Wouldn’t the scriptures be a clearer “road marker”, and preceding the shroud?
I have to laugh every time I read many “scientific” tracts on Biblical events. They cite everything else as evidence, but never the actual Bible.
It’s as if they automatically assume the Bible is false or distorted history, until something else comes along to verify it.
Objectivity, inquiry, etc. are one thing, but they won’t admit any active negative bias.
The shroud has a demonstrated power to be an instrument of conversion, and I don’t see anything wrong with it being used to strengthen and confirm faith in a tangible, physical way, that can also help bring others who require proof to a knowledge of Gods saving grace. Many scientists studying the Shroud have come to believe in Jesus Christ. if the evidence merit the historians trust, then we can more easily extend that trust to the rest of the Gospel accounts of Christs life.