Replies

I've been studying the Shroud scholarship and the science attached to it for 44 years.

And you still believe it to be a holy relic? You've wasted your time. It is an artifact made by a human ingenuity that has yet to be explained.

All too often when humanity runs into something it can't explain, it is interpreted as being godlike. The Shroud is a good example. "The guy looks like Jesus, we can't discover how it was made, ergo it is a miracle." Please.

The "nuclear flash" is just one of the lunacies the Shroudies put forth.

Haven't heard much about that after the "hinged effect" was pointed out,destroying the idea it was a burial shroud.

That "water stain" looks suspiciously like the remains of the head, backing up the hinged opinion.

Nice try. You stick to your "scientific" theories and I'll stick to my (sneeringly, according to you) "popular delusions".

That "water stain" looks suspiciously like the remains of the head, backing up the hinged opinion.

What "hinged effect" there is a good six to seven inches between the two images, unless the man on the Shroud is a cone head. Did you ever study anatomy? The heads are NOT butted together. That exists only in Joe Nickell's and other skeptic's imaginations. Here I will show you on your own example:

The dark blue lines are the tops of the shoulders of both the dorsal and frontal images. Light blue lines are the crowns of the dorsal and frontal images' heads. I've circled the face of the front face, outlining where the skull and maxilla would be, excluding the hair and beard. Using the same oval from the face, i've move a copy and oriented it with the dorsal image crown of the head, and then altered it for the rounder shape of the rear of the skull. Note the HUGE gap between the two head images. There is no hinge effect.

The water stain IS a water stain from the fire of 1532 and is well documented and is matched by the water stains to either edge of similar shape. Look you will see them.

Nice try. You stick to your "scientific" theories and I'll stick to my (sneeringly, according to you) "popular delusions".

Another example of the techniques used by the desperate skeptics: misquoting what their opponents say and calling them lunatics. I did not say "popular delusions." The skeptics are not popular. The merely make there false claims in the popular press, not in peer-reviewed scientific journals.