Replies

"I thrink the shroud has been thoroughly debunked."

No, it hasn't. As a friend of the leader of the original STURP research team and as one who has posted a couple of lengthy threads here on his briefings, I think I'm qualified to talk about it a bit more.

I was hoping you would spot this thread....you posted one two or three years ago after attending a presentation......I remember the discussion that followed. It is good to think about this on Good Friday.

Is there any information from shroud supporters about the issue of the proportions of the body? I always feel that one of the strongest arguments against the shroud is not the carbon dating (a dubious science) but the claims that the head is too small for the body, and seems to be a separate image floating above the neck, which is not depicted. The fingers also seem elongated, and the way that the arms rest is not right for a corpse. Also, the way that the back and front images are linked, gives no space for the top of the head. The way that the hair flows on the sides of the elongated face indicate a standing, not lying, figure.

On the other side, I feel that the strongest argument in favor of its authenticity is that the wrists, not the hands, are pierced, and also that the body is naked, rather than covered with a lioncloth. These details are authentic to cruxifiction, but not seen in art works.