[Mr Ramsbotham]

It’s a big piece of cloth. You could spare a square inch or two without affecting it as a whole, and no one would know the difference. Just patch the cut-out areas. But one caveat: if tests indicate it’s anything but first-century in origin, give-or-take the margin of error, that’s going to be it for the Shroud’s “credibility,” even if they bungle the testing.

[GreyFriar]

Cutting a patch and replacing it is one of the possible problems with the 1988 testing. It has been alleged that the Sisters assigned to remove a section, chose to remove a part of a patching around the edge that was done during the medieval period.

[IrishBrigade]

‘that’s going to be it for the Shroud’s “credibility,” even if they bungle the testing.’

they could find out that it came from the J.C. Penney catalog and a lot of the parishionate would still think it’s real...

[Joe 6-pack]

Even if tests conclusively proved, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, that this image was created by the resurrection of an adult male who had died as the result of a brutal crucifixion in or around 33 A.D. in the near east, skeptics would still dismiss it as inconclusive that it was Christ and not somebody else.

If tests conclusively proved that it was in fact Christ, skeptics would still hold that His words recorded in Scripture were suggestions for His contemporaries, and not commandments for all time.

I believe the shroud is real and what it purports to be, but there will never be enough proof for those who have made the decision to never believe.

[Sacajaweau]

I don’t care what century it was made. No one can EVER prove it covered Jesus.