[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

This accounts for the image being only on the surface and the almost photographic nature of the image.

That's the first time I've heard that. I guess I always thought that the image and markings were the same on both sides.

It just deepens my belief that the shroud is a photographic negative of some kind -- a beautiful elaborate hoax.

[aruanan]

It just deepens my belief that the shroud is a photographic negative of some kind -- a beautiful elaborate hoax.

Your talk about the shroud being a photographic negative is anachronistic in much the same way that someone claims a coin is ancient whose date reads 27 B.C..

[Swordmaker]

It just deepens my belief that the shroud is a photographic negative of some kind -- a beautiful elaborate hoax.

Your logic does not flow... why, if it is a photographic negative does that provide you with MORE proof that it is a hoax?

The knowledge that the Shroud appears to be a "photographic negative" is one of items hardest to explain and most difficult to understand how it could have been created given the state of art at the time frame a hoax could have been perpetrated.