History is hoaxes or propaganda?

Da Vinci and Code




“Although suspiciously tall, the total height and weight of the shroud figure are not abnormal. The dimensions of the head are. It has long been noted that the body is overly long relative to the head. Joe Nickell pointed this out in his 1998 Inquest into the shroud of Turin. The disparity is readily visible once one is aware of the incongruity. It has been less noted, however, that this is primarily because the head is too small in height as well as width—the cranium being quite narrow relative to its height—both in absolute terms, and even more so relative to the body. Deleting some hair atop the head and trimming off the end of the short beard, the height of the head is about 225 mm (8.85 in). The width is only some 130 mm (5.1 in). In normally proportioned adult males the body height is 7-7.5 times greater than the height of the head. The total height of a person with such a short head should be 1575-1688 mm (5.2-5.5 ft)—a short stature even for Gospel times that should have been noted in the Gospel accounts. In the shroud the total/head height ratio is an abnormal 8.3. This exceeds even the remarkably high 7.9-8.0 ratio of Abraham Lincoln (measured from the only full figure photograph taken before he grew a beard). In most adult males the head is in the area of 245 mm (9.6 in) tall and 150 mm (5.9 in) across. These values apply to Lincoln. Judging from frontal photo portraits, his cranium was not unusually narrow. The President had a normally large head despite his high body/head height ratio because, at 1920 mm (6.3 ft), he was so tall. “


read more: http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article815.html




To me, when I look at the shroud – there is no sides of the body or top of the head

this is a flat front and back represention


made with an acid and then heating the cloth – much like writing with lemon juice and then putting the paper near heat.


“Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.”




the study of nature began in the Renassiance as trying to understand the creator through understanding the created


art combined with meticulous measurement and documentation became the science of illustration, through drawings to x-rays to Body Imaging Scans to the modern computer modelling became modern science

arising from biology and alchemy and astonomy

masses of data collected and analyzed

into understanding




and into the Enlightenment


where science expanded into archeology, more tomb robbers than researchers

and archeology gave way to anthropology and pyschology

the hard sciences quantifying theory and observable

the soft sciences qualifying humanity itself over time and by demographics


until we could count; how could we?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to History is hoaxes or propaganda?

  1. Pingback: Religion’s Problem of Proof | Nina's Soap Bubble Box

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.