While the Shroud of Turin is definitely a medieval fraud, I gave more credence than I should have to a more recent apologetic about it. This is the statement that a medieval artist could not have made this because of where the nails were - because it doesn't align with medieval art, but with the real history of crucifixion.
Does this prove anything? Nah. At best that the artist had a good anatomical sense. But it turns out it's even worse.
1 - The apologetic is wrong. The Shroud nails are placed where medieval art puts them.
2 - Recent research has shown that the hand would be strong enough, given how crucifixion happened, to keep the body up. All the more so given the likelihood of supplemental rope or extra nails.
Dan McClellan surveys some evidence here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd4G4BC9Imc
This takes us back down to zero useful apologetic arguments against the Shroud being a fraud.