Although YOU may be sarcastic here,
There is a strong case for the authenticity of the Shroud...
Even after hundreds tests, no-one has devised a plausible theory for the image's creation.
Here is Dr. Grant R. Jeffery's view on the Shroud of Turin's authenticity and subsequently his opinion on the likelihood of a medieval forger:
[qs]Some unrecognised, fourteenth century artist genius, using unknown but astonishingly advanced techniques, created a work of art that reveals knowledge of remarkably accurate medical details about a crucified body that no one else in the medieval period apparently knew. The artist somehow would have to obtain herbs and microscopic grains of pollen from dozens of species of plants that only grow in Israel and around Jerusalem to place on the Shroud cloth, despite the fact that no one would be able to see the evidence that indicates an Israeli origin. He somehow creates the world's first and only negative artistic image that will not be revealed until centuries later. In addition, he would have had to obtain an almost invisible amount of limestone dirt from the Jerusalem area and two ancient Palestinian coins minted by Pontius Pilate, even though no one would discover the photographic technique to verify their existence for six more centuries. If some artist forged the image on the Shroud, he did it in such a manner that the most extensive scientific examination of an ancient artefact in history has failed to determine how he did it.[\qs]
This is part of his conclusion, the rest can be read in his book:
'Jesus: The Great Debate'
Copyright(c)1999 by Dr. Grant R. Jeffery
Edited by SqU1r3, : No reason given.
Edited by SqU1r3, : quote problems
Edited by SqU1r3, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2