[Starman]

Has it been conclusively proven a forgery or is the jury still out on this?

[Sentra]

http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

Found that article, hope it helps.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...001942,00.html


This one too. Whoa, lots of articles.

[RickJ]

Forgery isn't really the right word. It's age is the key fact... and based on the testing methods we have, it's shown to be nowhere near 2000 years old.

[Sentra]

Forgery isn't really the right word. It's age is the key fact...and based on the testing methods we have, it's shown to be nowhere near 2000 years old.

Disheartening, really... :(

[Starman]

http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

Found that article, hope it helps.

After speaking against the shroud's authenticity the article at the site you provided finishes in the following way:

Excerpt:
In January this year, a US chemist, Raymond Rogers, said the radiocarbon samples for the 1988 study were taken from a piece that had been sewn into the fabric by nuns who repaired the Shroud after it was damaged in a church blaze in 1532.

Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be "between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."