Here’s screen grab from a pdf of the photomicrograph in the splendid 2010 Fanti et al paper on the microscopic versus macroscopic aspects of the Shroud image. It’s Fig.7, the one that provides the visual evidence of those discontinuities and striations – invariably mentioned if one claims to have duplicated the main macroscopic aspects of the Shroud image (negative character, lacking directionality, 3D-enhancible etc). Yes, they say, but what about the striations, what about the discontinuities? Well, yes indeed, what about them? The trouble is that I can’t really see them in the pictures supplied. Sure, I could try enlarging, but am reluctant/loath to do that for fear of seeing everything de-resolve into a fuzzy blur, and in any case screen grabs from pdf documents are surely not the stuff of research investigations.
Note carefully the provenance of the pictures.
I shall now compose a comment for a recent posting that appeared on Dan Porter’s shroudstory.com site, the one that pays tribute to Barrie Schwortz’s Shroud photography. I shall ask politely if the folk who introduced us to “striations” and “discontinuities” were forced to base it on what you see above, or whether they had access to better pix, of higher magnification and resolution. If the latter, are they in the public domain, or are they still the private and/or copyright-protected property of STURP/Barrie Schwortz/Mark Evans estate/STERA/the Vatican (delete as appropriate).
First comment (mine) to Dan Porter’s posting:
More later, if there’s interesting feedback (but that “anonymous” who followed my comment, and who bangs on incessantly about the need to defer unquestioningly to the individuals he names as “experts”, notably the technically-proficient but demonstrably non-infallible Raymond N.Rogers RIP, does not IMHO constitute interesting feedback.).