To LFoD:
I looked at your links.
Funny, how the skeptics say the believers overlook the facts, yet in your links, your skeptics overlooked a few of their own.
We can throw experts at each other all day. Your skeptic says the head was too large for the body; other specialists say the figure on the Shroud is anatomically correct. Who's right? Your skeptic makes frequent mention of pigments and paint, yet the actual IMAGE has been determined to NOT be paint. Art analysis experts say there is no "signature" painting style. The image was "applied" (for want of a better word) completely perpendicular to the cloth. IRL, that ain't done, except in a technique using "dots" of paint. And this was "applied" as MICRODOTS, and there weren't any microscopes around in the 1300s.
There's quibbling about the blood not being real blood. Funny, though, for all the blood talk, there's also NO mention by the skeptics that the blood was placed on the Shroud, FIRST, and then the image. How could someone know exactly how to place two different angles of blood flow and blood from an incredible number of wounds, all shaped differently, without having the body on the cloth first?
Then the skeptic article is cluttered with the mention of images found in tortillas, tree trunks, rope burns, and whatnot. That's cluttering up the argument with irrelevant material. Those have nothing to do with the Shroud. As for the opinion by Dr McCrone, it has been rejected by other scientists as incomplete. Dr McCrone's work IS published, but HE paid to have it published himself. Hmmm.
Has it been disproved?
Depends on who you talk to. But make sure you look at BOTH sides of the issue.
Peace,
~VOW