Fine. Assume all you say is true and factual. THIS image (shroud of Turin) only looks 'right' when flat. You CAN NOT make an image that only looks flat from cloth that was draped when the image was made.
I'm not arguing with your facts, just how they apply to THIS piece of cloth. Tell me you understand that.
Fine. Assume all you say is true and factual. THIS image (shroud of Turin) only looks 'right' when flat. You CAN NOT make an image that only looks flat from cloth that was draped when the image was made.
I'm not arguing with your facts, just how they apply to THIS piece of cloth. Tell me you understand that.
The buried individual was an adolescent aged 14 to 15. Determining the sex of adolescents from the skeleton morphology may, in some cases, be very difficult. The genetic analysis of this individual was not simple either. For more detail on the recent DNA study and the previous physical anthropology analysis see http://scfh.ru/en/news/the-ukok-female-warrior-has-changed-sex-new-paleo...
The details of the DNA analysis conducted in Novosibirsk, including the methods and markers, are summarized here: http://scfh.ru/en/news/the-ukok-female-warrior-has-changed-sex-new-paleo...
According to Natalia Polosmak, this discovery does not rule out the possibility that there WERE female 'Amazon' warriors in the Altai Mountains 2,500 years ago. Just this one is not an "unfeminine" girl, but a young man
"We know it can't be an image created while draped over a human (or god for that matter!) as pointed out here in many posts."
Right. For those same reasons, I'm suggesting this means the shroud is misidentified. To say it is a fake is to assume that whoever made it was so brilliant that they managed to generate an image in a way that would confound science a thousand years later, but so stupid they wouldn't know to distort the image to make it more authentic.
It is also a bit strange to suggest someone went to all that trouble to make an image that isn't really apparent to the naked eye, but becomes immediately apparent only when viewed in film negatives, a technology that wouldn't show up for centuries.
These things, and others, suggest to me that the shroud is a real artifact that has been misidentified, not a purposeful fake.
But, that's most often the status of fakes. So I'm confused about why the word is objectionable. When someone comes accross a counterit $20 the very IDEA of fooling someone is for them to NEVER find out who did it.
We know it can't be an image created while draped over a human (or god for that matter!) as pointed out here in many posts.
We've been through this here quite a bit. I don't discount your story but this shroud can not be what you describe. It is morphically impossible to make an image only viewed in proportion correctly when flat--by any means--unless the image was also made while the cloth was perfectly flat. It was not made while draped over anyone.
While I appreciate the work and historic research of the book that influenced you--it's on my bookshelf-- this is not that. Can't be. To paraphrase Obi Won.. This is not the shroud you're looking for.
It is now understood that the Gabon uranium reactors were natural in origin. The point previously overlooked is that due to their extreme age, the uranium in that era would have been more active than that of today. (Uranium-235's half-life is about the same as the age of the Earth, the Gabon reactors are about half as old as the Earth) Consequently it would have been possible to create a stable reaction with plain water as the moderator, whereas today heavy water or graphite would be needed. Hence, no need for intelligence, just suitable minerals accumulated in a stream of water.
So, whilst the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad batteries remain fascinating items which suggest the ancients knew more than we give them credit for, I think we can discount this one.
No, I definitely wouldn’t say it would have been less costly to build from scratch rather than repurpose an existing structure, any more than I would say it would be cheaper to build a new house rather than repaint an existing one.
But even if it would have been less costly, that wouldn't rule out the possibility that the TM was changed and repurposed. There are potent strategic reasons for a conquering power to appropriate the cultural icons of defeated civilizations, and Islam has long been aware of this.
Hi Simon. We are sorry that you experience such issues. Unfortunately because of non-allowed advertising scripts sneaking in, some users sometimes experience delays. The only way we can resolve this is to report specific ads so that they will be manually removed. Could you please email us more details about the issues you faced at [email protected]?
Interesting article. Shame about all the popups and scripts that make this website a (k)nightmare to load. Perhaps some entity is negating its educational value by training bad webmasters !
I know that people believe that XX is female and XY is male however there are several women born every year that are genetically XY. In fact earlier this year there was an article (I forget witch scientific journal) that talked about a woman in America born XY becoming pregnant. Many none scientific papers and magazines ran with the headline of "Genetic Man becomes pregnant." Just because genetics is saying Male does not mean that this person did not have all the characteristics of a female.
No, but can you point me to some of these articles you mention that indicate the species is 6k years old, and a couple that deal with the mutation rate? Thanks.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Fine. Assume all you say is true and factual. THIS image (shroud of Turin) only looks 'right' when flat. You CAN NOT make an image that only looks flat from cloth that was draped when the image was made.
I'm not arguing with your facts, just how they apply to THIS piece of cloth. Tell me you understand that.
