Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   (foxnews.com) divider line 433
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14929 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 02:22:01 AM  

s2s2s2: It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.


Wow, just, wow.

You really seem to know nothing about technology, and therefore half of the words you're using.
 
2013-03-30 02:25:06 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

Anyways, it's like cooking a burger. You cook it slow, it cooks through, you cook it fast, the outside burns the inside hardly warms up(if you remove it fast enough.

No, not really.  There aren't any "all the way through" bits, although there would HAVE to be, where the cloth touched the (originally typed "douched" to match your "raped") metal parts.  That's the oddity -- the char is only a few molecules thick.  Look at the 2011 Fark article of the thread I link to above; they explain the whole thing rather well.
 
2013-03-30 02:29:22 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Yet still not actually proven to have happened! And do you think your green text makes you important or something?

No, I think it's something ELSE that makes me important, just like your black text doesn't make you wrong.  Now, what proof do we have of most ANYTHING from 2KYA?  Waddayah want, video?

 
2013-03-30 02:37:41 AM  

omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.

Wow, just, wow.

You really seem to know nothing about technology, and therefore half of the words you're using.


Technology? Like plows n shiat?
 
2013-03-30 02:39:50 AM  
This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

Every year around Easter right-wing news media drag it out and play this stupid game of "new evidence suggests it IS real!"  Even if you are Christian, you'd have to be a drooling retard to believe this crap.
 
2013-03-30 02:41:32 AM  

omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.

Wow, just, wow.

You really seem to know nothing about technology, and therefore half of the words you're using.


TAKE 2: You know, the word render predates computers, right?
 
2013-03-30 02:44:14 AM  

burning_bridge: Every year around Easter right-wing news media drag it out and play this stupid game of "new evidence suggests it IS real!"


Well, in their defense the shroud IS real. They're just supporting the unproven position that it belonged to Jesus as opposed to Guy de la Someone
 
2013-03-30 02:45:27 AM  

Ed Grubermann:

Okay. Let's ask him. Where is he? Prove that he actually existed. Then we'll talk about his supposed resurrection.

Don't expect a Salon report, or a video, or a news report from CNN.  Almost two thousand years is a LONG time.  Cold cases die in orders of magnitude less time.


Also, this article, which agrees with many others...
 
2013-03-30 02:49:16 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

Wasn't a new idea, and Da Vinci loved such gizmo's, even wrote about(or drew) this one in his own works. It's not an impossible thing as you suggest.
It's not impossible on the basis of camera obscura, although unlikely, but on the basis that there is no pigment, paint or photochemical, making up the image.   It's char marks.
 
2013-03-30 02:53:19 AM  

doglover: burning_bridge: Every year around Easter right-wing news media drag it out and play this stupid game of "new evidence suggests it IS real!"

Well, in their defense the shroud IS real. They're just supporting the unproven position that it belonged to Jesus as opposed to Guy de la Someone


...well played.  You win this round.
 
2013-03-30 02:54:21 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: wiredroach: Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.

A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.

Coloration then?  There is a visible image correct?

Getting pedantic now...

Pedantic is okay....  The coloration is due to the OUTSIDE few molecules of the Shroud fabric being charred, while the inside of the threads remain unaffected.  Bizarre.  Read the subject article in THIS THREAD.
 
2013-03-30 02:55:24 AM  

GeneralJim: That's the oddity -- the char is only a few molecules thick.


I'll take your word on it, I'm damn near done for tonite.

That would be indicative of a flash. Flash of godly power, or flash of heat(which was my point).  Doesn't take much to barely brown cloth, so the heat need not be excessive.

That's the thing with cloth, it's a great insulator, it doesn't conduct heat well.  It's not like touching a marker to it and it bleeds, heat stays fairly well contained to the closest parts of fiber.  I've seen pot holders in my house that have fainter tints from burning than what's on the shroud.(always helps to check an actual picture of it that's un altered for contrast and such as well, meant to state that for general purposes earlier). Same for wood cutting boards that sub in for a pot holder.  In fact, it's really hard to get these things to burn through.

