A pure ad hominem fallacy. I haven’t seen one of them for a while.
But you don’t need to rely on my word, expertise or reputation. You just need to look at the data in the source you cited.
Here’s the Turin shroud WAXS plot:
The plot shows the Turin shroud peaks lie between those for the samples labelled 2000 years and 1400 years, suggesting that suggests the shroud material could be old enough to have been around in 33AD.
Unfortunately, the original paper the non-shroud data comes from gives more accurate dates for the other samples:
So using the WAXS technique dates the shroud material as originating sometime between 65AD and 575AD - which means it wasn’t around in 33AD, so can’t be Jesus’s burial cloth.
The only way around this is to admit that the WAXS technique isn’t very accurate, and the results could be hundreds of years out. But that inaccuracy means the WAXS technique doesn’t provide much support for the shroud’s authenticity, and more importantly, it can’t be used to reject the C14 date for the shroud.
Of course this rebuttal requires having the dates from the graph in the original WAXS paper, not just the dates given in the shroud paper. Once the original dates are known, the problem is obvious to anyone who can work out that 33AD isn’t between 65AD and 575AD. The shroud paper, however, only shows the shroud originating sometime between 2000ya and 1400ya, which does include 33AD. I can only think of one reason for changing the key on the WAXS plot to have less precise dates, and that’s to conceal the fact that the shroud plot-line gives too late a date. Since the author of the shroud paper (Libertato de Caro) was also the lead author of the original paper, there’s no way he could not have known the more precise dates for the samples, making their omission extremely suspicious.
So @colewd, you don’t need my debunking. You can just look at the two plots yourself, and ask how can the shroud be genuine when the WAXS technique dates it after 65AD?.
P.S. You can try answering this too @Giltil