Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Alex Cured]

Is it DaVinci's "The Saviour of the World" (1513) ?

Thanks Ladewig.

It's quite an intriguing image because it seems to my eye at least, so geometrically similar to the shroud. I wonder if Da Vinci referenced the shroud to paint it, and also whether, very smart guy as he was, he realised the 2D/3D problem that it actually exposes ...

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

Based on your website, you seem to belong to an online community of Shroud enthusiasts. Why don't you invite them here? You admit to having trouble keeping up with the avalanche of questions. Why not call in some help?

Ward

Ward,
- I HAD pulled together a small "authenticity team" for a debate on my website, but they found more pressing (better?) things to do before I could get things moving. One of their reasons for pulling out could easily have been my poor leadership -- but, they did have some "good" reasons also.
- I've started looking for more help, but so far I haven't been able to lure anyone over here. I'm working on a way to get a bunch of "advisers," but everything takes time...
- Thanks for the suggestion.
--- Jabba

 

[IanS]

Ward,
- I HAD pulled together a small "authenticity team" for a debate on my website, but they found more pressing (better?) things to do before I could get things moving. One of their reasons for pulling out could easily have been my poor leadership -- but, they did have some "good" reasons also.
- I've started looking for more help, but so far I haven't been able to lure anyone over here. I'm working on a way to get a bunch of "advisers," but everything takes time...
- Thanks for the suggestion.
--- Jabba

Jabba - to put the whole thing at it’s very simplest, and to cut through all the talk - what you have to do is to stop quoting from shroud websites and Christian shroud believers. Because none of those people qualify as remotely “independent” un-biased sources in any way at all.

Whatever you quote as a source of any information on the shroud, be sure that it’s coming from truly independent sources.

And if it’s quoting scientific results, then make sure that it’s not only independent of prior shroud beliefs, but also from genuinely qualified scientists in the relevant field.

Because that was the whole point of asking truly independent properly qualified scientists to make directly relevant tests in the first place with the C14-radiocarbon dating.

You can never overturn the C14 results by quoting what religious shroud believers have claimed … and that includes any quotes from Ray Rogers who was a lifelong member of STURP.

 

[Jabba]

- As to why I had assumed that Rogers wasn't lying...

- Admittedly, I had previously read little from the skeptical side -- but, everything I HAD read about Rogers was "glowing." Everyone that I read seemed to have a great deal of respect for him -- and besides, he had written maybe 50 peer-reviewed articles in relevant fields. As far as I knew (or know), no one had ever accused him of lying. I simply had no inkling of lying on his part until that possibility was raised in this forum.
- I accept that my preponderance of reading being clearly on the authenticity side doesn’t say much for my ability to judge this issue fairly, but when you ask why I didn’t think that Rogers was lying, that IS part of the answer.
- But then, Rogers was an at least PROCLAIMED skeptic until he got his hands on the Shroud (though, since we are here questioning his word, I can’t count his proclamation as true -- but again, I haven’t found anyone QUESTIONING his proclaimed skepticism either) -- and then, came back to skepticism when the carbon dating report came out. He apparently remained an authenticity skeptic until he got back to research on the samples following the Benford/Marino story.

- Then, in regard to your accusation that Rogers was lying, you seemed to be focusing on the Gonella issue, and as I read up on that issue, I found little (or no) reason for thinking that Rogers was lying about it.

- And then, I have a lot of other reasons for believing that the dating was incorrect (which I should eventually get to if anyone is still paying attention by then) which adds to my belief that Rogers wasn’t lying.

- So, this seems to be a clear point of departure for now, a smallest denominator for now, a basic disagreement for now.

1. In regard to Rogers’ honesty.
1.1 - I
1.1.1 - Tend to believe (fairly strongly) that Rogers was not lying about Gonella’s participation, and
1.1.2 - Found this issue important because, at one point, some of you guys were claiming that he WAS lying, and that seemed to be your major reason for dismissing Rogers’ article. Whereas,
1.2 - You guys either believe
1.2.1 – That Rogers WAS lying, or
1.2.2 - That it doesn’t matter anyway.

- Again, one of my claims about having actually effective debate is that the only thing that opponents need to agree upon is precisely what their BASIC disagreements are. What we most need to do in making for effective debate is to identify the points where we agree to disagree for now.
- If you disagree about my description of your position above, post your own description of it.

