Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Parable of the Sower

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    ... Weren t they the original Ghostbusters? I saw their two films and thought they were great. ... When someone has something to say you don t like discredit
    Message 1 of 34 , Jul 1, 2001
      > From the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
      > Paranormal (CSICOP) webite:

      Weren't they the original Ghostbusters? I saw their two films and thought
      they were great.

      > "POLLENS. It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from
      > Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist,
      > Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged "Hitler Diaries" genuine.

      When someone has something to say you don't like discredit them. Same theme
      in "The Insider" starring Russel Crowe.

      > tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset
      > since similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in
      > had comparatively few pollens.

      Now, you've stepped into an area that is very bad for your position. The
      STURP team members are all alive and will be glad to inform you that this is
      not true. The best website is www.shroud.com run by Barrie Schwartz who was
      the photographer for STURP back in 1978. The Shroud photos everyone has
      seen are those of Mr. Schwartz, who like Danin and Baruch are all Jewish.

      As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were
      > examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few
      > pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on
      > "lead" (or end), rather than on the portion that had been applied to the
      > shroud."

      This is science-fiction.

      > Some articles by Danin and Baruch on the pollen issue can be found at:
      > http://www.herbaria.harvard.edu/~brach/shroud.html
      > I recollect reading somewhere that pollen analysis is problematic as
      > pollens from diverse plant species can have virtually identical

      Now this is a real problem for you since Gundelia tournefortii is one of the
      rarest plants in the whole world.

      > And finally, the 16 February 1989 Nature article by Damon et al on the
      > radiocarbon (C14) dating of the Shroud can be found at:
      > http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
      > To me the C14 dating evidence is the strongest piece of evidence and the
      > Shroud is a medieval artifact.

      Now I know I mentioned that Dr. Harry Gove admits the C-14 testing done in
      1989 has serious flaws which he would like to see rectified. I agree C-14
      evidence that shows a radically different date than the expected one needs
      to be looked at except when we look at linen. Dr. Rosalie David, the
      Manchester Museum, Department of Egyptology, is one scientist who has
      published a case example of trouble with ancient linen dates in C-14 that
      often date 1,300 years too young. What was discovered was polymerization
      resulting from bacterial colonization over time skewing the carbon content.
      It was also found that the standard lab cleaning process had no effect on
      the polymer and so the specimen tested was tested contaminated. Science is
      always our best guide in all things. Gove agrees the C-14 testing went awry
      and would like to retest. I am all for it as long as stricker protocols are
      made, tighter security and everything is monitored and video tapped

      Peace in Christ,

      John N. Lupia
      501 North Avenue B-1
      Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
      <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
      "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
      . unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
      they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16

      Send a cool gift with your E-Card
    • David C. Hindley
      ... seeds.
      Message 34 of 34 , Jul 2, 2001
        William said:

        >>I don't follow what is meant by a 2-5x return on planting grain

        In ancient times, and even recently in regions where subsistence
        (i.e., relatively unmechanized) farming is common, the yield is not
        represented as volume of grain but by the volume of grain returned
        divided by the volume of grain sown. If you sow a bushel of wheat
        (using modern US measure), you expect (maybe pray for) 5 bushels
        reaped. The yield seems to have varied between 4x and 6x, according to
        the Turkish study (circa 1950, and using relatively primitive farming
        techniques resembling that of 1st century Palestine) mentioned in an
        earlier post.


        Dave Hindley
        Cleveland, Ohio, USA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.