I certainly wouldn't claim to prove the Shroud was either the burial cloth of Christ or evidence of his resurrection.
But I have presented enough evidence for the reasonable listener to reasonably conclude that the Shroud is indeed the burial cloth of Christ, since it records in an as yet unexplained manner the rest by crucifixion of a Jewish male according to the end pratices of the Roamns in Palestine, with the spear wound to the side and the crown of thorns wounds to the head narrowing the identity of this crucifixion victim pretty much to one man.
Hey pumparse ... 650Pope Pompous XVIII" And one you use or abandon to suit your argument. Typical and faintly pathetic evasion tactics...
It's up to you what you make of the separation of the body from the Shroud at some point before decomposition sets in. Nowhere have I stated this is scientific evidence for the resurrection. That may be a logical inference, given the circumstantial evidence provided by other sources, but in no way is it scientically provable.
Spectrochemical tests are not "shaky" by the way. nor microphotography, polarizing microscopy, phase contrasting microscopy, and stereozoom binocular microiscopy.
Nor would I be inclined to consider the findings of forensic pathologists "shaky" Not evidence perhaps, but grounds for a reasonable conclusion.
Something not one person on the other side of this divide has yet managed to come up with, in over a month of argumentation. -- + His Holiness Pope Pompous XVIII
"This is all Blarney!" -- Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth I
