>>518956587
> Most historians and scientists has proven that it's a medieval artifact, likely a relic created in the 13th or 14th century.
- Some researchers and religious believers argue it could be older, even genuine, based on (((alternative analyses))). - Heavily criticized
- No direct historical link ties it to Jesus or 1st-century Judea.
- The imageβs origin remains unexplained, though forgery or artistic creation remains the leading hypothesis.
> Contaminated Sample Theory (Raymond Rogers)
- Claim: Carbon-dated sample came from a repaired section.
- Flaws: Small sample size, speculative "invisible reweaving," less reliable dating method (vanillin loss).
> Pollen Evidence (Max Frei)
- Claim: Middle Eastern pollen = origin near Jerusalem.
- Flaws: Poor collection technique, high contamination risk, unverifiable identification.
> Textile Weave Analysis
- Claim: Herringbone weave suggests 1st-century Middle East.
- Flaws: That weave existed in medieval Europe; doesn't match typical Jewish burial cloths.
> Image Formation Theories (e.g., radiation, heat, flash of light)
- Claim: Image couldnβt be medieval; perhaps miraculous.
- Flaws: Largely speculative or untestable; modern methods can mimic similar effects.
> the most scientifically robust evidence placing the Shroud in the 13thβ14th century.