Ok, I found that old message I mentioned. Here are some quotes:
From Looking for a Miracle, by Joe Nickell (he wrote a whole book about the shroud [which I don’t have] as well as this part of a chapter here, and he was part of a group that examined the Shroud):
“Final proof that the shroud dated not from the first century but from medieval times was reported on October 13, 1988, after samples from the cloth were carbon-dated. Postage-stamp-size samples were snipped from one end and transferred to laboratories at Oxford, England; Zurich, Switzerland; and the University of Arizona in the United States. Using accelerator mass spectrometry, the labs obtained dates in close agreement: The shroud dated from about 1260-1390, and the time span was given enhanced credibility by correct dates obtained from a variety of control swatches taken from ancient cloths of known date.”
He also mentions a letter to Pope Clement VII by Bishop Pierre d’Arcis in 1389, in which he said the shroud was a fake created only for monetary gain. Also, he discusses the finding of red ocher pigment on the image
areas (which served as a component of the image – in other words, it was painted). Walter McCrone determined that the “blood”
was actually tempera paint? (One of the pro-shroud scientists admitted that: “McCrone had over two decades of experience with this kind of problem and a worldwide reputation. Adler and I, on the other hand, had never before tackled anything remotely like an artistic forgery.”
More from the same book:
“It is most suspicious that that shroud should turn up after thirteen centuries with its portrait looking just like more contemporary artistic representations of Jesus. Moreover, the shroud seems the culmination of a lengthy tradition of ‘not-made-with-hands’ portraits: From the sixth century came images reputedly imprinted by the bloody sweat of the living Christ, and by the twelfth century there were accounts of Jesus having pressed ‘the length of his whole body’ upon a cloth; already (by the eleventh century) artists had begun to represent a double-length (but non-imaged) shroud in paintings; and by the thirteenth century we find ceremonial shrouds bearing
full-length images of Christ’s body in death (even with the hands folded over the loins, an artistic motif dating from the eleventh century). Thus, from an iconographic point of view, these various traditions coalesce in the Shroud of Turin and suggest it is the work of an artist of the thirteenth century or later.”
“Additional evidence against authenticity is found in the ‘blood’ flows. While shroud proponents argue that they are amazingly accurate, there are critical, fundamental problems. For example, they are decidedly
‘picturelike,’ consistent with an artist’s rendering. Dr. Michael Baden, a distinguished pathologist, pointed out that the ‘blood’ had failed to mat the hair and instead flowed in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Another problem is that the dried blood, as on the arms, should not have transferred to the cloth at all. Moreover, the stains are suspiciously still
red, unlike real blood that blackens over time.
Anatomical details represent another category of flaws. For instance, the imprint of one leg shows it to be outstretched rather than bent at the knee as it would have to have been to produce the bloody footprint that is also depicted. In addition, the hair hangs down on either side of the face as if the figure were standing rather than reclining. Further, the physique
is so unnaturally elongated (resembling the figures in gothic art) that one pro-shroud pathologist concluded that Jesus must have suffered from the rare disease known as Marfan’s Syndrome (which is characterized by an excessive length of the extremities).
Among realistic details supposed to be beyond the knowledge of a medieval artist were flagellation marks on the body image (but medieval paintings depict contemporary flagellations), nail wounds in the wrists
rather than the hands (but only one such wound shows and it seems clearly to be located in the base of the palm), and ‘Roman coins’ over the eyes (the result of wishful imagining, say the skeptics).”
There ya go!
“Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.”
– Neil Peart, RUSH, “Witch Hunt”