[shroudie]

Day by day the evidence is mounting that the Shroud is a genuine burial cloth of a first century Roman-style crucifixion victim and very likely the Jesus' shroud. That means that we very likely have a picture of Jesus.

Shroudie

[xrp]

Fascinating.

[Eala]

Shroudie, I've read your excellent site -- but this second image doesn't seem to fit any of the theories, including the miraculous (suspension of the strong force). I am puzzled...

[ken5050]

Did you see the PBS show a few days ago...It was most excellent..

[Swordmaker]

Shroud of Turin PING.

If you want to be included or deleted from the Shroud of Turin Ping list, please Freepmail me.

Swordmaker

[SiliconValleyGuy]

Thanks. Bookmarked for later read.

[Ichneumon]

'Lying behind the known image of the bearded man bearing the marks of crucifixion, the new image has striking three-dimensional quality and matches in form, size and position the known face.'

You claimed on another thread to have corresponded with Fanti, could you describe how he determined (or more importantly, *if* he determined) that there actually *is* an "image" on the reverse surface of the shroud?

This new article in the Sun-Times confirms what I surmised in the other thread: That Fanti did not examine the shroud himself but was only working from *photographs* made earlier of the shroud:

"The institute used photos from a restoration two years ago. However, enhancing did not uncover the full body image as on the front side."

Given that Fanti did not actually microscopically examine the reverse side of the shroud at all, he can't actually be sure that there *is* any discoloration (i.e. image) on that side.

Did he even consider the possibility that what he was seeing on the photographs might simply be a "visual bleedthrough" of the image on the front side of the cloth, since flax is semi-translucent?

Even in one of the sources you linked earlier in this therad, there is an example of a photograph of the reverse side of the shroud, in which the front-side image is partially visible due to light passing through the cloth, reflecting off the surface the shroud is lying (face-down) on, and returning back through the cloth to leave traces of the front-side image on the film. See Figure 3 in Rogers and Arnoldi. The caption reads, "the image is seen only as a result of background fluorescence". That is, the surface the shroud is lying on is itself glowing in the UV light and "projecting' the front-side image onto the back cloth in the photo. The same effect will occur when using bright ordinary light during photography.

On the same page you will find this passage:

"Several STURP members looked at the back surface of the Shroud, and there is no trace of an image on it."

Are you sure that Fanti actually found any image there at all? Or is he just seeing photographic "bleedthrough" of the front image?