That presumes the intent of the forger was to create a negative image such as would be discovered by photographic means.
The first part is that the samples of the shroud show heterogeneity, but the control samples do not. I am repeating myself here.
It just shows that if it was a forgery, it was not a painting.
Yes, you're repeating yourself, and you have simply repeated a statistical argument that doesn't really hold water. Nor even if we accept the claim of heterogeneity for the sake of argument does the hypothesis that the fiber samples were switched account for that. Why would switched samples necessarily display heterogeneity?
How do you know what they did in there?
But it is not a fact that supports your claim for what went on the room.
Non sequitur.
But your claim was that this point alone decided the issue. Do you still believe that one evidentiary point should decide the whole issue?
Laying flat on my back, I can reach the position of the man in the shroud.
Yes, I did state it that way, I do believe that the negative image is sufficient for the claim that it is not a forgery.
Then you seem to be committing the bellwether fallacy. It's important to first determine whether you intend to make a slam-dunk argument or whether we're going to be obeying rules of parsimony and consilience.
No, I don't want to change the subject.
They put the samples in the packing tubes. It is reported in the carbon dating paper.
Yes, but you're claiming something not attested to in the paper, which is that the archbishop switched the samples. How do you know that's what he did in that room instead of merely doing what the paper claims was done?
No, that just circularizes the hypothesis.
Not the bellwether fallacy, because I have provided more than one line of evidence that the shroud is not a forgery, not limited to what knowledge a medieval forger would have.
The switching is the conclusion, not the hypothesis.
The bellwether fallacy presumes the existence of other avenues of evidence, but proposes to ignore it all except for one. Either the negative image claim can be considered solely proof of authenticity, or we must factor it in with other evidence and come to a parsimonious and consilient conclusion. Pick a lane.
Now pretend you're dead, i.e. relax all your muscles and let your arms fall where gravity, rather than your conscious will, dictates. Are your hands stil covering your genitals?
The claim that the fibers were switched is the hypothesis you're offering to explain the observation that the dates do not overlap. You may not cite the apparent fact that the dates do not overlap as evidence that your hypothesis is true. That is textbook circular reasoning.
quran.com
No, I said the samples were switched as an answer to your question, "what do you think happened?"
That's part of it, not sufficient, but there are other lines of evidence, do you want to change the subject, or discuss the cap of thorns.