I note with approval that you appear to have gone to Barrie Swortz's website as noted earlier in the thread, and have quoted a peer-reviewed journal, Nature, in your post #25. But did you note the following?
a) It is now about 20 years old.
b) The site you quote from contains many other links which dispute / and or refute the article from Nature. Since they are also on the same site, why didn't you even make a passing reference to their presence *on* that site?
c) The passages which *you* quoted in bold in post #25 read as follows:
The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.
That's fine, but some of the other articles on this site contest or contradict this contention: in particular, there is photomicrographic (and other) evidence that the area tested in the 1988 tests was actually a portion partially re-woven (not "patched") at a later date.
Since homogeneity of the sample is of vital importance to any analytical chemistry, this alone renders any studies done on those areas "inconclusive" *until* any differences in the composition of the tested areas to the remainder of the Shroud can be quantified.
Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample.
Did you stop to reflect that this sentence, which you yourself have emphasized, made it possible to completely break down the "double-blind" status of the protocol?
Two other thoughts.
Another FReeper has stated on a crevo thread, "Confidence comes from consilience" i.e. multiple independent approaches giving the same answer makes one all the more confident that one is on the right track.
The fact that multiple different approaches -- optical examination, mass-spectrophotometry, electron microscopy, 'wet-bench' chemical analysis, computer analysis, all converge to say that the image on the Shroud is not that of paint, that there are *real* bloodstains which do NOT comprise the image, that the image contains three-dimensional information not visible to the naked eye (and at that, not "National Treasure type pseudo-mythical hokum, but anatomical details) -- should indicate that the image is not merely a forgery.
The obvious counter-answer is, "Well, I don't believe in fairy tales or magic images. The thing *can't* be miraculous."
It is the same logic found in Isaac Asimov's short story "Button, Button". A scientist finds a way to not only convert energy to matter, but to do it in such a way that (for small mass, of course) he can re-create historical artefacts atom-for-atom. He chooses to bring back the signature of Button Gwinnett’s from the Declaration of Indenpendence.
He is unable to sell the relic however, as the experts know that the image *must* be fake: "If Button Gwinnett has been dead for two hundred years, how can his name on a new piece of parchment be found?"
But there is a perfectly well-known, *naturalistic* phenomenon which comports both with a genuine image on the Shroud, and not with medieval forgery. Have you considered Maillard reactions? The basic idea is that the outgassing of various by-products of decay from the body, react with the linen and/or fine molecular layers on the fibers of the fabric of the burial cloth. (These are the same classes of chemical reactions which happen in cooking -- try here from the New York Times for more on the cooking angle. The image was preserved here, because the process was interrupted for whatever reason. If it *was* the burial cloth of Jesus, then take your pick, Resurrection or "Passover Plot" conspiracy -- the body was still separated from the cloth after a short time, so the image was not obliterated by subsequent chemical reactions. It would remain a further fascinating question as to whether the formation of the image depended on the state of the deceased, whether they had been beaten and or dehydrated before death, and the temperature and humidity of the place of burial...
I suspect that much of the attitude towards the Shroud comes about because it is at least the (purported) burial cloth of Jesus, and as such has the taint of 'legitimizing' either religion, or even worse, superstition, as self-proclaimed brights like to refer to the Resurrection.
We have all heard of the willingness, nay, gullibility, of believers, and how they have been fooled time and time again for financial gain, whether by relics in the past, or TV preachers today.
But this cuts both ways -- if Christians are gullible, many areligious are overly skeptical. If this image had appeared on another piece of cloth from that era, and had not been associated with Jesus, all kinds of scientists would be intensely interested in characterizing the specific physiochemical processes and conditions necessary to create such an image. And instead of Christians drawn to the image like a moth to a flame, you'd probably have New Age types and and UFO fans, and probably a guest appearance by the Shroud on the X-Files.
Cheers!
(...off to Valleyfair to ride roller coasters tomorrow.)
None of these attitudes for or against brings anyone any closer to a specific characterization of the actual composition or provenance of the image.
I have seen claims that the samplw was from a patch. No one has provided a link to any proof. The article I posted was peer reviewed and stated the actual protocol.
The fact that the sample had the 3 to 1 weave means it was original cloth and not a piece of the patch. Yes it meant that double blind breaks down as stated in my article, but the ages for all of the smples agreed very well. If someone wants to refute the C-14 tests, they need to do new c-14 tests otherwise it is simply creating doubt to allow room for a claim. It is the same method used by IDers and AGW proponents. Do another C-14 test.
All of which was reproduced by the French team in their forgery.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear grey_whiskers!