This is true. At this time my opinions are predetermined. The evidence, including your apologies for de Charny, is just not enough to cause me to change my mind regarding the origins, provenance and substance of the shroud. What is interesting is to watch the argument, back and forth. One side uses one source that it will repudiate later because the other side can site inconsistencies in the source. It's a dog chasing its tail and is just about as important.
As for the Geneva Convention, I have other opinions than yours about it being the modern day equivalent of "chivalry". It's not. Just as in the Hundred Years War, the "Noble Deed" does not a victory make in the 21st. Century.
Please give an example of repudiated sources that were not invalidated by further compelling research.
History is filled with inconsistencies. Differing weights should be assigned to the evidence according to what is known of their sources... and that can change as other sources and evidence is found. For example, for years it was thought that Henri, Bishop of Trpois, letter was definitive... until it was learned it was never sent, that Henri had a competing relic (A piece of the "true cross"), and was competing with the little chapel in Lirey for the sous or pilgrims. Research on that "letter" showed that it apparently was never sent... and that the Pope disagreed with the Bishop to the point of pressing a perpetual silence on him.
Its contradictory nature is one of the things that makes the Shroud such an enigma.
I agree that some conclusions have been proven wrong... because they were replaced by later science. One prime example was the belief that the image was a light photograph... it is not, it is a terrain map that was formed irrelevant to light. Another is the 1988 C14 test conclusion that the Shroud is a 13-14th Century product. Now because of further research REQUIRED because that conclusion was false to other KNOWN facts, the C14 results have been shown to be invalid and the age of the shroud is again a question that has not been answered. That is what I mean by following the science and the scholarship. A good scholar or scientist is willing to discard his most cherished conclusions when compelling contrary evidence is presented.