One man’s flimsy evidence is another’s awesome evidence. Is there irrefutable evidence that SoT is a fake or is it one of those grey areas where bias and interpretation are king?
It's worth considering what it would mean if it isn't a fake.
If the image on the Shroud was not produced by a natural process or a human artist, then how was it produced, exactly? The Shroud is a physical artifact, so some kind of physical process must have caused the image on the cloth. But the suggestions as to what that physical process might be seem very flimsy to me. One suggestion is that the image was imprinted by "high energy UV light". Is that physically possible? Has anybody tried to imprint a similar cloth using high-energy UV light, to produce a similar image? I'm not aware of anybody even suggesting any such test. I'm not even aware of any small-scale tests on small samples of cloth, such as would establish the in-principle possibility that this could happen, let alone tests that would establish that the characteristics of the resultant image would match those that are seen on the Shroud. Is there some problem with doing such a test that I'm not aware of? If not, why isn't anybody interested in doing it?
The next problem is, assuming that the image was caused by UV light, where did the UV light come from? Believers suggest that it somebody came from the body of Christ as he was resurrected by God. But how would that occur, physically? What would be needed for the skin to emit the correct level of UV radiation, for instance? Would such a process damage or destroy the body? Would it burn the cloth? What physical process could allow a body to emit the requisite UV light in the first place? What would need to occur within the body for that to happen?
Of course, the believers can always allege a miracle. The resurrection, after all, is miraculous. Presumably God could just create the required UV light out of nothing, if he wanted to. But then again, he could just as easily have chosen to resurrect Jesus without the UV light, presumably.
If the only explanation of how the image got on the Shroud is that a miracle happened, then we need to ask what's more likely: the miracle itself, or the conclusion that the image was produced miraculously?
Clearly, the idea that a human artist created the image on the Shroud, even possibly using clever and unexpected methods, requires much less investment of faith than the belief that the image was created by a miracle from God. Scientifically speaking, the assumption must be that the image is non-miraculous unless there is quite compelling evidence that the image could only be produced by supernatural means. That's a very high hurdle.
If you're religious, you might be content with "We don't know how it happened, so it must have been a miracle", but scientists will never be content with that kind of explanation. For them it's "We don't know how this happened
yet, so we'll science the problem until we work out how it
could have happened, going with the most plausible hypothesis unless new disconfirming evidence comes to light."
But what your really saying is there is still a chance ? ( that’s from a Jim Carey movie, I could not resist. 
)
