Contining commentary from last post...
My point has been that contrary to the shroud debunkers' contention that the Shroud was created to extract money dishonorably from poor (or not so poor) pilgrims, the man in whose possession the Shroud first enters modern history DID NOT DO SO! Instead he funded the church where he stored his possession from his family coffers and from all records did NOT allow donations for that purpose. Furthermore his record does not support the idea of his being a con-man.
This is a fact that no one can ever really know. Medieval fables and chronicles are noteworthy for their inaccuracy and outright fabrication. The English chronicler of the Hundred Years War, Jean Froissart, has de Cherney trying to talk King John (Jean)II into a combat of 100 champions instead of enjoined armies on a battlefield. If so, it is not too difficult to conclude that de Charny was, indeed, capable of being a shroud hustler, or the sucker for a good con game played on him. As it was, the French King rejected de Cherny's suggestion as there not being enough glory to go around for the French knights. The French King wanted a battle and he got one. King John was captured by the Black Prince and caught a boat for England. Your hero, de Cherny, was killed and the Oriflamme dropped in the muck.
The fact or fable of a tournament suggest strongly that de Cherny was a moron and/or an arrogant fool. A charlatan or a chump. Probably all. The army of the side loosing the tournament would certainly attack the winners at the drop of the first fair maidens hankie. Rules of Chivalry? Oh, be serious. The Hundred Years wars was not a game on the internet or a booth at a Renaissance Fair. It was the serious business about some serious real estate and a dispute of international feudal law. It wasn't about "Honor". Having been a soldier, I can assure you that chivalry on the battlefield toward the enemy is folly. It makes for a nice, romantic story to be told by the fireside to ones grandchildren by the ruthless and the victorious.
As for the Shroud, I seriously doubt that a particular linen object, i.e. Christs Shroud, could have survived the 1316 years (1316 + 33 = 1349 A.D.) since the death of Christ. That some linen shrouds of someone could have survived 500 to 1000 years is possible. The wrapping of dead bodies in a burial cloth has been done by humans for millenniums. That's what I think the Shroud of Turin might be along with being a Medieval fake. The burial shroud of some unknown person that has survived the centuries to become a religious curiosity and controversy. As for the "science" as you both put it, it too is subject to legitimate criticism.
In short, the "Shroud" is like "Global Warming". Some believe, some do not. I, for one, do not. Therefore, if I had possession of the shroud, would I destroy it? Of course not! I'd put it up for bid on e-Bay and give the proceeds to Army and Marine Corps wounded vet support groups.
Regards, Buck.