Still haven't seen a halfway convincing atheist explanation for this, our actual literal photograph of Jesus Christ at the moment of His resurrection
The usual responses:
>it's a medieval forgery
Wrong. This was previously believed due to a flawed carbon dating done in 1988. There has since been x-ray dating that has confirmed it to be from the 1st century. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47
>uhh the projection is wrong, it shouldn't be straight on like that if the shroud was draped over him
I don't know why the projection is like that but how is that an argument for a naturalistic origin? Does it in any way begin to explain how humans in the 1st century(or at any point prior to the invention of photography) produced a photo negative of a man with Jesus's wounds? Not at all, that part is a mystery regardless of the nature of its origin.

>>17763609 (OP)
The blood looks laughably squiggled on

That's not how blood normally interacts with cloth

I feel bad for the people who need to believe in the shroud of Turin
Imagine being so insecure in your faith you need to look to hoaxes that don't even make sense

>>17763609 (OP)
It was previously believed to be a medieval forgery because actual medieval people said it was a forgery.

>>17763609 (OP)
Atheists will not convince you.
You will not convince atheists.

Now you can save time.

>>17763609 (OP)
>https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47
>he experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe.
Its not dating it to the 1st century, it is saying that is only possible it it was stored under certain ideal conditions for hundreds of years.
>This was previously believed due to a flawed carbon dating done in 1988.
The vast majority of researchers still trust those carbon dating tests.

>>17763609 (OP)
Now give me the explanation how you beat the extremely low priors that it is of the figure you claim it to be, and not anyone else- even if we grant that it's not a forgery.

>>17763609 (OP)
It's was done in the 12th century using a pinhole camera lens. They hung a dead body up and captured the image with silver nitrate on the cloth. There's an entire documentary on it and the guy replicated it.