Hell, iron marks on a nice white shirt, that's something most of us have seen, you can do this at home.  Get a fabric of the same/similar material and try it for yourself.  It's easy to do if that's the goal, you don't need really fine precision timing, the heat transfer is slow.  After just a couple attempts you'll be a pro at making ghostly iron imprints like a pro.
 
2013-03-30 02:57:23 AM  

Ed Grubermann:

GeneralJim: frepnog: That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.

Do you always misrepresent what other people are saying? Computers and lasers are not needed to create the shroud.

Some Italian scientists would disagree with you.
 
2013-03-30 03:00:48 AM  

Corvus:

GeneralJim, shroud of Turin believer and global warming denier.

I think that says it all really.

"Global warming denier?"   Really?  I'm sure human activity IS warming the planet -- just not as much as the warmer alarmists are claiming; and the science, along with the planet itself, are backing up my position.  That's denial?   That's why you fail.
 
2013-03-30 03:05:02 AM  

wiredroach:

GeneralJim: A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.

Ok, then you've proven your case. Clearly it was caused by Jesus.

All right then, thread over.

Actually, scientifically, I'm not attempting to prove a cause. The way one goes about this is to eliminate hypotheses. The formation of the image falsifies the hypothesis that the Shroud was created by medieval forgers. What's your NEXT hypothesis?
 
2013-03-30 03:10:47 AM  
The Vatican will NEVER vouch for it's authenticity... If it were later proven to be a fake, they would never live it down, and their "power" and authority would be questioned too much...

Besides, fake or real, it obviously gives some people much to do in order to get the shroud back into the mainstream media every stinking year about this time...
 
2013-03-30 03:11:49 AM  

fetushead: Do yourself a favor - learn to be skeptical.


sokology.com

Oh, you're serious?  Let me laugh even harder!

 
2013-03-30 03:18:21 AM  

dopirt:

Scorched natural fibre certainly can last many millennia. I doubt it was a novel technique. In 700-800 years someone will be arguing that the only way this shroud could have been created was through the molecular printing technology of that future day.
That might well be able to make a similar image, but molecular printing technology was as unavailable to medieval forgers as were UV lasers and 3-D rendering computers.
 
2013-03-30 03:19:51 AM  
Shroud of Turin: SICK BURN
 
2013-03-30 03:25:23 AM  

fetushead:

No one argument can stand on its own without invoking the others, which in turn cannot stand on their own, etc.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Bertrand Russell

 
2013-03-30 03:28:25 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

That's an assumption though I suppose. The shroud of turin as is, is not in the book, correct?(aside from saying "and the body was lain in a shroud" or something) You'd think something like that would be detailed....IF it were around at the time, an image like that would be a pretty big deal.

Unless the authors of the accounts knew that if was of no importance to the message.
 
2013-03-30 03:34:29 AM  

Mock26:

Also, you must believe in UFOs, right? After all, there have been thousands of eye-witnesses that have seen them.
Well, *I* am not convinced that UFOs are real...  Or, to phrase it more accurately, I don't believe any UFOs have been adequately identified as extra-terrestrial spacecraft.  But, people ARE seeing something, and I believe they don't know what they are seeing, so they ARE actually UFOs.  You know, "UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS."  That's not a problem -- the problem comes when you identify it with insufficient evidence.
 
2013-03-30 03:37:42 AM  

burning_bridge:

This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.
There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.
 
2013-03-30 03:42:30 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

That would be indicative of a flash. Flash of godly power, or flash of heat(which was my point). Doesn't take much to barely brown cloth, so the heat need not be excessive.
According to the Italian scientists (IIRC) they tried that, including a laser -- generated too much heat, which was conducted too far into the threads to make the same kind of image.  They switched to a UV laser, and were able to duplicate the process -- for the first time, I might add.
 
