Our biology has changed VERY little in the last 50 millenia, meaning that our body composition maintains the same nutritional needs. A couple of adaptations helping us to cope with crappy diets does not mean that a deviation from clean and nutritionally dense foods, eaten in proper balance, is in order. Anyone who says otherwise is either in denial, an idiot, or acting in the financial interests of the food industry.
This article, like so many others regarding the Shroud, makes frequent mention of there being "wounds" visible in the body image, mixed in with references to associated bloodstains
Were that true, then the case for authenticity is strengthened, given that the nature of the body image is still a matter for speculation (though this investigator considers he has provided a feasible model with his flour-imprinting/oven-baking model).
However, it's simply not true that the body image shows injury or damage to flesh and skin. The evidence for scalp wounds from an otherwise invisible crown of thorns rests on bloodstains on the head and hair. Evidence for a nail wound in a hand or wrist rests on bloodstains alone, and likewise for a lance wound in the side. The scourge marks, supposedly from a Roman flagrum, some 372 of them in all we're told, are entirely due to imprinted blood, there being no evidence in the body image.
One does not wish to make light of the task of the medieval artisan, intent on simulating/modelling what the double body imprint in sweat and blood of the crucified Jesus might look like some 1300 years later, as per radiocarbon dating (1260-1390). But let's not overstate it either. The task is greatly simplified if there's no need to simulate wounds (punctures, gashes etc) in the basal body image, if all that needs to be done is to paint blood onto the Shroud linen at all the 'biblically-correct" locations so as merely to SUGGEST the presence of underlying wounds. That's as far as it goes - suggested, not actual images of wounds,. Why would wounds leave an imprint anyway if still seeping blood?
If attempting to apply the scientific method to the mysterious and 'enigmatic' Shroud, it's absolutely imperative that facts be ruthlessly separated from fancy. Were that done more often, the Shroud might seem marginally less mysterious and enigmatic, while still undoubtedly a work of human ingenuity.
abracadrabra the person who sees themselves as a magician. You wouldn't perhaps be living anywhere in North or south America per chance. If you are then may I suggest that unless you are someone who's 'roots' are of native stock you pack your bags and go back to where ever you are from. After all every one of European, Asian, African stock are here because the 'new world' after all was taken at the point of a sword/gun in the name of GOD and CROWN.
All this traditional mistrust and suspicion is nonsense begun a loooong time ago for someone's personal political ends because it's easier to hate than to love. You've been played for generations and it's so sad.
I was shown by Mother Earth that a full body of Gaia, the holy Spirit can be seen physically as you see in my picture. I was shown by Mother Earth that all of the animals and life has evolved to these creative energies radiated from our Celestial surroundings. I was taught by the Celestial body that life has evolved from small to big but the big now, is so big that it influences the small. Endless galaxies have evolved like tadpoles in a pond, yet the pond can only be imagined and the pond is but a part of a more complete ecosystem. Yet I seek for reason, in global scripture that which I have seen, that which I feel and I find the same, hidden and lost but still there. Information to help guide and teach and support from simple to more complex messages.
If the meanings are well written, then they will survive the translators. Take, for instance, the story of Pandora’s box, I’ll bet that you have heard one of a hundred different versions of that tale. Each one is slightly different then the next but in the end, the overall story really doesnt change that much. Woman is created to be a punishment to man, and lets punishments out of her box/jar, manages to keep most of hope trapped. Mankind suffers. The end. Many generations have read this story, the meaning is still there if you look for it. Not everthing in religious text is lost to current and future generations. People just have to learn for themselves.
There's a Viking settlement in Newfoundland, Canada that dates around 1000AD called L'ance aux Meadows. The oldest in North America I believe. At that time the Beothuck were indigenous to Newfoundland. They were all killed during European settlement of the island sadly. However, it is often wondered if some of the Beothuck mated with another native tribe of the Island the Mi'kmaq. There are a lot of Mi'kmaq in Newfoubdland. I am one in fact. A possible DNA lead?
