You sound just like the tired old cliche: British Science says....
"Actual researched science"--what IN THE WORLD is that? You made that up!
No, I’m talking about research done by scientists working in their fields of expertise doing actual research. That is not made up. These are actual peer-reviewed research instead of some guy writing an article in a skeptics or popular press magazine from his asserted “scientific expertise” because he has a degree in science, such as geology, making ex cathedra assertions. Another popular source for such claims is one of a couple of failed stage magicians with degrees in non-technical fields such as English Literature. So, when I speak of “actual researched science” I am referring to reproducible, falsifiable results that have been peer-reviewed, published which was done by scientists working in their fields of expertise, reporting on their research or experiments pursuing hypothesis or investigations, based on the historic structure of previously done research and experimentation.
Such scientific work does not just repeatedly ignore that which has already been proved to have been falsified by previous such qualified research, which the skeptics often do, which is why I used the term “myth-conceptions”.
For example, I have lost count of the number of times the skeptics trot out microscopist Walter C, McCrone’s long debunked claims of finding pigments on the image areas of the Shroud, or his claims that the blood on the Shroud were merely Tempera Paint mixed with Vermillion because he saw such obvious pigments in his visible light microscope. He repeatedly claimed this despite his results being falsified by every other microscopic examination of the Shroud, including Electronmicroscopic examination AND Electronmicroscectrograph showing there simply are no pigments associated with either image or blood areas. (That latter spectrographic test is so sensitive it can detect the fact the thread samples were placed in a vinyl baggie and in fact, the particular manufacturer of the baggie.) McCrone even got so unhinged he was claiming he could tell the DILUTION of the pigments by his visual examination, and, at one point, he claimed the Iron Oxide pigments were of a grind type he had observed on the Shroud had been invented in the 1830s, an obvious impossibility, merely by his microscopist’s expert eye!
Yet the skeptical anti-Shroud “scientists” will, to this day, trot out the late Dr. McCrone as a pillar of their cited proofs despite his claims repeatedly being resoundedly proved false. Yet they LIKE his claims, but they never, ever report they’ve been falsified. That’s not objective science, that’s “true believer” irrationality.
When confronted, they accuse those who falsified McCrone, or even point out that falsification, of supporting lying pseudo-scientists, “true-believing Catholics” who are only propping up an icon,” when in fact, many of the scientists who investigate the Shroud, are, as I mentioned, real scientists working within their fields of expertise, PhDs, writing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, and many are Jewish, Agnostics, a few atheists, Protestant, etc. They cover the gamut.