Off Topic Stuff

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hirelings of the rich ... plutocrats ... a kleptocracy...

Kleptocracy?! That is hilarious.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Kleptocracy?! That is hilarious.

The govt recently haggled over 15 million and as a result stopped collecting 330 million in taxes while on vacation. If that was their money would they have done that? Sounds like the actions of a hireling

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Kleptocracy?! That is hilarious.

Would be rolling on the floor funny if it weren't true...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Would be rolling on the floor funny if it weren't true...

Isn't that why they downgraded our credit rating?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Isn't that why they downgraded our credit rating?

As if we could trust S & P, who overrated the banks that crashed our economy. The ratings companies are complicit to the crash. They're in on it. Made money off of it. Why should anything they say or rate be taken seriously? Just more of the scam, more of the kleptocracy ...

Just the opposite of Jesus ; pander the rich, take it from the poor. You know, the so called republican religious right. Claiming Jesus, but catering to mammon.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The govt recently haggled over 15 million and as a result stopped collecting 330 million in taxes while on vacation. If that was their money would they have done that? Sounds like the actions of a hireling

The amount you're talking about is less than 1/100 of 1% of the yearly federal budget...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The govt recently haggled over 15 million and as a result stopped collecting 330 million in taxes while on vacation. If that was their money would they have done that? Sounds like the actions of a hireling

The problem is that there are insufficient people in the political arena that are willing to be otherwise and tolerate the c#@p they have to go through to get the "job" of serving us. So we get "hirelings."

And trying to put the standard of service of the kingdom of God on the realm of secular government is just setting yourself up for frustration. We don't need a carrot for those guys. We need really large sticks.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

And trying to put the standard of service of the kingdom of God on the realm of secular government is just setting yourself up for frustration. We don't need a carrot for those guys. We need really large sticks.

Why choose when you can have both?

[Cal]

I'm reminded of those old spy movies where someone would say (french accent) "One drop of thees will wipe out all of Pairee!"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, but expressed in parts per billion (ppb). Quantities far below what would be required to do damage to the human body.

And someone will point out that there are some toxins that even a very small amount in terms of ppb will quickly kill you. And it is true, although not that common. Most of the common toxins require significant quantities and there are lower quantities which, though not good for you, will not significantly harm you within a normal lifetime.

As for the percentage of poison in the LRC, it is difficult to say. But based on the way so many of them talk about things, I would suggest that the actual amount is irrelevant as it is generally well above the toxic level.

True, but what about breast milk? Generally toxicity levels for babies is much lower than for adults. Also, toxins can often become concentrated within the body since they don't digest. The reality is that few of these things are truly tested as we would imagine they should have been before being dumped on the consumer.

Along these same lines toxins are concentrated in carnivores, like fish. So a so called safe level of toxicity for the ocean can quickly become multiplied a hundredfold when we are talking about tuna or some other fish.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm reminded of those old spy movies where someone would say (french accent) "One drop of thees with wipe out all of Pairee!"

Or "I daresay it is perfect, one drop of this would kill us all!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

True, but what about breast milk? Generally toxicity levels for babies is much lower than for adults. Also, toxins can often become concentrated within the body since they don't digest. The reality is that few of these things are truly tested as we would imagine they should have been before being dumped on the consumer.

Along these same lines toxins are concentrated in carnivores, like fish. So a so called safe level of toxicity for the ocean can quickly become multiplied a hundredfold when we are talking about tuna or some other fish.

Because of growing concerns over toxic levels of contamination in the world's food supplies, my wife and I have decided to eliminate all food from our diet.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

True, but what about breast milk? Generally toxicity levels for babies is much lower than for adults. Also, toxins can often become concentrated within the body since they don't digest. The reality is that few of these things are truly tested as we would imagine they should have been before being dumped on the consumer.

Along these same lines toxins are concentrated in carnivores, like fish. So a so called safe level of toxicity for the ocean can quickly become multiplied a hundredfold when we are talking about tuna or some other fish.

