CORRECTIONS: - The depth of coloration on individual fibers is ~0.2 microns, not 0.4 (0.4 was the original number reported, but later literature has since updated the number) - The central cavity in a plant fiber is called the "lumen", not the "medulla"; the medulla is for animal hairs. This is an error in the published works we cited that we passed on, thanks to Hugh Farey for the correction.
@curiouspeanut A little bit, yes. It would require the protons to be even lower energy when they hit the Shroud, which exacerbates the problem of needing a finely tuned distribution of proton energies to make it through the air gap but still penetrate just 0.2 microns
@@curiouspeanut I retired from a PhD Physicist career in ionizing radiation detection and charged particle interactions with matter. I am an expert in the way ALL TYPES of IONIZING and NONIONIZING radiations interact with matter. Any nearUV to VISIBLE to INFRARED light did not create the IMAGE on the SHROUD because they penetrate too deeply! The IMAGE on the SHROUD is only on the superficial microfibers and the darkening is only 50 to 200 nanometers deep. The only way to accomplish this is with a charged particle accelerator beam tuned to the right energy. It's possible DEEP UV , called VACUUM UV that cannot pass through atmospheric air every one breathes. I frankly think it could be subatomic particles, but the only 3 possibilities is modern science tools we use to make computer memory and complete chips!! These are modern high technology equipment!! Anyone claiming this was made in the middle ages or BEFORE is frankly laughable!! Looking at all the other details on the SHROUD, they 100% support the GOSPELS. I have looked at all the STURP DATA and subsequent studies and I've never seen anything that even remotely lead to disproving the SHROUDs authenticity. Burial linens have been found often and NONE looked like the SHROUD image. If I was a SKEPTIC, I would flatly reject the body decay image creation mechanism. Recall the body went missing after roughly 2 days so it should be easy to test the dead body emitting vapors that create the SHROUD IMAGE.
@@salmonkill7 '' Looking at all the other details on the SHROUD, they 100% support the GOSPELS. '' Can you give a list of ''all the other details'' please ? Below are some details you may not be aware of .... Roman crucifixion laws - 1) The Emperor ALONE can alter the procedure of a crucifixion. NB The Emperor can delegate the Roman Senate to alter a crucifixion (always documented because of it's exceeding rarity) 2) Any UNARTHORISED party altering a crucifixion is to be crucified. NB Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion and were murdered by alternate devices 3)The crucified is to be left on the cross until DECOMPOSITION or until destroyed by birds of carrion. 4) The crucified remains are Roman State property and not to be handled by any other than authorized State representatives. 5) The crucified remains are to be thrown into an open common grave for criminals. 6) The crucified are BANNED FROM A DECENT BURIAL, to deny the crucified an afterlife 7) Any person venerating or worshipping the crucified are themselves to be crucified. Jesus and Spartacus were BOTH charged with the HIGHEST CRIME in Roman Law. Insurrection and treason against the Emperor himself and the Roman State. Spartacus and his insurrectionists were given STANDARD CRUCIFIXIONS as per Roman Law. Crucified in public until decomposition on the cross, the remains thrown into open criminal pits or scattered, to deny the crucified passage to an afterlife. What does the Bible claim about crucifixion ? Pontius Pilot ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY, ordered the WHOLE BODY of Jesus removed WITHIN 1 DAY and given over to a NON-STATE representative (Josheph of Arimathea) to be given a DECENT BURIAL in a rich families tomb, and to be anointed, VENERATED AND WORSHIPPED as a King and a god by many. >>VERIFIABLY
In addition, there is an entire historical journey that shows that the Shroud of Turin was in various geographical points long before the date given by the carbon 14.
In our opinion the historical evidence pre 13th century is weak and speculative. It seems like a big coincidence that the clear, unambiguous history of the Shroud picks up right when the carbon dating places it in history.
@@ReasontoDoubt It is impossible for a middle-aged person to make an image with the colors inverted, with such mathematical precision that when taking the negative, the result is a perfect positive. For that, the person would need a technology that did not exist at that time.
The answer to this objection that I've heard is that the putrefication of the corpse destroys the image after a few weeks as the corpse fluid is soaked into the cloth. As we said in the episode, though, more research is needed before anybody should lean too hard on this explanation.
@maryjoseph23434 If I could direct your attention a few comments before, I stated that while the Maillard hypothesis is interesting, I'd need significantly more evidence to accept it as true. If you're putting a gun to my head and forcing me to choose, somebody removing a burial cloth from a body prior to putrefaction is more likely than the laws of physics suddenly being suspended...but again, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to accept Rogers' idea as fact.
@@ReasontoDoubt - Jewish custom did not allow for anyone to possess a burial cloth with blood on it. The original raw data from the 3 labs doing C-14 was held by the British Museum. Tristan Casabianca had to SUE using the British Freedom of Information Act to get it. Now WHY is the data for a supposedly IMPARTIAL, SCIENTIFIC test withheld until someone has to SUE to get it??? 😀LOL!!!
As a Christian I really don't care if the shroud is fake or real but it is an interesting piece of history. I do not think Christians should present it as evidence of Jesus or the resurrection. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we should rely on any ancient relic.
That is true and like you, the shroud as interesting as it is, isn't a part of Christian faith (unless it is the reason for John's believing when he entered the tomb as could be interpreted in the gospel). However, it is actually possible that this artifact exists and has been preserved for the world, for a witness of Christ's crucifixion, either as the real shroud or as an example of the suffering of Jesus described in the gospels.
@@theonlyway5298 I don't like the way many people try to wave it around as a defense for their beliefs and deny truly testing their faith by openly contemplating the very real possibility that the shroud is simply an icon. As a Catholic, I wish more of us would have the maturity to follow Pope Francis in calling it an icon, rather than a relic.
