[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Golb's theory

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:01:36 -0600, jpman@accesscomm.net writes:
>Thomas M Simms wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:28:19 -0600, jpman@accesscomm.net writes:
>>    [... snip, snip ... already related material omitted ...]
>> >It seems
>> >to me the largely unverifiable "conspiracy" tale and the "surviving the
>> >crucifixion" scenario is unsupported by evidence.  The forensics of the
>> >"man in the shroud" supports the conclusion that "the man" was indeed
>> >dead.
>>    Aaahhh, (my best Fred Allen intro to Missus Nussbaum...) get a mercerized
>>    negative "image" on linen from any of the miles of mummy wrappings now
>>    available and you've made your case.  However, see the extensive merceriza-
>>    tion that occurs on hospital linen allowed to sit unwashed in warm cup-
>>    boards...  Now, if some one wants to keep wrapped in linen a sweat-soaked
>>    warm body for two days in a Jerusalem ambience, Spring conditions, lime-
>>    stone tomb and tell me what is the result, you've lost your case.  I'll
>>    even accept a body temp and sweat soaked with myrrh and such warmed dummy
>>    wrapped as the Shroud was.
>>    Do the above and you've lost your case doubly.
>	Which case, Tom?

   The case you make that the man was dead.

   No mercerization takes place with dead bodies.  It only takes place    
   with living ones.  The image is due to the mercerization of the linen.
   Please excuse my typing.  I'm now scheduled for new knuckles by 1 Jan.

Tom Simms
>Jack Kilmon