Feed the Tree

Did they listen to this in UK?

I did a little Google research and it seems the Boston Indie movement at this time was associated with the legendary British "4 AD" label, so I guess no surprise the Pommies were in the know on Tanya.

Here's Tanya guest singing with another great Indie Band from that era, <Catherine Wheel>:

Cocteau Twins:

They said the energy needed to create the image of Jesus was not the only two ways light is transmitted, A. laser or B. electric, so they all implied it could have been a Supernatural event that caused the imprint of Jesus Christ on the Shroud ie The Ressurection of Jesus.

The carbon dating testing done in 1999 was proved wrong as the researchers back then cut off a strip of The Shroud from the edge of the garment where it was exposed and handled by many people over the ages thus ruining the dna that they analyzed.

However, I'm not an expert!

Yes I did watch the whole program, it was interesting, no doubt about it.

But like I said, the <History Channel> has a "history" of cherry picking various experts, with real credentials, who are willing to support controversial or frankly dubious theories. They did another one on the "Gospel of Judas" that strongly suggested this "Gospel" was really written by Judas, when in fact a brief search on Google revealed that the scientific consensus is adamant the "Gospel of Judas" is a forgery. This was particularly convincing since the Christian crowd has a vested interest in claiming this "Gospel" is a forgery. It's a rare instance of scientific experts and Christian scholars agreeing.

The most blatant example of what I'm talking about, however, is the <History Channel> "documentary" featuring a real archaeologist who claimed that he had dug up a "real vampire skull," and this was proof that actual- meaning supernatural- vampires exist.

However, the shroud documentary is more convincing, and more carefully researched, than the vampire one, I have to admit.

But I have no confidence whatsoever in the accuracy of any theory or even information from the <History Channel>, the <Biography Channel>, or the <Arts and Entertainment Channel>. I also have serious doubts about recent <National Geographic> documentaries and <Discovery Channel> documentaries, which are supposed to be 100% "scientific." The <Discovery Channel> documentary on the Sasquatch didn't even bother to get facts straight on the people who have actually been looking for Bigfoot over the last fifty years. Very sloppy research, made for a crappy "documentary."

At the end of the day, these are all entertainment channels, and however accurate or worthy their product, their main purpose is to make money. This is why they so often choose to showcase controversial or lurid subject matter in a way that encourages people to believe what they want to believe-

We all of us want to believe that popular mysteries are true. If we didn't, we wouldn't find them interesting.

However, like I said I am definitely not an expert on history, forensics, archaeology, art, relics, The Bible, Jesus, or chess, sadly enough.

I'm also not an expert on TV Documentaries, although I watch a lot of TV!

It would of course be truly amazing if the Shroud were genuine. I have no personal axe to grind on this, I don't "want" or "not want" the Shroud to be genuine- I'm only interested in what might actually be the case. Which I don't know, of course.

By academic standards, as in actual film classes at actual universities, <Moore> is close to being considered an actual fraud.

I trust <Errol Morris> documentaries. He's my favorite film maker. One of the reasons I trust him so much is that he almost never provides any voice over narration, no commentary or personal analysis. He simply asks people questions and records the answers.

Jess I got the feeling that I upset you when I wrote you about that History Channel show. I just found it very interesting. When I find the rare things that interest me I absorb them like a sponge, otherwise I am pretty average at everything else. Anyways I am writing to tell you I don't want to upset you so I won't write about that on your forum anymore.

I want you to feel absolutely free to give the UNCENSORED TRAVIS I value so highly.

My response to your post on the documentary was simply me giving my honest opinion on that documentary, and on documentaries in general.

Please don't censor yourself in my forum!

I found your opinion valuable and challenging, like all your opinions, and I was glad to find it in my forum. You can come to my house any time you want and talk about anything you want!

Who loves ya baby.

It's not that he's necessarily wrong about his subject matter, it's more that he cuts corners to the extent of actually lying about many of the details.

The most notorious one is the supposedly real scene at the end of <Roger and Me>, meant to prove that no one in the automotive company would speak to him- the finale was in fact completely staged.

If you're going to be a whistle blower, it's especially important not to cut corners like that.

In <Bowling for Columbine> the editing of the film suggests that Moore can just open an account at a bank and receive a free rifle- straight away, while he' still in the bank.

This was not true. In fact, the bank only gave you the free gun after a regulated period of background criminal record check and other vetting.

You can't be lying in a documentary, no matter how good your cause might be.

Sabre Dance - Aram Khachaturian ~ http://youtu.be/gqg3l3r_DRI

Felix Mendelssohn : The Hebrides (Fingal's Cave) - Overture ~ http://youtu.be/a3MiETaBSnc