That would be me, pal. The thread discussed the Shroud and Knights Templar.
And I'm delighted to see you've lost none of your insulting vituperation. You are pure genius at work.
But already you've forgotten the correct answer on Christ's DNA, didn't you? ;-)
Wpin from #192: "Hmmm, and you sound like a fool."
One can only hope our religion monitor will eventually wake up from his/her snooze, and gavel you to better behavior.
Swordmaker from #134: "Actually, the figure on the Shroud is NOT over six feet tall."
We've been over this argument before, and my conclusion from it is: the "raw image" on the Shroud IS indeed WELL over six feet tall, but this number is unacceptable to most specialists who've studied it, and so they all devise methods for explaining and reducing its height to more "normal" numbers.
What they ALL do is assume the cloth was draped loosely over the body, so that the imprint when stretched out would naturally seem taller than it was.
The issue then is how loosely was the cloth draped? Those who say the image is taller assume a tighter wrap, those who say the image is shorter assume a much looser wrap. Which is the correct amount? I think that's highly debatable.
Swordmaker from #134: "Another assumption that "everyone knows" that has been falsified by actual hands on research, is the "factoid" that 1st Century jews were of small stature."
Swordmaker uses as reference: This study by Fanti, Marinnelli & Cagnazzo.
This study argues that, despite apparent "Northern European" features (tall height, slim face), the Shroud image is in fact entirely Semitic. And the key fact they point to is the "Tibio-femoral index," of 83.3, which is almost identical with supposedly typical "Semites" of the time.
But not so fast. First off, corresponding data for Northern Europeans is missing from the chart, and so is ANY other data on supposedly typical "Semites." So some direct comparisons are impossible.
But one place we can make comparisons is in the Shroud's height:
Another place is the "Nasal index" which most closely resembles that of a Middle Easterner. Is that the same as a "Semite"? No data provided.
My point here is: for a supposedly thorough scientific study, the Fanti et al report is missing a lot of data, and makes some very convenient assumptions.