- Clearly, this will be a tedious process, but how often have you known debate between people with basic disagreements regarding controversial issues to actually get anywhere? I’m claiming that if we can be patient, we can actually get somewhere, albeit slowly.
- And then, actually “getting somewhere” in debate does not require opponents to actually agree upon anything -- except PRECISELY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY DISAGREE ABOUT. Actually “getting somewhere” in debate has more to do with the audience, than it does with the opponents. The audience should be much better informed as the debate progresses, and much better able to judge for themselves which side has the goods (if either side does).

- And remember, my method of debate is designed for
1) Only one spokesperson per side (with all the help he or she desires and can muster), and
2) A “neutral” audience (composed of people from all three sides of the fence – one of those being ON TOP of it).

--- Jabba

 

[Craig B]

And remember, my method of debate is designed for
1) Only one spokesperson per side (with all the help he or she desires and can muster), and
2) A “neutral” audience (composed of people from all three sides of the fence – one of those being ON TOP of it).

--- Jabba

But since your method of debate (which seems to me to be without merit in any case) is clearly inappropriate to a forum like this one, why do you not abandon it, as has been repeatedly suggested, and respond to the points presented to you in any order you wish?

 

[Ladewig]

- As to why I had assumed that Rogers wasn't lying...

- Admittedly, I had previously read little from the skeptical side -- but, everything I HAD read about Rogers was "glowing." Everyone that I read seemed to have a great deal of respect for him -- and besides, he had written maybe 50 peer-reviewed articles in relevant fields. As far as I knew (or know), no one had ever accused him of lying. I simply had no inkling of lying on his part until that possibility was raised in this forum.
- I accept that my preponderance of reading being clearly on the authenticity side doesn’t say much for my ability to judge this issue fairly, but when you ask why I didn’t think that Rogers was lying, that IS part of the answer.
- But then, Rogers was an at least PROCLAIMED skeptic until he got his hands on the Shroud (though, since we are here questioning his word, I can’t count his proclamation as true -- but again, I haven’t found anyone QUESTIONING his proclaimed skepticism either) -- and then, came back to skepticism when the carbon dating report came out. He apparently remained an authenticity skeptic until he got back to research on the samples following the Benford/Marino story.

- Then, in regard to your accusation that Rogers was lying, you seemed to be focusing on the Gonella issue, and as I read up on that issue, I found little (or no) reason for thinking that Rogers was lying about it.

- And then, I have a lot of other reasons for believing that the dating was incorrect (which I should eventually get to if anyone is still paying attention by then) which adds to my belief that Rogers wasn’t lying.

- So, this seems to be a clear point of departure for now, a smallest denominator for now, a basic disagreement for now.

1. In regard to Rogers’ honesty.
1.1 - I
1.1.1 - Tend to believe (fairly strongly) that Rogers was not lying about Gonella’s participation, and
1.1.2 - Found this issue important because, at one point, some of you guys were claiming that he WAS lying, and that seemed to be your major reason for dismissing Rogers’ article. Whereas,
1.2 - You guys either believe
1.2.1 – That Rogers WAS lying, or
1.2.2 - That it doesn’t matter anyway.

- Again, one of my claims about having actually effective debate is that the only thing that opponents need to agree upon is precisely what their BASIC disagreements are. What we most need to do in making for effective debate is to identify the points where we agree to disagree for now.
- If you disagree about my description of your position above, post your own description of it.

- Clearly, this will be a tedious process, but how often have you known debate between people with basic disagreements regarding controversial issues to actually get anywhere? I’m claiming that if we can be patient, we can actually get somewhere, albeit slowly.
- And then, actually “getting somewhere” in debate does not require opponents to actually agree upon anything -- except PRECISELY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY DISAGREE ABOUT. Actually “getting somewhere” in debate has more to do with the audience, than it does with the opponents. The audience should be much better informed as the debate progresses, and much better able to judge for themselves which side has the goods (if either side does).

- And remember, my method of debate is designed for
1) Only one spokesperson per side (with all the help he or she desires and can muster), and
2) A “neutral” audience (composed of people from all three sides of the fence – one of those being ON TOP of it).

--- Jabba

Did you read Dinwar's post 858 and IanS's post 861 ?

I cannot understand how you could read those posts and then write your post.

 

[Ladewig]

I am not looking for redirection, I just want to understand what is happening.

A) you sincerely believe that you have thorough answers for every item on that list?

B) there is no item or combination of items on that list that make you even begin to consider the possibility of the inauthenticity of the Shroud?

