Not that it ultimately matters, but….

I’ve always thought the Shroud was genuine:

turns out the 1988 tests were probably botched (and, I suspect, the guy in charge of the tests had an agenda).

What always cracks me up about critics of the Shroud is the big thing they never say: how it was done if it’s a fraud. Typically what happens is they point to the dating and say “It’s a medieval forgery” but neglect to give any explanation of how the forgery was achieved since *nobody can reproduce the Shroud*. However, a culture of atheist materialism on steroids has its own need for iconography that supports its religious feelings about the gods of time, space, matter and energy. So that “medieval forgery” trope simply gets passed around while the question “How was it forged?” is religiously avoided.

Now, all the above video does is show the dating of the shroud in 1988 is likely screwy. It doesn’t (and can’t) show the Shroud is, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus. But I tend to think that if it walks like a duck…