"I think one can’t say that the shroud is authentic. You would need to have those tests somehow shown to be erroneous. Apart from those tests, the signs of authenticity on the shroud are quite remarkable."
They also have to come up with some fairly empty theories as to how the shroud could've actually made it from ancient Jerusalem into the hands of the french crusader Geoffroi de Charny in 1353-1357. On the other hand, critics need to figure out how to create a perfect replica of the shroud- and so far they haven't (although they may have gotten close, see here ).
So, how the hell could such a conflict exist, you may ask? In a world of science, we should already have the answers to this conundrum, right? However, there is one point we need to consider, one that shroud supporters and deniers will agree with me on: that the Vatican is not allowing scholars to study the Shroud of Turin enough. Indeed, this whole controversy could end tommorow if the Vatican were to just let some more scholars re-date the damn thing. Then, we can all finally go home. Of course, I am still agnostic on whether the Shroud is authentic or not- but I tend to lean towards it being a hoax- for at least the re-creations of the shroud are getting better. Plus, even if it is authentic, so what? Many false messiahs were crucified back in the day. Surley one of them went through the physical conditions necessary for the shroud to develop, right? For some more brain food, check out this link here. It leads to an article reviewing a documentary on the subject called "Remaking the Shroud". I will try to find a link to the film online for you all to watch.