Those making claims it is authentic also have incomplete data as well if you want to be accurate.
“Those making claims it is authentic also have incomplete data as well if you want to be accurate.”
You try to draw a moral equivalence where none exists.
One group says that they *believe* it is, or might be, authentic, based on some very good evidence, while the other group stridently insists that it *cannot* be authentic, that science has demonstrated its inauthenticity.
The first group is relying on good evidence which they admit to be less than conclusive, and they are not demanding that anyone adopt their point of view, on peril of ridicule and character assassination.
The second group is relying on evidence of which the kindest thing one could say is that it is far too suspect to rely on. It is known, it is demonstrated, it is beyond doubt that the material tested was taken from patches, and not from the original textile.
Despite this scandalous breach of all scientific propriety, these people continue to insist that the ridiculous farce conducted has proved that the shroud is a forgery.
Not a one of them would be caught dead signing on to such transparently fraudulent science, but for their burning compulsion to attack belief in God. And yet these are the people who claim the mantle of objectivity.