@@Hatasumi69 Thanks for your comment and viewpoint. Maturity understands that there are usually many perspectives of the same subject and the ability to appreciate views different from one's own is itself a sign of mature judgement. In offering our views if we are mature, we may consider the possibility that one's own perspective may be representing either truth or error. Its the discussion of the different perspectives that enriches us and hopefully a balanced understanding of any topic, as we may review our thoughts or even completely reform them in the light of someone else's understanding. There are two groups of people that present it as a defense of their beliefs: 1) Those who believe it is Christ's shroud and present it as evidence (these are quite small group of people among those who believe in Christ as this is not the behaviour of the majority of Christians, most of whom are hardly aware of the shroud) 2) Those who believe it is not the shroud of Christ and present it as evidence of 'forgery' and as ammunition for their disbelief in Christ (these are mostly aggressive atheists with a vested interest in dismissing the Christ of the Bible). Few Christians are very interested in the Shroud of Turin (disappointingly) and most Christians have little or no interest in it and certainly don't use it as "a defense for their faith". Christian faith is scripture based in the orthodox sense - that is the faith expressed in the New Testament is solely dependant upon scripture - nothing else. Later Christianity became additionally dependent upon traditions, such as the Roman Catholic faith and the Orthodox Churches. To be frank with you, I view the Pope's stand on the shroud as 'standing on the fence' (until science provides the answer to its real origins). I think that is diplomatically 'wise', but I don't see it as an example of him being the mouthpiece of Christ or an example of him being especially closer to Christ than anyone else. Instead he is a normal human being who doesn't know the answer to whether it is Christ's shroud or not and is waiting for men (scientists) to tell him. For me, this tells me more about the Pope than it does about the shroud. If science in the future determines that the shroud is 1st century and that this is even 70% likely to be the shroud of Christ according to science, then I fully expect the Pope to agree that it is the shroud of Christ.
The thing people keep missing is in Jewish rules-stuff to do with death was unclean. To think the disciples (who were Jewish) kept burial rags [see Lazarus] as a souvenir is ridiculous.
In addition to the shroud, there is also the accompanying Sudarium of Oviedo and the Seamless Tunic which have matching bloodstains to the shroud. So an forger would need to have forged all three at the same time. The sudarium has a verified history back to the 6th century AD.
I am not convinced of the link between the Sudarium and the Shroud...the "matching" bloodstains require significant manipulation to "line up". But I need to do more work on that, the papers for it are much harder to find. I'm not familiar with the "seamless tunic" though
It'll be interesting to see if they could ever do the DNA testing on those objects. If the shroud is a forgery, then it's probably one of the most convincing hoaxes in history.
DNA testing would be very cool. They've tried blood type testing, but because of the nature of the tests the result "AB" is indistinguishable from a null result, so that's inconclusive.
I will bet, other than you, there are probably five other people in the world that believe Jesus was not nailed to the cross. Why do you even bother commenting with such a ridiculous statement?
You do not need any of these scientific explanations to refute the physical resurrection. The Bible itself when studied meticulously refutes that idea all by myself. As a member of the Baha’i Faith, and based on the biblical narrative and rational reasoning, we have to accept that the resurrection of Jesus or any of the prophets or individuals within the biblical narrative are all spiritual and not physical resurrections even when literal words are used. Here are the biblical reasoning behind what is being said: Jesus called himself “the resurrection” even long before he was crucified: Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die”. (John 11:25 NIV) This is Jesus himself speaking, so it was the belief in him and his teachings that accounted as true resurrection and not the crucifixion and belief in the reanimation of the physical body. Belief in him and his words revived those who were spiritually dead and brought them forth from their tomb of ignorance. This is all spiritual and not a physical phenomenon. What does the Bible teach about the physical body and resurrection? It says: “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications”… (Hebrew 5:7 KJV) Jesus was a Spirit before he was born and had gone back to being a Spirit after his death: “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV) Therefore, the Bible teaches that Jesus had flesh or a physical body during his life on earth but that there came a time when he was no longer in possession of a physical body. Read the whole chapter so you can see the whole content. What else does the Bible teach about physical body or flesh? Apostle Paul himself stated: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption“. (1 Corinthians 15:50 KJV) Therefore, no physical body which is a corruptible biological entity can have any association or entrance into the Kingdom of God. After all, the Bible teaches that: “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV) and not a physical body, and that the Word which is Christ himself had existed as a Spirit (a nonphysical entity) long before even the creation of what we call earth. Flesh and blood (the physical body) were not important to Jesus at all. The Bible teaches that all that Jesus taught 2000 years ago were all revealed by the Father. Jesus made sure to tell Simon that flesh and blood are not important in this equation--not even his: “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17 NIV) Everything Jesus Christ taught and spoke, about his flesh and body had a spiritual meaning and cannot be taken literally even though Jesus Christ was using “literal words” (check the Greek lexicon) related to “flesh and blood”: “Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58 NIV) Those who took him “literally”, later on they were accused of being cannibals. Read the history and this will become clear to you. Therefore, much of the language that Jesus used must be viewed and interpreted allegorical or symbolic. Jesus taught that it is the spirit that matters and not the flesh: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life.” (John 6:63 NIV) Again Jesus is emphatic about the non-importance of the physical body And instead focused on the importance of the Spirit. People had a very hard time understanding the symbolic and allegorical language that Jesus used--this frustrated Jesus often and said: “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.” (John 8:43 NIV) The phrase, “unable to hear” that Jesus Christ uses is obviously not a literal physical hearing but the inability to hear his words with spiritual hearing. Consider this that if people 2000 years ago had a hard time understanding Jesus Christ, there is no wonder why there are over 43,000 conflicting sects within Christianity. This should humble all Christians. What else can we learn from the topic of resurrection and spiritual truths? Well, Mary Magdalene couldn’t recognize Jesus after the resurrection: “At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” (John 20:14-15 NIV) If this was a “literal”, glorified, bodily resurrection of Jesus, why did he appear like the gardener and was not recognized by Mary? Apparently Jesus did not look glorified, he just looked like someone else--not a shining angel, but like the gardener. We also read that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared quite differently to apostle Paul: About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ “ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.” (Acts 9:4 KJV) Others who were with Paul did not see anything. A physical body cannot be invisible. Moreover, physical bodies cannot go through doors and walls either, but yet, Jesus appears into a room with the disciples when all doors were locked: “A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” (John 20:26 NIV) So, what is my point? The point is Jesus Christ can do whatever he wishes. He can dematerialize from one place and materialize in another place. He can appear as a flash of light from heaven to one person, or as a gardener to another, and he can even eat a piece of fish right in front