[Book buff]

But we must not fall into the trap of asserting that there cannot be a non-human intelligence that guided nature to make the image.

I'm not yet prepared to make any assertions on that issue one way or the other with respect to the shroud.

Wilson's theory is as yet very new, and so far many of the objections raised to it are not strong enough to discard the theory until all the possibilities have been thoroughly examined. Once that has been done there may be a completely naturalistic forgery explanation with a probability much higher than the near-zero probability of the Maillard theory in its current form. Or not. Time will tell.

If the Wilson theory is discarded at this stage based on the weaknesses presented so far, then I would suggest that the authenticity arguments (based on the Maillard theory) are just as weak and could also be discarded.

[Swordmaker]

Wilson's theory is as yet very new, and so far many of the objections raised to it are not strong enough to discard the theory until all the possibilities have been thoroughly examined.

But the results of Wilson's technique is not in accord with what is observed on the Shroud.

Wilson's novel theory claims that the shroud image is merely un-sunbleached linen. If Wilson's theory is true, the that is what we would find when we look at the shroud - image iareas are unbleached linen, while the non-image areas are sun bleached. That is not the case ... and in no way do the two images compare at the microscopic level. Ergo, his theory must be discarded as an interesting way to duplicate a few of the features of the Shroud, but not many other features... just as Joe Nickell's red-ocher daubing of a statue produced a plausable 3D image and photonegativity but did so by putting visible pigments on the shroud. Microscopic comparisons show the differences - glaring differences.