2013-03-30 03:54:35 AM  

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.


Wow, that's so far away from being an actual valid argument that the light from valid arguments would take millions of years to reach what you just said.  A real estate scam isn't based on the idea that real estate does or does not exist but whether the person offering it actually owns it or is lying about the details of it.  This stupid piece of cloth doesn't need to be real for you to believe that your sky father is actually there.  It's called faith, try having some.
 
2013-03-30 04:04:29 AM  

burning_bridge:

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.

Wow, that's so far away from being an actual valid argument that the light from valid arguments would take millions of years to reach what you just said.  A real estate scam isn't based on the idea that real estate does or does not exist but whether the person offering it actually owns it or is lying about the details of it.  This stupid piece of cloth doesn't need to be real for you to believe that your sky father is actually there.  It's called faith, try having some.
Okay, how about you try to explain why your "The Shroud is not real, there were lots of religious forgeries" is different from my example, where what is in question is the DEAL, not the existence of real estate, which, granted, I should have said.
 
2013-03-30 05:47:48 AM  

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: GeneralJim: burning_bridge: This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.

Wow, that's so far away from being an actual valid argument that the light from valid arguments would take millions of years to reach what you just said.  A real estate scam isn't based on the idea that real estate does or does not exist but whether the person offering it actually owns it or is lying about the details of it.  This stupid piece of cloth doesn't need to be real for you to believe that your sky father is actually there.  It's called faith, try having some.

Okay, how about you try to explain why your "The Shroud is not real, there were lots of religious forgeries" is different from my example, where what is in question is the DEAL, not the existence of real estate, which, granted, I should have said.


Oh I see, I didn't present evidence about the shroud itself.  What, all the info everybody already posted here isn't enough?  I could copy and paste it all again for you if you'd like.  It's a fake.  If you had faith, you wouldn't need it to be real.  It could be the obvious forgery it is and god would still be god.  But you need proof, it seems.
 
2013-03-30 06:22:59 AM  

GeneralJim: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Setting aside the dubious historicity of their writings, that's four out of how many hundreds or thousands of supposed witnesses? And those four would be rather biased, too. That'd be like 9/11 only being witnessed by a dozen neo-cons.
Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.  That should count for something. "Totally bollocks, but let's get together next Sunday for a service. I've never seen a lion close up." Not likely.


Worked for Jim Jones and David Koresh. New cults pop up all the time. The members' beliefs don't prove anything.
 
2013-03-30 08:26:18 AM  

GeneralJim: That's only ONE of the problems with the forgery idea.


So, you don't just belie the entire field of climatology is a scam. It would be weird if you were otherwise totally sane, so I'm kinda glad to find out that no; you believe other obviously insane bullshiat as well as that. Cool.

Do you also think the moon landings were fake? do you believe in alien abductions?
 
2013-03-30 08:46:24 AM  

Gunther: GeneralJim: That's only ONE of the problems with the forgery idea.

So, you don't just belie the entire field of climatology is a scam. It would be weird if you were otherwise totally sane, so I'm kinda glad to find out that no; you believe other obviously insane bullshiat as well as that. Cool.

Do you also think the moon landings were fake? do you believe in alien abductions?


He believes in advanced truth.
 
2013-03-30 09:23:24 AM  

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: GeneralJim: burning_bridge: This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.

Wow, that's so far away from being an actual valid argument that the light from valid arguments would take millions of years to reach what you just said.  A real estate scam isn't based on the idea that real estate does or does not exist but whether the person offering it actually owns it or is lying about the details of it.  This stupid piece of cloth doesn't need to be real for you to believe that your sky father is actually there.  It's called faith, try having some.Okay, how about you try to explain why your "The Shroud is not real, there were lots of religious forgeries" is different from my example, where what is in question is the DEAL, not the existence of real estate, which, granted, I should have said.