I wanted more of an explanation of why religion was not natural to humans. recently a neurologist, Dr. Newburg, proved that there was part of the brain that was hardwired to believe in god-not necessarily the christian god, just god(s)- it sounded like a studied and very plausible conclusion.
When the headline disagreed with the neurologist’s ideal I was excited. I’m always willing to hear the other side of an argument. I was hoping that this story would have gone over why the Prof. disagrees with the the other fellows science and what are his proofs. I didnt want to hear a history lesson that Atheism has always existed, of course it has. It’s silly to think that it hasn't. But to say that it is MORE natural to humans to be Atheist then to be religious requires proofs. Is this story just a plug for a book?
Palestinians are for the most part Arabs and all Arabs should go back to (Saudi) Arabia! Something like that? The Israelis (Jews) stand in a long tradition of conquering (back) territories. How do you think the Arabs became boss in so many territories in the Middle East? Not because they asked: "Oh, can we have your country, please?" The rights of the Israelis go way back to pre-historic times!
Israel is there to stay, just deal with it.
Strange, I never did see an Orangutan in Africa, did you? Yet we have massive amounts of DNA that seems clearly derivative of Orangutan, infact, almost moreso than chimpanzee. Secondly, this very article is about something that seems to contradict that. There are numerous hominids, of which we have not sequenced for comparison with human, or for deceloping any working possible models for region and demographic in terms of their possible contribution. Africans may have dna from hominids not common to or notably higher than non-africans, in the same way europeans seems more influenced by neanderthal than other groups have denisovan infuence. Is there even evidence, dna evidence that any human is related to lucy? What about herto? Or any of these presumed originators of man. We have none at the moment, just assumptions, and obviously, any contradictions or alternative possibilities are denied. The article says that the dating was supported other evidence, such as the surrounding materials. And even if the date were not correct, and this did not represent an alternate beginning of man, the thing is, we should still be working to further identify it and its position in mans developement, and whats it's sphere of influence was. Even if this was younger than whatever is assumed to be an older ancestor in africa, does not mean that is the case! That is why man should be working on sequencing every archaic human, every hominid and everything in between, to see how they relate to each other, and us, if at all. As far as I am concerned, any and every hominid found outside africa that is not found in africa challenges out of africa, until and unless we sequence everything and see how it fits to be sure. Because I already know I have dna not found in africa, in some modern africans, nor in the archaic form! There is no dna proof or even archeologocal proof of neanderthal in africa, is there? So what do people do? "Oh, well, neanderthal comes from heidelburgensis, who came from africa, then" Really? What evidence do we have exactly, that factually puts neanderthal as descending from heidelburgensis? And if geidelburgensis is foind in and out of Africa, how do we know it originated in one and not the other? "Oh, well, heidelburgensis was originally african because it comes from X which is african, then." Really? So we proved that lineage as well? See, none of that is concrete. At all. And even if we see a skull of something is older in one place, and a skull of the same is more recent in another, even that does not definitely prove it came from one first, without dna support, because fossils are rare anyway, so NOT finding one means nothing, and finding one just means the conditions were right, at that spot, at that time. There could be tons of fossils we have yet to find, and there are countless relatives that we will never find because their remains simply do not exist...