of you to prove he can do anything. Therefore, we are not questioning what Christ can or cannot do, however, when it comes to the physical resurrection, all the stories we read about his appearances, do not indicate the essential characteristics of the physical body of Jesus Christ as the flesh that he had before his crucifixion, and the Bible in numerous verses makes this very clear. More importantly, if we believe that Jesus Christ has been great eternally in the past without a physical body and long before he was even born, then, he was not in need of a physical body after his crucifixion either, just as Moses and Elijah didn’t need physical bodies either, when they both had appeared to Jesus Christ on the Mount Tabor and then vanished from the sight. Why should anyone assume that after Jesus Christ’s physical birth from the womb of Mary, he had, forever, trapped his true eternal reality in some physical body whether it is assumed to be a regular body or some so called glorified body? To insist on this, is tantamount to limiting Jesus Christ to our earthly limitations. The Bible makes it clear that the resurrection of Jesus has much deeper spiritual meanings and should never be interpreted as a literal physical event. Please note that stating that Christ’s resurrection was a spiritual event and not a physical one, doesn’t mean Jesus Christ was incapable of the supernatural powers--it is that Jesus didn’t need any form of a physical body, and that his greatness transcends beyond any connection with the physical reality. Moreover, in numerous passages, the body of Christ has been interpreted to be the body of the believers or the church itself, and therefore, the resurrection is a spiritual reality which demonstrates the spiritual triumph of the cause of Christ, symbolized as a “body” which is none other than the body of the believers rising to promulgate his cause (the body) fearlessly: “And the church is his body”… (Ephesians 1:23 NLT) …”and build up the church, the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12 NLT) “Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body.“ (Colossians 1:18 MLT) “And we are members of his body.” (Ephesians 5:30 NLT) “All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it.“ (1 Corinthians 12:27 NLT) Resurrection of all the manifestations of God are spiritual in nature and not physical or material. I have studied the Bible and continue to study it. By the way, I am a member of the Baha’i Faith and as a Baha’i I do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.….” (John 6:63 NIV)
At 49:55, “It seems like we are working backwards here. Yes, what’s happening here is that this hypothesis, the problem with it, is that it is completely, utterly, and fully ad hoc. It is starting at the end point and working backwards.” In solving a difficult maze, it is often beneficial to work both ends to the middle, i.e., begin at the starting point and work forward, and at the same time, start at the end point and work backwards. The same applies in trying to solve a difficult scientific problem, such as the carbon dating of the Shroud or how the images were formed. The ultimate question is not the sequence in which the hypothesis was developed but whether the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence and whether it makes predictions that are testable and falsifiable. To develop my hypotheses to explain the carbon dating and the image formation, I started from the evidence that was available from the Shroud and then, for each of the evidences, I asked the question “What could have caused this”. I worked this manner so that I could objectively follow the evidence where it led. For the carbon dating, I started from the average value from the 16 measurements (1200 ± 31), the three average values from the three laboratories which indicated that the carbon date depended on the distance from the bottom of the cloth (slope = 36 years per cm = 91 years per inch), the distribution and range of the 16 individual measurements performed by the three laboratories, and the statistical analysis of all this data. Later I also considered the carbon date for the Sudarium of Oviedo. For development of my image formation hypothesis, I started with the 10 evidences below, then for each of the evidences again I asked the question “What could have caused this” so that I could follow the evidence where it led. The evidences related to the images on the Shroud can be summarized as the following. 1. The pristine nature of the blood that is on the cloth indicates that a crucified man was wrapped in the cloth. This is the main conclusion from the first 75 years (1898 to 1973) of research on the Shroud of Turin. 2. The front and dorsal images have good resolution and are negative images with light and dark areas reversed. These images are not due to pigment, scorch from a hot object, any liquid, or photography. 3. The cloth does not contain images of the sides of the body or the top of the head. 4. Only the top one or two fiber layers in a thread are discolored. 5. Only the outer circumference of the image fibers is discolored. 6. The linen fibers that make up the Shroud have a diameter of about 15 to 20 micrometers, which is about one-fifth the diameter of a human hair. But the discoloration on the circumference of the fibers is less than 0.2 micrometers thick, which is only about 2% of the fiber radius. The inside of the image fibers is not discolored. 7. The discolored fibers occur in a mottled pattern across the area of the images. 8. The discoloration of the thin outer region in a fiber is due to single-electron bonds being changed to double electron bonds in the cellulose of the fiber, as though from an oxidation-dehydration process. 9. The images were encoded even where the cloth would not have been touching the body. 10. The images on the Shroud are 2D images, yet they contain 3D information related to the vertical distance of the cloth from the body. This process of carefully considering the evidence to develop my hypotheses has taken about nine years of my effort. I hope it is clear that the development of my hypotheses to explain the carbon dating and the image formation has not been a simple ad hoc process. To say that my process of developing my hypotheses is “completely, utterly, and fully ad hoc” is to essentially misunderstand what I have done and the process that I have gone through. At 50:40, the issue is raised why I proposed that the neutrons and protons came from the splitting deuterium nuclei when “deuterium is super stable”. The answer is that the deuterium nucleus requires less energy input to the nucleus to cause it to split (fission) than any other isotope of any other element. At 51:00, “He (Rucker) says that only a small number of the deuterium will fission, in fact it is 0.0004% of the deuterium fissions. … My question is why only 0.0004%.” In response to their request a few days ago, I explained these values in my last comment to their previous video on the carbon dating of the Shroud. There I said “My previous MCNP nuclear analysis computer calculations indicated that a homogeneous emission of 2 x 10^18 neutrons in the body would be required to shift the carbon date for the corner of the Shroud from about 33 AD to about 1325 AD, which is the midpoint of 1260-1390 AD. Emission of this number of neutrons from the body is only about one neutron for every ten billion neutrons that were in the body. If 2 x 10^18 neutrons were emitted in the body by splitting of deuterium nuclei, it would only require 0.0004% of the deuterium nuclei to split (fission).” This is merely a statement of what it would take to shift the carbon date from 33 AD to 1325 AD, if the Shroud were the burial cloth of Jesus from the first century and if the corner of the Shroud carbon dated to 1260-1390 AD. To accomplish this shift in the carbon date from 33 to 1325 AD at the corner of the Shroud, it would require 2 x 10^18 neutrons, if they were emitted homogeneously in the body. This is only one in every 10 billion neutrons that are in the body, and would occur if 0.0004% of the deuterium nuclei in the body were to split. If you doubt these values, perhaps you can calculate them yourselves to check my values. These values are just information to give people a feel for what it would take for the carbon date of the corner of the Shroud to be shifted to 1260-1390 AD if the cloth is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus from 33 AD. There is no reason here is reject my hypothesis to explain the carbon dating or the image formation. 