i don't have to prove that the Shroud is of Jesus. All I have to demonstrate is that there are no natural known processes to forger all the intricate characteristics of the Shroud. And from there, anyone can make up his own mind.
anatomy is not wrong Joe Marino: Individual Medical Doctors' Viewpoints on the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin 2021
Starting with French biologist Dr. Paul Vignon in the early 20th-century, most medical doctors who have studied the Shroud believe that the image accurately depicts anatomically and physiologically an actual human body that has undergone the torture of crucifixion. Drs. Robert Bucklin and Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who each studied the Shroud about 50 years each and who performed a combined approximate 50,000 (!) autopsies, both believed that the Shroud image was that of a real, crucified man who died. It seems bizarre that some skeptics will bring up the aforesaid point about a difference of beliefs of where the hand wound was located as if that also practically disauthenticates the Shroud. It’s fair to say that an overwhelming number of medical doctors believe that it’s not a forgery.
Jesus is too high? There is no problem of Jesus being a bit higher than average.
Experts agree that facial features identify the man buried in the Shroud as a Caucasian. Carlton Coon, a leading ethnologist, says he has the physical features of a Jew or Arab. The man’s hairstyle, characterized by a beard and long hair parted in the middle, further identifies him as a Jew. In addition, the hair in back is cut in the form of a pigtail, a hairstyle very common in firstcentury Jewish men. It is thus probable that this crucified person was a Jew.
Judas kiss. It was at night. So there is no problem that he had to identify him and point out who he was.
The head: As said previosly, experts see no problem in the anatomy on the shroud.
In regards to the blood stains: “A BPA APPROACH TO THE SHROUD OF TURIN” by Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli
The article presents numerous formal and conceptual errors that deprive it of scientific credibility. First of all, neither author is a forensic physician, so they lack the experience and knowledge necessary to successfully deal with any kind of investigation of human bloodstains. The “experiments” have been conducted on a living and healthy human being, without traumatic wounds of any kind and with a dummy vaguely reminiscent of a human trunk. But if it is not done with a living human being who has suffered the same wounds and the same chronology as the Man of the Shroud, nor with a corpse that meets the same requirements, then the experiment does NOT reproduce, not even approximately, the circumstances in which the bloodstains originated.
In regards to the letter of D'Arcis: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present FOURTEENTH CENTURY Stephen E. Jones
D'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims, which he would have if there had been any. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist, nor a record of his confession, nor the source of his allegations. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud and d'Arcis did not even know its date! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356[see "1356a"], from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church and approving its "divine cult", which presumably refers to the Shroud! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s [see "c.1355"], one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted
It's not mentioned that d'Arcis was upset that de Charny had gone over his head directly to the Pope. d'Arcis' own church was in dire need of expensive repair. It's certainly possible that he was angling to get his own hands on cash offerings. The d'Arcis memo isn't as black and white as it's made out to be. See my article "http://The c. 1389 d’Arcis Memorandum and the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin – an English-Language Bibliography"