Brian Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, spoke to the terrorism question.
"A320 pilots association is saying crash was most likely caused by, quote, 'pilot incapacitation'!
"There were at least two Turks on the passenger list."
Update this morning notes the pilots refusing to fly and the nose-wheel question.
"Obviously the professionals whose lives are on the line appear to think this is a mechanical problem rather than terrorism... or at least that's the public version of this refusal."
I just clicked through two layers to see MO with her hair pulled back looking bald. My judgment circuits may need caffeine.
Vic: "Ben Carson calls Obama a psychopath. He is a lot of things but I don't think he is that."
I understand Narcissism and psychopathy are not entirely unrelated behaviorally, but I am no psychiatrist. But then, neither is Dr Ben, is he?
First!
Oh, uh, Under Ten!
Um, well, then, Under 100?
Awww, never mind.
.
.
.
UNDER 1000!
Good night, Gracies.
Grunt: "…has blood stains that actually match (over a hundred) the Shroud of Turin."
Right. Thanks. I forgot to mention that, but CNN did. I think. (Must re-watch it now, I guess. Memory of one perusal is not to be trusted.)
PP: "No biggie, just last week Netanyahu led a Tel Aviv crowd in the same rousing chant of 'Death to America!' . . . no, wait."
Ha ha. No, seriously, that was Obama, whipping them up at that White House Terrorists Meet-up he sponsored.
Oh, yeah… I said there's nothing like the Shroud, except…
One thing I did learn in this show that was brand new to me was about the facecloth relic. Regardless of whether it's really that cloth, I had no idea there was another relic with a face image. How did I miss that one?
I knew there had been a facecloth, mysteriously folded off to the side (John 20:7). But if there were a facecloth, I've wondered, how could the Shroud have a face image? (And why in heaven would neatnik angels, or whoever, neatly fold up the facecloth but leave the linens rumpled in the burial niche?) The CNN report says Joe and Nick had probably wrapped the head at the Cross, and then removed that cloth before the body was finally covered with the Shroud. Oh. Did you know that? Forehead-smacking d'oh! No mystery about its being folded up and set off to the side, then; much less about its not blocking the Shroud image.
Its image seemed to me to be more blurry than the Shroud's; predictably, if it was removed before— whatever happened to the body at the resurrection. Still, intriguing.
CNN’s Finding Jesus, 1st part on the Shroud of Turin.
Most of the initial reporting about the Shroud as it relates to the crucifixion was pretty straightforward. Just watching the Lord’s torment was hard to take, as always, and they didn’t spare the blood and gruesomeness of it all. They built up the various points of concurrence of Shroud image and Gospel records.
They mentioned how the Shroud has real blood, and exhibits genuine indications of flogging, the crown of thorns, and the torturous consequences of crucifixion. I was glad to see this included the fact that, to support the weight of the body, the Roman pounded the spikes, not through the palms and feet, but through the wrists and ankles (or maybe I should say calves). Which makes one wonder what ol’ doubting Thomas reputedly poked, but anyway…
CNN veered toward the “medieval fake” conclusion at one point, briefly citing carbon dating that was done, and going into the techniques that someone of that period might use to create the image. Then they seemed to back off. (Possibly so they could end on a note of “oo, mysterious, huh, kids!” instead of “It’s a FAAAKE! You gullible believers!”) They did not explain that the medieval dating may have involved fabric added to the Shroud by nuns after the fire that scorched it. Or so I read somewhere. Aside from that one test, I’ve always read the weave and material were easily 1st Century.
The show looked at how the Shroud might be created, and faked, but even if one could paint with such exquisite, excruciating detail, there is some three-dimensionality to the Shroud image — not mentioned in the show. The image wasn’t flat-on like a photograph, because the cloth was draped around the head, right? So, to see it as the face would really be, one must un-3D it, slightly squeeze the image back to photographic flatness, something only possible in the modern computer age. So I’ve seen; bet that’s on YouTube. As ingenious as humans artists can be, it’s hard to imagine figuring out how anyone could paint that, five or twenty centuries ago. Oh, yeah. In b/w reversal (photo-negative).
More likely, therefore, than hand-painting, and as the CNN show mentioned, such an image can be created by laying a shroud over an actual face shape (thus getting the 3D-ish image). Decades ago, I read about that being done. Everything chemically was duplicated just right, it worked, except, and this was not mentioned in the CNN report, the final lifting of a shroud off of a form inevitably, always blurred the image significantly more than the crisp, amazing Turin image. The only way to really duplicate the image would be… to have the form instantaneously vanish from under the shroud. So I read.
Hmmm.
Most of the initial reporting about the Shroud as it relates to the crucifixion was pretty straightforward. Just watching the Lord's torment was hard to take, as always. They built up the various points of concurrence of Shroud image and Gospel records.
CNN veered toward the "medieval fake" conclusion at one point, briefly citing carbon dating that was done, and going into the techniques that someone of that period might use to create the image. Then they seemed to back off. (Possibly so they could end on a note of "oo, mysterious," instead of "FAAAKE!") They did not explain that the medieval dating may have involved fabric added to the Shroud by nuns after the fire that scorched it. Or so I read somewhere. Aside from that one test, I've always read the weave and material were easily 1st Century.