Strange, I never did see an Orangutan in Africa, did you? Yet we have massive amounts of DNA that seems clearly derivative of Orangutan, infact, almost moreso than chimpanzee. Secondly, this very article is about something that seems to contradict that. There are numerous hominids, of which we have not sequenced for comparison with human, or for deceloping any working possible models for region and demographic in terms of their possible contribution. Africans may have dna from hominids not common to or notably higher than non-africans, in the same way europeans seems more influenced by neanderthal than other groups have denisovan infuence. Is there even evidence, dna evidence that any human is related to lucy? What about herto? Or any of these presumed originators of man. We have none at the moment, just assumptions, and obviously, any contradictions or alternative possibilities are denied. The article says that the dating was supported other evidence, such as the surrounding materials. And even if the date were not correct, and this did not represent an alternate beginning of man, the thing is, we should still be working to further identify it and its position in mans developement, and whats it's sphere of influence was. Even if this was younger than whatever is assumed to be an older ancestor in africa, does not mean that is the case! That is why man should be working on sequencing every archaic human, every hominid and everything in between, to see how they relate to each other, and us, if at all. As far as I am concerned, any and every hominid found outside africa that is not found in africa challenges out of africa, until and unless we sequence everything and see how it fits to be sure. Because I already know I have dna not found in africa, in some modern africans, nor in the archaic form! There is no dna proof or even archeologocal proof of neanderthal in africa, is there? So what do people do? "Oh, well, neanderthal comes from heidelburgensis, who came from africa, then" Really? What evidence do we have exactly, that factually puts neanderthal as descending from heidelburgensis? And if geidelburgensis is foind in and out of Africa, how do we know it originated in one and not the other? "Oh, well, heidelburgensis was originally african because it comes from X which is african, then." Really? So we proved that lineage as well? See, none of that is concrete. At all. And even if we see a skull of something is older in one place, and a skull of the same is more recent in another, even that does not definitely prove it came from one first, without dna support, because fossils are rare anyway, so NOT finding one means nothing, and finding one just means the conditions were right, at that spot, at that time. There could be tons of fossils we have yet to find, and there are countless relatives that we will never find because their remains simply do not exist...
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Utter nonsense!
Sorry, I live in Europe. And the roots of me and my family lie where I live now. :P
Our biology has changed VERY little in the last 50 millenia, meaning that our body composition maintains the same nutritional needs. A couple of adaptations helping us to cope with crappy diets does not mean that a deviation from clean and nutritionally dense foods, eaten in proper balance, is in order. Anyone who says otherwise is either in denial, an idiot, or acting in the financial interests of the food industry.
This article, like so many others regarding the Shroud, makes frequent mention of there being "wounds" visible in the body image, mixed in with references to associated bloodstains
Were that true, then the case for authenticity is strengthened, given that the nature of the body image is still a matter for speculation (though this investigator considers he has provided a feasible model with his flour-imprinting/oven-baking model).
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/
However, it's simply not true that the body image shows injury or damage to flesh and skin. The evidence for scalp wounds from an otherwise invisible crown of thorns rests on bloodstains on the head and hair. Evidence for a nail wound in a hand or wrist rests on bloodstains alone, and likewise for a lance wound in the side. The scourge marks, supposedly from a Roman flagrum, some 372 of them in all we're told, are entirely due to imprinted blood, there being no evidence in the body image.
One does not wish to make light of the task of the medieval artisan, intent on simulating/modelling what the double body imprint in sweat and blood of the crucified Jesus might look like some 1300 years later, as per radiocarbon dating (1260-1390). But let's not overstate it either. The task is greatly simplified if there's no need to simulate wounds (punctures, gashes etc) in the basal body image, if all that needs to be done is to paint blood onto the Shroud linen at all the 'biblically-correct" locations so as merely to SUGGEST the presence of underlying wounds. That's as far as it goes - suggested, not actual images of wounds,. Why would wounds leave an imprint anyway if still seeping blood?
If attempting to apply the scientific method to the mysterious and 'enigmatic' Shroud, it's absolutely imperative that facts be ruthlessly separated from fancy. Were that done more often, the Shroud might seem marginally less mysterious and enigmatic, while still undoubtedly a work of human ingenuity.
Have you considered reading The Book of Thoth/Hermetica on your quest for knowledge?
abracadrabra the person who sees themselves as a magician. You wouldn't perhaps be living anywhere in North or south America per chance. If you are then may I suggest that unless you are someone who's 'roots' are of native stock you pack your bags and go back to where ever you are from. After all every one of European, Asian, African stock are here because the 'new world' after all was taken at the point of a sword/gun in the name of GOD and CROWN.
