You have nothing except assertions and apriori conclusions based on pre-conceived ideas. You claim the shroud is real, yet you cannot demonstrate that to be true. Your response to all counter arguments is to disparage them and pretend they are worthless, while at the same time ignoring the blindingly obvious failings in so many of your own supposedly unassailable arguments.
If you want discussion, discuss. If somebody makes an argument, simply saying "that's a lie told by a fraudster" is not discussion.
You are certainly a microcosm of why the truth is never heard about the shroud.
Another illinformed person who wants to proclaim on somehting they know NOTHING about.
And yet another illinformed person labels your post "winner" because their faith or prejudice want what you said to be true. It is not.
Meanwhile in the land of science.
Which is where MY arguments come from:
The forensics that go back to STURP and beyond clearly state the crucifixion pathology is real. The forensic correspondence with the sudarium would be enough to satisfy a criminal court they are the same victim. That means the shroud is very old, and also middle eastern. Indeed multiple physiochemical tests determine first century. It carries forensic evidence of the documented tortures of Christ.
Just correcting your false hood. I stated i cannot prove it is real until there is a test for "jesus christness" (which is yet possible). However with so much evidence for authenticity including the unique tortures, the inability of a forger to even see the pathology, let alone reproduce it, the fact of the long term historic separation of shroud and sudarium, then occams razor states it probably is. I believe it to be so. But I separate the belief from what I can say from science.
So let us deal with the one supposed evidence for " medieaval".
So what we know of the test:
- It is now an established fact that the data put in the nature paper which you all hang on to by faith was not the data from lab books which were obtained from the british museum by legal process. The data was fiddled by an unknown transform.
ie THE DATE was a fraud. It was a fraud committed activey not passively. Fiddling data to make it homogeneous. That much we know as of fact.
The rest just shows how incompetent the daters were at science.
They were after all just trying to create a market for Goves new but as yet unproven AMS.
- So A test published by the daters themseleves demonstrated AMS failed equipment qualification. No doubt about it. It misdated a fabric by an outrageous amount. In any metrology lab, the equipment would not be used again until the error was found. They carried on regardless.
- The only archeologist involved - Meacham - said beforehand from long experience dating samples and fabrics that the outcome would not be definitive, and it would only be indicative if they followed a proper protocol involving multiple sites for samples, proper chemical characterisation and preparation.
The testers ignored the protocol completely.
- Ray rogers paper indicates why. The linen had different character from the rest of the shroud. It is much younger - by virtue of lignin at nodes. Even the diameter off threads was different. There was cotton interweaved which there is nowhere else on the shroud. In short they tested a mediaevel repair made to look like the shroud. No surprise there. It has been heavily repaired.
- The actual test data is inhomogeneous - so fails homogeneity tests ( so is not valid for any date fro the shroud) and shows a date gradient. That is consistent with it being partially old and new.
In short the test was done by incompetents ignoring protocol, who then cheated the data to try to give a date. A total fraud.
My views are the views of science. Yours are the views of faith in a fake that you have no idea where, or how, or whether it can have been done.
Would you like to contest the science instead?
You would have a problem with that. You clearly have never studied any of it.
I will not reply to another post of yours until it queries some aspect of the science. And for that you will need to study it for the first time.
It is sad that on a science forum only one of us is interested in discussing the sciecne. The rest of you want to discuss your apriori prejudice and faith. Or mark as "winner" posts that just happen to agree with their beliefs.