[aruanan]

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.

[firewalk]

.

[Swordmaker]

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.

Joe Nickell repeats his mantra from 1998... ignoring any scholarship and research done since. He can just sweep scientific findings under the carpet by declaring them "psuedoscience" performed by "believers."

Some Freepers do the same thing, hanging their arguments on long disproved "science" such as Dr. McCrone's ludicrous claim that the Shroud image is merely "tempera paint" ignoring much more sophisticated tests that categorically prove his assertion wrong,

Others are convinced their English language Bible's words (and their understanding of their meanings) are proof of the original writers actual words despite clear presentations of the original meanings, derivations, and comparative usages showing just exactly the opposite.

Nickell participates in all of that and more.

[Junior]

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.

Actually, that isn't what it is at all. I'm Catholic. I'd like to believe the shroud is genuine. However, I'm also rational enough to relize there may be other explanations to account for the image. I don't just toss out scientific explanations because they happen to interfere with my belief, and that's what I'm seeing with the skeptics here. We can't just say, "this is the image of Jesus Christ. Case closed" because there is strong evidence (not overwhelming, mind you, but very strong) that this is actually a more recent portrayal. Following those lines of evidence is not an indication the followers are trying to debunk the shroud -- they might merely want to discount that particular line of reasoning.

Think of how the Catholic Church investigates the purported miracles of saints, or purported demonic possessions. All efforts are made to research the situation thoroughly before rendering a yay or nay.