C) if we are looking for a comprehensive list I am very confident we can add seven or eight points about the scale and dimensions. Would you like us to add those items to the list now or would you prefer to wait until the first 37 items are resolved?


D) did you leave the ability to reproduce the Shroud using ancient techniques off the list because you believe you have already proven that it is not reproduceable?
.
.

F) do you understand that the list is currently in one of the most inefficient orders possible?

​

again this is not meant to derail your plan. These are just five yes/no questions which you can answer off the top of your head (no research required).

 

[tsig]

But since your method of debate (which seems to me to be without merit in any case) is clearly inappropriate to a forum like this one, why do you not abandon it, as has been repeatedly suggested, and respond to the points presented to you in any order you wish?

This is like going to a meeting and all we do is discuss Roberts Rules of Order and never get down to any real business.

ETA: It seems our shroudie is more interested in Rodgers' character than his facts. This is a characteristic of all true believers, we often see the statement "Joe is a real stand up, honest man who would never try to deceive so I believe him when he says he saw bigfoot, a UFO, Jesus in a Shroud or whatever".

 

[Dinwar]

- As to why I had assumed that Rogers wasn't lying...

Doesn't matter. Either prove an unbroken chain of custody--and that means providing the COCs, video, or some other independently verifiable means of establishing the chain of custody, not merely "Well, so-and-so gave it to me"--or we're done here. You want to play at science, you have to play by the rules.

- But then, Rogers was an at least PROCLAIMED skeptic until he got his hands on the Shroud

It's always interested me how many times this happens. Not that people actually ARE skeptical about miracles--but that people SAY "I was skeptical about it until X". When you look at the evidence it's almost always not actually true.

- And then, I have a lot of other reasons for believing that the dating was incorrect (which I should eventually get to if anyone is still paying attention by then) which adds to my belief that Rogers wasn’t lying.

This is telling us what you're going to tell us. Don't do that. Just TELL US.

- Again, one of my claims about having actually effective debate is that the only thing that opponents need to agree upon is precisely what their BASIC disagreements are. What we most need to do in making for effective debate is to identify the points where we agree to disagree for now.

No. My position on Rogers is crystal clear: his samples do not have sufficient proof of an unbroken chain of custody for them to be considered reliable. They violate specific protocols, which I've named if not formally referenced, and should be rejected on those grounds--in other words, I hold these samples to the same standards I hold groundwater and soils samples to.

- And remember, my method of debate is designed for
1) Only one spokesperson per side (with all the help he or she desires and can muster), and
2) A “neutral” audience (composed of people from all three sides of the fence – one of those being ON TOP of it).

You're on a message board run by an organization established by someone who's made a career out of attacking nonsense and charlatans. Furthermore, your "style of debate" is designed for POLITICAL debates, whereas this is a SCIENTIFIC debate. There is nothing to suggest that your style of debate will be effective, and ample reason to conclude that it is actually detrimental. For example, in science there's the concept of "burden of proof". Until you can establish the provenance of Rogers' samples you have not met even the most generous interpretation of that burden--EVEN IF ROGERS WAS RIGHT.

Also, you forgot one aspect: You don't actually say much, you spend all your time telling us what you're going to say, eventually.

 

[pakeha]

Perfect.
Let me open a bottle of wine while I savour Jabba's ah reactions.

pakeha, I'm very intrigued by this image you posted. Could you tell me the source of the right hand side? The artist if possible? It isn't Dali is it?.

No gentle poster, it's da Vinci.
It was posted up in another JREF thread on the subject of the Shroud and I saved it for the remarkable testimaony it provides.

...
Rogers “lie” was that, even aside from the very dodgy and highly subjective nature of his wet chemistry tests and his microscope views, he was far too quick to accept that what he received from Gonella, really were threads from the centre of the C14 sample - Rogers himself could have no idea where those threads came from. And he must have known that Gonella should never have had access to any part of the C14 sample anyway … and we’ve been through all that with you before (several times!)...
www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf
http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=322

Thanks so much for your persistent patience and generosity, Ian.

- As to why I had assumed that Rogers wasn't lying...you seemed to be focusing on the Gonella issue, and as I read up on that issue, I found little (or no) reason for thinking that Rogers was lying about it.
1. In regard to Rogers’ honesty.
1.1 -
1.1.1 -
1.1.2 -
1.2 -
1.2.1 –
1.2.2 -
...

You really don't get it, do you, Jabba?
Obituaries DO NOT trump 'unbroken chain of custody'.
Get used to that idea so we can have a meaningful discussion, one not based on citations from obituaries.