All this traditional mistrust and suspicion is nonsense begun a loooong time ago for someone's personal political ends because it's easier to hate than to love. You've been played for generations and it's so sad.
Sorry Abracadabra, but the archaeology has proven the Arabs where there farming first.
I wonder if the boxed starch companies are funding this "research" behind the scenes? :)
I'd like to think that as well, but they merged back with the urRu and dead Skeksis crumble to dust instantly, so.... no cigar I'm afraid.
I was shown by Mother Earth that a full body of Gaia, the holy Spirit can be seen physically as you see in my picture. I was shown by Mother Earth that all of the animals and life has evolved to these creative energies radiated from our Celestial surroundings. I was taught by the Celestial body that life has evolved from small to big but the big now, is so big that it influences the small. Endless galaxies have evolved like tadpoles in a pond, yet the pond can only be imagined and the pond is but a part of a more complete ecosystem.
Yet I seek for reason, in global scripture that which I have seen, that which I feel and I find the same, hidden and lost but still there. Information to help guide and teach and support from simple to more complex messages.
There was at that time, and still is now some places, a rather big difference between romance and marriage though...
And yet it happens more than you think.
Scientist are simply people too, just like you and me, and they also 'suffer' from human perception.
Which is finite.
Thank u
If the meanings are well written, then they will survive the translators. Take, for instance, the story of Pandora’s box, I’ll bet that you have heard one of a hundred different versions of that tale. Each one is slightly different then the next but in the end, the overall story really doesnt change that much. Woman is created to be a punishment to man, and lets punishments out of her box/jar, manages to keep most of hope trapped. Mankind suffers. The end. Many generations have read this story, the meaning is still there if you look for it. Not everthing in religious text is lost to current and future generations. People just have to learn for themselves.
There's a Viking settlement in Newfoundland, Canada that dates around 1000AD called L'ance aux Meadows. The oldest in North America I believe. At that time the Beothuck were indigenous to Newfoundland. They were all killed during European settlement of the island sadly. However, it is often wondered if some of the Beothuck mated with another native tribe of the Island the Mi'kmaq. There are a lot of Mi'kmaq in Newfoubdland. I am one in fact. A possible DNA lead?
I wanted more of an explanation of why religion was not natural to humans. recently a neurologist, Dr. Newburg, proved that there was part of the brain that was hardwired to believe in god-not necessarily the christian god, just god(s)- it sounded like a studied and very plausible conclusion.
When the headline disagreed with the neurologist’s ideal I was excited. I’m always willing to hear the other side of an argument. I was hoping that this story would have gone over why the Prof. disagrees with the the other fellows science and what are his proofs. I didnt want to hear a history lesson that Atheism has always existed, of course it has. It’s silly to think that it hasn't. But to say that it is MORE natural to humans to be Atheist then to be religious requires proofs. Is this story just a plug for a book?
Palestinians are for the most part Arabs and all Arabs should go back to (Saudi) Arabia! Something like that? The Israelis (Jews) stand in a long tradition of conquering (back) territories. How do you think the Arabs became boss in so many territories in the Middle East? Not because they asked: "Oh, can we have your country, please?" The rights of the Israelis go way back to pre-historic times!
Israel is there to stay, just deal with it.
