Joe Eszterhas

The thing is it's like pulling from all these – when you get an AI response to something, it's pulling from all these articles on the web.

And most of the articles seem to indicate that people think it's at least either a hoax or an elaborate piece of hard work.

Supporters of an earlier date argue that the 1988 radiocarbon results – 1988 is a long time ago – sampled an anomalous or contaminated area –

and that other historical and scientific clues point to a much older cloth.

Okay, what is the scientific arguments?

Contaminated repair sample.

Some research claim the 1988 test piece came from a rewoven or heavily handled corner, so its carbon date reflects medieval repairs, not the original cloth.

Alternative dating methods, x-ray or crystallographic aging of linen fibers has produced dates compatible with the first century.

Though these methods are newer and not widely accepted as definitive,

Pollen and dust.

Analysis reports pollen grains and mineral dust consistent with the first century Middle East rather than only medieval Europe, which proponents say supports a much older origin.

Image properties.

Some argue that the image's microscopic features and burst of energy type characteristics require technology or phenomena unlikely in the Middle Ages, implying an earlier extraordinary event.

Well, why don't they do a retesting?

They probably don't want to know that it actually is from the 1300s.

The earliest undisputed record appears in the 1350s in Liry, a village in France, where the knight Geoffrey de Charnay displayed a cloth claimed to be Jesus' burial shroud.

How he obtained it and where it was between the 1st century and the 14th century are unknown.

Later theories trace it speculatively through Edessa and Constantinople.

I can't never say that.

Constantinople.