Could ancient earthquake explain Shroud of Turin?

[longship]

20. Well, the accuracy is high enough to state that the shroud certainly is not a 1st century object.

That's all that's necessary. As I wrote: Game, Set, Match.

Also, the weave is typical of a 14th century cloth, and not of the 1st century. Then, there's the 14th century iconography of the image (of course, a more subjective criteria). Etc. When all the data points to one conclusion it is reasonable to conclude that it is correct.

Of course, the apologists who need the shroud to be from Jesus tomb come up with explanations, special pleading, but that would be expected.

Plausibility is very much part of the scientific method. One cannot do Bayesian statistics without considering it. It's one of the input parameters.

Sorry, my friend. The data very much shows that the shroud is a 14th century fraud. There is no positive data that tie it to the first century other than the claims by those who have a biased interest in making those claims, claims which have been falsified by the data.

One doesn't have to know how the thing was made to state these things. The data speaks for itself.

Interesting discussion, though.