This reminds me of one of those challenges in which a huge amount is offered to show where in the New Testament is a verse saying the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.
Much like a bet on who cut off Samson’s hair. Most will fail this.
Maybe like the monks in THE NAME OF THE ROSE who were debating on “Did Christ, or did he not, own the clothes that he wore?”
As for the shroud:
The old way was to drape a statue with a sheet, then use a powder puff of charcoal to imprint the features of the statue onto the cloth. Then sell it as a Holy Relic.
Back around 1969 I believe it was Esquire Magazine that had a mocking article about the Shroud. “Were You There When They Photographed Our Lord?”
And the debate goes on....
The Shroud of Turin research program in 1978 determined the shroud of Turin was not a statue imprint. They also determined that the shroud is not a photograph by Leonardo da Vinci, who was born 100 years after the first display of the shroud in 1356. The media promoting these ideas are freaking idiots.
One thing people need to consider is that the real human bloodstains were on the shroud prior to the image forming. In fact it was the blood itself that prevented the image from forming in those areas.