Surely in terms of our literal food, the toxin level that is important is the one in what we are eating, not just in the environment from which it came.

It is a little like noting that if you completely avoid sunlight you can get a deficiency in vitamin D. But get too much and you risk skin cancer. There is no simple answer. And for every thing that must be worried about, there are a bunch that are just never important. And the answer for most of us is to do whatever you feel will keep you at the lowest level of angst. If it means ignoring the "organic" crowd, then do it. If it means becoming one of them, do it. Not because I think it is entirely irrelevant, but that at some level the way we face the life we have is every bit as important as the way we live it. If your life is giving you extreme anxiety (High Anxiety??) you probably should make some changes — or see a therapist. :veryconfused:

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because of growing concerns over toxic levels of contamination in the world's food supplies, my wife and I have decided to eliminate all food from our diet.

Any word on water?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Brother Awareness, sometimes I read your posts and get the impression that you do not have a favorable opinion of the LRC.

Yeah, it leaks out every now and then....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Any word on water?

Yes, soon your doctor will prescribe that you drink a certain number of glasses of water a day, rather than go to the pharmacy, since water now contains most of these drugs that are flushed down the toilet or come out of our urine. And just when you thought you couldn't afford prescriptions!

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, soon your doctor will prescribe that you drink a certain number of glasses of water a day, rather than go to the pharmacy, since water now contains most of these drugs that are flushed down the toilet or come out of our urine. And just when you thought you couldn't afford prescriptions!

The coolest part about that is all the nifty drug interactions, you're getting anti-depressants the same time you're sipping blood thinners; muscle relaxants paired up with viagara...the list goes on and on...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The coolest part about that is all the nifty drug interactions, you're getting anti-depressants the same time you're sipping blood thinners; muscle relaxants paired up with viagara...the list goes on and on...

Gives a whole new meaning to "pure water" and "just add water"

Actually in a very important case of water poisoning they discovered that the toxicity levels should not be based on drinking the water. The poison in this case was a volatile chemical that evaporated first in hot water. When the residents took hot showers they were literally gassing themselves. What at first appeared to be low levels of toxicity, once they understood how the toxin was concentrated and breathed in during a shower became a very high dose of toxin. So as long as you don't use your water to bathe or shower you should be fine.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Gives a whole new meaning to "pure water" and "just add water"

Actually in a very important case of water poisoning they discovered that the toxicity levels should not be based on drinking the water. The poison in this case was a volatile chemical that evaporated first in hot water. When the residents took hot showers they were literally gassing themselves. What at first appeared to be low levels of toxicity, once they understood how the toxin was concentrated and breathed in during a shower became a very high dose of toxin. So as long as you don't use your water to bathe or shower you should be fine.

The standard faucet aerator was designed specifically to out-gas Chlorines in the drinking water. The same thing happens with your shower valve, except now you are breathing that stuff. Your shower head needs a filter.

Hot water is extremely toxic. I would never drink that stuff. Every home has a Hot Water Heater with anode rods made of Alum, Mag, or Zinc. These metallic ions in your water protect the tank from corrosion at the expense of your brain cells. Alum is linked to Alzeimer's.

And you thought that the LRC was dangerous to your health.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The standard faucet aerator was designed specifically to out-gas Chlorines in the drinking water. The same thing happens with your shower valve, except now you are breathing that stuff. Your shower head needs a filter.

Hot water is extremely toxic. I would never drink that stuff. Every home has a Hot Water Heater with anode rods made of Alum, Mag, or Zinc. These metallic ions in your water protect the tank from corrosion at the expense of your brain cells. Alum is linked to Alzeimer's.

And you thought that the LRC was dangerous to your health.

Best to just trade my showers for an extra dose of deodorant.

Either way I will be helped to "Forget the things which are behind".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, but expressed in parts per billion (ppb). Quantities far below what would be required to do damage to the human body.

