder you'd rant if things were reversed and you
had the volume and caliber of science on your side that the pro-authenticity
camp does, and the pro-camp had but one washed-up stage magician and a bitter
microscopist who peer-reviewed his own work to support theirs. You'd soil your
britches at the very idea we thought we had something to point to.
You weave an awfully tangled web Weaver. Tangled webs are hard to manage and
time and again I've enjoyed watching you catch yourself in it. Good luck with
it in the new year. I'll be there to set things straight.
Bob
Ken Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
> As I recall Frank most, if not all, the science STURP did on the Shroud was
> peer-reviewed and published in some of the very best journals available.
And since then there has not been a peer-reviewed pro-Shroud paper published
anywhere....right Bob? The peer-reviewed papers published since then have
been anti-Shroud. These include the 1990 paper by McCrone, the C-14 paper in
NATURE, the 1994 paper by Craig and Bresee. The fact remains that all of the
more recent pro-Shroud "science" is "published" in-house and if reviewed at
all is reviewed by pro-Shroud persons. This is not mainstream science
material at all.
Frank Weaver
In article <20021231184210...@mb-cj.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Ya gotta love this Weaverism:
>>Just about every single pro-Shroud claim of any substance has NOT
>>been peer-reviewed and has NOT appeared in anything close to an
>>academic publication.
>
>As I recall Frank most, if not all, the science STURP did on the Shroud was
>peer-reviewed and published in some of the very best journals available. I know
>because I own almost all of it and I'll be happy to list the papers yet again.
Sure. Please list the peer-reviewed journals where the following
claims have been made:
(1) The Shroud is the Mandylion/Image of Edessa/Holy Face of legend.
(2) The Shroud was hidden away by the Templars after the sacking of
Constantinople.
(3) The 12th century 'Pray Manuscript' was copied from the Shroud.
(4) Dozens of Byzantine icons copied nearly invisible markings on the
Shroud.
(5) The classic Semitic depiction of Jesus since the 6th century was
derived from the Shroud.
(6) The image was made by a collimated burst of radiation.
(7) The same burst of radiation redated the cloth.
(8) The C-14 dating sample was skewed by an 'invisible, undetectable'
patch dating to the 16th century.
(9) The C-14 dating sample is coated in sufficient bacterial
contamination to skew the date by 13 centuries.
(10) Pigment traces on the cloth come from floating dust motes.
(11) Pigment traces on the cloth fell off copies and inexplicably
stuck to the Shroud through centuries of handling.
(12) The anatomical anomalies in the lengths of the legs and arms and
widths of the shoulders are due to foreshortening on a body
buried in a bent position.
(13) Images of coins and flowers, (as well as nails, a hammer, sponge,
lance, crown of thorns, and other objects) uniquely date the
Shroud to Jerusalem in the 1st century.
That should do for now. Don't forget to include issue number and
year! Also, please be specific about which peer-reviewed articles
address which of these numbered claims.
>The fact that those guys concluded unanimously that the image on the Shroud was
>that of a real, crucified man carries weight whether you like it or not.
Actually, it means only that they believe that the image is of a
real, crucified man. They are required to provide convincing support
for that belief, something that they have failed to do.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPhjWTKyjdWYzk1A5AQEBOAf/TY7FekO2y2ZXYLmQUSpXUFL+7TJ6zfOo
8zE2+Ubv56SLPTuFLCfjPEe7ExH0Ww1koZeh5YLdtVitvnPXu6UOR2JehWbwpxMY
f3kFinar1RrB7EYmo/rxMbwdAQEcZDl4SPgtDFawDqaMCumW4rzhs98sf6/etfWk
lsEeDI+qxi7hChovmcC/4stxrgxGcKdjO5PY/Xpvxb3VhONezS3v+CAnPWx2dWv2
dhX0+DNaNCgIj9SK3bp+S1teG17CJ6561QSb78ZRQOBRddTwTmEbRMW4anblBYt+
wJ2oeBL174ef49yjRNSCUxF1CA7ZglFbwzypF0u0XoTwP7TkNUx1lw==
=w+hc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <9BNG+83/IsoG...@world.std.com>,
wea...@world.std.com (Frank Weaver) wrote:
>In article <20021231184210...@mb-cj.aol.com>,
>bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>>Ya gotta love this Weaverism:
>>>Just about every single pro-Shroud claim of any substance has NOT
>>>been peer-reviewed and has NOT appeared in anything close to an
>>>academic publication.
