Chiusa Sclafani (PA): nulla l’ordinanza pro-crocifisso

Poi spiegalo a quelli dell’articolo.

http://www.osmth-it.org/OSMTH/Home_files/Sindone-%20Templari.pdf

@ enrico

ancora in giro con quel pdf del piffero?

Solo una delle stupidaggini:

b) Il pollice.
Lo Sconosciuto di Lirey, che sapeva tutto di anatomia patologica (come, del resto, di ogni
ambito scientifico), sapeva anche che la confittura di un chiodo nell’interspazio di Destot
causa la contrazione del pollice che si ripiega nel palmo della mano e che,
conseguentemente, l’immagine sindonica non poteva mostrarlo.
Dato poi che non tutti possono essere così geniali come il nostro artista, molti successivi
copisti i pollici li aggiunsero.

http://sindone.weebly.com/pollice.html

basta dai…

aggiornati…

http://sindone.weebly.com/

@ enrico

visto che non hai scritto all’autore l’ho fatto io:

I read your article on the Secular Web (I am an atheist) and discussed it
with
a catholic chemist that is well versed in graphics as well.
He does not agree with the results of your article for a number of reasons:

– He says the lenght of the head of the shroud is not 22,5 but from 23.4 to
23.8 (never mentioned where he got these measurements).
– he says that the hight of the man is about 174/176 and not 186 cm
– he says that the correct ratio is 1 to 8 and not 7 / 7.5 (I found
confirmation on wikipedia of this ratio, but he dismisses wikipedia…)
he worked for some time with Giovanni Pacor http://www.giovannipacor.it/
that should be somebody in the field ( I do not know him, I confess).

Based on those assumptions and even taking for granted the 186 cm height
he says that

186 : 23.4 = 7,94 that fits perfectly well in his schema.
He does not seem to take into consideration in any way the width, probably
not considered by Pacor

Any hints?

Risposta

The Catholic chemist appears to be pulling your leg. He demands to know how
I made the measurements (the method is described in the article, which
includes the overall size of the shroud and a precise figure showing the ratios)
while not saying how or where he got his figures. You can tell him that I
presume he made the measurements up unless he provides a source or his own
illustrated figure. I have never seen an “official” set of measurements (I
doubt that church authorities allow the image to be directly measured by scale
bar or tape for fear of damaging the cloth by contact, and low contrast of
the original and other problems might make direct measurements impractical in
any case, it probably has to be done from the photographs). The 7.4 ratio
that results from his spurious measurements puts the bottom of the heel in
mid-shin, not far below the knee. You can disprove the chemists measurements
ourself by doing the measurements off the many photos of the cloth (starting
with images of the entire cloth which is 4.4 m long).

You can also check the normal total/head height ratio for a person by using
a metric scale bar to measure the height of your own head (mouth closed) in
a mirror, and dividing it by your height. It should be below 7.5 unless you
are very tall (same for the chemist, has he measured himself?). Let me know
what you come up with. I’m in the normal zone. A photo of a number of men
at http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view_print.php?ID=176 shows the ratio (except
they show it a little too high because they measure from the tip of the toe
instead of the bottom of the heel). The 8 ratio is commonly employed by
artists such as Pacor for the reasons described in my article.

That the shroud head is too small for the body is well known, and is
obvious just looking at the figure. What I am the first is to point out is that
the head is too small in absolute terms, and that the brain is therefore
undersized. The 1740-1760 total height is impossibly low, and the 234-238 head
height includes all the hair and beard.

Best regards,

Gregory Paul