Replies

This virtually eliminates painting, proto-photography, and any yet-so-far imagined hoax theory.

No, it doesn't. For example the hoaxer/artist/whatever could have used what is now the "back" side of the cloth during one of his earlier imaging attempts, which didn't work well and left only a faint impression. Later after refining his techniques he succeeded more to his liking on the other side.

I'm constantly amazed at how credulous shroud believers can be, declaring "this proves it, no other explanation is possible!" at every little observation.

With 100% percent alignment? Remember, we are talking about a discovery appearing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which requires absolute confirmation of the methodology (though not necessarily the conclusions) that completely adheres to strict scientific methodology.

I never said, "this proves it." Nor has Fanti, nor have any of the responsible researchers that I know of. Can you provide a quote to support your claim? I would love to challenge that person.

And check out:

http://shroudstory.com/faq-chemistry.htm

Shroudie

Alright, we know several things.

1. It comes from the period of Jesus.
2. It comes from the area Jesus came from.
3. If it is a fake, it is an incredibly good one.

There is a dead man on this shroud. It may not be Jesus, but somebody is on there with an incredible skill if it is simply painted on (IIRC there was blood on it even...maybe wrong here....but if so, how could somebody just have painted a guy on there...come on.)

I am constantly amazed at how much shroud disbelievers will go to try to disprove it despite the evidence.

I am not saying it is the burial shroud of Jesus. What I am saying is that it would be the forgery of the millennium, so skilled that it would be hard to imagine a person of the first century doing it.

No, it doesn't. For example the hoaxer/artist/whatever could have used what is now the "back" side of the cloth during one of his earlier imaging attempts, which didn't work well and left only a faint impression. Later after refining his techniques he succeeded more to his liking on the other side.

The test for this would be: Does the back side image have perfect registration (as in printing to assure exact matches between colors) with the front side image? If it does, it is extremely unlikely the "forger" would have gone to the trouble of reversing his image and finding a way to "register" the images to perfection.

No, it doesn't. For example the hoaxer/artist/whatever could have used what is now the "back" side of the cloth during one of his earlier imaging attempts, which didn't work well and left only a faint impression. Later after refining his techniques he succeeded more to his liking on the other side.

I'm constantly amazed at how credulous shroud believers can be, declaring "this proves it, no other explanation is possible!" at every little observation.

What I'm amazed by is the way some people have assumed that the phenomenon couldn't possibly be what it's purported to be and then content themselves with a degree of facile debunking that's shocking in its lack of rigor. But it's another example of the way belief generally works (and I'm not speaking about specifically religious belief)--people operate on the basis of an idea or image of the way they think things are--if experience doesn't contradict the belief, the belief is maintained. If even the most minimal similarities with the belief in experience are noted, they are used to reinforce the belief. If someone feels it to his advantage to discount something that threatens the belief, he never gets any more rigorous than he needs to in order to dismiss the challenge as something innocuous or at least irrelevant.