 

[pakeha]

Alex, that photo is thanks to tricky and here's a link to their contibutions in a previous thread on the subject.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3363308&postcount=305

 

[Alex Cured]

Perfect.

No gentle poster, it's da Vinci.

Yeah, that was dumb of me. I misread the name of the jpeg but I was pretty sure it wasn't a Dali

 

[IanS]

- As to why I had assumed that Rogers wasn't lying...

- Admittedly, I had previously read little from the skeptical side -- but, everything I HAD read about Rogers was "glowing." Everyone that I read seemed to have a great deal of respect for him -- and besides, he had written maybe 50 peer-reviewed articles in relevant fields. As far as I knew (or know), no one had ever accused him of lying. I simply had no inkling of lying on his part until that possibility was raised in this forum.
- I accept that my preponderance of reading being clearly on the authenticity side doesn’t say much for my ability to judge this issue fairly, but when you ask why I didn’t think that Rogers was lying, that IS part of the answer.
- But then, Rogers was an at least PROCLAIMED skeptic until he got his hands on the Shroud (though, since we are here questioning his word, I can’t count his proclamation as true -- but again, I haven’t found anyone QUESTIONING his proclaimed skepticism either) -- and then, came back to skepticism when the carbon dating report came out. He apparently remained an authenticity skeptic until he got back to research on the samples following the Benford/Marino story.

- Then, in regard to your accusation that Rogers was lying, you seemed to be focusing on the Gonella issue, and as I read up on that issue, I found little (or no) reason for thinking that Rogers was lying about it.

- And then, I have a lot of other reasons for believing that the dating was incorrect (which I should eventually get to if anyone is still paying attention by then) which adds to my belief that Rogers wasn’t lying.

- So, this seems to be a clear point of departure for now, a smallest denominator for now, a basic disagreement for now.

1. In regard to Rogers’ honesty.
1.1 - I
1.1.1 - Tend to believe (fairly strongly) that Rogers was not lying about Gonella’s participation, and
1.1.2 - Found this issue important because, at one point, some of you guys were claiming that he WAS lying, and that seemed to be your major reason for dismissing Rogers’ article. Whereas,
1.2 - You guys either believe
1.2.1 – That Rogers WAS lying, or
1.2.2 - That it doesn’t matter anyway.

- Again, one of my claims about having actually effective debate is that the only thing that opponents need to agree upon is precisely what their BASIC disagreements are. What we most need to do in making for effective debate is to identify the points where we agree to disagree for now.
- If you disagree about my description of your position above, post your own description of it.

- Clearly, this will be a tedious process, but how often have you known debate between people with basic disagreements regarding controversial issues to actually get anywhere? I’m claiming that if we can be patient, we can actually get somewhere, albeit slowly.
- And then, actually “getting somewhere” in debate does not require opponents to actually agree upon anything -- except PRECISELY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY DISAGREE ABOUT. Actually “getting somewhere” in debate has more to do with the audience, than it does with the opponents. The audience should be much better informed as the debate progresses, and much better able to judge for themselves which side has the goods (if either side does).

- And remember, my method of debate is designed for
1) Only one spokesperson per side (with all the help he or she desires and can muster), and
2) A “neutral” audience (composed of people from all three sides of the fence – one of those being ON TOP of it).

--- Jabba

What on earth has any of that to do with any of the direct questions you have been repeatedly asked?

I'll answer that for you - your post has absolutely nothing to do with you answering any relevant questions at all.

Look, you are just pissing everyone around here. Stop it, and answer the questions without all this smoke and mirrors stuff of repeatedly saying you are " checking sources and will be back later to give answers another time… ” etc. etc. ... you've been using that fallacious tactic for 20 pages now. And now it's time for you to stop.

Just answer the questions (and no more links to shroud fundamentalists). And don’t say you have forgotten the questions, just go back to the last half-dozen or so pages, and answer directly what you have been repeatedly asked time & time again.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Clearly, this will be a tedious process, but how often have you known debate between people with basic disagreements regarding controversial issues to actually get anywhere?

The Shroud is not a controversial issue. The scientific data shows it to be a forgery. Documentation from the time shows it to be a forgery. The Vatican proclaim it to be a forgery. There's only a very, very tiny minority of people who disagree with any of these things.

Its status is not controversial. It's a fake. It's about as controversial as relativity.