Or so you would think. In one famous case many people were poisoned by what appeared to be a quantity far below what would be required to do damage. However, they were assuming that was from drinking the water. The way the toxin poisoned the people was during their showers, it was a volatile chemical that evaporated at a lower temperature and was concentrated and breathed in as vapor during showers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The way the toxin poisoned the people was during their showers, it was a volatile chemical that evaporated at a lower temperature and was concentrated and breathed in as vapor during showers.

Can you document this? I googled it and couldn't find anything about it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can you document this? I googled it and couldn't find anything about it.

They made a documentary about it, a town in MA, the toxin was dumped by a dry cleaners. I'll try and get more info
Later today

In the 1970s, a leukemia cluster was observed among the children of East Woburn, Massachusetts. Subsequently, contamination of the groundwater drinking water supply by organic pollutants, PCE and TCE, was found. Woburn became a National Priority List site (Superfund site) and was examined in great detail by EPA, USGS, consultants, etc. Before all the final hydrogeologic studies and assessments had been completed, a civil suit against 3 companies was brought by the law firm of Jan Schlictman (trial had to occur before final studies due to statute of limitations running out). The trials and tribulations of the case can be read (A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr) and seen (A Civil Action movie with John Travolta - however, the movie does not show much of the science).

The trial became a battle against lawyers and expert witnesses. Extensive data was presented and interpreted very differently by expert witnesses (geologists and hydrogeologists). Two companies, Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace, were potentially liable for the pollution (the third company, Unifirst, had settled out of court before the trial). Beatrice Foods owned the tannery on the opposite side of the Aberjona River from the drinking water wells (Wells G and H). W.R. Grace, although on the same side of the river, was further away and underlain by lower permeability material.

Over 100 wells were installed in the Aberjona aquifer and water levels monitored with and without Wells G and H pumping. Remembering the general rule to draw groundwater flow lines perpendicular to water table contour lines, try to follow the path of the pollutants from the two possible sources, Beatrice and W.R. Grace, with and without pumping of the wells.

[awareness]

Thanks Z ....Am readin "The Ripple Effect" concerning water in the 21st century, so have interest ... Water should be a right, like air, but alas, it's more like a commodity, like oil...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Is there physical evidence, or eyewitness accounts? Does there remain any physical evidence? Or is it simply that the ones who actually saw the physical evidence also saw the resurrected Lord and have witnessed to both?

Just asking because it seems that eyewitness accounts remain eyewitness accounts if there is no physical evidence remaining to observe, only the eyewitness accounts.

And I believe the eyewitness accounts.

Sure there is physical evidence. According to the record there was a shroud and a head wrap known as the Sudarium. The Catholic church allegedly has both artifacts. The head wrap is generally accepted to be much better documented.

The shroud is much more problematic. I taught Forensics for a couple of years and it turns out that the Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in all of human history.

First, they looked at the composition of the fabric, and the weave which experts have concluded is consistent with the period in which Jesus was crucified. The shroud is considered to have one of two possible origins, either it is legitimate, or it is a forgery made about 700 years ago in Rome. If it is a forgery it is an incredibly high quality one since getting an accurate fabric with an accurate weave would have been akin to a forger of US bills getting the actual paper they make dollars out of.

Second, they looked for pigments to explain the image and have concluded that there are no pigments on the threads. At present there is no known explanation for how the image got on the shroud though there are some interesting theories. The bottom line, is that there are both natural and supernatural theories as to how the image was imparted to the fabric through Christ's burial and resurrection. However, no one has been able to demonstrate how a forger could have successfully done it. What we do know is that this is not painted on, and it is not some kind of photographic image. The proof that this was not done as some kind of photographic image is the next point.

