[Swordmaker]

• The article references as it's source for the Shoud image's height this site: How Tall is the Man on the Shroud?
  
• That site references FOUR different studies which range as follows:
  1. Isabel Piczek, artist specializing in human anatomy. 5'11½" - 6'1"
  2. Fanti, Marinelli, Cagnazzo (tibio-femoral indices calculations) 5'8" - 5'9"
  3. Luigi Gedda (sagittal plane of face applied to anthropometric ratio) 6'0"
  4. * Picknett and Prince (simple assumed face ratio) 6'8" - 6'10"
  5. Picknett and Prince (corrected for logical fallacy) 5'9" - 6'1"
• The very top figure of 6'2" comes from Isabel Piczek:

Ah, no, that site does NOT reference four different "studies" about the height of the man on the Shroud... it references five different conclusions about the height. There are actually only true three "studies"... and four conclusions with correction to one conclusion that made a basic mistake in fact known to almost every art student.

And only one of the studies is truly a "scientific" study, the one done by Fanti, Marinelli, et al. You might argue that Gedda's study could be science... but it lacked too much really to be science to my mind: the data was a little too "fuzzy" for the conclusion to be reliable. More "scholarship" than science. The Fanti study is reproducible and testable.

Let's look at them.

I know Isobel Piczek and have spoken to her at conferences. I have attended a couple of her lectures on the Shroud. While she is a theoretical physicist. In her work on the shroud, she is mostly an artist and an Art Historian. I would not classify her work on this as "science," it is "scholarship." Her training in Anatomy is as an artist, not as a scientist. However, the thrust of her Shroud research has not been human anatomy. She approached the Shroud image assuming a photographic, optical light approach and attempted to adjust the height by assuming a flat focal plane of the shroud and unfolding object of the body, thus stretching the length of the subject.

Her hypothesis and work, while good, has been found to be not the case when subjected to peer review and testing, was falsified by later science. Your conclusion of 6'2" from Piczek is from the EXTREME top of the range of possibility and is extrapolated from her "give or take 1 inch" for linen stretch and shrinking" to her estimated range: "I have also analyzed body type, muscle structure and proportion. I determined the height to be 5 foot 11½ inches to 6 foot 1 inch" which are all very arty, touchy-feely, very subjective... as opposed to the much more scientific and accurate methods used by Fanti, Marinelliet al., which falsified her hypothesis, presented new facts, and superseded her work. That's the way science works.

You will not find her claiming 6'2"... She says she leans toward 6'. Only the skeptics use the 6'2" figure... and they trot it out regularly to denigrate the Shroud, especially when they use the 5'4" "average height of Jews of the period" canard.

Dr. Luigi Gedda, a Professor of Anatomy, who concluded a 6' height, did his study in 1939, used photographs taken by Secondo Pia from a distance in 1898, and photos taken, also from a distance, by Guisseppe Enrie, as references to make his estimations. The Shroud was, both times was hung with unknown amount of stretch and measurements taken from both sets of photos don't match. They have variations of up to 3% in various directions including lengths of various parts that are attributable to draping, focal length, distance, etc. The measurements were at best estimates and were inaccurate... His work was falsified by accurate measurements by the 1978 1:1 photographs by Barrie Schwortz of STURP and actual contact measurements of all physical points of reference on the Shroud to the best ability of numerous scientists including forensic physicians.

Neither Lynn Picknett nor Clive Prince, authors of a Shroud book that theorized that Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud of Turin, are scientists... or scholars. They are charlatans. They refer to themselves as "historians." One is a fiction writer. They even fail at that being historians. I'll give them fiction writers. Their absurd theory is patently false since Leonardo was born in 1452, 100 years AFTER the Shroud was first exhibited c. 1352. Their website paints them as "conspiracy theorists" who believe along with Dan Brown in the Priory of Sion, and Da Vinci's membership and Grandmastership as motives for faking the Shroud. They hint that the Shroud's head is "oversized" to indicating the decapitation to point to the priority of John the Baptist over Jesus... Right, sure. Their calculations originally put the height of the Man on the Shroud at 6'8" to 6'10" tall. They are skeptics, hewing to the hoax/skeptic school of thought.

None of Picknett's or Prince's work has ever been submitted for peer review. If it had, everyone of the reviewers would have picked up on the error they made of using a 1:9 head to body ratio to calculate their height. I learned, just as I believe every student who has taken art learned, that the human body average ratio of head to body is approximately 8 to 1.

"They arrived at this height by assuming that the head height to body height ratio on the shroud was 1 to 9 rather than the average 1 to 8. So they multiplied their height of the head measurement by nine."

Fellow Freeper Shroudie, who wrote the article you are referencing, properly corrected Picknet and Princes sophomoric conclusion of 5.8" to 6'10" body height to a more reasonable 5'9" to 6'1".—Source

That's odd, because I remember our previous exchanges as being both polite and informative -- decidedly lacking in the all-too-frequent insults or disparagements from other posters. And I don't remember writing anything to bring on the current blasts you guys are throwing around.

It's "impolite" to point out that you are misrepresenting the argument when you do? The evidence is overwhelming that Jews of the 1st Century were NOT 5.4" tall which you were arguing then, which I refuted with evidence... and which you again were arguing again without proof yesterday, even though I had presented the facts last April that refuted that as untrue. You presented as truth, as though a 5'10" Jew from the 1st Century were somehow an impossibility, making the case that man on the Shroud could not be from that area, despite being presented with the scientific facts before. That shows willful intent to ignore the evidence in favor of untruth. you even posted that clownish picture from Popular Mechanics that was shot down by Anthropologists when it was first published as proof claiming the short stature. I have provided even more confirming data about the stature of 1st Century residents of Israel... but you choose to make assumptions based on unproved non-science. I am still being polite to you. I am attacking your posts, not you.

