Of course. Duh.Kurieuo wrote: Do you understand what the dating of the "patch" means for the fuller shroud?
Correct. By itself. But the next step (as yet, not discussed) in the fraud argument first requires an agreement that the radiocarbon dating labs all nailed the shroud patch and 3 control patches dating tests, and that if dating other patches throughout the shroud would all date to the 14th century, then the shroud authenticity is seriously in doubt (i.e., agree that radiocarbon dating is accurate/robust).Kurieuo wrote: No one can claim the shroud is a fraud based upon it.
Without such a common ground agreement, discussion of any follow-on points is as futile as discussing a perpetual motion machine without an explicit mutual agreement on the rock solid foundation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Yes, but extremely important evidence, for which you still haven't affirmed the points in the penultimate paragraph above, e.g.,, "Yes, radiocarbon dating is demonstrably accurate, and yes, I would seriously question shroud authenticity, if multiple-location shroud samples would all date to the 14th century."PaulSacramento wrote: Carbon dating is just 1 line of evidence.
You know what I'm asking and why. Just say "yes" or "no".
On a related note, I notice that you didn't even admit that you were confused (or at best, misleading) about the 1989 article when you stated "Although one swatch was dated to 9BC to 78AD:."