Jabba, I am probably the least informed poster on the cloth in this thread so I read your link as a first time reader thinking it might help your cause. It didn't. Although other threads may have covered this Sudarium, I'll make my comments as a N00b about
just one of the glaring inconsistencies in your link.
The third paragraph contains this statement:
There is no image on the cloth.
OK.
Further on I find this statement:
The bloodstains on the cloth show that it was used to cover the dead man's face, and folded over on itself, although not in the middle. The blood soaked all the way through, in a logical order of decreasing intensity. The astonishing thing about the stains is that they coincide exactly with the shape and form of the face of the man on the Shroud. The length of the nose is exactly 8cms. on both cloths, and the identical form of the chin and beard are is remarkable.
Wait a freakin' minute. First we learn there is no image on the cloth but now we can see a dead man's face and can measure the nose as being "exactly" 8 cms long. And the form of the chin and beard are "remarkable". No, what is remarkable is the utter impossibility of these two statements both being true.
Further on we read:
Dr. Alan Whanger has also suggested that the crown of thorns was still in place when the sudarium was applied to the face. Dr. Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium and the Shroud, and concluded that both cloths must have covered the same face.
Now, in further astonishment, I learn that not only can a cloth with no image reveal a crown of thorns, but the facial features on the two pieces of cloth from eons past are now so detailed that some guy claims they are the same face. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Further still I read that:
...there are even traces of the fingerprints of the man who held it there - could these possibly be those of the disciple John?
Fingerprints on cloth? I'm dubious. But that aside, the second part of the phrase is a question that is idiotic on its face. Here's my equivalent question: "- could these possibly be those of that horny sea captian, Buggar Dreadnaught, waving the cloth in front of his date for the night, Angel Fruitcake, trying to convince her she was in for a hol(e)y experence if she joined him on his ship's poop deck?
The page concludes with:
The only possible conclusion from all the investigation is that these two cloths were in contact with the same face.
In contrast, my conclusion on this
one aspect alone is that the only possible conclusion from this material is that the person who wrote this page was enjoying some mighty fine weed while doing so. I further conclude that your citation of this page can only be considered an embarrassment of the first degree.
I close with a question: What direct evidence do you have that the Turin tablecloth is ~2000 years old? Thank you for directly replying.