Strange, I never did see an Orangutan in Africa, did you? Yet we have massive amounts of DNA that seems clearly derivative of Orangutan, infact, almost moreso than chimpanzee. Secondly, this very article is about something that seems to contradict that. There are numerous hominids, of which we have not sequenced for comparison with human, or for deceloping any working possible models for region and demographic in terms of their possible contribution. Africans may have dna from hominids not common to or notably higher than non-africans, in the same way europeans seems more influenced by neanderthal than other groups have denisovan infuence. Is there even evidence, dna evidence that any human is related to lucy? What about herto? Or any of these presumed originators of man. We have none at the moment, just assumptions, and obviously, any contradictions or alternative possibilities are denied. The article says that the dating was supported other evidence, such as the surrounding materials. And even if the date were not correct, and this did not represent an alternate beginning of man, the thing is, we should still be working to further identify it and its position in mans developement, and whats it's sphere of influence was. Even if this was younger than whatever is assumed to be an older ancestor in africa, does not mean that is the case! That is why man should be working on sequencing every archaic human, every hominid and everything in between, to see how they relate to each other, and us, if at all. As far as I am concerned, any and every hominid found outside africa that is not found in africa challenges out of africa, until and unless we sequence everything and see how it fits to be sure. Because I already know I have dna not found in africa, in some modern africans, nor in the archaic form! There is no dna proof or even archeologocal proof of neanderthal in africa, is there? So what do people do? "Oh, well, neanderthal comes from heidelburgensis, who came from africa, then" Really? What evidence do we have exactly, that factually puts neanderthal as descending from heidelburgensis? And if geidelburgensis is foind in and out of Africa, how do we know it originated in one and not the other? "Oh, well, heidelburgensis was originally african because it comes from X which is african, then." Really? So we proved that lineage as well? See, none of that is concrete. At all. And even if we see a skull of something is older in one place, and a skull of the same is more recent in another, even that does not definitely prove it came from one first, without dna support, because fossils are rare anyway, so NOT finding one means nothing, and finding one just means the conditions were right, at that spot, at that time. There could be tons of fossils we have yet to find, and there are countless relatives that we will never find because their remains simply do not exist...
Strange, I never did see an Orangutan in Africa, did you? Yet we have massive amounts of DNA that seems clearly derivative of Orangutan, infact, almost moreso than chimpanzee. Secondly, this very article is about something that seems to contradict that. There are numerous hominids, of which we have not sequenced for comparison with human, or for deceloping any working possible models for region and demographic in terms of their possible contribution. Africans may have dna from hominids not common to or notably higher than non-africans, in the same way europeans seems more influenced by neanderthal than other groups have denisovan infuence. Is there even evidence, dna evidence that any human is related to lucy? What about herto? Or any of these presumed originators of man. We have none at the moment, just assumptions, and obviously, any contradictions or alternative possibilities are denied. The article says that the dating was supported other evidence, such as the surrounding materials. And even if the date were not correct, and this did not represent an alternate beginning of man, the thing is, we should still be working to further identify it and its position in mans developement, and whats it's sphere of influence was. Even if this was younger than whatever is assumed to be an older ancestor in africa, does not mean that is the case! That is why man should be working on sequencing every archaic human, every hominid and everything in between, to see how they relate to each other, and us, if at all. As far as I am concerned, any and every hominid found outside africa that is not found in africa challenges out of africa, until and unless we sequence everything and see how it fits to be sure. Because I already know I have dna not found in africa, in some modern africans, nor in the archaic form! There is no dna proof or even archeologocal proof of neanderthal in africa, is there? So what do people do? "Oh, well, neanderthal comes from heidelburgensis, who came from africa, then" Really? What evidence do we have exactly, that factually puts neanderthal as descending from heidelburgensis? And if geidelburgensis is foind in and out of Africa, how do we know it originated in one and not the other? "Oh, well, heidelburgensis was originally african because it comes from X which is african, then." Really? So we proved that lineage as well? See, none of that is concrete. At all. And even if we see a skull of something is older in one place, and a skull of the same is more recent in another, even that does not definitely prove it came from one first, without dna support, because fossils are rare anyway, so NOT finding one means nothing, and finding one just means the conditions were right, at that spot, at that time. There could be tons of fossils we have yet to find, and there are countless relatives that we will never find because their remains simply do not exist...
Pages