Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK
But I did NOT misrepresent your arguments. I said -- correctly, accurately and truthfully -- that you have carefully selected your data, and that most studies of the Shroud image's height show a wider range -- up to 6'2".

Yes, I have "carefully selected" my arguments. I selected them to only include those based on science.

Science works by building on and improving what has done before, or by falsifying and superseding the work that went before it. It does not work by finding a consensus and averaging previous erroneous opinions.

In this instance accurate data was collected and falsified the previous hypotheses and superseded their conclusions. The conclusions of previous researchers should therefore be discarded and no longer be considered as having any value in the discussion, unless you can show a legitimate reason to do so.

You seem to think that all arguments should be given equal weight and keep including such conclusions as those of Picknett and Prince (1994) for example along with truly qualified conclusions... and then average their conclusions with the others. Science does not work that way... by consensus. Even Isobel's work was not "science."

Professor Lorenzo Ferri is a professor of ART, a sculptor... not a scientist. He was engaged by the Vatican to created a three dimensional lifesize representation of the image on the Shroud based on his impressions from observations and photographs. His c.1960s conclusion of the height of the figure is subjective and not definitive and is based on measurement estimates from previous work done by Gedda, which I have already addressed. Art is interpretive, and is not based on exact measurements.

I have attended conferences where the late Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D. (1916-2001), presented papers on the forensic examinations of the Shroud... and the amusing thing is that when he spoke about the height of the man on the Shroud he quoted Isobel Piczek's figures of 5' 10" to 5' 11 1/2" for the height... making her quotation of his estimate quite circular!

Bucklin was a stickler for accuracy in his work and reporting. At the time he made those comments, that was the best data available. If Bucklin had actually done a "study" of the subject, he would have said so and spoken AS an expert in his field of Forensic Pathology on which he usually was speaking when he was talking about the Shroud, giving data on how he came to that conclusion. That the height was not part of the forensics which he addressed, as she mentions in her citation, speaks volumes that it was not part of an actual study he did. Needless to say, Dr. Bucklin's comments predated the work of Fanti, Marinelli, et al, and do not represent the current knowledge on the subject, which I am sure he would have acknowledged in his talks had he lived to be aware of them or been well enough to speak at conferences in the two years after Fanti did their research and published their definitive findings in 1999.

Finally, since Gedda, only Fanti, Marinelli, et al, have published a scientific paper that is capable of replication and testing, that is objective, with a clear explanation of their methods and demonstrations of their approach, and their work can be duplicated by other scientists to see if their conclusions are reasonable. It has been tested by peer-review and undergone scrutiny... something the others have not. So far, it has not been falsified, as have Piczek's, Gedda's, Picknett's and Prince's idiotic 6'8", and many others who have really not done much more than look and estimate from eyeball.

As to the "marginal" Jew's skeletons... are you maintaining that they were NOT buried? What happened to them? Did they just melt away, dissolve to dust, leaving only the tallest, best fed examples? I doubt it. Were their separate cemeteries for poor Jews throughout Israel for poor Jews that have somehow gone undiscovered while only the well fed Jews cemeteries have been discovered? With the Talmud being quoted as saying that the ideal height for a male Jew is 4 ells (176 cm — 5' 9.3"), even 6 feet is just within one sigma of normal height distribution with that as the mean.

Of course, I am no artist, but it seems to me that any artist worth his or her salt could easily take that "clownish picture" and convert it into one which looks as heroic or saintly as you might like. The important point would be to retain its "Semetic appearance." The question then remains: does the Shroud image look more Semitic or is it as "Curto ...describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic." ".

Are you willing to argue that an Iranian - Persian - Indo-European - "Aryan" Jesus is even possible? I'm not.

Whow, you certainly do like to latch onto outlying data points to use to argue your points, don't you?

. Curto is such an outlying datum... one commented that the image looks more Iranian that Semitic... and you impute to me the willing to argue that Jesus is "Aryan?" Good Grief. Are you assuming a purity of breed to the Jews of Israel of the First Century, or do you admit the possibility that the blood lines might, just might, have been mixed down through the ages through sojourns in Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, and a few wanderings in the Wildernesses... and the visits of the milkman while Moishe was out tending the flocks?