Third, they did a very high tech study of the image to determine if the image was actually a representation of a 3 dimensional image on a 2 dimensional surface and it was in fact 3D. Using the same software that takes satellite photos and transforms them into 3D maps they were able to show that paintings of a 3D image show up as 2D using this software whereas this image showed up as 3d. They then were able to reconstruct the actual 3 dimensional face that would have left that image and it is quite different from the image itself. It is in fact a normal middle eastern face. The strange elongation of the face is the result of a sheet wrapped around a face and then straightened out. So although they don't know how the image got on the fabric, they do know the shroud was wrapped around a person when the image was imparted.

Fourth, they found dirt particles on the shroud that were travertine aragonite limestone, identical to the limestone found in Jerusalem. Again, if this was a forgery the forger must have gone to Jerusalem, wrapped a person in the shroud and laid them in a tomb in Jerusalem as part of the process. And they must have gone to all this trouble without the slightest idea that anyone would ever know they did.

Fifth, they compared the blood type to the Sudarium (head covering) which has a very complete documentation from the time of Jesus crucifixion and it was the same blood type. I think the blood type on both artifacts is type AB, which is a relatively rare blood type occurring in about 4% of people. Since a hypothetical forger could not have known the blood type of the Sudarium there was a 1/25 chance of using the right kind of blood.

Sixth, the pollen and images of flowers found on the Shroud are from over 50 plants typical of the Jerusalem area or even exclusive to the Jerusalem area. Taken together they suggest a March/April time period for the crucifixion. One species identified is known as "the crown of thorns" plant. The theory of the Shroud is either that it is legitimate or that it is a forgery done in Rome about 700 years ago. However, the forger would have had to have actually prepared the shroud in Jerusalem during March or April and put a great number of flowers on the shroud. This is quite remarkable, even unbelievable, since the idea of being able to identify pollen was not known at the time.

Seventh, the wounds have been studied and the evidence is that they were anatomically correct, they were consistent with both someone being scourged and also with someone who had carried a heavy object on their right shoulder. Also, the wounds are consistent with someone being crucified, which is interesting since painters at the time some are suggesting that the shroud was forged would put the stakes in the wrong part of the wrist. Also, the thumb is consistent with someone who had suffered nerve damage as a result of those stakes being put through their wrist. One of the theories has been that this is in fact the burial shroud of someone crucified, just not of Jesus. The problem with that theory is that this person was both scourged and crucified, not a common practice, also someone crucified and buried in Jerusalem during March or April at the time Jesus was crucified.

On the other hand they did a radiocarbon dating of a corner of the shroud and found an age about 800 years ago. The problem with this is that it appears they may have taken the sample from the worst possible part of the shroud. It seems the shroud was repaired and there is a piece sewn in which is where it would be held during display, and it was from that piece that the sample was taken.

The leading forensic scientist felt that the shroud would immediately be proved a forgery when they checked for some kind of "paint" that produced the image. When they determined that in fact there was no pigment they were stunned (this is there own testimony of scientists, not catholics).

They then assumed the image was some kind of photograph based on a tenuous link to the earliest known experiments with photography. They felt they would easily prove this by running it through the same software that analyzes satellite images of the Earth. Again, they were shocked to learn that this was in fact an accurate rendering of a 3D image and was not photography. One would assume that your typical forger would use animal blood, but it turns out it was human blood and the same type as the Sudarium and there isn't the slightest suggestion that anyone knew about Human blood types 800 years ago. To have gotten the exact blood type is truly a 25:1 longshot. Also, there is artwork that clearly depicts the Shroud that is much older than 800 years. There is some artwork from St. Catherine's monastary that dates back to 600 AD that depicts the shroud, though obviously there is debate as to whether it is the same as the shroud of Turin. Also there are historical accounts that are over 1000 years old that talk about a shroud with an image on it.

What I found very interesting was that no other object in history has been studied forensically as much as this shroud has and yet they have never been able to find evidence that it is a forgery. One would have thought the pollen, or dirt, or blood, or image, or weave, or fabric, etc. could have proven a forgery and so you are left with either the most brilliant forgery in history or the real article.