If you look at the fingers on the hands, they don't look right.

Even in the middle ages, a clever fellow would not have made a shroud using a painting process. It was made using a bas relief sculpture with cloth draped on it. and some process involving heat and chemicals. The forger, though clever, had difficulty getting the anatomy exactly right.

Of course, whether its real or not is particularly important and has no bearing on whether a shroud existed.
 
2013-03-30 09:24:27 AM  
I meant to say its not important that this shroud is fake.
 
2013-03-30 09:38:36 AM  

GeneralJim: wiredroach: Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.


That is a false statement.  Red ochre is on the shroud.  This has been known for decades.
 
2013-03-30 10:00:19 AM  

Animatronik: Of course, whether its real or not is particularly important and has no bearing on whether a shroud existed.


I've always been unsure what shroud believers think happened.  It's kind of a leap to look at a bit of old cloth with a picture of a dead dude on it and go immediately to "This is an image of Jesus! And it must have been left by his dead body,despite the fact that dead bodies that are wrapped in cloth don't actually leave imprints on the cloth and certainly not clear pictures like this! Therefore this is proof that Jesus was magical!!"

I mean, that right there is a bizarre bit of reasoning:

Assume A caused B
B is not normally caused by A
Therefore A has caused B through magic.

It's not even circular reasoning, it's just... nonsense. It's equivalent to someone holding up an apple and saying "This apple is one of Jesus's fossilized turds! Turds aren't normally apples, therefore we have proof that Jesus was divine!"
 
2013-03-30 10:55:35 AM  

Gunther: It's equivalent to someone holding up an apple and saying "This apple is one of Jesus's fossilized turds! Turds aren't normally apples, therefore we have proof that Jesus was divine!"


imageshack.us

The Holy Turd!!!
 
2013-03-30 11:43:47 AM  

s2s2s2: Mock26: s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.

By the way, there available software that lets any turn a 2D image into a 3D one.  And, by 2D I mean images that are not encoded with 3D elevation data.  So, that lovely green image you posted, it could have been made from any 2D image.


It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.

I'm still not assuming anything about whose image, or validity.

img.photobucket.com
 
rpm
2013-03-30 12:21:01 PM  

GeneralJim: No, I think it's something ELSE that makes me important, just like your black text doesn't make you wrong.  Now, what proof do we have of most ANYTHING from 2KYA?  Waddayah want, video?


Mutually independent corroborating accounts would be a start.
 
2013-03-30 05:45:38 PM  

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.


By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.
 
2013-03-30 05:51:31 PM  

GeneralJim: The formation of the image falsifies the hypothesis that the Shroud was created by medieval forgers.


That's clearly not been ruled out. Depending on whose account you believe, there may or may not be deposition of iron oxide on the fabric, as opposed to an enzymatic process such as the Maillard reaction. In either case, the image could have an entirely prosaic cause consistent with 14th century forgers motivated by cash, which is a much stronger likelihood than the magical resurrection suntan that Shroud fans seem to espouse.
 
2013-03-30 06:17:56 PM  

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.


There is no evidence that there were instantly hundreds of thousands of christians immediately following the alleged crucifixion... not even in the bible.
 
rpm
2013-03-30 07:51:15 PM  

Surool: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.

There is no evidence that there were instantly hundreds of thousands of christians immediately following the alleged crucifixion... not even in the bible.


And by the same argument, John Frum is a god.
 
2013-03-30 08:09:44 PM  

wiredroach: Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.


Truth.
 
2013-03-31 12:50:03 AM  

wiredroach: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.

By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.


Does Apollonius of Tyana count? Or does he not count because he actually provoked thought instead of stifling it?
 
2013-03-31 06:55:37 AM  

burning_bridge:

If you had faith, you wouldn't need it to be real. It could be the obvious forgery it is and god would still be god. But you need proof, it seems.

