Sorry, I cannot see any posts in which you've addressed the carbon dating results by bringing up specific problems with the collection, storage or processing of the samples which would have affected all three laboratories. Perhaps you could give the post number(s) in which you do that?
Ignoring the first part (I rarely expect a substantive response anyway), imagine for a moment that I am prepared to agree for the sake of argument that there is blood, real human blood, on the shroud. Note that I'm not conceding the point, merely allowing it for the sake of argument and moving the conversation on a bit.
Assuming there is blood on the shroud, none of the reasons you have given for the presence of blood is in any way indicative of any particular date, 1st century or 14th century.
If you have an argument that blood must equal a 1st century (and only a 1st century) date, by all means post it but you will have to show that you can exclude a 14th century date. Be aware that there are people here who know a great deal about mediaeval European art and customs, possibly more than you do, and the assumptions you made before simply do not stack up to exclude a 14th century date.
Even if you do show that blood 'must' equal a first century date, you still have the problems that three independent laboratories dated the cloth of the shroud to around the 14th century, that the cloth is of a weave not known in the 1st century but was known in the 14th century, that the image resembles the mediaeval European concept of Jesus, not what he actually would have looked like, that the figure is anatomically impossible (to mention just a few).
The evidence that supports a 14th century date is overwhelming. The evidence in support of a 1st century date seems to consist of assumptions piled onto suppositions piled onto wishful thinking. If you have anything other than assumption, supposition and wishful thinking by all means do post it.