>>
>>As I recall Frank most, if not all, the science STURP did on the Shroud was
>>peer-reviewed and published in some of the very best journals available. I know
>>because I own almost all of it and I'll be happy to list the papers yet again.
>
>Sure. Please list the peer-reviewed journals where the following
>claims have been made:
Need a little more time, Bob? That's OK. I can wait to post more
bogus shroud 'science' claims until after you've documented proper
academic review for this baker's dozen.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPiN1fqyjdWYzk1A5AQE1Bgf+O4+4EhgzrSUVwi+mpMpQ/wVyvY5KXXjc
nR4JYaIky7jhdTpFbIOJkE9GYsExIXoBBUe+NEONo44Uo1Y0NWPrdUwXmw7zjeNz
JfhH58+sNrog8ARIQe/6Tnb7D0/cgqLeA4TxQy+jFul+ra1VeHDmHIo8CzwDnNsU
F3h2/8cBbxwbIiGYiXTuv/6rlFDHlZiInt/uiyTVVD/asE63qKzuXCmBXly2d2S8
ghcyhMVd7QaLW/7s291LAtwld/6huY6JwXkxUjZpz+Nf/l5whVyh7XW65rs7+dnb
+9wu/L4FPS3ZvFWfplRPABZYBAkeCbGN6cwSXbXTgU8G0cuwBAIxSA==
=tGfi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
>bogus shroud 'science' claims until after you've documented proper
>academic review for this baker's dozen.
>
dozen", these are claims that STURP had nothing to do with. They determined
only that the image on the Shroud was that of a real man- one who appeared to
have been crucified in the manner of the Romans. Pull your head out Frank.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20030115142426...@mb-cl.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>>Need a little more time, Bob? That's OK. I can wait to post more
>>bogus shroud 'science' claims until after you've documented proper
>>academic review for this baker's dozen.
>>
>
>I take it back. ALL of STURP's work was peer-reviewed.
So what peer-reviewed journal accepted an article about Lavoie's
migrating bloodstains? How about Rogers's paper claiming to support
invisible patches? Or Adler's bacterial babbling?
How about Pellicori's 'sweat man?' (I take it back. There's more
legitimate science in his effort, wrong-headed though it is, than
all the rest of 'shroud science' put together.)
>As for your "baker's
>dozen", these are claims that STURP had nothing to do with.
Then STURP has admitted that the shroud is only 700 years old?
That's what the peer-reviewed science says.
It's admitted that there is no record of the shroud before the 1350s?
That's what the peer-reviewed science says.
It's admitted that the shroud, however it was made, shows motifs of
medieval religious art (1260+)? That's what the peer-reviewed scince
says.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPizJ4qyjdWYzk1A5AQFnYQf+PS2V3+9qyGHTKwwkMkesLSEjKuUo4xFG
aTNIwAz0pany0Inu+X9S7M8JxKun8xZ0JefbaNq4HEoHTL37y9/fVjf3gyYIzDga
YU9DSvmQL9Zoc/yiQirxKAqgBiMHAeZFM+Tvy5iqrbZWhp/e/p5C7FNY7xEXc0CP
0ARWWxPALko9wVmRo9s+iPdA9BEHHqkrDs5bPPI1LxuztDPWz8PNwfeEyLRkct85
XW/qdO8bcyQximQKJJBrVaIFayCOlNlIPRLBXs5nYWqnRbAF18UXTp64ewLHm4dt
iHjjBsbEzsdCZPmNgUWCTQFUeOc85JGdJd89Q4wMbSwUnks8DWP53w==
=R5Ym
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----