“It is a fact that medieval artists did not paint in the negative”
The Shroud of Turin is not ‘painted in negative’ whatever this means. That would involve painting lighter colours onto a dark background.
“It is also a fact that the science of photography did not exist in the 14th century”
The shroud is also not a photograph. This is in fact even more difficult to reconcile with the ‘atomic radiation’ proposal you’re advancing. This would require the radiation to be completely vertical and attenuated by the atmosphere, in which case the edges would not have received any radiation at all.
Nor do I think that Our Lord was poised beneath an enormous set of lenses and mirrors in anticipation of light spilling out of His corpus.
Hugh_Farey may correct me on this, but to achieve a ‘negative_image’ with ‘3d information’ all you need to do is simply paint the appearance of a relief statue of Christ onto the linen. A possibility is that the shroud was painted with a very thick vermillion paint with red ochre. This would cover only the top fibres, and would then dehydrate and cause acidic damage, browning the fabric. Later the paint might have been washed off, which explains there’s only traces amounts of these paints.
“That conclusion is a logical one. It’s not proper to dismiss it as ‘statement of belief.’”
It is the opinion of Pope Pius XI, and as such, is opinion. Not binding. If someone has reasons to think otherwise, then they may do so, with respect, without any accusation of even the smallest degree of impiety.
“Your own conclusion is, in reality, nothing more than a statement of belief and it is not based on any facts at all,”
Hugh_Farey, has done nothing but referencing documents, and articles by the researchers who worked on it. Those articles, as to the methodology of the C-14 dating, the details of the shroud, etc… etc… are facts.
In contrast you’ve only referred to two third hand sources, and the opinions of a Pope.
“the presentation by an atheist”
You’re committing a logical fallacy here. That a person is an atheist is irrelevant, when he is commenting on something that is within his expertise.
“You have stated repeatedly that you don’t think that further C-14 testing will confirm what the correct interpretation of the raw C-14 results revealed.”
Actually Hugh_Farey has stated at least once that one might be able to test the ‘atomic radiation’ hypothesis, since it follows that the fibres at the center of the linen would by so skewed that a C-14 date would result in a date out in the future. I agree with this. However I also consider it unlikely to be the case.
If a test was made of the linen, again, from the center of the cloth, with Jesuit witnesses at hand, and all manners of protocols followed to the strictest degree, and we again get back the exact same date. Would that at all lower your confidence in the Shroud being genuine?