“One that particularly irks me, again from the art side of the equation, is that it was obviously a Medieval forgery”
How can you reach this conclusion?
Indeed the carbon dating done was conducted on patches that were made during the medieval period. Forensic examination showed the image was consistent to the nth degree with that of someone who had been scourged and crucified. There has never been a way to produce this image and there are things which could not even be seen until recent technological advances (blood serum). So, your medieval forger would have had to known about blood serum centuries before it was known and to know that a certain wavelength would be used that would expose it centuries before the equipment was developed. So, again I ask...how can you day that it was obviously a medieval forgery?
ahh - I think you need to go back and read my post - and the post that I was answering to.
I was saying that one of the worst refutations of the Shroud by people who either haven't studied it or have a vested interest in disproving is - one that ticks me off the most is saying it's a Medieval hoax.
If you still don't believe me, you can check back on my other posts - You will find me a staunch defender of The Shroud.