Shroud of Turin more legit after research?

[Minimalist]

Funny.  People in the 14th century had no such problem.

https://www.livescience.com/9740-shroud-...loser.html

There's another very good reason to suspect that the Shroud of Turin is a fake: the forger admitted it. As Joe Nickell, author of "Relics of the Christ," noted, a document by "Bishop Pierre d'Arcis claimed that the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who painted it.'" Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in 1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery. (The Catholic Church does not officially endorse the shroud as authentic.)

Now none of this will stop an idiot who wants to believe in miracles but for sane people it is sufficient.


https://www.skeptical-science.com/religi...lly-jesus/

You have folks who have a specific religious agenda and so will never accept that it is what it actually is (a medieval forgery), and will often not only promote criticism of the radiocarbon dating without pointing out that such criticism itself does not withstand any critical analysis.
There is a great deal more, I’ve only scratched the surface, so if curious, then the Wikipedia page covers rather a lot more.
The TL;DR; version is that there is no robust evidence that the Shroud of Turin is 1st century, but instead there is an un-refuted clear decisive radiocarbon dating that nails it as medieval.

We already know what you are, Chad.