Fine. Assume all you say is true and factual. THIS image (shroud of Turin) only looks 'right' when flat. You CAN NOT make an image that only looks flat from cloth that was draped when the image was made.
I'm not arguing with your facts, just how they apply to THIS piece of cloth. Tell me you understand that.
The buried individual was an adolescent aged 14 to 15. Determining the sex of adolescents from the skeleton morphology may, in some cases, be very difficult. The genetic analysis of this individual was not simple either. For more detail on the recent DNA study and the previous physical anthropology analysis see http://scfh.ru/en/news/the-ukok-female-warrior-has-changed-sex-new-paleo...
The details of the DNA analysis conducted in Novosibirsk, including the methods and markers, are summarized here: http://scfh.ru/en/news/the-ukok-female-warrior-has-changed-sex-new-paleo...
According to Natalia Polosmak, this discovery does not rule out the possibility that there WERE female 'Amazon' warriors in the Altai Mountains 2,500 years ago. Just this one is not an "unfeminine" girl, but a young man
"We know it can't be an image created while draped over a human (or god for that matter!) as pointed out here in many posts."
Right. For those same reasons, I'm suggesting this means the shroud is misidentified. To say it is a fake is to assume that whoever made it was so brilliant that they managed to generate an image in a way that would confound science a thousand years later, but so stupid they wouldn't know to distort the image to make it more authentic.
It is also a bit strange to suggest someone went to all that trouble to make an image that isn't really apparent to the naked eye, but becomes immediately apparent only when viewed in film negatives, a technology that wouldn't show up for centuries.
These things, and others, suggest to me that the shroud is a real artifact that has been misidentified, not a purposeful fake.
But, that's most often the status of fakes. So I'm confused about why the word is objectionable. When someone comes accross a counterit $20 the very IDEA of fooling someone is for them to NEVER find out who did it.
We know it can't be an image created while draped over a human (or god for that matter!) as pointed out here in many posts.
We've been through this here quite a bit. I don't discount your story but this shroud can not be what you describe. It is morphically impossible to make an image only viewed in proportion correctly when flat--by any means--unless the image was also made while the cloth was perfectly flat. It was not made while draped over anyone.
While I appreciate the work and historic research of the book that influenced you--it's on my bookshelf-- this is not that. Can't be. To paraphrase Obi Won.. This is not the shroud you're looking for.
It is now understood that the Gabon uranium reactors were natural in origin. The point previously overlooked is that due to their extreme age, the uranium in that era would have been more active than that of today. (Uranium-235's half-life is about the same as the age of the Earth, the Gabon reactors are about half as old as the Earth) Consequently it would have been possible to create a stable reaction with plain water as the moderator, whereas today heavy water or graphite would be needed. Hence, no need for intelligence, just suitable minerals accumulated in a stream of water.
So, whilst the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad batteries remain fascinating items which suggest the ancients knew more than we give them credit for, I think we can discount this one.
A story of Aphrodite and her early times.
http://vicariance.livejournal.com/333080.html
Rajnikant, you just made my day. :D
No, I definitely wouldn’t say it would have been less costly to build from scratch rather than repurpose an existing structure, any more than I would say it would be cheaper to build a new house rather than repaint an existing one.
But even if it would have been less costly, that wouldn't rule out the possibility that the TM was changed and repurposed. There are potent strategic reasons for a conquering power to appropriate the cultural icons of defeated civilizations, and Islam has long been aware of this.
Hi Simon. We are sorry that you experience such issues. Unfortunately because of non-allowed advertising scripts sneaking in, some users sometimes experience delays. The only way we can resolve this is to report specific ads so that they will be manually removed. Could you please email us more details about the issues you faced at [email protected]?
Interesting article. Shame about all the popups and scripts that make this website a (k)nightmare to load. Perhaps some entity is negating its educational value by training bad webmasters !
They do look very similar to the ruins surrounding Adam's Calendar in Africa.
I know that people believe that XX is female and XY is male however there are several women born every year that are genetically XY. In fact earlier this year there was an article (I forget witch scientific journal) that talked about a woman in America born XY becoming pregnant. Many none scientific papers and magazines ran with the headline of "Genetic Man becomes pregnant." Just because genetics is saying Male does not mean that this person did not have all the characteristics of a female.
The Jordanian stone structures look eerily like the stone circle "corrals" of South Africa.
Very interesting! Thanks for the information, I'll look into this.
@allen121212wheeee
The origins of the shroud are unknown, and the processes which resulted in its singular appearance have yet to be understood or replicated.
So no, it is not at all "clear" that the shroud was "made specifically to fool people".
Heya Rizzman :D
I thought about it, but decided it wasn't necessary to make my point.
No, but can you point me to some of these articles you mention that indicate the species is 6k years old, and a couple that deal with the mutation rate? Thanks.
Pages