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...
Much of the current thinking in the Shroud skunkworks is that the correspondance is within the tolerance ranges of gaseous diffusion of heavy amines. Other possibilities, without regard to miraculous causation, would include an ionizing radiation or corona discharge -- though some physicists have real problems with this.
The differences, such as the nose on the reverse side which doesn't show the same extension as the front, are probably completely due to chemical reaction differences, image inhibition by bloodstains, and diffusion of amine reactants if the catalyst or the reactant is gaseous.
I am not a physicist either, but I know what sort of scientist Fanti is and I know what sort of scientist Ray Roger, UCLA fellow and former head of the bomb explosives group for the Los Alamos Laboratory, is, and they agree emphatically that this rules out forgery or any form of artistic or crafty technique.
Fanti's words are clear: "It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features."
In fact, the skunkworks group has been working with the double superficiality of the images for some time now. It is hard to imagine how this could be mechanically or artistically produced.
posted on 04/13/2004 3:31:34 PM PDT
You need to read more carefully, because on page 500-501 the authors state:
"It should be noted that the image of the face, bs, is found in the same position as the corresponding one on the front, in all its detail, and on the same scale, with non-detectable relative rotation within the range of measurement uncertainty (3% for the scale factor, 3 degrees for relative rotations)."
In other words, no significant difference in image position with respect to front and back surfaces.
posted on 04/13/2004 4:12:32 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson