Colin Berry in his blog tells us that Thibault Heimburger is correct – Shroud photomicrographs lend no support to the notion of a ‘stochastic’ imaging mechanism. Colin writes:
So where does Thibault Heimburger MD, Paris-based French physician and member of the Shroud Science Group enter this story? Some might be surprised to find his views being favourably received on this site, given there is so much on which we differ, notably the contact scorch hypothesis (one that TH rejects). But that does not mean he’s wrong – or right- on everything, far from it, as my follow-up to a recent comment on his on shroudstory.com will now show.
TH appeared on the recent thread, the latter flagging up the presence of a Fazio et al paper recently published in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. He queried the claim (or supposition?) that yellowed fibres were randomly distributed across Shroud image-bearing regions, stating that they could appear together in bundles . . . . Were that correct, it would deal a devastating blow to any theory that required the coloured fibres to be randomly distributed (though occasional clumping is not totally ruled out, albeit being of low expected frequency).
You are going to want to read Colin’s posting. Now we just need to hear from Thibault.
Note about the image: The above image is ME-29, a 64x photomicrograph of a part of the nose area by Mark Evans. CLICK HERE or on the picture to enlarge it to 1088 by 770. Because I am hot-linking to the image as it is stored in Colin’s blog, it appears as a properly proportioned rectangle. For some reason it has been distorted into a 320 by 320 square in Colin’s blog (not that this seems to make any difference for the purpose at hand). According to the shroud.com gallery of images, the original size is 2940 by 1984.