Only one slight problem... they aren't facts.
They are made up hogwash from a skeptical magazine, and not from peer-reviewed science. They aren't true.
Those "facts" are demonstrably false. . . and fly in the face of work done by true scientists who are experts in their fields.
They were published by a failed stage magician who's expertise is that he has a degree in English Literature, quoting journalists and others with similar expertise. He has NO HANDS ON TIME with the shroud at all. His measurements are twaddle. Nothing more.
bkmk
I’m not just agreeing with you because I don’t want to argue with a swordmaker....but what I meant is I loved the idea of arguing the shroud based on something provable, something measurable. Some clown who just parrots some Klannish preacher and repeatedly tells people what they believe, even when told it is in fact NOT what they believe, well that’s no basis for discussion. That’s just some mindless parrot using the forum for mindless parroting. Bringing ‘facts’ and figures into the discussion was a welcome event at that point.