Here, you are assuming. I could repeat the cliche about what you do when you assume, but it's not true: you're only making an ass of yourself. You see, I don't claim to know if the Shroud is authentic or not.
You know full well that you've been claiming this whole thread that you do know, "conclusively", that it isn't authentic. In other words, presenting your position as "I don't know" is a lie.
So you, you presumptuous liar, intentionally reverse the truth. I'm the one agnostic about the Shroud -- which means I'm open to evidence it might be authentic. You claim a knowledge transcending any possible evidence. You will never believe in it no matter what is discovered about it, and you know it.
That's why I suggested you go back to DU. They like superstitious answers there, too.
You presume again. I've never been there. You hardly qualify as a defender of FR anyway: you've been posting for fewer months than I have years.
Now, if you really want to compare who fits more, you have an a priori conclusion, by which you judge the evidence, you lie, you use hysterical ad hominems, you have a jerking knee against anything Christian, and you make very little sense.
BTW, remember: you came on here declaring, as if from the chair, that it was "conclusively" shown to be of Medieval origin, and you've been reduced to suggesting that for all we currently know it might perhaps be of Medieval origin. But you feel so good about your superior intellect, so you really won anyway.