 

[catsmate]

- As to why I had assumed that Rogers wasn't lying...
- Admittedly, I had previously read little from the skeptical side -- but, everything I HAD read about Rogers was "glowing." Everyone that I read seemed to have a great deal of respect for him --

So you admit you hadn't done any proper research, just pro-authenticity rubbish.

and besides, he had written maybe 50 peer-reviewed articles in relevant fields.

Not true. What has Rogers' published regarding radiocarbon dating, textile analysis or disputed historical artifacts?

As far as I knew (or know), no one had ever accused him of lying. I simply had no inkling of lying on his part until that possibility was raised in this forum.

Again you failed to do proper research.

- I accept that my preponderance of reading being clearly on the authenticity side doesn’t say much for my ability to judge this issue fairly, but when you ask why I didn’t think that Rogers was lying, that IS part of the answer.

Yet you claim that your belief in the authenticity of the shroud is based on science without doing the necessary research.

- But then, Rogers was an at least PROCLAIMED skeptic until he got his hands on the Shroud

Rubbish. Rogers was a believer even before his involvement with STURP. Something that's very easy to discover.

<snip>but again, I haven’t found anyone QUESTIONING his proclaimed skepticism either)

Because you limited your sources to pro-authenticity material.

-- and then, came back to skepticism when the carbon dating report came out. He apparently remained an authenticity skeptic until he got back to research on the samples following the Benford/Marino story.

Not true. As some basic research would show you.

Then, in regard to your accusation that Rogers was lying, you seemed to be focusing on the Gonella issue, and as I read up on that issue, I found little (or no) reason for thinking that Rogers was lying about it.

Really? Let's recapitulate:

• the sample for radiocarbon analysis was removed in the presence of more than twenty people
• the process was recorded
• the sample was immediately and under the scrutiny of multiple observers split into three parts
• these parts were placed into steel tubes and sealed
• the samples were supplied, along with the controls, to the three test laboratories
• the labs reported that all the samples were destroyed

How does this procedure allow for Rogers' to get fibres from the sample?

And then, I have a lot of other reasons for believing that the dating was incorrect(which I should eventually get to if anyone is still paying attention by then)

Really? Please show us some of this evidence......................
Personally I won't be holding my breath as I simply don't believe you.

<snip> Found this issue important because, at one point, some of you guys were claiming that he WAS lying, and that seemed to be your major reason for dismissing Rogers’ article.

No I think that most people here understand that Rogers' nonsensical analyses (both the patch and the vanillin/ligin) were rubbish.
His lying is another matter which tends to eliminate any credibility he has.

<much snippage of attempts to avoid actual argument and evidence with procedural rubbish

How's about you stop wasting everyone's time with procedural nonsense and actually provide some evidence to refute the generally accepted reality, i.e. that the shroud of Turin (or Nice) is a medieval fake created around 1350.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Patch/Protocols

- I’ve added a section to my Shroud website (http://shrouddebates.com/) -- #9, Ongoing Debate.
- For the moment, it's totally rudimentary, but I think it's important if I can do it right.

- Otherwise, OK. I’ve been busy reading Gove and others – so, on to your issue #2.

- Sorry about the complexity to follow, but as you should know by now, I think that a big part of why debates never get anywhere is that they do tend to be quite complex, and it therefore behooves us to abandon any simplistic approach to debate if we wish to actually get anywhere with them...

- You guys (at least as I paraphrased you above somewhere) claim that you have A LOT OF REAL evidence that there was no patch -- whereas, I have NO REAL evidence that there was.
- Since that is really two claims in one, I will separate them and address one at a time. I’ll start with the second half – that I have no real evidence that we’re dealing here with a patch.
- Next, I need to rephrase that "half claim" in a couple of different ways.
- First, I should phrase it in positives rather than negatives (negatives lead to confusion), which means that I need to express the issue from my perspective rather than yours. In other words, "I claim that I DO have such evidence."
- Next, I need to break up this half claim into two pieces itself – one about “invisible reweaving,” or “patches”—the other about a CHEMICAL DIFFERENCE between the sample and the greater cloth. I need to identify this distinction because the second claim is not necessarily dependent on the first, and in his Thermochimica Acta article, all Rogers claimed was that the C14 and Raes samples were chemically different than the rest of the Shroud. He didn’t say anything about a “patch” or even invisible reweaving -- though it appears that such was what he was implying.

