eh, ok three years ago:
The weave of the Tomb of the Shroud fabric, the new study says, casts further doubt on the Shroud of Turin as Jesus’ burial cloth.
The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said.
Both the tomb’s location and the textile offer evidence for the apparently elite status of the corpse, he added. The way the wool in the shroud was spun indicates it had been imported from elsewhere in the Mediterranean—something a wealthy Jerusalem family from this period would likely have done.
Assuming the new shroud typifies those used in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, the researchers maintain that the Shroud of Turin could not have originated in the city.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy.html
No human on this Earth can replicate the Shroud image. I sincerely suggest you read a few books on the Shroud. It would be very eye opening.
As for National Geographic, they are totally and almost completely dominated by anti-religious leftists. They go out of their way to propose very weak theories to try and discredit the Shroud.
We quite the NG many years ago -- their anti-human, anti-capitalist slant got to be too repulsive. Their 100% rabid support of AGW was the last straw.
As a simple point of logic, how does this disprove anything? The original source of the fabric says nothing about what was done with it after its manufacture.
Furthermore, the fact that Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb should tell anyone with any kind of sense that assuming the shroud is typical for the area borders on being willfully obtuse.
There is a very precise and repeated commandment against blending wool and linen in the Torah - I find it highly unlikely that any believing Hebrew would use such a thing, even for a burial shroud -- That it was found among elite tombs would point to the occupant being an Idumean - An Edomite, like Herod the Great, who were installed by the Romans as a ruling class over Jerusalem and Israel. And whom, as Edomites, observed a bastardized form of the Torah, and may well have disregarded the commandment against mixing of textiles.
Of course, that is a speculation on my part...
Furthermore, Joseph of Aramathea, in whose tomb the Christ was laid, was a very wealthy man - It is no stretch of the imagination that he might well have obtained the very high value twill cloth for the burial... And wrt it's uniqueness as a burial cloth, remember that Jesus' burial was a rushed affair, with mere hours to get him into the ground before the beginning of Passover - So rushed indeed, that the women went after the fact to obtain proper embalming supplies - It is not unlikely that something out-of-the-norm might be used in such an instance. No doubt all the shops were already closed, as He died at the hour of the sacrificing of the lambs - at that time, every family would either be involved in the sacrifice, or would already be home preparing the lamb for the Passover feast...
My point being that one cannot necessarily point to a generic burial cloth (c. 1AD) and claim the shroud a fake because it does not match... Especially so wrt a burial cloth made of mixed textiles, which would have been forbidden by the Law.
That's an assumption that is based one ONE, count it, one, found full body shroud covering an unclean corpse! To make a generalization that it typified cloths used in the Jerusalem area, when it was made of material counter to the Torah's (!) edict against mixing materials, assumes that Jerusalem, was found in a cosmopolitan trade center with multiple cultures where many people came together with trade goods, and is represents a singular sample in a vacuum of data, is an EXTRAORDINARY leap that no scholar should make. . . Except a biased one with an agenda to denigrate another disputed object!
The facts are that fine woven goods were an EXPORT good of the Jerusalem area, that three over one twill Linen, hank bleached flax yarn was common, and often woven in large sheets on wall looms in the area, all things seen on the shroud of Turin, contrary to the revisionist claims of the skeptics who would have you believe the people of Jerusalem were ignorant unskilled savages instead of a people with an over 90% literacy rate required of their religion!
Ergo, that statement is false. It's based on a very flawed data and it's an "assumption" designed to make an ass out of people who read it! Frankly, I would call it an outright lie, designed to fool people who don't bother to search out the true facts. Why is it a lie? Because the author KNOWS what he wants you to assume is wrong!