Fourteen key points from the case file. For each one, say what you think. As you answer, you will see which side is winning for you, and the strongest argument against each point.
The strongest argument against authenticity
Points to a medieval origin
The 1988 carbon dating is right: the linen was made between about 1260 and 1390.
The strongest argument against this
The best reply is not that the method is wrong but that the sample may not represent the whole cloth. Only one strip from one corner was sampled, and later statistical work found the 12 results are not homogeneous and show a trend along the strip. Even the authors of those reanalyses say this does not prove an ancient date; it only weakens the 'conclusive' label and calls for a new, well-designed test.
No one has made an image with all of its features, and no other burial cloth carries one like it.
The strongest argument against this
Superficial yellowing is not unique: Garlaschelli's acid-pigment rubbing and Nickell's dust rubbing also give top-fibre colour after ageing and washing. 'Not yet reproduced' is a gap in knowledge, not evidence for a burial. Many real medieval objects resist exact reproduction.
The 1988 results disagree with each other too much to settle the question.
The strongest argument against this
Heterogeneity tells you the error bars were too small, not that the cloth is 1,300 years older. The corrections these authors propose are tens of years to under a century, which still leaves a medieval date. Casabianca et al. state that their results do not rule out the medieval hypothesis.
The cloth has no secure history before the 1350s, which suggests it was made then.
The strongest argument against this
The silence is real. The possible earlier traces (Edessa, Pray Codex, de Clari, Templars) are all hypotheses. The only fair reply is that a relic hidden, folded or renamed could leave an ambiguous record, which is possible but unproven.
The image is not made of paint, dye or any binder.
The strongest argument against this
McCrone was a world-class microscopist with no religious stake, and his pigment-to-image correlation is exactly what a painting predicts. Painted relic copies, touched to the original, could not explain a pattern concentrated on image areas.
The bishop who called it a painting in 1389, and a leading scholar of the time, were right.
The strongest argument against this
Both surviving texts are unsigned, undated drafts; no sent copy exists in the Vatican archives and the pope never cited it. The investigation it mentions has left no record, and d'Arcis arrived in Troyes in 1373 and relied on reports from 34 years earlier. STURP found no paint. These weaken the memo but do not refute it.
The image works like a photographic negative, which no medieval artist had a reason to make.
The strongest argument against this
Any image made by contact or rubbing onto a raised surface is naturally a 'quasi-negative,' because high points darken. Nickell and Garlaschelli both produced negative-like images with medieval-available methods. The blood marks are positive, not negative, so the 'negative' is not a photograph.
The image fits a low relief, a shallow carving, better than a real body.
The strongest argument against this
The Turin centre (CISS) said the orthogonal look has been known since Vignon's 1902 studies and that STURP-era work had already excluded rubbing over or heating a bas-relief, because those leave pigment, scorch fluorescence or plateau-like contact patterns. Casabianca, Marinelli and Piana published a rebuttal in the same journal (reported February 2026), citing a front-only model, a 180 cm body, cotton instead of linen, and no treatment of the blood or image depth. Note that even skeptic Nicolotti said the study adds nothing new. The orthogonal geometry is real; the open question is what process, on either a body or a relief, made it.
The shading of the image records distance from a body, like a 3D map.
The strongest argument against this
Any image whose darkness depends on height above a surface, such as a rubbing over a low relief, will also give plausible 3D output. The correlation rests on 13 points and a hand-built body model, and its confidence interval is very wide. Moraes (2025) and Nicolotti stress that the image is a near-orthogonal projection, which a low relief explains naturally.
Medieval methods can make an image close enough to explain the Shroud.
The strongest argument against this
Garlaschelli himself lists what he did not reproduce: blood and scourge marks were brushed on, hair painted, limbs distorted by body rubbing, and natural ageing not simulated. Heimburger (2009) found colour varying within threads rather than uniform fibre colour, and plateau-like 3D output (about 60% saturated pixels versus 23% for the Shroud face in a similar test). No replica yet has blood with no image beneath it.
These are 1970s-80s presumptive tests by researchers sympathetic to authenticity. As of 2025, it has not been shown by modern methods that the blood is human or even primate. And real blood proves nothing about age: a medieval forger could use real blood.
The blood flows do not fit one body position, as if an artist placed them.
The strongest argument against this
A crucified man shifts position repeatedly, and Bucklin noted two rivulets at the left wrist that already imply movement. The study used one volunteer and fresh blood, not clotted post-mortem blood and serum on a moved corpse. Even so, the back 'belt' is a real puzzle the site should acknowledge.
The wounds match a real Roman crucifixion, including details the Gospels never mention.
The strongest argument against this
The pathologists most cited are believers or sympathetic, and they disagree on basic points (palm or wrist, asphyxia or shock). A knowledgeable medieval artist working from the Gospels could include the same set of wounds. Medical plausibility shows skill, not age.
A drawing in the Pray Codex, from about 1192, shows this cloth before the carbon date.
The strongest argument against this
Rinaldi and Casabianca (2021) argue the 'cloth' is a rectangular tombstone like those in other images, the circles are decoration also found on the angel's wing and clothing, and the drawn cloth bears no body image. The resemblances are selected after the fact.
If God wanted to force belief, he could. A sign that left no room for doubt would also leave no room to choose. The Shroud does something quieter: it gives a serious mind enough to take the question seriously, and leaves the last step to you.
The Truthly video we checked ends on this idea, and we think it is the right place to end. Thomas got to see the marks. The answer he received was about everyone who comes after him.
Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.