52:10. They are again assuming that I require that the neutrons be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range so that the protons would also be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range, so that they would not penetrate sufficiently to discolor the front three fibers. I have explained above that I do not required the neutrons to be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range, but most of them end up in that energy range after scattering off atoms in the limestone of the tomb. Therefore, the neutrons and protons can be emitted at a higher energy. And again they are creating problems for protons to create the image by assuming that the image is produced by proton collisions in the fibers, whereas my hypothesis is for the deposition of the positive charge of the protons onto the cloth to cause electro-static effects that discolor the fibers by heating in the 0.2 µm thick region around the circumference of the fiber and possibly also by electron discharge causing ozone that chemically attacks the fiber from the outside. This is quite different than their assumption. 53:56. “But that doesn’t work because he (Rucker) needs way more neutrons than protons, orders of magnitude more.” This results from his assumption that the neutrons and protons are emitted by deuterium splitting on the surface of the body, which is not my hypothesis. My hypothesis is for the source of the protons and neutrons to be homogeneous (uniform) throughout the body. A high percentage of the neutrons would escape from the body, probably over 99% depending on the energy with which they are emitted. A much lower percentage of the protons would escape the body but it would again depend on the energy with which the protons are emitted. My estimate that the image could be formed if about 20% of the protons exited the body is an estimate based on Dr. Art Lind’s experiments of proton irradiation of linen titled “Image Formation by Protons” available on Mark Antonacci’s website. 55:00. “The word he (Rucker) uses is astonishing.” I am not sure I remember using this word but I may have used it regarding the agreement between my MCNP calculations and the results of the three laboratories regarding the dependence of the carbon date on the distance from the bottom of the cloth. The experimental value of this dependence from the three laboratories is a slope (the rate at which the carbon date changes as the distance from the bottom of the cloth increases) of about 36 years per cm = 91 years per inch, and the MCNP calculations produced a very similar slope. This was astonishing to me when MCNP first calculated these results. 55:16 “It should be astonishing to absolutely nobody because that is the input to his model.” Has he reviewed my MCNP input file to determine whether this is true? No. If he had my MCNP file in front of him, would he know how to make sense of it? Probably not. None of my input into MCNP forced it to calculate the same slope for the carbon date (as a function of the distance from the bottom of the cloth) as produced by the carbon date measurements from the three laboratories. To have this very close agreement between theory (my MCNP calculations) and experiments (carbon date results from the three laboratories) indicates that my hypothesis of neutron emission in the body has significant merit.
Oh? You didn't use the known values of the carbon dating to normalize your results to yield the answer you wanted? Well you better go after this Rucker fellow who said he did in an apparently libelous attempt to undermine your model. Pick a lane, Bob. Either the radiocarbon dates were used as an input or they weren't. Unlike others you've encountered I don't see the mere fact that you used MCNP as particularly impressive. Waving a computer program in front of people may shut up others, but it won't shut up this engineer.
@@ReasontoDoubt Reasons to doubt.. it's down to you.. .. if all of the evidence, the crown of thorns, which as you know was a full head piece of thorns, the sudarium and it's congruence with the shroud, the shards of the Roman whip that hit the body at two different angles from two different people.. whatever the type of light energy that caused this effect on the 2/3 dimensional image.. the possibilities are endless in my opinion. What's on trial here is not whether or not there is a reason to doubt imo..but is there a greater reason keep an open mind. .. that there is an unknown force that you cannot necessarily prove/disprove scientifically. You certainly don't seem sinister in your motives and nobody thinks you're going to "get religion" .. but can you really headline The Shroud is fake?
@hwwbroward8322 I think that's the conclusion the preponderance of the evidence points to (though admittedly moreso in the first and third installments...but I'm trying to visually tie the series together in the thumbnails, lol)
@@MsGodsown1 Where on earth did you hear that he was ever called "Yahushua"? I mean, I guess it doesn't matter what you call him, considering different cultures around the world call him different names, but during his life, his name would've likely been pronounced Yeshu', with a little accent mark after the U indicating a slight gutteral "uh" sound. My bigger point is that you can call him whatever you wish, but I just wonder why you'd go with Yahushua or whatever. Even modern day Jews call him "Yeshua". Where'd you get that name from? I'm legit curious.
My problem with the shroud is that people are 3D not flat the image would be distorted on the fabric. The only way to create that image is using a bas relief sculpture, same reason there is no top of the head
The section of the shroud that was carbon dated was a piece of a repaired corner and not the original shroud. This has already been established by the scientific community.
To take a repaired piece would have been beyond stupid. The argument that was brought forth was that the carbon content was not as it should be because of the fire that made the repair necessary. They didn't take pieces of the repaired parts of the shroud.
Tristan Casabianca had to SUE using the British Freedom of Information Act to get the raw data used in the C-14 test. Got it in 2017.... Now - WHY would anyone have to SUE to get the data from a supposedly impartial, SCIENTIFIC test?..... 😀
All these sceptics who want to debunk the authenticity of The Shroud of Turin should try to reproduce it. There is big money for whoever can. Strange that no one has been able to in this modern age, despite many attempts, considering it's medieval. Should be easy..😏
@MsCazanova55 You're free to make your decisions how you want, but it doesn't follow that because I cannot reproduce the artifact that it is therefore the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. That's just a non-sequitur. We don't know how to reproduce Greek fire, that doesn't mean it was magic.
@maryjoseph23434 The thing we are seeking to debunk is that it was the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. I am of the opinion that the radiocarbon dating does that all by itself. I am sorry I don't have an explanation for how the image was formed, but I'm not going to pretend to know something that I don't. I don't know how it was done, so you're just going to have to be satisfied with "I don't know".
@maryjoseph23434 If it isn't first century then it isn't Jesus' burial Shroud. That does not mean I know how it was formed. I only know that it wasn't formed through contact with the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth. You don't need to know how a thing happened to rule out certain ideas about how it happened. I don't need to know what caused a ship to sink to rule out that the hull suddenly transmuted into Swiss cheese.
I think there’s a problem with the Chemical Hypothesis… As an example, If you put a reactive rag over your face and let it be imprinted for a while the imprint will be distorted once the rag is removed and layed flat on a table. If I use a wash cloth on my face and meseare the distance between both my ears holes , I got about 13inches…. Nothing like the image on the Shroud….. I hope you can address my question. Thank you for your videos!
Rogers, the guy who came up with the hypothesis, claimed that the way the gasses would move could reproduce the image, but he died before proving that. So far as I know, nobody has taken it up since to prove or disprove. Without that confirmation it remains just an interesting idea. I wouldn't put much stock in it unless more tests are run that confirm what Rogers claimed.
that is why I have a problem with the image, it should be distorted. and why would it have blood? he was dead for several hours before wrapping him up, and he should have not been bleeding, besides that they washed the corps twice and dried him before placing the cloth.
It's been proven that the Chemical Hypothesis does not create a negative image AND 3D image properties...check out Dr. John Jackson's particle radiation theory.