[OBW]

You have established the likelihood that the shroud comes from the general era. When does anyone first claim that the item is the actual one in question? Has it been considered that a shroud taken from someone else's grave some many years later but reasonably within the era would produce a similar set of artifacts to study? I recall from Miller's history that the very idea of artifacts was essentially brought up by Constantine. Before that, no such things had been given any ink or concern (according to Miller, as I recall).

Or is everyone expecting certain things and so they are found. It is interesting how we study some things with a skeptical eye so that it must prove its status, and other things with expectation and can't see the problems and gloss-overs.

I will resist the idea of asking about images found on other things. People who want to see them see them. The rest do not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have established the likelihood that the shroud comes from the general era. When does anyone first claim that the item is the actual one in question? Has it been considered that a shroud taken from someone else's grave some many years later but reasonably within the era would produce a similar set of artifacts to study? I recall from Miller's history that the very idea of artifacts was essentially brought up by Constantine. Before that, no such things had been given any ink or concern (according to Miller, as I recall).

Or is everyone expecting certain things and so they are found. It is interesting how we study some things with a skeptical eye so that it must prove its status, and other things with expectation and can't see the problems and gloss-overs.

I will resist the idea of asking about images found on other things. People who want to see them see them. The rest do not.

With the shroud of Turin I am pretty sure that all possibilities have been considered. However, the forensic evidence, to my mind is very strong that this in fact was a shroud that wrapped a body that was both scourged and crucified, that this even took place at the time of Jesus death, and it took place in the months of March or April, and that this Body was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem.

If that is in fact true then it would completely discredit the carbon dating as this form of punishment was not taking place in the 1300s.

There are basically three lines of evidence of the Shroud prior to the 1300s. First, there is some artwork and woodcuts that show a shroud with an image of a person on it. These date to about 600 AD. Second, there are some written records that describe a shroud with an image on it. Third, there are a number of iconic images of the face of Jesus which appear to be lifted from the image of the Shroud (there is a striking resemblance to the Shroud image even though that image is extremely peculiar and does not resemble the face that actually made it (3D information stored on a 2D format is distorted).

To me there are two very striking pieces of evidence. One of which I did not mention. First, the blood is really huge. If you think that scourging and crucifixion in Jerusalem during March/April is a very rare occurrence then it would not be an easy matter to just go and get any shroud. Now imagine finding one with the same blood type. That is a very, very long shot.

Second, there is a strip of the shroud about an inch or two wide, that was cut off and then sewed back on lengthwise. An expert in textiles analyzed the stitching and determined that this was sewn back on with a stitch that is from the period. The job appears to be meticulous and very well done. And the two strips appear to have been from the same cloth, cut and then sewn back together. Jewish tradition explained that the cloth was a standard size for the period, the strip was probably cut off and then used to tie the shroud up after it was wrapped around the body. What is extremely unusual is why someone would sew it back on. The quality of the work to me says "labor of love". Now there is no way someone could go into a tomb 1300 years later, take a decaying shroud and this strip used to wrap it up and sew it back together. Besides, why would you? Why would a forger think to do that? There is no record of that. To me this is the most telling piece of evidence that this was sewn back together quite soon after the shroud was used.

As far as your question 'did everyone find what they expected to find'. No, they didn't. The expectation by all the scientists (for the most part) was that this was obviously a forgery. They expected to find pigment and be home in a day. They expected to find animal blood. They expected to find that the wounds were similar to paintings and not anatomically correct. They expected that it would be a different blood type from the Sudarium. They expected that this was a 2 dimensional image, like a painting. They expected that the pollen would place the shroud being made in Italy, not Jerusalem. Likewise with the dirt. Again, let me repeat this, The Shroud of Turin is the one artifact in human history that has undergone the most scrutiny by Forensic scientist. So the one thing that absolutely no one can deny is that either this is the most brilliant forgery in all of human history or it is the real thing.