hummingbird
Patron with Honors
.
.
I love it. I also love that they are going to have a "pop-up" scientology exhibition.
*Snark* "Pop-up" *Snark*
(Gee, I morphed into a 13-year-old boy)
.
.
I love it. I also love that they are going to have a "pop-up" scientology exhibition.
You've obviously been spoiled DeeAnna.Yeah, flunk, my thoughts run along the same lines. He doesn't look all that well hung to me.
You've obviously been spoiled DeeAnna.
I don't get this at all!? Strat, Flunk and DeeAnna are right! There is nothing "well-hung" about this image.
First of all: "Well-hung" refers to a guy's erect size--ironically, since it isn't "hanging" when he's erect; it's "standing" (or "leaning" if the guy happens to be older). But nobody can tell how well-hung this guy is or isn't: His penis isn't erect! The size of a flaccid penis is not proportional to its erect size. There's a LOT of variation of that ratio from one individual to the next. You have to see the penis erect to tell its erect size.
Second, and not very important: I concur with FlunkYou and DeeAnna: His flaccid size isn't that impressive either. Maybe the commentator has led a sheltered life...?
I don't get this at all!? Strat, Flunk and DeeAnna are right! There is nothing "well-hung" about this image.
First of all: "Well-hung" refers to a guy's erect size--ironically, since it isn't "hanging" when he's erect; it's "standing" (or "leaning" if the guy happens to be older). But nobody can tell how well-hung this guy is or isn't: His penis isn't erect! The size of a flaccid penis is not proportional to its erect size. There's a LOT of variation of that ratio from one individual to the next. You have to see the penis erect to tell its erect size.
Second, and not very important: I concur with FlunkYou and DeeAnna: His flaccid size isn't that impressive either. Maybe the commentator has led a sheltered life...?
I don't get this at all!? Strat, Flunk and DeeAnna are right! There is nothing "well-hung" about this image.
First of all: "Well-hung" refers to a guy's erect size--ironically, since it isn't "hanging" when he's erect; it's "standing" (or "leaning" if the guy happens to be older). But nobody can tell how well-hung this guy is or isn't: His penis isn't erect! The size of a flaccid penis is not proportional to its erect size. There's a LOT of variation of that ratio from one individual to the next. You have to see the penis erect to tell its erect size.
Second, and not very important: I concur with FlunkYou and DeeAnna: His flaccid size isn't that impressive either. Maybe the commentator has led a sheltered life...?
A shroud of Tom Cruise you say?
Fourteen feet long?
Yeah, right.
I just hope there is just one Miscavige buttplug in his collection.
Hell I'd even commission it to him.
Quoting myself... Life is good, haha.
I have made the COB buttplug.
It really needs to be painted, with all the little flourishes.
Without accenting unfortunately all you can barely make out is his lovely pompadour.
Think I should fix it up and send it to the gallery?
I must admit, this is my first ever butt plug, I didn't even know what one was until the LRH version came out, lol.
If anyone wants it PM me.
The shroud of Turin was fraudulently fabricated in the middle ages to promote Catholicism.
The symbolism of the artist is impressive.
Quite right! And as the less well-endowed of us males will tell you, it's not what you've got but what you do with it that counts!
Well, it's three times life size.
The radio carbon dating of the shroud in the late 1980s dated it, according to wiki as around the time of the middle ages, the same time it appeared in France.This is what few scientists have said!
Last week I've seen a documentary about it, It was asked 3-4 teams of experts in ancient artefacts to reproduce the shroud of Turin process as if it was a false artefact produced in the middle age.
The were amazed at the most probable conclusion they came to as thy were certain the shroud was produced just before of afetre Christ. They know it by the process used and how it aged...
I don't have any opinion but it was very interesting to watch it and how they were amazed at their discovery... :confused2:
"For me the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs."
...
Fanti has written several papers about the shroud, including one in 2011 that hypothesized how radiation could have caused the image of a man's bloody face and body to appear on the cloth.
Fanti's book, Il Mistero della Sindone (translated to The Mystery of the Shroud) , co-authored by journalist Saverio Gaeta, was released ahead of the Easter holiday, as Christians around the world prepare to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.
The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D., per The Telegraph.
The bottom line on the Shroud remains the same: the Shroud continues to fail several key practical tests, as discussed by skeptical investigator Joe Nickell in his classic work on the subject, Looking for a Miracle:2
Provenance: there is no sign that this object existed before the 14th century;
Art history: the Shroud fits into art history as part of a genre of artistic depictions and recreations of burial cloths of Christ;
Style: the image upon the shroud looks like a manufactured illustration consistent with 14th century religious iconography, not like a real human being;
Circumstance: a 14th century Catholic bishop determined that the Shroud was a “cunningly painted” fraud—and discovered the artist who confessed to creating it;
Chemistry: the Shroud contains red ochre and other paint pigments;
Radiometric dating: carbon-14 dating tests showed in 1988 that the Shroud was likely created between 1260 and 1390 CE. In 2008, the hypothesis that this date was distorted by carbon monoxide contamination was tested—and results of the original tests confirmed.
Overturning the robustly supported conclusion that the Shroud was manufactured by a medieval artist would take extraordinary levels of evidence in favor of some alternate explanation. The current media hype carries no such breakthrough news. The opposite is true, in fact: the Italian researchers concede (as quoted by Vatican Insider) that their “inability to repeat (and therefore falsify) the image on the Shroud makes it impossible to formulate a reliable hypothesis on how the impression was made.”
Hollywood Reporter: Church of Scientology Slams Nude Tom Cruise "Publicity Stunt"
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nude-tom-cruise-scientology-slams-812246
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
by Katie Wilson Berg 7/30/2015 1:23pm PDT
The "Shroud of Scientology" exists "as a document of Tom Cruise's faith in Scientology — a photo negative of the radiance of his soul," said the artist.
The Church of Scientology is distancing itself from an art exhibit purporting to be Scientology-related that features an image of a nude, well-endowed Tom Cruise.
"The Church has nothing to do with this publicity stunt, and any claim to the contrary is false," church spokesperson Karin Pouw tells The Hollywood Reporter.
The exhibit, scheduled to open on Aug. 8th at the Corey Allen Contemporary Art gallery in St. Petersburg, FL, was announced Wednesday via press release.
In celebration of Tom Cruise's 25th anniversary as a Scientologist, the release says, a "nude shroud of the actor" will be unveiled in a "Pop-Up Church of Scientology" at the gallery, which is located near the church's headquarters in Clearwater Florida. The image was created by artist Daniel Edwards.
Neither Corey Allen, founder of the gallery, nor Edwards is a Scientologist. Allen tells THR that they had "sought sanction for the exhibit from the church but had not received a response."
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *