Jay Tokasz writing Debate over Shroud continues in The Buffalo News in advance of a presentation by Russ Breault at a local Lutheran church:
Radiocarbon-dating tests in 1988 were supposed to settle debate about whether the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus.
Scientists determined the famous piece of linen was no older than the 13th or 14th century and, thus, did not date to the time of Christ.
But more than two decades after the testing, the shroud continues to be a source of intrigue worldwide, as well as in Western New York.
Unfortunately the story, not very well researched, leaned heavily in the direction of the shroud being a forged relic. The paper interviewed Joe Nickell, the leading proponent of the argument that the shroud was painted. (Of course, we also have various other ideas of how the shroud was faked – none of them supported by solid scientific evidence – including acid etching, medieval photography and scorching with a hot statue).
This statement has become Nickell boilerplate:
The shroud is highly complicated by huge amounts of data, much of it false or misleading or just inaccurate. … What the Shroud of Turin believers do is completely turn the science on its head. They start with the answer, then find evidence to support it and throw away evidence that doesn’t support it. Nearly every rule of science has been broken in this rush to promote the shroud. (edited)
For fun read the comments. There were three as of this posting.