You're being a very choice ass.  It doesn't matter to me, other than being of historical interest, whether or not the Shroud is genuine.  If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?

It appears to ME that you just assume that the Shroud is fake, because your faith requires it to be fake.  And, you don't even bother to read what has been posted.  Seriously, is that scientific?

 
2013-03-31 07:06:02 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Worked for Jim Jones and David Koresh. New cults pop up all the time. The members' beliefs don't prove anything.
So, are you saying that Jim Jones and David Koresh didn't exist? Because it would be odd to have someone gather a large cult -- if they didn't exist.
 
2013-03-31 07:12:10 AM  

GeneralJim: If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?


Ah, the old "argument from ignorance" - your average Farker isn't gonna know howmedieval forgers made fake relics like this, therefore it must be real.

Pathetic.
 
2013-03-31 07:25:31 AM  

Gunther:

GeneralJim: That's only ONE of the problems with the forgery idea.

So, you don't just belie the entire field of climatology is a scam. It would be weird if you were otherwise totally sane, so I'm kinda glad to find out that no; you believe other obviously insane bullshiat as well as that. Cool.

"Belie the entire field is a scam?"  English much?  I end up explaining this to some farktard in every climate thread, and it seems that we're using a Shroud thread for YOUR turn...   Listen up, Buttercup:

I agree with the entire process in climate science -- with the exception that the real scientists at the beginning got the atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide way too high.  Humans ARE warming the planet with carbon dioxide.  If we double it -- which should take a bit over two centuries, at current rates, we will raise the temperature about 0.5 K, plus or minus a bit.  But that number is not politically useful -- nobody is going to panic over a half degree, and panic is needed to get people to give more power to government.

And, since the planet cannot have its income or credentials threatened, be bullied, OR be bribed, the U.N. has been unable to make it warm as the warmer alarmists are predicting.  In fact, it's not warming at all now, and hasn't been for a long time.  So, the handful of corrupt scientists - as I have often said, less than a dozen - are busy changing the historical records to make it LOOK like it has warmed more.  And, this isn't a wild conspiracy theory.  Anyone -- at least anyone not cognitively impaired -- can LOOK at what agencies have said in the past, and compare it with what they put out now, and see the effects of alteration of the data.

And, as to the Shroud, how do YOU explain that the image is one that was only duplicated a couple years ago, with UV lasers, and is a true 3-D image?

 
2013-03-31 07:30:00 AM  

Animatronik:

Even in the middle ages, a clever fellow would not have made a shroud using a painting process. It was made using a bas relief sculpture with cloth draped on it. and some process involving heat and chemicals. The forger, though clever, had difficulty getting the anatomy exactly right.
Have you checked the article from the thread I've linked a bunch of times above?  The image is NOT formed in any such way.  It is charred into the fibers, and only the outside of the fibers are charred.  Scientists were finally able to create that type of image a couple years ago -- and they did it by etching it with a UV laser.  That wasn't a standard forger's tool back in medieval times -- or NOW, for that matter.
 
2013-03-31 07:32:46 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger:

That is a false statement. Red ochre is on the shroud. This has been known for decades.
It doesn't matter.  The image is produced by charring.  Pay attention.  What's this, the 12th time?
 
2013-03-31 07:38:39 AM  

Gunther:

It's not even circular reasoning, it's just... nonsense. It's equivalent to someone holding up an apple and saying "This apple is one of Jesus's fossilized turds! Turds aren't normally apples, therefore we have proof that Jesus was divine!"

Don't blame others for your failures of cognition.  Think about it scientifically (yeah, right -- like you can do THAT).  One does NOT prove that it is the shroud used by Jesus -- but one CAN falsify the hypothesis that it was created by medieval forgers, which is the "consensus" of the closed-minded.  And, the shroud DOES do that, unless you assume that the medieval forgers had reasonably powerful computers, good graphics software, and UV lasers -- or similar, or more advanced equipment.
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report