Replies

> you are restating the problems again. You seem to do this frequently:

Yes, those of us who have actual experience in the scientific method tend to do that when we don't get answers.

> It is an anomalous sample.

Basically... "says you."

> You ask us to choose between a fraud and a miracle. Why? Why? Why?

Because it can't be both. Because it can't be both. Because it can't be both.

> a significant possibility for image formation is a natural phenomenon

In this case, it would essentially be a "miracle." The likelihood of such an extremely unlikely occurance (can you point me to any incontrovertible death-shroud images formed by incontrovertibly natural phenomena?) happened to the *ONE* guy it is claimed to have happened to is staggeringly unlikely. It's far less likely than finding a fingerprint on a two-millenia-old clay pot and determining it to have definitely belonged to Pilate.

There are basically three possibilities:
1: It's a fraud.
2: It's an extremely bizarre natural phenomenon that happened to some random guy.
3: It's an extremely bizarre thing that happened to one *specific* and religiously important guy.

No matter how #3 happened, it would be easily argued as a miracle no matter how it happened.