It is not an assumption, it is a fact. You can test it yourself in about 2 minutes with a large piece of cloth.
I don't recall Knight and Lomas covering the draping problem--the problem that the image only looks proportional when flat (and therefore must have been created when the cloth was flat.) Where are you seeing that?
Oh goodness! This cloth is a fake. Good luck finding your cloth. :-)
Read reasons why here, various places. Are not you growing tired of completely ignoring the basic problem? Two basic problems that should have stopped people long, long ago from all this complex non-sense. 1) the draping problem which would make the image comically wide. 2) the head wrap problem that is impossible unless the 'person' was less than 1" thick. ;-)
Believe me, those in the business know full well the addictive qualities of sugar. A large part of their resources are devoted to making sugar even more addictive. Take the different syrups for example, just highly concentrated forms of sugar.
Let’s keep it civil Allen – the ‘do’hs’ and other condesceding remarks in this comment thread don’t do your argument any justice. By your logic, if said cloth cannot be reproduced then how do you explain it’s existence? Do you propose it was painted in the late 14th century? I’m seriously not convinced you’ve read the Second Messiah thoroughly. While I don’t agree with some of Lomas and Knight’s work on a royal bloodline, their work on the technique used to create the image on said piece of cloth is much more convincing than believing someone else’s ill-tested assumption of it being a physical improbability.
Why are avoiding, for whatever reason, that--even accepting any means--chemical or miraculous---no matter WHO it is supposed to be--the physical impossibility of such an image to be transferred onto a draped cloth. It does not mean de Moley or Jesus did not exist. It's a comment about a length of cloth.
Why are avoiding, for whatever reason, that--even accepting any means--chemical or miraculous---no matter WHO it is supposed to be--the physical impossibility of such an image to be transferred onto a draped cloth. It does not mean de Moley or Jesus did not exist. It's a comment about a length of cloth.
I am responding to Hrochnick. You cannot base an assumption you have as evidence that the cloth is a fake when you’ve not tested the technique described elsewhere. Knight and Lomas cover the problem you’re alluding to at length.
"Something tells me you’ve not even gone to the trouble to test your method! "
I actually had trouble finding a piece of cloth I didn't want, from the rag drawer, that was LARGE enough to make the span ear-to-ear. And... what? Although the Templars are fascinating to me as well--this is not an image of anyone. If there is some de Moley burial shroud with an impression--THIS is not that. It is not an impression of anyone.
I read bits and pieces of athiest literature but I found militant atheism as distasteful as those who push religion. You should read the active atheist Tim O’Neill’s review of the book, where he basically debunks Fitzgerald’s debunking, proving that there was indeed much more probability in the existence of the figure of Jesus.
I don't understand your response. I'm not talking about the existence of an historical Jesus.
This cloth is an obvious fake. You can not make an image like that on a draped cloth through any physical, mystical, or magical means. It would require the cloth to be perfectly flat when the 'image' was created.
Well that's a pity, you're missing out, wilfully, on some good writing. Active atheism in some way or another is absolutely necessary. You know theists are hardly inactive...
If so, this is not that cloth. This is not a cloth containing the draped impression of anyone. So... that's interesting stuff but really it's off topic.
There is no doubt that the man that was rapped in this cloth was Jacques De Molay. The date is correct, the picture is correct, and it is known that he was put into a woven cloth.
I agree with what you say about “...the system we have in place was put in place eons ago...” but, as to “Whom" put it in place? All I can assess from what “we” have been allowed to discover is that the system was put in place approximately 5,000 years ago and those that DO KNOW, are NOT telling us the real reasons. NOR, are they going to tell us.
“I” do know, that I am “more than the sum of my parts” but, exactly what that means, I have no idea! Just that I know, inherently, that there is “more than meets the eye!”
Lamb Lash deciphers the Nag Hammadi Library which do indeed contain first hand accounts, or so it would seem. I’m sorry Hrochnick but I don’t read works written by atheist activists. I prefer less skewed lines of investigation.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
It is not an assumption, it is a fact. You can test it yourself in about 2 minutes with a large piece of cloth.
I don't recall Knight and Lomas covering the draping problem--the problem that the image only looks proportional when flat (and therefore must have been created when the cloth was flat.) Where are you seeing that?