In photography, a negative is an image, usually on a strip or sheet of transparent plastic film, in which the lightest areas of the photographed subject appear darkest and the darkest areas appear lightest.[1] This reversed order occurs because the extremely light-sensitive chemicals a camera film must use to capture an image quickly enough for ordinary picture-taking are darkened, rather than bleached, by exposure to light and subsequent photographic processing.
I work in the semiconductor industry and deal with material on the micron, nm, and angstrom range every day. In order to accomplish this I work on multi million dollar machines that use extreme temp and pressure. To have coloring within the 400nm range (0.4um) range on these fibers is utterly astonishing especially back in the 13th-14th century. I am stunned by the shroud. It may not be God but probably Aliens..lol (only half joking)
@@richardhunter132 discoloration is not painting. Its impossible to draw something like this. The body itself made his 3D image with some kind of radiation or light emission as some experts says . It was needed almost six billion watts, of ultraviolet light and the picture is negative, something so strange.
I have no dog in the fight but I do not think the counter evidence saying fake is very robust. It should be because the claim requires extraordinary evidence and therefore easily rebutted.
I think that's viewing things a bit backwards. It's an extraordinary claim, and therefore without extraordinary evidence it ought to be rejected. I don't think we have such evidence (for a miracle)
@@rociomallet check out the website Shadow Shroud. A guy was able to get a very similar image to the shroud only spending 45 minutes with oil paint on glass and then 10 days sitting in the sun to then get the image on the linen cloth. It’s a photographic negative and has 3D properties just the like Shroud of Turin. Imagine if he actually put a lot of work and effort into it!
Many proponents of the Shroud of Turin's authenticity argue that whenever scientific analysis cannot fully explain a particular aspect of the cloth, it must be evidence of a miraculous event. This approach is often seen as a way to circumvent or dismiss scientific explanations that might contradict the belief in the Shroud's divine origin.
I agree. As I've said a million times, "I don't know" doesn't mean "Therefore I DO know and it's magic". In the very strictest of senses, not having a natural explanation is very slight evidence for a miracle (since you won't have a natural explanation for at least some genuine miracles) but if all it is is a lack of knowledge that's weak evidence indeed.
So people have spent 45 years or more in studying this thing. These guys by their own admittance at the beginning of this video said they thought it would take only one video to cover/ debunk The Shroud. At the very least that is some serious foolish arrogance!
Having now spent many hours examining the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, I can say that while we underestimated the quantity, we overestimated the quality. I still don't see why people are so enamored with it.
You are surely highly educated and intelligent, and I do admire that. However, multiple hours of self educating doesn't come anywhere close to people who have spent an entire career on the study of the shroud. I think that should bring about some humility with in you. Also the fact that you nor anyone else can explain how the image got there should be humbling. I lean more in the way that the shroud is authentic. Perhaps the impass that we come to is a worldview between the naturalist and the supernaturalist when it comes to the shroud. Also I think there are way too many intricacies of the shroud for it to be a midevil forgery of some sort.
@@jasonrash747 All I can go off of is what those individuals publish (ideally in peer reviewed sources, though that's not always possible). So far as I know, despite the many papers published on the topic, nobody has been able to establish authenticity or a supernatural origin beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is such a paper, I'd be very interested to read it.
@@ReasontoDoubt Science is never able to account for the supernatural and there for I don't think you would ever find a peer reviewed publishing. That's not to say that I don't believe God is capable of the supernatural because God certainly is capable of that. However, the supernatural is literally outside the realm of science. So it will never account for or give credit to the supernatural which is fine. Besides would you personally ever give any credit to the supernatural?
@jasonrash747 Sure, for example if Rucker's neutron hypothesis turns out to be correct I think that would be pretty good evidence for the supernatural. It would *definitely* show that there's more to reality than we previously thought.
HOW TO MAKE A MEDIEVAL SHROUD FORGERY - For Those Who Wonder How 'They' Did It
FORGER: Right guys... now, have we got the body of the dead guy ready? ASSISTANTS: Yeah... yeah.. hang on... FORGER: Was it much trouble finding a perfectly healthy six foot tall 30-something male who we were going to torture... beat up... and then crucify secretly and not get caught? ASSISTANTS: Oh yeah! It was a breeze! We just got this guy who looks exactly like our ideas of Jesus' appearance straight out of the local prison. You know... there's heaps of them there like that... all ready just for us to pull off this forgery. FORGER: Did you crucify the guy in exactly the same way as the First Century Romans did in the region of Judea? ASSISTANTS: Yeah.. yeah.. we got it exactly right... FORGER: ... including making sure that you put the nails through the wrists... even though everyone we know these days thinks the nails went through the palms...? ASSISTANTS: Yeah, yeah... we put the nails through the wrists... and before you ask, yes, we did use a Roman flagrum just like you told us to.... FORGER: ... and did you make sure you got the cloth from 1st century Judea... pollen traces and all...? ASSISTANTS: Yeah, we did that... FORGER: Okay, we gotta hurry... we want the blood stains to show up exactly like the guy was wrapped in a Shroud shortly after his death... just like in the Book, okay... ASSISTANTS: We're hurrying... but.. hang on... have you got the Special Image-Making Machine That No-one Else Around This Time Has Got ready....? FORGER: Yeah... but we better get this right... we've only got so much special cloth, you know.... ASSISTANTS: Oh, by the way, we made sure we pressed the Face Cloth over the guy's head ... so we got that bit from the Book right, too... FORGER: Okay... good... now, hold the Dead Guy there... put the arms over the crotch... okay, you can take the 1st Century Roman era coins from off his eyes now... and here we go... ready... ASSISTANTS: Hang on! This image we're making... what's it gonna look like...? You sure you know what you're doing? FORGER: Yeah, yeah.... It's gonna look like a crucified guy and we're gonna pass it off as the Shroud of Jesus! We're gonna do this to make people believe in the story... 'cos they need that... ASSISTANTS: So... who's gonna see this again...? FORGER: Everyone! We'll take it to the Pope or something. Yeah. That'll work. Who knows...? We might actually get paid a fortune for it. It'll help the Faith. We're doing something good.