184 posted on 01/24/2010 9:43:04 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE isAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker
Swordmaker: "Yes, I have "carefully selected" my arguments. I selected them to only include those based on science."

I'm glad we agree that I did not "misrepresent" you.

Swordmaker: "You seem to think that all arguments should be given equal weight and keep including such conclusions as those of Picknett and Prince (1994) for example along with truly qualified conclusions... and then average their conclusions with the others. Science does not work that way... by consensus. Even Isobel's work was not "science." "

Another false charge. I am simply quoting data from the Shroud of Turin and Shroud of Turin for Journalists websites.

As near as I can tell, both of these sites (if they are even two different sites) are 100% Shroud-friendly. So I have no reason to think they might "spin the truth" AGAINST the Shroud.

These sites list as credible a total of six different "studies" (however that term is defined), including the one you say is valid, but they actually seem to give preference to the judgement of Isabel Piczek. Why, I don't know of course, but it sort of suggests to me that some people who have studied the Shroud in great depth do not necessarily agree that the published work of Fanti et al is NECESSARILY the final word on the subject.

Going on to the question of "marginal Jews." Your referring to the original Popular Mechanics article from 2002 spurred me to read the article & related. They make a number of interesting claims, including:

1 Corinthians 11:14: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..."

"FILLON: In First Corinthians, Paul writes that any man that wears long hair would be disgraceful. Paul would not have written that if he knew that Jesus had long hair."

"The historic record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds. Since Jesus worked outdoors as a carpenter until he was about 30 years old, it is reasonable to assume he was more muscular and physically fit than westernized portraits suggest. His face was probably weather-beaten, which would have made him appear older, as well"

"Neave emphasizes that his re-creation is simply that of an adult man who lived in the same place and at the same time as Jesus. As might well be expected, not everyone agrees. Forensic depictions are not an exact science, cautions Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz. The details in a face follow the soft tissue above the muscle, and it is here where forensic artists differ widely in technique...

"Long hair and narrow features mark the Shroud of Turin as a fraud."

swordmaker: "As to the "marginal" Jew's skeletons... are you maintaining that they were NOT buried?"

Of course not, but there were large and very expensive tombs deep-cut into the bedrock, where bones were interred in hand-carved osuaries, which remained hidden and undesturbed for thousands of years. More common burials were much less expensive, shallower-cut and subject to the ravages of time, tomb-robbers, etc.

But we must also note the Popular Mechanics article comment saying precisely what you deny: that skeletal studies reveal an average height of not 5'10" but 5'1".

What this tells me is there must have been more than ONE study, and their results did not necessarily agree. It means there must be room for disagreement, not only about scientific methodology, but also about just what defines the "average" height.

Swordmaker: "Curto is such an outlying datum... one commented that the image looks more Iranian that Semitic."

To ME the image looks more Indo-European than Semitic. So I would not consider Curto "such an outlying datum." But it's curious you would mention Curto at all, since he does not support your opinions. And do so without offering solid scientific evidence that Curto is necessarily wrong.

Swordmaker: "Are you assuming a purity of breed to the Jews of Israel of the First Century, or do you admit the possibility that the blood lines might, just might, have been mixed down through the ages through sojourns in Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, and a few wanderings in the Wildernesses... and the visits of the milkman while Moishe was out tending the flocks?"

Ha! What a question! ;-)

Well, let's be serious here. The New Testament is very very emphatic on the point of Jesus' ancestry. This is not something you can joke about, for obvious theological reason. Jesus was descended from Adam, the original sinner, through a line of leaders and kings of Israel. As such, he could rightfully claim to be "the King of the Jews." As far as I know, none of those enumerated ancestors was a non-Hebrew-Israelite-Jew.

For what it's worth, imho, the bottom line comes down to this: was Jesus a typically short "marginal Jew," or was he, as the Shroud image portrays, relatively tall and kingly, hardly even Semitic looking? And I assert that if the latter is true, then our current understandings of Jesus boyhood economic circumstances needs to be rethought.

190 posted on 01/25/2010 7:15:18 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson