Please give an example of repudiated sources that were not invalidated by further compelling research.
History is filled with inconsistencies. Differing weights should be assigned to the evidence according to what is known of their sources... and that can change as other sources and evidence is found. For example, for years it was thought that Henri, Bishop of Trpois, letter was definitive... until it was learned it was never sent, that Henri had a competing relic (A piece of the "true cross"), and was competing with the little chapel in Lirey for the sous or pilgrims. Research on that "letter" showed that it apparently was never sent... and that the Pope disagreed with the Bishop to the point of pressing a perpetual silence on him.
Its contradictory nature is one of the things that makes the Shroud such an enigma.
I agree that some conclusions have been proven wrong... because they were replaced by later science. One prime example was the belief that the image was a light photograph... it is not, it is a terrain map that was formed irrelevant to light. Another is the 1988 C14 test conclusion that the Shroud is a 13-14th Century product. Now because of further research REQUIRED because that conclusion was false to other KNOWN facts, the C14 results have been shown to be invalid and the age of the shroud is again a question that has not been answered. That is what I mean by following the science and the scholarship. A good scholar or scientist is willing to discard his most cherished conclusions when compelling contrary evidence is presented.
Christ suffered the same torment as any other person that was crucified.. his wounds were the same..
His treatment was not unique, and therefore, the shroud could belong to any number of individuals that were crucified by the romans...
It may be proven as coming from the 1st century, but trying to prove that it was Christ's shroud and not someone else's will be a fruitless quest..