[orionblamblam]

> In an undemanding age when any sliver of wood might pass as a piece of the true cross, and any bramble as part of the crown of thorns, it is a bit hard to imagine why an artist would go to such extraordinary lengths with a clear (and very stinky) solution.

Not when the fake is to be delivered to the Pope. And not in an age when people such as Da Vinci were running around creating an artistic Rennaissance, and tryign to mess with the system...

> I wonder why he did it as a negative image.

Why not? And probably... because it's easier to stain a white sheet darker than it is to stain it lighter.

[shroudie]

Actually, I have no need to prove a miracle. Did you really read what I said. Nor do I have a need to prove that the Shroud is authentic. The evidence favors authenticity. There is no realistic evidence to the contrary. The carbon 14 testing has been discredited Carbon 14. The evidence for a chemical image (by whatever means) is clear Chemistry of the image. You can invent scenarios or conspiracy theories or whatever it is to defend you fundamentalism-of-another kind. I welcome, instead, open minds.

I am quite sure that it is, as I have said repeatedly, archelogically the Shroud of a 1st century crucifixion victim. I think the inference that it is Jesus is reasonable, in fact close to certain. Is there a miracle involved in the Shroud. In a sense, I think so. But I'm not sure what it is.

Do I believe in miracles? Yes. I once did not. Do I believe that Jesus is the Christ? Yes, I do. That he was resurrected? Yes, I do. Does the Shroud affect my faith? No, but I find it wonderfully mysterious and inspiring.

Am I willing to investigate and think about things? Sure, and the science of the Shroud is compelling as is the history; least to people who are open minded.

The point of this thread has been to understand and discuss the second image on the Shroud. It lends credence to the idea that the Shroud is authentic.

Now your understanding of negatives is a bit faulty. It really doesn't make sense that a positive image must be whiter, as you suggest. How do you explain that to every artist who has ever started with a white canvas. Come on blam blam, do some thinking before you type. Shroudie