In segment 14, there is mention of the shroud of Turin, by Israel Hershkovitz. in it's mention he seems to be emphatic (with a grin) that it was found to be forgery because of the "carbon dating" that was done.
I am not saying that it is or is not some kind of forgery (though, if it is, shouldn't there be some evidence(s) that show possibly how it was made/forged?
Pollen evidences may or may not be conclusive as well. And I have always wondered about how you could accurately carbon date (c14 radiometric dating) a material item that had been handled throughout the ages, and not to mention the fact that it was in a fire. In my understanding of the process, both of those things would have directly contaminated the cloth.
I understand the issue of unprovenanced items and artifacts, and especially that forgeries make archaeology a challenge. However, I disagree that making a blanket statement without other corroborating information or sources to draw from, is supposed to be accepted (a priori). Did I miss something?