ASSISTANTS (after the image has been made): Umm... boss...? We can't see it clearly. Did it work? It's all pale brown and ... blurry.... and I don't think anyone's gonna get fooled by this. And how come it's all.. you know... 'weird'..? It doesn't look right; the bits that should be light are dark... and the shadows are all in the wrong way.... FORGER: Oh no... I've got that right. The Special Image-Making Machine That No-one Else Around This Time Has Got does that... It makes things go back to front. Yeah. People will understand that. Makes it look all mysterious and magical and special and miracle-y. People are stupid; they'll believe anything. ASSISTANTS: And why are we doing all this again...? FORGER: To strengthen the Christian Faith and to make bucket-loads of money. ASSISTANTS: You know what....? We can make HEAPS of these images!!! Just crank up that Machine Thingy again.... we can use any ol' cloth... no-one's gonna be that fussy to check. I mean, for crying out loud! Who do you know checks out the weave of centuries-old cloth from Ancient Judea... or looks for pollen....!?!
And that's how you fake a Shroud of Turin. Yeah. That's how it all happened, folks. Simple as that. On the other hand, if you want to be honest, grown-up and able to face the truth, see this: ruclips.net/video/Jmxyq4JhTmQ/видео.html
@@ReasontoDoubt It is NOT a straw-man argument; it is a satire on those who insist that the Shroud IS a forgery. HOW did they ''forge'' the Shroud, then, if it is a fake? HOW? The question demands an answer. Merely asserting ''It is a fake because it must be a fake because it can't be real because...'' is utter stupidity. Also, you need to look up what a ''straw man'' argument (fallacy) actually is... because you're using the term incorrectly.
@v1e1r1g1e1 Your satire is making points that skeptics (at least *these* skeptics) aren't making. Perhaps you just didn't understand what we were saying. But regardless, I don't know how the Shroud was made. As I have said a million times and I'm sure I'll say at least a million more, "I don't know" does not mean "Therefore I DO know and it's god"
Beautiful. Anyone who looks into this with an open mind and heart has to conclude that this is the burial shroud of Christ. To claim otherwise is simply not being intellectually honest with oneself.
Although it seems to have been generally dismissed that the shroud could be a painting, I can envisage a way that the image could have been created as a painting that addresses some of the common objections against this idea - although not the major one that there appears to be no actual paint on the shroud (though this is disputed, I believe). These objections are: that no brush strokes are visible; that the color on the shroud seems to be of a single hue throughout; and that an artist would struggle to paint a negative image. In fact there is a technique that was used in the Mediaeval period, and still very much in use today, which addresses these problems and that is “scumbling”. Scumbling involves dragging a dryish brush across the canvas and creating differences in tone by applying variation in pressure. For example, an artist, when painting on a dark surface, would load his brush with white paint and press down harder, thus depositing more paint, in those areas that he wished to be lighter, and press down more lightly in those areas that should be darker, allowing more of the underlying dark color to show through. the effect is a ‘smoky appearance’ without any brushstrokes. In fact, this gives the artist far more control of achieving differences in tone than would be obtained from mixing colours separately on a palette (which is error prone). It also makes smooth gradients easier to do. Now, as regards to how the shroud was painted, instead of the usual technique of using light paint against a dark background, the artist may have used dark paint against a light background, but in other respects his technique would be exactly the same as that which he normally used in his art. If we assume he was expert in his craft, it doesn’t seem like it should be that hard to pull off such a ‘party trick’ so, by all means, dismiss the idea of the shroud being a painting on the grounds that there is no paint on the shroud, but don't dismiss it because you think that creating such a negative image was beyond the ability of a Medieval artist. also, I will add, playfully, that this theory is the only one in accordance with the earliest account of the shroud by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, who claimed that his predecessor had actually wrung a confession out of its creator
I'm not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like that wouldn't account for the "half-tone" effect wherein fibers are either colored or not (not necessarily next to each other) and the assembly of colored fibers is what makes the appearance of darker or lighter. Also the lack of fibers being adhered together by any sort of liquid like one would normally get from painting. I agree that it being a "negative" image does not preclude an artist doing it.
@@ReasontoDoubt as regards the first question, I think it absolutely would. scumbling results in the same color being applied more densely to some areas and less densely to others. but yes, this hypothesis hinges entirely on whether there is actually paint on the shroud. I'm still a little sceptical that the 5 days the STURP team spent on it back in 1978 (making the shroud the most studied artefact in human history, supposedly) constitutes the final word on this matter
doesn't work. THe image is caused by scorching... not pigment. There are no traces of ANY kind of pigment substance in any of the image fibres. Your theory has been disproven countless times. Please stop repeating it.
The fact that dust transfer so well recreates what proponents claim cannot be recreated and that the published paper going over it all has been around since 1994 and is readily available to read this very instant shows how disingenuous saying "we can't explain how it was made" really is. What I don't understand either is that the Bible says to not have false idols and yet there are all these people that would certainly seem to be literally worshipping and venerating a false idol like the shroud should it not be authentic which I guess may explain for at least some the desperation with needing it to be authentic as there are theological ranifications for it being forged. The big question I would love Shroud enthusiasts to answer is what would the Jesus of the Bible with all his views say regarding the shroud as it leads people to hinge belief on the irrelevant physical rather than faith in the spiritual. Do people not remember doubting Thomas or did the meaning of that go over their heads? I may be an agnostic Atheist now, but being raised and confirmed Catholic I take exception to people that clearly don't put ample consideration into the dissonance between what their religion quite explicitly states and how they behave in spite of it.
In the case of color negatives, the colors are also reversed into their respective complementary colors. Typical color negatives have an overall dull orange tint due to an automatic color-masking feature that ultimately results in improved color reproduction.[2] Negatives are normally used to make positive prints on photographic paper by projecting the negative onto the paper with a photographic enlarger or making a contact print. The paper is also darkened in proportion to its exposure to light, so a second reversal results which restores light and dark to their normal order.[3] Negatives were once commonly made on a thin sheet of glass rather than a plastic film, and some of the earliest negatives were made on paper.[4] Transparent positive prints can be made by printing a negative onto special positive film, as is done to make traditional motion picture film prints for use in theaters. Some films used in cameras are designed to be developed by reversal processing, which produces the final positive, instead of a negative, on the original film.[5] Positives on film or glass are known as transparencies or diapositives, and if mounted in small frames designed for use in a slide projector or magnifying viewer they are commonly called slides.
There were problems with the test.1) No test sample with a known age was used as a standard. 2)The original plan, by the scientist was to use 3 pieces from three(3) separate locations, not just a single piece from a single site. Why was this changed; and who changed the plan? 3)The test piece was later found to contain cotton threads interwoven with the linen strands. Cotton was not present in the main body of the cloth. 4)The three test labs discarded the outliers to arrive at the dates presented.
