(Turin shroud pictures from Wikipedia
When they tested Turin shroud results results came from the medieval period, but these dates are probably wrong.
(I would like to leave a comment here: Please note for many Christians the fact that the Turin shroud is fake or real does not prove Jesus to be fake or real. Jesus and Turin shroud, are two different issues, i.e., one does not disprove or prove the other, as there are lots of documents that have proven Jesus existed)
If these dates are correct, nobody is giving a plausible way the Turin shroud was made in the medieval period which is the interesting thing in this whole subject as the technology and knowledge that could have helped make it was not available until the 1800s at the advent of photography. I.e. not available in the medieval period.
Below is an interesting video on the subject. Please note that the person in the video does not discuss his personal views on the subject only from an academic view on the subject
Also please note other tests have also been done on the cloth and the results have found there is no dye or paint on the cloth only the image, which some say was done with an unknown process, but probably not available in the medieval period.
Another interesting fact is that the image is negative, if you take a photograph of the image on the cloth, the negative of the photo comes out the camera the right way around.
Also a Forensic expert has looked at the image and the wounds are the same as, that of someone, being crucified in the Roman period, again people in the medieval period would not have known this as graves of people crucified by the Romans have only been found recently in history and not in the medieval period.
Apart from the issue that they tested a medieval repair, below is an article by PBS explaining another problem that may have incurred when testing the turin shroud.
The problem highlighted in the research is if you test with Cabon dating something that was wrapped around someone dead, i.e., a dead body, it will sometimes give a false reading as it is testing the bacteria, not the cloth.
The research has highlighted that previous tests of mummy wraps may have given false readings and therefore wrong, the article also highlights the problem with testing the Turin shroud this way.
Shroud of Christ? ~ Clues and Evidence | Secrets of the Dead | PBS
Also, the cloth is consistent with cloth made in 1st century Israel and not the medieval period.
As to the claims, there is no blood on the shroud. These claims were rejected by most of the other people on the team. It was only McCrone who said there was no blood on the shroud. but later, tests found these results were false.
“McCrone also found that the “bloodstains” in the image had been highlighted with vermilion (a bright red pigment made from mercury sulfide), also in a collagen tempera medium. McCrone reported that no actual blood was present in the samples taken from the Shroud.[5]
Other members of STURP rejected McCrone’s conclusions and concluded, based on their own examination of the Shroud and the tape samples, that the image on the Shroud could not be explained by the presence of pigments.[17] Mark Anderson, who was working for McCrone, analyzed the Shroud samples.[79] In his book, Ray Rogers states that Anderson, who was McCrone’s Raman microscopy expert, concluded that the samples acted as organic material when he subjected them to the laser.[80]: 61 McCrone resigned from STURP in June 1980, after giving back all of the tape samples in his possession to Ray Rogers.[81]: 124 “
Other links on the subjects of Jesus and the Shroud:
Christian Gittings 