[shroudie]

It is my opinion that this is near-definative evidence that the Shroud is genuine.

[EternalHope]

It is my opinion that this is near-definitive evidence that the Shroud is genuine.

Agreed.

No one has come up with anything remotely capable of explaining how a painter from the Middle Ages could have faked this kind of double image, or that needed this kind of enhancement to see. The other remarkable features of the shroud were sufficient IMHO, but this seems to seal the case.

However, I expect to see near hysterical denials that it is of Jesus Christ. Such a thing would have implications that are simply unacceptable to many people.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Good find. The nice thing about IoP is that you can download the journal articles at no charge for 30 days from the date of publication (beyond that you'll have pay a hefty fee for the download).

[LandOfLincolnGOP]

I'm not a physicist, but as I read the original article, I think it's relatively neutral as to whether or not the shroud is genuine. One interesting thing it does highlight, however, is that this image analysis discovered differences between the front and back side images that seem to suggest they do not correspond with one another very closely. If anything, I would think that would cast additional doubt on the shroud.

But again, I'm not a physicist...

[JaguarXKE]

It has been recently discoved that there are also two faces on the shroud of Kerry.

Jag

[Swordmaker]

Shroud of Turin PING!

If you want to be included or deleted from the Shroud of Turin Ping List, please Freepmail me.

Swordmaker

[plain talk]

The lengths to which atheists and agnostics will go to deny that this is Christ is laughable. If the image is on both sides, then that is compelling evidence. I'm anxious to see what comes of this.