- Anyway, I think that I have significant evidence for both of my claims, and substantial evidence for at least one of those claims. Here’s a summary of my claimed evidence:

1. In regard to doubting Rogers' honesty (as was suggested in this thread), we have little or no reason to do that. Perhaps he was WRONG in his conclusions, but we have no significant reason to DOUBT HIS HONESTY regarding them. It's clearly POSSIBLE that he was being dishonest, but the available evidence supports his honesty much more than it undermines his honesty.
2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.
3. Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and Raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
4. In 2005, John L. Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings.
5. In 2008, a group from the Los Alamos National Laboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.
6. Other scientific evidence supports a much earlier date than that concluded by the carbon dating.
7. Historical evidence does also.
8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.

- Since we have already sort of agreed to disagree regarding #1, I’ll move on to #2 – The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.

2.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
2.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
2.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire Shroud).
2.1.4. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
2.1.5. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (Madame Flury-Lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
2.1.6. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures.
2.1.7. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
2.1.8. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the Shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”

- I'll stop there for now, and let you present your questions, reservations and objections so far.

--- Jabba

 

[dafydd]

- I'll stop there for now, and let you present your questions, reservations and objections so far.

--- Jabba

Only one. It's an obvious fake.

 

[Mashuna]

I love how you're happy to gloss over the whole chain of custody and subsequent testing for Rogers, but suddenly become incredibly picky with your objections to the original testing.

 

[carlitos]

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
- Sorry about the complexity to follow, but as you should know by now, I think that a big part of why debates never get anywhere is that they do tend to be quite complex, and it therefore behooves us to abandon any simplistic approach to debate if we wish to actually get anywhere with them...

The reason this debate is getting nowhere is that you are refusing to accept evidence that contradicts your beliefs and trying to cover this refusal up with silly procedural rubbish.

<snippage of much attempt to evade the burden of proof>
1. In regard to doubting Rogers' honesty (as was suggested in this thread), we have little or no reason to do that. Perhaps he was WRONG in his conclusions, but we have no significant reason to DOUBT HIS HONESTY regarding them. It's clearly POSSIBLE that he was being dishonest, but the available evidence supports his honesty much more than it undermines his honesty.

Rubbish. Rogers knew that the fibres couldn't have been from the radiocarbon samples, probably before his paper and certainly afterwards.

2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.

Utter nonsense. And given the way you're prepared to give every possible benefit to any scrap of evidence of the validity of the shroud, hypocritical rubbish.

3. Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and Raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.

Given that he didn't have any of the radiocarbon sample, something that has been comprehensively demonstrated to you, he showed no such thing.

4. In 2005, John L. Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings.

Given the lack of access to the fibres this simply isn't true.

I find it fascinating that you're able to dismiss the carefully carried out radiocarbon dating process as "not especially rigorous" yet you're willing to believe Rogers' nonsensical claims without any evidence of his access to shroud fibres. This doesn't say much for your honesty or open-mindedness.

5. In 2008, a group from the Los Alamos National Laboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.

See above.

6. Other scientific evidence supports a much earlier date than that concluded by the carbon dating.

Really? What "scientific evidence" is this? All the scientific evidence points to a medieval creation for the shroud.

7. Historical evidence does also.

What historical evidence is this? You've presented none.

8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.

No it's not. However in this case it was well and scrupulously done and has never, despite the desperate attempts by believers, been refuted or even questioned.

The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.

We're still awaiting your evidence for your opinion on this.

2.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.

The protocol was perfectly adequate, unless you can show why it wasn't

.
2.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.

And why was this done?

2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.

Oh good grief, three labs required three samples. This is just stupid.

2.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire Shroud).

This was insisted upon by STURP and the RCC.

2.1.4. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.

This was necessitated by the limited samples released by STURP and the RCC.

2.1.5. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (Madame Flury-Lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).

The process was supervised by multiple experts and the area selected by them in advance.

2.1.6. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures.

Irrelevant. In fact the process was supposed to be blinded, hence the control sampled you deny existed.

2.1.7. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.

This was a decision of STURP and the RCC. The sample size was adequete.

2.1.8. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the Shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”

There's noting unique about the weave of the shroud, it's quite typical of it's period, i.e. 1250-1350.
It's clear from this "point" that you haven't bothered to actually check on the procedure for the dating, including the control samples used, nor do your understand anything about radiocarbon analysis or scientific methodology in general.

- I'll stop there for now, and let you present your questions, reservations and objections so far.

OK. To summarise; you're talking utter rubbish in a pathetic attempt to justify your decision to believe the shroud is ~2000 years old and just bolster your xianity, rather than accept the reality that it's a fake.