No hostility, Bad, just amazement. You posted that ...The "stitching" question doesn't outweight the carbon 14 testing too me.
This was after I had spent considerable time outlining the exact reasons why the Carbon 14 tests were totally invalid... citing chapter and verse from peer reviewed articles. In other words, Bad, you appear to accept impeached evidence as a valid argument to impeach the antiquity of the shroud. The facts are that the C14 tests did not test what we were told they tested. It is not surprising that testing a "patch" added in the 16th or 17th century would not test the true age of the material that was patched.
I don't find the "evidence" as its been presented to date to be enough for conclusive proof that the Shroud of Turin is really what its proponents claim it is, the burial clothe of Christ.
Surprise! Neither do I. If the case of the shroud were being presented to a jury in a criminal court it would fail the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test. On the other hand, if the shroud were being judged in a civil litigation case, the "preponderance of the evidence" would come down on the side of first century antiquity and authenticity.
I, however, follow the scholarship and the science... not my faith... at least not much ;^)
Am I certain the shroud is authentic? Not by a long shot. Do I think the Preponderance of evidence is heavily on the side of authenticity and connects the Shroud to Jesus of Nazareth, yes.