ITS A LENGTH OF LINEN CLOTH TESTED TO BE FROM BETWEEN THE YEARS 1260 AND 1390 BEARING THE IMAGE OF A MAN, BELIEVED BY SOME TO BE THE BURIAL SHROUD OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.
PROS - 1. Blood can be seen in areas consistent with the biblical account of the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus. 2. There is no mechanism that could create an image with this specific set of physical and chemical properties. 3. There was no paint, no brush marks, no scorching used to make this image of the shroud. 4. Medieval artists had no knowledge that the nails go through the wrist and not the palm. 5. Blood stains are exactly correct as modern medicine would expect to see from a crucified victim.
CONS - 1. The facial and bodily features of the man are out of proportion. 2. The shroud was known to be a fake from the time it appeared in the 14th century. 3. Its shape is wrong according to both Gospel accounts and ancient Jewish burial practices. 4. Two succeeding bishops from the area pronounced the shroud a fake. 5. The blood stains are unnaturally bright.
Conclusion: I'm gonna say the shroud is real because there's no real way to know its authenticity unless you went back in time.