1) The three labs did test known-age samples as well. In fact this is often brought up by proponents as evidence that there was no significant difference in lab procedures since they agreed on the known samples. 2) I agree it would have been way better to use samples from all over the Shroud. Such is life. Hopefully we can convince the pope to let it be done again, lol 3) Any cotton is easily explained by the loom used for weaving having been used for cotton as well. So far as I'm aware (and if you have a citation otherwise please let me know) textile experts generally don't regard this as significant. 4) Discarding outliers is common practice, but I agree that the way these labs handled their data was not ideal. In the debate (also posted on this channel) I have a chart that includes all data points, including outliers. You can see that these outliers are not that far from the estimated age, and Oxford is very, very close to the other two labs. Because of the issues with the test I don't think you can use it to say with any confidence what decade it was made in, but it can give you good confidence that it wasn't first century. The kind of systematic error present in this test is simply not enough to let a 1st century cloth date as 14th century.
@maryjoseph23434 I don't think there's sufficient evidence of an invisible repair. The repair would need to be so cunning that it's impossible to detect, even under a microscope; the new cloth would have needed to be colored in such a way that not only did the color match at the time but whatever dye was used would yellow and age at precisely the same rate as the rest of the cloth; it would need to be a consistent blend of new and old material throughout the patch with very little variance in order to yield the observed c14 dates... There's a lot of issues with the invisible reweave hypothesis. I'm not the only one who thinks so; there are many people who accept this as the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus who also reject the invisible reweave. If the evidence were sufficient to conclude it was a 1st century cloth then I'd accept it was a 1st century cloth. I personally would love for this to be authentic if for no other reason than that it might finally silence the mythicists lol
@maryjoseph23434 The other dating methods are extremely suspect (if you're referencing WAXS and the others we mention), having been essentially invented for the Shroud, based on dubious assumptions, and not having been vetted or accepted by the scientific community. If I'm trying to "sneak in" assumptions about how the image was made and when, loudly and repeatedly telling you I don't know seems like a very poor way to do that. The Sudarium correlations look like wishful thinking at best, and that cloth has dated to the 7th century (I think, I'm going off of memory) and thus couldn't have belonged to Jesus either. Unless it, too, has invisible patches done that just so happen to line up with where the radiometric dating was? Man, they sure do get unlucky with their cloth selections! It seems like you think me not knowing the answer to a question means the answer must be your preferred solution. That just isn't the case. "I don't know" means "I don't know". I get you don't like that answer, but it's the only honest one I can give so it's the one you're going to get.
@maryjoseph23434 So that's a good question; Shroud proponents claim it has been radiocarbon dated, and point to the proceedings of a particular Shroud conference where the results were reported. I have tried to find where these results were actually published but have not been able to do so. Sudarium papers are much thinner on the ground and are almost entirely in Spanish or Italian, so that could explain why I haven't found it. Since the result is counter to what they'd prefer and it was presented at a Shroud conference I'm happy to accept it as provisionally true, with the understanding that I can't say anything about the quality of their methods or anything like that.
@idealdan1613 Yeah, we address Rogers research in part 1. We cite some papers that have scrutinized his work and found his conclusions to be questionable.
@@ReasontoDoubt The dating of the sample itself doesn't even agree with itself. Its all over the place. The withholding of raw data for decades is completely unscientific and shows bias and doubt. There is evidence for repair and evidence of significant edge handling throughout the centuries as well as being 'smoked' in a fire. New, better techniques have dated the shroud to the first century. The C14 argument is a dead end. Let it go.
First of all, this is very interesting. I am a Christian, but not a Catholic and I agree there are many dubious 'relics' of the middle ages and have no interest in defending them. I was only recently shown a presentation on the shroud of turin however, that intrigued me. Is it possible that something else is going on here? A couple thoughts on your discussion here. 1) Dating: the shroud was reportedly involved in a fire in 1532. Could the CO2 of combustion have affected the carbon dating of the shroud? 2) An artist drew the image. Not possible. Artists of the era had not discovered perspective to draw 3D images. This is was not used in art until hundreds of years later (note all medieval paintings are 2D replications) How could they have made a negative density map showing 3D perspective? I believe this indicates a body was used in the making of this image. If that's Christ that's amazing, if someone else that is very dubious. 3) Maillard reaction: a gas may better explain the pattern of staining and the vertical columnization. However, a gas seems extremely poor at transmitting crisp imaging. I believe a gas would be incapable of forming the image seen. Also, there would have to be heat for Maillard reaction, but from where? 4) Radiation: I agree it is strange only the outer layer of fiber would be touched. And also how the back of the fibers were also touched. I guess I don't know enough about radiation. I would wonder about refraction of RF energy or potentially bouncing of radiation off of itself or other fields that may have been created. Also, I believe radiation could simulate vertical columnization due to things in direct contact with the body would have the change, while things farther away may not due to the R^2 loss of energy as the beams traveled. Lateral portions would be very unlikely to have any radiation marks. All in all, fairly good presentation. I just think Maillard and artist rendition is totally out. Radiation may be too, but if you could answer some of those questions, that might help me better understand.
I'm glad you found it useful, even if you don't agree! 1) Good question! Bob Rucker, a staunch Shroud proponent and fellow nuclear engineer, did some math on that. It looks right to me, though I haven't gone down and worked through the numbers, but he concluded that the amount of 16th century contamination that would be required to make a 1st century cloth date to the 14th century would be massive, upwards of 60% (meaning 60% of the carbon would be need to be from the 16th century). That is a MASSIVE amount of contamination, enough that it would be easily seen by a microscope. You can find his work titled "Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin to 1260-1390 AD is Not Explained by Normal Contamination" on Shroud.com 2) I am not convinced that it was done by an artist, but I am also not going to say that it is "impossible" for an artist to have conceived of a 3D image. Note that the Shroud dates to just 100 years before da Vinci lived, so it's not true that no art was realistic for "hundreds of years" after that time. 3) I'm not sure how the imaging would work. The proponent of the idea, Ray Rogers, ran a test showing the coloration worked and claimed the same method could lead to an image, but he died before he could demonstrate that in a test. Without such demonstration, I'd file the Maillard reaction under the heading of "Interesting but not yet supported by the evidence". As for the heat, I don't think heat would be required but I'm not going to pretend to understand the chemistry of the Maillard reaction. Rogers was an expert in the field so I'm relying on his expertise for that piece. 4) Remember that the radiation that would be vertically collimated would be neutrons, which are electrically neutral. That cuts down on the potential suspects to lead to that sort of vertical behavior. While it is true that radiation diminishes according to the inverse square law *when it is radiating in all directions*, the same is not true if it is vertically collimated (it will still diminish over distance, just not exponentially). So far as I'm aware, Rucker's explanation for this extremely odd radiation behavior is to declare it a miracle. Which...fair enough, I suppose, but I'm going to need more than a shrug and a vague hand wave in the general direction of an explanation to accept it myself.
