Well His 3D image anyway.
Is that Him? I will look for Him in the future to see if it was.
Zilch commented: >> That's already been determined to be of medieval provenance. Very interesting to be sure, and very clever, but a fake.
You are only giving half the story. Now, I will give you the benefit of doubt to the facts that you may not have heard, but the Shroud is the real deal.
What you claim was the headlines all over the world but something was discovered and the original scientists agree with the finding that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point
This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.
From another study it says:
Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.
The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.
So please tell the whole story and do not propagate a story half told. This stands as another reason not to trust the science publishing of men. When found to be incorrect, the damage has already been done. The recanting is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.
The Shroud of Turin is the real deal.