Replies

The fact that multiple different approaches -- optical examination, mass-spectrophotometry, electron microscopy, 'wet-bench' chemical analysis, computer analysis, all converge to say that the image on the Shroud is not that of paint, that there are *real* bloodstains which do NOT comprise the image, that the image contains three-dimensional information not visible to the naked eye (and at that, not "National Treasure type pseudo-mythical hokum, but anatomical details) -- should indicate that the image is not merely a forgery.

All of which was reproduced by the French team in their forgery.

No, they weren't.

I'm going to Valleyfair with the kids all day, so I won't be able to respond in detail right now.

But your statement is quite literally point-by-point *wrong*.

The only explanation for such unwillingness to consider any of the points on this thread, is -- quite literally -- bigotry and stereotyping. "There go those gullible Christians again, blathering on about miraculous images. Let's go debunk it. See, here's an image we made by fakery. Therefore the Shroud is a fake. QED."

The only problem is, it is not being insisted by all those interested in the Shroud, that miracle had *anything* to do with it. There is a perfectly naturalistic mechanism for the formation of the image; and you need not even posit the Resurrection, since a theft of the body in order to further a conspiracy (as in Passover Plot) could separate the body from the linens.

The French were able to address some of the faults of prior attempts at forgery of an image on linen.

It can only explain in a hand-waving way "maybe if the image *were* a forgery, here's a guess as to how this kind of thing might have been done".

The French work is such that it does not pass any serious independent analysis -- it is fit only to deceive the easily-led. It does NOT mimic the actual physical and chemical characteristics of the Shroud as determined by rigorous scientific analysis.

So it doesn't even rise to the level of error. It is a mere non-sequitur.

Cheers!

All of which was reproduced by the French team in their forgery.

You are misrepresenting what the article claimed the French did.

The article you posted twice claims NONE of that. They claim they made a Shroud that "looks" like the original. They did not claim that they were able to reproduce any of what Gray=whiskers posted.

Where is the "French teams'" mass-spectrophotmetry showing no Ferrous Oxide? Where is their Electron Microscopy showing the image bearing coatings on the fibers? Where is the wet-bench chemical analysis? Where are the results of micro-chemistry? Where are the X-ray fluorescent studies? Where are the Human imuno-assay reports?

In fact, Soliton, where is the "French Teams'" peer reviewed article in a scientific journal?