Oh goodness! This cloth is a fake. Good luck finding your cloth. :-)
Read reasons why here, various places. Are not you growing tired of completely ignoring the basic problem? Two basic problems that should have stopped people long, long ago from all this complex non-sense. 1) the draping problem which would make the image comically wide. 2) the head wrap problem that is impossible unless the 'person' was less than 1" thick. ;-)
Believe me, those in the business know full well the addictive qualities of sugar. A large part of their resources are devoted to making sugar even more addictive. Take the different syrups for example, just highly concentrated forms of sugar.
Let’s keep it civil Allen – the ‘do’hs’ and other condesceding remarks in this comment thread don’t do your argument any justice. By your logic, if said cloth cannot be reproduced then how do you explain it’s existence? Do you propose it was painted in the late 14th century? I’m seriously not convinced you’ve read the Second Messiah thoroughly. While I don’t agree with some of Lomas and Knight’s work on a royal bloodline, their work on the technique used to create the image on said piece of cloth is much more convincing than believing someone else’s ill-tested assumption of it being a physical improbability.
Why are avoiding, for whatever reason, that--even accepting any means--chemical or miraculous---no matter WHO it is supposed to be--the physical impossibility of such an image to be transferred onto a draped cloth. It does not mean de Moley or Jesus did not exist. It's a comment about a length of cloth.
Why are avoiding, for whatever reason, that--even accepting any means--chemical or miraculous---no matter WHO it is supposed to be--the physical impossibility of such an image to be transferred onto a draped cloth. It does not mean de Moley or Jesus did not exist. It's a comment about a length of cloth.
I am responding to Hrochnick. You cannot base an assumption you have as evidence that the cloth is a fake when you’ve not tested the technique described elsewhere. Knight and Lomas cover the problem you’re alluding to at length.
"Something tells me you’ve not even gone to the trouble to test your method! "
I actually had trouble finding a piece of cloth I didn't want, from the rag drawer, that was LARGE enough to make the span ear-to-ear. And... what? Although the Templars are fascinating to me as well--this is not an image of anyone. If there is some de Moley burial shroud with an impression--THIS is not that. It is not an impression of anyone.
My response was to Stuart, if yours was directed at me., Allen?
The technique is discussed and investigated at length in the book I refer to.
I read bits and pieces of athiest literature but I found militant atheism as distasteful as those who push religion. You should read the active atheist Tim O’Neill’s review of the book, where he basically debunks Fitzgerald’s debunking, proving that there was indeed much more probability in the existence of the figure of Jesus.
What the heck? Settle... :-) I read that book. It's on my bookshelf! I bought it when it first came out, in hardcover!
You are not addressing what I and other have pointed out. It (this cloth under discussion) is not an image on a draped cloth, of anyone.
And that really is the bottom line. Any talk of Jesus, Jacques or anyone else is really quite irrelevant and misses the point.
I don't understand your response. I'm not talking about the existence of an historical Jesus.
This cloth is an obvious fake. You can not make an image like that on a draped cloth through any physical, mystical, or magical means. It would require the cloth to be perfectly flat when the 'image' was created.
Well that's a pity, you're missing out, wilfully, on some good writing. Active atheism in some way or another is absolutely necessary. You know theists are hardly inactive...
If so, this is not that cloth. This is not a cloth containing the draped impression of anyone. So... that's interesting stuff but really it's off topic.
There is no doubt that the man that was rapped in this cloth was Jacques De Molay. The date is correct, the picture is correct, and it is known that he was put into a woven cloth.
Hi Troy Torkington!
I agree with what you say about “...the system we have in place was put in place eons ago...” but, as to “Whom" put it in place? All I can assess from what “we” have been allowed to discover is that the system was put in place approximately 5,000 years ago and those that DO KNOW, are NOT telling us the real reasons. NOR, are they going to tell us.
“I” do know, that I am “more than the sum of my parts” but, exactly what that means, I have no idea! Just that I know, inherently, that there is “more than meets the eye!”
Lamb Lash deciphers the Nag Hammadi Library which do indeed contain first hand accounts, or so it would seem. I’m sorry Hrochnick but I don’t read works written by atheist activists. I prefer less skewed lines of investigation.
Only we never came from anything resembling an ape or money. There were a few species that did however - Apes and Monkeys
Pages