To say it’s a fake without any idea of HOW it could be faked is simply denial.
Thus far, no one has any idea how the image could have been faked.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Shroud of Turin PBS “Secrets of the Dead” Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud You need to read more carefully, because on page 500-501 the authors state: “It should be noted that the image of the face, bs, is found in the same position as the corresponding one on the front, in all its detail, and on the same scale, with non-detectable relative rotation within the range of measurement uncertainty (3% for the scale factor, 3 degrees for relative rotations).”In other words, no significant difference in image position with respect to front and back surfaces. I guess you don’t want readers to see that your sources are an article that was written in 1908 and copyrighted in 1912, since superceded in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1968 (still outdated but nowhere nearly as biased as the one YOU like to cite).
And that the other is to Joe Nickell, Ph D in Art and English, no science to his name, a professional “debunker” with a book to sell… Amusing that the “credulous” shroudie is the one providing technical analysis and scientific documentation, and the “realist” debunker must make do with sarcasm, innuendo and intentionally ignoring established facts…I would have said that it is extremely easy to make a fake with these features, since by the 21st c.
In my opinion it reinforces the already clear proof that the carbon 14 testing in 1988 was completely erroneous.
It clearly eliminates the polemics of medieval paintings, da Vinci conspiracies, proto-photography and other silly concocted theories being bantered about by those skeptical of Christianity.
Sorry, shroudie, I keep forgetting that one should assume a miraculous, supernatural theory is true, then work backwards to prove it’s validity by ignoring or discrediting those nasty secular humanist scientific techniques and inconvenient historical records.
But we minions of Satan are always planting those nasty doubts to test the faithful. I have to go plant some more dinosaur bones to plague the creation science folks!
Fanti’s words are clear: “It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features.”In fact, the skunkworks group has been working with the double superficiality of the images for some time now.
It is superficial to the topmost crown fibers on both sides of the cloth.
There are no visible concentrations of paint on the Shroud. Shroudie What I find funny is that any scientist who looks at the evidence and says, “Nah, it’s a fake,” will be hysterically described as being in hysterical denial.
If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, how is it that this piece of cloth survived the grave and was not ravaged by decomposition products? I suggest alternatively reading the stories in any of the various newspapers or for a clear concise explanation read first Chemistry of the Image and then Explanation of the Backside Image. 2014: It is my opinion that this is near-definitive evidence that the Shroud is genuine. No one has come up with anything remotely capable of explaining how a painter from the Middle Ages could have faked this kind of double image, or that needed this kind of enhancement to see.
From the extract: “Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a man. The other remarkable features of the shroud were sufficient IMHO, but this seems to seal the case.