OK, let's talk evidence. What EVIDENCE do you have that the Shroud of Turin's dating was horribly mishandled?
And why do you think the 14-C dating comes in to be almost EXACTLY when the Shroud is first mentioned in any historical document (14th Century)?
What was the problem?
I don’t know why I bother answering, you prefer a priori prejudice to evidence.
But my answer is Books full of evidence.
Read Adler, and Rogers for the chemistry of the sample which was nothing like the rest of the shroud.
The idiots that tested it, not only ignored all the agreed protocols for sampling it, they also excluded all of STURP the only people who knew the textile issues. Why ? For no better reason than the sturp had good reason to think it was genuine. But with nobody who knew anything about the shroud on the team, and completely ignoring the protocols they took one sample near the edge whose spectral properties were nothing like shroud ( Marino and Benford)
they even committed the unforgivable . The cutting of samples done away from camera and the samples didn’t add up to the documented area or weight for which Tite should have been sacked. Not least for telling the team the date of control samples.
Suggest you read Meacham ( the only archeologist involved) for the failure of protocols, failure to do basic chemical profiling, and his priori and posteriori reservations on their intentions and actions.
Read Edices reports for the forensics of the sudarium, whanger et al for the 60 point forensic correspondence to a cloth provably at least a millenium older. That correspondence involved pathology invisible to the naked eye, unknown till the last century. It could not have been faked.
Read various to see the correspondence with the much older Hungarian codex which shows identical damage holes to the shroud. Whoever , depicted the shroud had seen it long before.
Indeed there are eyewitness reports of the shroud in constinantinople before it was sacked by the Templar.
Read Fanti for various other physiochemical data methods that date it as first century.
Various sources eg Marino for the correspondence that showed how the team had no intention of dating it, they intended to debunk it, various on the release of the lab log books under FOI that showed the daters fiddled their numbers to get chi2 to conform , for which they should all have been sacked. The raw chi squared failed consistency. So they faked it.
The date was a bad joke, that shows how academia loses all objectivity around religious objects. They set shroud research back three decades.
So why did it fail? They tested one sample three times, not three tests from different places. but even then they fiddled the date results which failed chi squared and showed a date progression.
The sample tested was unlike the shroud in every regard. It was dyed cotton plus linen. But even the linen had different structure from the rest of shroud which is undyed linen. Linen is like garden cane. It has nodes, a diameter and vanillin at the nodes ( which decays to nothing over time, as it has on the rest of the shroud) see Rogers.
None of those three properties match the body of the shroud. So they tested a mediaeval repair and ignored all the sampling protocols, basic chemical profiles etc, and even cheated the results. An utter disgrace.
Unlike rabid sceptics I like evidence .
That’s why I have at least 20 books on shroud research.
As I told you a good order is study first , comment second, then you would know how fatuous your comments on such as Fatima are.
I bet you don’t read any of them.