By the way, the thread was re-activated, no matter what the reason, and the points were interesting. That's why I Pinged the Shroud list.

[BroJoeK]

swordmaker: "It's "impolite" to point out that you are misrepresenting the argument when you do?"

But I did NOT misrepresent your arguments. I said -- correctly, accurately and truthfully -- that you have carefully selected your data, and that most studies of the Shroud image's height show a wider range -- up to 6'2".

Your response here defending your careful selections is 100% appropriate. Your criticism of me for "misrepresenting" you is not, pal.

swordmaker: "Your conclusion of 6'2" from Piczek is from the EXTREME top of the range of possibility and is extrapolated from her "give or take 1 inch" for linen stretch and shrinking" to her estimated range"

The following is quoted from Isabel Piczek:

"To my knowledge, in Shroud studies only three researchers addressed the question with solid authority:

"In the early 1960's, Professor Lorenzo Ferri studied at length and in depth the question of the height of the Man of the Shroud. He spent decades with these studies and created, with special permission of the Vatican, a full size statue of the Shroud which is very correct. He has been quoted as saying that "The body of Christ could not have been fully stretched out in burial." And again, "The measuring of the body (by scientific methods) did not allow for the body being in a slightly hunched position."

Professor Ferri held that the man of the Shroud was 6'1" to 6'2". Professor Ferri looked at this problem from the structural-sculptural point of view.

"Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D., spoke on television and elsewhere about the height of the Man of the Shroud. He gave his opinion as a medical expert, not as a forensic pathologist. He judged the man to be 5'11½".

"The third person to study this problem with authority is myself...."

So, by my count, this makes six who have in one form or another "studied" the question of the shroud's height:

1. Isabel Piczek, artist specializing in human anatomy. 5'11½" - 6'1"
2. Fanti, Marinelli, Cagnazzo (tibio-femoral indices calculations) 5'8" - 5'9"
3. Luigi Gedda (sagittal plane of face applied to anthropometric ratio) 6'0"
4. Picknett and Prince (corrected for logical fallacy) 5'9" - 6'1"
5. Professor Lorenzo Ferri 6'1" to 6'2"
6. Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D., 5'11"

For whatever it's worth, the average of these numbers is around 5'11.5".

swordmaker: "The evidence is overwhelming that Jews of the 1st Century were NOT 5.4" tall which you were arguing then, which I refuted with evidence... and which you again were arguing again without proof yesterday, even though I had presented the facts last April that refuted that as untrue."

Let me suggest to you that this is very important question, going right to the heart of much modern scholarship. My hobby, my "thing" if you will, is history and have several books here (authors: Sanders, Borg, Yancy, Crossan) addressing the question: historically speaking, who was Jesus?

The answer, in short, might be summarized by the phrase "marginal Jew," meaning someone from outside the "mainstream" of 1st century Jewish culture (a man from Galillee) and also marginal economically. For example, the word usually translated "carpenter" actually means anyone involved in construction -- from day laborer to contractor.

Now, life today is tough enough for those who live at the margins economically. In ancient times it was literally a daily struggle for existence. For such people, the question of "our daily bread" was a matter of life and death. So, did Jesus the man live this life, or did he somehow look down on it from above?

Many modern scholars suggest that Jesus lived the marginal life, which means that he did not always receive his "daily bread," which further suggests that whatever the "average" height of ancient Jews may or may not have been, Jesus would fall at the lower end of the range.

Therefore, if we see evidence that Jesus was not only average in height, but above average, it raises questions about: just how economically "marginal" Jesus' early life really was?

A relatively tall, robust & strong Jesus makes sense in terms of someone who could be imagined by his contemporaries as a "King of the Jews." But it also suggests that Jesus' early life may not have been quite as marginalized as some of our modern scholars have concluded.

swordmaker: "You presented as truth, as though a 5'10" Jew from the 1st Century were somehow an impossibility, making the case that man on the Shroud could not be from that area, despite being presented with the scientific facts before. That shows willful intent to ignore the evidence in favor of untruth."

You misread my words.

I have not challenged your report of "...5 foot 9 3/10±1 inch... average height that a recent survey of male skeletons found to be the case in data from the excavations collected from all 1st Century Palestinian Jewish cemetery Ossuaries..." -- even though I haven't yet google-found the confirming data.

What I have argued is:

• These skeletons are most likely far from "average," but rather represent the wealthiest Jerusalem residents who could afford expensive burials likely to survive to modern times.
• The vast vast majority of 1st century Jews were economically marginal, meaning poorly fed and frequently on the verge of starvation.
• Jesus was one of these "marginal Jews," and so quite unlikely to have been as tall or robust as the "average" skeletons in your study.

swordmaker: "you even posted that clownish picture from Popular Mechanics that was shot down by Anthropologists when it was first published as proof claiming the short stature."

Not as "proof," but as evidence that not everyone agrees with you, pal. The question I addressed by that "clownish picture" is: what did a typical 1st century Semite look like? It allows us then to compare all the various images of Jesus and ask, how likely is this image correct?

Of course, I am no artist, but it seems to me that any artist worth his or her salt could easily take that "clownish picture" and convert it into one which looks as heroic or saintly as you might like. The important point would be to retain its "Semetic appearance." The question then remains: does the Shroud image look more Semitic or is it as "Curto ...describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic." ".

Are you willing to argue that an Iranian - Persian - Indo-European - "Aryan" Jesus is even possible? I'm not.