[orionblamblam]

> the fire under discussion was not JUST the shroud burning all by itself, but included a wooden cathedral, the silver chased reliquary, the draperies draped over the reliquary, books, wooden statues ALL of which contributed carbon

They could contribute carbon only in two forms:
1: Carbon dioxide, which would not stick;
2: Soot, which would be cleaned off.

The mass of any soot that *could* become "infused" into the linen is far less than the mass of the linen itself.

> With sufficient heat, carbon from those sources could be included with the sample that was later Carbon 14 tested.

Only if the heat was sufficient to turn the linen itself to ash.

> why don't you open your eyes and your mind and look at the evidence instead of just beating a dead horse

The "dead horse" here is the idea that a shroud that appeared in the middle ages, an era of a thriving market in religious forgeries, was somehow the One True Shroud Of the Theoretical Jesus.

[Swordmaker]

The mass of any soot that *could* become "infused" into the linen is far less than the mass of the linen itself.

You still are beating a dead horse, Orion.

Carbon added from ANY fire is miniscule and NOT the reason for any skewing of the age of the Shroud. This hypothesis was raised, tested, found to be an inconsequential source of carbon 14 and dropped... LONG AGO! I responded to your comment on this merely to show that there WAS some rationale behind the hypothesis.

It is only Shroud skeptics like Joe Nickell (and you) that keep raising this strawman argument about a long discarded hypothesis as though it were an example of the current science instead of addressing the now ABSOLUTELY PROVEN NON-EXEMPLAR SAMPLE.

You still will not look at the data that the sample tested was a NON-EXEMPLAR SAMPLE. This data is a "slam dunk". The C14 data is discredited, not to be believed. No scientist worth his salt would agree that a sample so dissimilar to the main body of the Shroud could provide ANY worthwhile data on the age of the body of the Shroud itself.

was somehow the One True Shroud Of the Theoretical Jesus.

I see. Now we have your true agenda, blamblam. You doubt that Jesus was a historical person.