home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18 / NN_1992_18.iso / spool / sci / skeptic / 14217 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-08-12  |  1.3 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
  2. From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
  3. Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
  4. Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
  5. Message-ID: <1992Aug13.034525.26523@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
  6. Date: 13 Aug 92 03:45:25 GMT
  7. References: <1992Aug10.031334.3916@newsroom.utas.edu.au> <1992Aug11.035024.5531@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Aug11.200800.20947@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
  8. Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
  9. Lines: 18
  10.  
  11. In article <1992Aug11.200800.20947@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
  12. >In article <1992Aug11.035024.5531@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
  13. >>Now that the Shroud has been shown to be 14th Cen., it now becomes a
  14. >>remarkable 14th centuary image instead of a remarkable 33 AD image.
  15. >>
  16. >>Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
  17. >>off the image reversal???
  18. >
  19. >Why do you ask?  Do you think there are none?
  20. >
  21. >And yes, I'm serious when I ask that.
  22. >
  23.  
  24. To get a thread going :-)
  25.  
  26.  
  27. But seriously, because I'm still waiting to find a reasonable theory.
  28. There's got to be one out there!
  29.