I realize that there is considerable controversy about all aspects relating to the shroud, from its age, to what made the image (pigments,'protonic energy'), to the historical record (including a report of someone who reports it as a fake).<quoted text>
It's apparent you are not familiar with the research done on the Shroud of Turin and so cannot intelligently discuss it. You are just parroting what skeptics are saying and not looking at the scientific results. I suggest you study all the research done on the Shroud and get back with me.
Because of all of this, there is no scientific consensus, in other words, there is no scientific proof. The carbon date has been criticized as being from a medieval 'repair', but the scientists that took the sample dispute this strongly. The pollen evidence is, at best, weak. The dating of the fabric as a style from the 1st century is inconclusive, at best.
The best scientific evidence for the age of the shroud puts it as a 13th century relic. That is the carbon date. The pollen and fabric analysis are not nearly as accurate or as conclusive as radioactive dating. Further, we know that such images are possible from medieval technology and there was a contemporary report that the shroud was, in fact, a fake.
If this is the best evidence you have for your myths, you will have to do much better to convince anyone who was not already convinced.