By the way, Cambric is a form of cotton that was developed in 16th Century France... and was not at all available in the First Century.
thank you for your replies. I appreciate this give and take very much.
When did Chiara Vigo say that it was cambric? In Paul Badde’s article in Die Welt translated for Inside the Vatican she is shown as having accompanied Badde to Manoppello in 2004 and as having said that the fabric of the Holy Face is marine byssus.
the expert in the article responding to Falcinelli is not Fr. Cuccinelli but Fr. Pfeiffer. Fr. Pfeiffer, although not a scientist, is one of the world’s leading experts on the history of art.
Falcinelli’s argument that the Holy Face is a Renaissance work of art seems to be based largely on the reference to the painting in Vasari’s book, and Falcinelli’s own judgment that the Holy Face is similar to the artist’s face. To me this is purely coincidental and subjective argumentation, and does not reach the level of Fr. Pfeiffer’s research or argumentation.
Has anyone positively refuted Fr. Pfeiffer’s assertion that the image of the Holy Face can be superimposed on the face on the Shroud of Turin.
how to explain that the image is perfectly worked on both sides of the fabric? Has anyone produced such a work of art?
On what part of the fabric of the Holy Face is the enlargement that you posted taken from?
It should be noted that many photographs which have been taken of the Holy Face are quite different in aspect than the one which was posted.
See for example http://www.voltosanto.it/Italiano/dettagliogalleria.php?x1=3
A google image search for Holy Face of Manoppello will also supply many others even different from this website’s and different from the one which you posted. In any case I don’t think it would be possible to make certain judgements based on photographs.
Thank you again for your pursuit of the truth.