Big difference between concluded and proved.
The shroud, like many other religous objects, are usually brought under examination for proof by those who either don't believe or want to prove them fakes. These peope are either atheists or Protestants.
Atheists want to discredit for obvious reasons. But why the Protestants? Because they don't own it. And as they don't own anything, then it can't possibly be true. But, like in a divorse, when you leave you can't expect to take the "Stuff" with you.
I find it very amusing that individuals can put off claims such as Helen finding the true cross in the 4th century, then turn right around and talk in glowing terms about how Major-General Gordon found the true tomb of Christ in the 19th century.
The most sceptical of all Protestant Christians are Americans...the same American Protestant Christians that own a helmet signed by Peyton Manning, a stick used by Wayne Gretzky, a baseball thrown by Babe Ruth, etc. Why do they keep this junk? They're their holy relics. They put them in reliquaries and display them in their homes. Then they proudly show them to all their friends when they come to visit, as if owning the object some how links them to the person or the event.
Why do so many make trips to the "Holy Land?" They want to believe, but on their own terms. My father-in-law scoffed at the idea that a Christian Church could have a link from the chains that held St. Peter. But glowed when he talked about his trip to Turkey, and how his Muslim tour guide $howed him a bridge that $t. Paul had cro$$ed.
Is the shroud real or fake? I don't know. And as I will never have the resources to examine it for myself, I won't ever know. Is it plausible? Well, there I have to admit it's plausible. When the scriptures talk abour bones that raise dead men and aprons worn by the saints having healing qualities, then I have to admit it's plausible. And that's what I conclude.
