home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
- From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
- Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
- Message-ID: <1992Aug15.082301.10916@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
- Date: 15 Aug 92 08:23:01 GMT
- References: <1992Aug11.200800.20947@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Aug13.034525.26523@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> <1992Aug13.043038.29341@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
- Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <1992Aug13.043038.29341@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
- >In article <1992Aug13.034525.26523@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
- >>>>Now that the Shroud has been shown to be 14th Cen., it now becomes a
- >>>>remarkable 14th centuary image instead of a remarkable 33 AD image.
- >>>>Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
- >>>>off the image reversal???
- >>>Why do you ask? Do you think there are none?
- >>To get a thread going :-)
- >>But seriously, because I'm still waiting to find a reasonable theory.
- >>There's got to be one out there!
- >
- >Would you mind clarifying?
- >
- >This could mean that you haven't looked at the subject much at all, and you
- >haven't seen most of the theories. Or it could mean you _have_ seen most of
- >the theories but think they have mistakes. So which theories have you already
- >seen?
-
- I've seen all the theories and they are all fragile.
-
- There could be some I've missed and there could be some new ones hot off the
- press.
-