[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?

[shroudie]

You asked if it was possible that the image was but " light passing through the cloth"? That is an excellent question and I will attempt to get an answer for you. It may take a few days. GOOD QUESTION.

I do know that the photographs were technical scientific documenting photographs. And I do doubt that his work would have passed the muster of peer review without this having been considered carefully. And I do know that Fanti is a prominent scientist who would certainly have considered the question.

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

That is an accurate quote. That was in 1978. The Holland cloth backing was attached and STURP was given permission to open a small side area of about three or four inches. They probed with a surgical light and could only see a few inches in to about the edge of where an image would be expected. There was no obvious image. And even with the backing cloth removed in 2002, the image was not obvious until photographed and then not clearly identifyable until enhanced.

One more point. The image is so superficial that when vibible or UV light is projected through the cloth the image does not shine through the translucent cellulose fiber. Keep in mind that the image is extraordinarily faint, superficial to a single fiber layer, and contained in a carbohydrate layer that is 180 to 600 nanometers thick (the wave length range of light).

But it is a good question. Keep tuned.

Shroudie