You said science “discovered that it was a photographic negative”.
A photographic negative IS a photograph - so I’ll ask again: do you believe photography existed back then or not? (Hint: it did not.)
The significance is that without photography, there couldn’t be a photographic negative, unless it was a miracle.
Which gets back to my original question - Is it science or a miracle?
And by the way, if you say it was a miracle, I’ll respect that, since it was never my intention to make fun of someone’s faith - I only meant to make fun of fake science and circular reasoning.
It is a miracle which science has validated; using scientific techniques.
There are no known natural means of creating that image.
And there are numerous elements of the physical object which were either beyond the practical capabilities of a medieval forger (e.g. they Maillard reaction; the blood being soaked into the linen—remember it is verified human blood— underneath the image; or again, the polllen on the Shroud which came from plants which only grow near Jerusalem and only bloom in the Spring), or are known to be accurate in ways they could not have known about (the blood from the spear thrust differing from the rest of the blood ,in being post-mortem, or the blood typing as AB), or would have been in contradiction to their understanding (the nails through the wrists not the hands), for it to have been a forgery.