False. Expert forensic pathologists, not amateur skeptics who have only measured flat photographs and came up with those extreme measurements by "guessing depths", have determined that the image is correctly sized for a man approximately 5' 9"- 10" tall, that is bent slightly forward in rigor mortis. This has been confirmed in several peer reviewed journals and papers. Your figure was publish in NO peer reviewed journal and was reported only in one skeptical magazine... and has no basis in actual research. The SCIENTISTS put their names and reputations on the line in published articles in peer reviewed MEDICAL JOURNALS... the skeptics published in popular press magazines, or their own skeptical journals and congratulated themselves on showing up those stupid scientists!
The head is too small for the body and appears to have been “pasted” on (large separation line at neck)
Also false. Same as above... The head is only too small if you use the absurd 6' 10:" calculated height. The pasted on claim is solely based on the appearance of a pleated fold in the cloth running across the neck that is an artifact of early black and white photographs and wishful think on the part of skeptics. Without the distortion of the false height, the head is perfectly proportional. with the given body size.
If the shroud was draped around the body head-to-toe, why isn’t the top of the head shown. The intervening space is too short and the images appear hinged.
Also false... there is approximately five inches of space separating the dorsal and frontal images at the head. In addition, the jaw was kept closed by a cloth wrapped over the head and under the jaw, tied at the crown, thus obscuring any image that may have formed... this was the cloth wrapped "around the face." No one else, other than the single skeptical magazine report has ever claimed this "hinged effect" as the space is obvious to other observers. It is a red herring. What the skeptics claimed is the top of the dorsal head is merely a water stain.
Had they bothered to look at a photograph of the entire shroud stretched out, instead of just the frontal image, and drawn a few lines, say, some through where the ear line would have gone appropriately above the shoulders on both the frontal and dorsal images, it becomes obvious where the crowns of both images' heads would be... and the spacing becomes obvious. But, the skeptics NEVER let facts like those get in the way of a good debunking theory.
The real miracle is that it appears to be the world’s first photograph. Capturing images was widely known even in Roman times, but the image soon faded. Someone found out how to “set” the image.
This one is a complete lie. No historian has EVER come up with a report of captured images from Roman antiquity! Camera obscuras were known but capturing images was NOT a technique that anyone ever accomplished. . . that was reported on. The image on the Shroud is NOT any known photographic technique... it not at all an artifact of light.In fact it is a not a photograph at all, which is a shadow record, because it shows absolutely NO light directionality in the data.
The Shroud is rather a three dimensional terrain map of the body over which the shroud was draped. In other words it is an inverse, two dimensional database of the distance the surface of the cloth was from the body. The image is most intense when touching the body, but fades to nothingness at approximately 5 centimeters distance from the body... AND the data is collimated straight up and down, with absolutely no observable side to side variation!
Ergo your claim about "someone found out how to set" a nonexistent ancient photograph is so much twaddle. . .made up by a desperate skeptic, ignorant of the science because he refused to accept that "shroudies," all of whom were world renowned experts in their fields, could possibly do good science, even though he himself was merely a failed magician who's college degree was in English Literature!
So much for the "debunking" crowd... who wouldn't know good science if it bit them on the arse!
IT is, in fact a very miraculous object... whether in religion or art or science. If it is NOT the burial shroud of the son of God, then it is even more miraculous in that it was created with techniques that modern science cannot discern, divine, or even duplicate seven hundred or more years after the latest possible known creation date of this remarkable artifact, if it is indeed an object of artifice. . . and there is credible evidence that it was in existence at least eleven hundred years ago!