What do you make of this. They already made a false report stating that the carbon dating linked the Shroud to medieval period. But apon examination the piece taken, for carbon testing, was taken from a reworked,repaired, patch of the Shroud in the 13th century. So, the carbon testing was real wrong. Now for this new spin on the Shroud...

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=8249#

testing several yrs ago flawed, they took a sample from patches (there are several after medieval fire when at monastry in France)

The Shroud also contains blood and all of the forensic signs of a man crucified. Moreover, we don't know if this reproduction's depth is, as on the shroud, uniformly ONE HAIR'S width. (Like a comic, where dots placed closer together make darker areas, while spread apart make lighter places... that's how the shroud is.)

So there could still be a world of difference between this hoax and the real. To say nothing of the fact that the testing on the real was done upon insufficient sampling, wherever it was taken from.

Frankly, I firmly believe that the Shroud IS the burial cloth of Christ, and once you read any good books about it, you realize that there are many remarkable things about this cloth. It strikes me as being simply beyond any other explanation but that it is real. If so, it's only natural that the enemies of Christ would strive to any lengths to disprove it. Who wants proof of Christ if they are totally against Him, and want everyone else to be as well?

EDIT: Upon seeing the new attempt, I have to laugh. It TOTALLY ignores the forensic facts, and even if you say, well it's just to reproduce the TECHNIQUE... the image looks very different from the real article. I can't put it well, but there's something in the very ... not really the quality, per se... but something intrinsic in the look of the two is just very different.