IMO, the Shroud is like Greek Fire or Damascus Steel. Ancient marvels that we can't replicate, except we just found out about the latter.
In regards to that last, no one could recreate Damascus Steel until one guy made and error and Voila! we had it. It seems everybody else was using modern metals which were a lot purer than those in the old days. This guy used impure iron, and everything fell into place.
So it is with the Shroud. It's the world's first photograph, 400 years before Daguerreotype. Some guy figured out how to fix an image, which was unknown then. Capturing an image on sensitive fabric was known since Roman times but it soon faded. After the Shroud, the technique was lost until the 1830's.
There's enough anomalies to make one question it's authenticity - a burial shroud would have left a gap or an image of the top of the head instead of the hinged effect. The head appears anatomically smaller than usual, plus it looks like it was added on separately (neck cut).
There's even a claim that the front and back differ in length (for example).
I can't find the specifics that even agree that the length was the same, but if not, then we have a true miracle - Christ was longer in the back than he was on the front.
So it is with the Shroud. It's the world's first photograph, 400 years before Daguerreotype. Some guy figured out how to fix an image, which was unknown then. Capturing an image on sensitive fabric was known since Roman times but it soon faded. After the Shroud, the technique was lost until the 1830's. No, Sorry Oatka. It is not a light artifact. If you followed the current science, we now know as a matter of fact, the image was NOT created by light, because there is a faint image of the face on the back-side of the cloth, but NOT in the cloth between the front and back where light would have had to have penetrated. Light does not create, nor can it create, the data on the Shroud that encodes the quasi 3 dimensional terrain map of distance from the body to the cloth that fades with distance to nothing at about 5 to 7 centimeters. No known photograph quite replicates that kind of data or 3D appearance. There is no known modality that will do that to the accuracy the Shroud has.
In addition, there is radiological component to the image in that the fingers appear elongated because the image shows the carpal bones inside the hand. . . and the teeth in the mouth, as well as the orbits of the skull around the eyes. No known photographic means using light will do that.
There are no light shadow artifacting present in the Shroud image.
There is no chemical present on the shroud that acts as a fixative, nor a photo emulsion substrate. This has been tested down to Electro-microscopic levels. . . and using Micro-Xray-Spectrometry so sensitive it was able to tell the composition of the vinyl baggies the thread samples were placed in before being put in the test equipment, so sensitive, they could analyze WHO made the baggies by their composition.
Since there was no pigments, no photo-reactive chemicals, no-fixatives, and no photo-reactive residue which would be present if the image WERE a photograph, it CANNOT be a photographic artifact, nor can it be a painting, daubing, or any of those means of creation.
Your claim that "capturing an image on sensitive fabric was known since Roman times" is FALSE and there is no such proof of that claim. Camera Obscurae existed since then, but NO, they didn't. They had no evidence except what they made up to prove their frauds. Don't repeat it.
There's enough anomalies to make one question it's authenticity - a burial shroud would have left a gap or an image of the top of the head instead of the hinged effect. The head appears anatomically smaller than usual, plus it looks like it was added on separately (neck cut).
The claim that there is a no gap at the top of the head is a canard. . . caused by critics who mistake a WATER STAIN for image. The claim that the head is too small is amusing. . . because other critics claim the head is too large. . . or too detailed.
However detailed forensic examination has found no such anomalies, including any supposed difference in dorsal and frontal body lengths, when you account for the fact the body was in rigor mortis and not laying flat on a flat cloth, while the top had a sheet draped following contours down the length of the body, when adjusted for these differences, using a real cadaver, there was no differences. . . which was research done by forensics done by some of the top people in their fields of expertise and who publish their findings in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals, not AMATEURS working without expertise, such as you find on the skeptical sites who publish this twaddle.
Joe Nickel's degree, for example, is in English Literature, not any kind of science. One scientist you do have on the skeptic side is a GEOLOGIST. . . he deigns to challenge world class scientists working in their fields of expertise. . . where he has none.
I assure you that the Shroud of Turin is the single most scientifically researched object in the last 118 years. Your nit-picks have long been shot down with GOOD SCIENCE. . . in peer-reviewed journals, not the popular press.
There's even a claim that the front and back differ in length (for example). Your link is hilarious. . . measuring a THREE DIMENSIONAL PROJECTION IN TWO DIMENISIONS is self defeating, Oatka. . . Your link assumes that Jesus Christ of the Shroud lived in FLATLAND. ROTFLMAO!
Do you really think that measuring the distance from one side of this photo and the other side, which if you converted it to miles, is approximately 8000 miles, would ACTUALLY get you to the other side?
I maintain that if you started on the right side, you'd get wet when you stopped after your 8000 mile trek. . . and not be in South America. . . but somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.