They did mention how the Shroud has real blood, and exhibits genuine indications of flogging, the crown of thorns, and the torturous consequences of crucifixion. I was glad to see this included the fact that, to support the weight of the body, the Roman pounded the spikes, not through the palms and feet, but through the wrists and ankles (or maybe I should say calves). Which makes one wonder what ol' doubting Thomas reputedly poked, but anyway…
The show looked at how the Shroud might be created, and faked, but even if one could paint with such exquisite, excruciating detail, there is some three-dimensionality to the Shroud image — not mentioned in the show. The image wasn't flat-on like a photograph, because the cloth was draped around the head, right? So, to see it as the face would really be, one must un-3D it, slightly squeeze the image back to photographic flatness, something only possible in the modern computer age. So I've seen; bet that's on YouTube. As ingenious as humans artists can be, it's hard to imagine figuring out how anyone could paint that, five or twenty centuries ago. Oh, yeah. In b/w reversal (photo-negative).
More likely, therefore, than hand-painting, and as the CNN show mentioned, such an image can be created by laying a shroud over an actual face shape (thus getting the 3D-ish image). Decades ago, I read about that being done. Everything chemically was duplicated just right, it worked, except, and this was not mentioned in the CNN report, the final lifting of a shroud off of a form inevitably, always blurred the image significantly more than the crisp, amazing Turin image. The only way to really duplicate the image would be… to have the form instantaneously vanish from under the shroud. So I read.
One thing I did learn in this show that was brand new to me was about the facecloth relic. Regardless of whether it's really that cloth, I had no idea there was another relic with a face image. How did I miss that one?
I knew there had been a facecloth, mysteriously folded off to the side (John 20:7). But if there were a facecloth, I've wondered, how could the Shroud have a face image? (And why in heaven would neatnik angels, or whoever, neatly fold up the facecloth but leave the linens rumpled in the burial niche?) The CNN report says Joe and Nick had probably wrapped the head at the Cross, and then removed that cloth before the body was finally covered with the Shroud. Did you know that? Forehead-smacking d'oh! No mystery about its being folded up and set off to the side, then; much less about its not blocking the Shroud image.
Its image seemed to me to be more blurry than the Shroud's; predictably, if it was removed before— whatever happened to the body at the resurrection.
The montage: Perhaps confusing, but certainly amusing.
Writing at 1am: When your muse comes calling, entertain her, lest she abandon you. Exceptions, perhaps, depending on state of inebriation. Posting while enraged is also a bad idea. But otherwise…
St Januarius: Per the Breitbart article, he was "beheaded sometime during the persecution of the emperor Diocletian." Wikipedia (yeah, I know), regarding his and his fellow beheadees' demise, says, "Other legends state either that the wild beasts refused to eat them, or that he was thrown into a furnace but came out unscathed." Oh! That guy! (Or should that be "one of those guys"?) :)
Every time Twitter evidences its regressive prejudices, I think of a young relative of ours whose job it is to be Twitter's judgment caller. Haven't ever talked to him about it, and probably won't since we likely have rather irreconcilable politics, but I was greatly, if darkly, amused when ISIS threatened Twitter's judges and bosses for canceling their accounts.
I can sympathize, though, politics aside. Being in charge, wielding power over others — a SysOp, blogmeister, editor, business owner, judge, parent, employer, landlord — is not something you do for popularity. (I've been most of those, with the battle scars to prove it.)
When theological questions arise in Ace comments, I'm tempted to jump in and set everybody right, since I know it all. But, it wouldn't do any good. Folks would just argue with me, anyway.
Some four decades ago, a friend who had fallen asleep on the couch, awoke to the tv. Back then we had three broadcast channels and it was the middle of the night, so they were running their "public service time" show, a collection of local (Tulsa) preachers discussing religious matters. My friend watched in sleepy stupor for a while, then drolly observed...
"These people are very confused!"
It's stuck with me all these years. Maybe you had to be there.
Unserious webwork from almost a year ago:
http://bit.ly/only-heaven
MP4: God knows I'm not suggesting an "image consultant" for Cruz, but I would like to see him take some lessons with a voice coach.
Both Cruz and Sarah do this thing where they're trying to sound all sincere and important, in a breathy, quiet way. Doesn't really work. "Shmaltzy" is a good descrip.
Yeah, Cruz could improve his delivery. And that pudgy face. Someone yesterday called it punchable. Thought that was funny.
Alas that any of that should matter, compared to his actual opinions.
Now, about his wife's employer....
BTW, repeating, Reaganite Republican had a good list of Cruz's creds.
I love it when Mary Cloggenstein hits the schnappes heavy in the morning. Some of her best insanity.
I'm glad you covered this, Grunt. Fun approach.
Funny thing... at first glance I didn't realize the three pictures were of three popes, and it looked like a sequence. I wondered what the bird had done to him.
artisanal 'ette - thanks for that link about Levin on the Obama-Netenyahu call. I was going to say that on the last thread, but it was dead. So, glad you reposted it. 
I've really got to remember to check the link before clicking so I don't keep ending up at Natl Review.
Nice resume on Ted Cruz at Reaganite Republican.
"Impressive. ... Described as a 'superb' constitutional lawyer, the man's considerable skills and laser-like focus were on display for all when he took oily reptile Eric Holder by the neck and made him
answer the damn question. ..."
Thanks for this one, Vic. I hadn't read that the students won!
"...Over the weekend, Lasa said administrators listened carefully to the feedback they received and on Monday, March 23 they decided to let the kids stick with the 'American Pride' theme...."
Wow.
