Again the ad hominem attack.
I, too, have had a suit repaired by reweaving. However, that is not the known technique of "French Invisible Reweaving" in which a very expensive Arras or Tapestry was repaired by a technique designed to be invisible from both sides, duplicating the cloth and weave, and inter-twining the new threads' fibers with the old. The technique you are referring to merely interwove the threads themselves and left the ends hanging below the cloth on the inside. Invisible from the outside but easily distinguished on the inside. The French Technique is indistinguishable from BOTH sides. I have seen examples. It is not a lost art and is still done today to repair very valuable cloth.
In other words, if Benford and Marino were right, the patch would have had the same date as the original because it would have been original cloth.
Are you REALLY that much of a biased debater that you misrepresent what the argument is to people who are completely familiar with it? This is an excellent example of a strawman, set up merely to knock it down.
The patch material DID NOT COME FROM THE SHROUD. It was made of NEW materials (c. 16th Century) dyed to match the color of the original cloth and woven in the same style as the original cloth. Each new thread was inter-twined with the old threads, then the newly installed woof and warp threads were hand woven to match the original weave pattern. As such, the area of the patch that is wholly made up of new material would carbon date to the 16th Century... while a sample cut from the area where the inter-twining of old and new threads exist would give a date that is the average of amounts of both old and new.
The cloth that was actually c-14 tested was completely consumed in the process. These critics have NO basis for saying the sample was corrupted.
No, a sub-sample of the C-14 master sample has been retained. It was NOT destroyed in C-14 Testing. Again, the 3:1 herringbone is irrelevant as is your claim that no threads are missing.
Gee, do you notice the sudden change in thread thickness and "stair-stepping" crispness that starts about half way up the left hand selvage and exists below diagonal line running to the lower right corner of the sample? Above the diagonal change the weave is made of tightly spun threads and is distinct in its weave with the herringbone very tight. Below, the threads are loosely spun and the weave is loose and indistict, with the steps in the herring bone appearing as a straight line instead of clearly delineated steps. In fact, the bottom portion of this particular sub-sample is pretty sloppy compared to the weave of the top portion. Is that not DIFFERENT from the cloth above the diagonal line of change? To any unbiased observer it is.
As to the "missing thread," the original sample was approximately 7 centimeters by 1 centimeter, the picture above is only a 1x.5cm sub-sample of the original sample cut from the Shroud. Your point is pointless.
Benford and Marino who came up with the invisible patch are absolute crackpots.
Perhaps, in your opinion. However, Raymond N. Rogers, who is a well respected scientist, who undertook his research into their theory with the intent of falsifying it. instead, to his amazement, found that what they had proposed was absolutely correct. That peer-reviewed research has NOT been invalidated by any scientists who have bothered to actually look at the data, the samples, or tried to duplicate his studies. In fact, it has now been confirmed by multiple independent scientists working with different methodology.