Temporarily assuming the image is supernatural in origin, would my extra C14 dating to the 14th century convince you that God for some reason put the supernatural image on a 14th century cloth?PaulSacramento wrote: And yes, of course [extensive C14 dating to the 14th century] would put SOME doubt in my mind and say SOME simply because, as I have pointed out over and over, the C14 dating is onlY ONE line of evidence [...]
If you say "No", then you would be ignoring the demonstrated reliability of the top radiocarbon dating labs, and further discussion with you of anything scientific, much less the shroud, is pointless.
But giving you the benefit of the doubt, by provisionally assuming that you will say "Yes" to the above question, I'll begin the follow-up to your supernatural image issue ...
Professor Luigi Garlaschelli (and Joe Nickell before him) produced strikingly plausible image reproductions using 14th century technology/chemicals, including the supposedly impossible photo negative effect that the forger almost surely was neither aware of nor intending. For the explanations and the photos see: https://sites.google.com/site/luigigarl ... production.PaulSacramento wrote: Then of course we have the simple fact that NO ONE has been able to explain, much less duplicate the image with MODERN technologies MUCH LESS those from the 14th century.
So as a starting point, clearly and concisely state the most important item that you think is clearly an impossibility for a talented 14th century forger. And then cite your sources.
Huh?! Everyone in the 14th century knew the shroud was an image of a man. You seem to be just making stuff up.PaulSacramento wrote: No one realized [the shroud] was an image until the invent of photography, [...]