@@ReasontoDoubt Wow, thank you for the response. Sorry for asking the same question on 2 videos, I was really curious about the contamination question. Although, I should have finished the other video, your debate on the topic, because you guys did a thorough job of answering it. It seems unlikely that enough contamination could be present to account for the difference. I won't go back and forth too much, but my question on 4 was, why would the radiation necessarily need to be collimated? If a scattered radiation diminished by R^2, couldn't proximity to the emitting object lead to the pattern observed. So parts of the cloth more loosely applied to the emitter/ body (ie the sides) experience a below threshold level from the radiation to leave a mark and objects very close/ touching (like the face and anterior surfaces) receive a radiation dose above a threshold necessary to leave a mark? I find this a much more plausible (although still not clearly true) explanation than gas release, as gas cannot preserve crisp lines of demarcation, we would only have giant blobs in general locations (head, abdomen, etc...). It may be a moot point as I do agree there is little data this did not come from the middle ages, especially given the craze with finding relics in that era. But, it is still mystery how something like this could have been made.
@@caseyg1516 The reason is that the distance between the sides of the body and the cloth would not be that far, particularly as compared to other parts of the body that are clearly shown like the groin (Turin man is though to be somewhat curled up on the cloth, with knees bent). Yet it's not that there's a faint image of the sides, but none at all. If the radiation caused the image to form and went in all directions, you'd expect the image to be more blurry and distorted, with parts of the side of the face and things like that showing up. That isn't what is seen.
I would like to make an outrageous suggestion. Perhaps they used a message similar to powder coating. A powder that is melted onto the cloth. This powder could’ve been sprayed on with nothing more than a straw. An extremely light layer could’ve been applied and then melted onto the cloth. Crazy right, ask anyone who has powder coated bike parts if they sometimes find raised portions because adhesive from stickers were not chemically removed. An impression of what was there is magically left by the chemical reaction with the adhesive.
@@Madmen604 I've seen conflicting reports about how much we can know about the blood, including questions of whether we can be certain it is primate blood. I haven't looked into that enough to say definitively one way or the other, though it doesn't seem to be that remarkable to me that blood is on the Shroud. Blood is pretty easy to come by, regardless of what time period you're in. The Roman coin thing is...dubious. That seems more like pareidolia to me. We talk a bit about the historical record in episode 3. I don't think that the allusions to the Shroud pre-14th century are particularly compelling. For it being a negative, all that seems to mean is that the dark and light spots of a face are reversed on the Shroud, not that it requires knowledge of photography to accomplish. It is unusual for sure, but I don't think that it rules out a human author. We cover the Jerusalem pollen a bit in ep 4 (though we incorrectly say that the research wasn't a botanist, we were corrected on that). Other botanists have failed to corroborate those results, and the consensus seems to be that you can't nail down the species of pollen sufficiently to tie it to Jerusalem, much less a specific century like that. If you look in the comments of ep 3, Hugh Farey talks about it extensively.
@@Madmen604 Is IR spectroscopy used as a dating method? I only know of spectroscopy as a way to identify things. EDIT: You're probably talking about the method proposed by Fanti (I think?) in 2013 that uses FT-IR spectroscopy as a component. If that's the case, I'd say carbon dating as this is also a novel method that's less than a decade old. It's possible that any of these methods could, in time, supplant carbon dating. We'll have to wait and see.
Have you had a good look at the details in that image? I would love to see who could do that with medieval devices or straws, lol. Especially to make such an image that includes details unseen except by simple 1889 era photography, modern chemical analysis and spectroscopy dating, also includes human or primate blood, and pollens from Jerusalem. There is million dollar reward from someone ...whose name I forget...for any modern artist who can duplicate the shroud image in this way.
Joe Nickell demonstrated how the Shroud image could have been formed using cotton daubers and aloe powders. The image is consistent with the elongated Gothic art of the medieval period.
It's interesting how people comment the image looks like a medieval anglo man and not a Middle Eastern man. Maybe it can't be considered a scientific observation, but it's an interesting observation.
Yes but it doesn't explain how the photo negative was made- and it's 3D on the front. Everyone tells about how to copy Shroud but no one has done it. Pure bullshit talking.
Jordan & Jared, I will make my comments on the material prior to your discussion of my radiation hypothesis (27:00 to 1:02:10) for image formation. I will have to comment later on image formation by radiation. You said (0.03 and 0.30) that your purpose is to debunk the Shroud of Turin. This displays the bias of your presuppositions; that you start your investigation with the presupposition that the Shroud cannot be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and that it cannot be evidence for his resurrection. Starting from these presuppositions, you conclude that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus and is not evidence for his resurrection, but your presuppositions confine you to these conclusions. Your thinking process is goal oriented to prove your presuppositions, so that it becomes merely an exercise in circular reasoning. I started my investigation into the Shroud nine years ago with the neutral presupposition that the cloth may or may not be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and may or may not be evidence for his resurrection. If you want to be honest seekers of truth, you should start your investigation with neutral presuppositions. In your discussion of the image being a photonegative (3:34 - 4:41), the image being a negative merely means that the light and dark areas are reversed from a photograph of a person. This was an astonishing discovery when it was first discovered in 1898 when Secondo Pia took the first photo of the Shroud. This was astonishing because they realized that this meant that the Shroud could not be a painting because no artist could have painted a negative image of the face because no one would have seen a negative image by about 1355, which is the earliest uncontested date for the Shroud. In your discussion of the 3D information that is encoded into the 2D Shroud (4:57 to 5:57), the best way to understand this 3D information is that it is the distance of the cloth from the body, so that a 3D statue can be produced from the 2D Shroud. The significance of this is that no painting or photograph has 3D information encoded into it so that the image on the Shroud cannot be a painting or a photograph. Draping a cloth over a statue or a corpse with its surface containing a colorant would only transfer pigment where the cloth was touching the body, which would not produce the smooth gradation of discoloration we see on the Shroud and could not transfer 3D information to the cloth related to the distance of the cloth from the body. The 3D information on the Shroud indicates that the image formation mechanism was not the result of contact between the body and the cloth but was the result of something that acted across the distance between the body and the cloth. This is why, in the four-day conference on the Shroud that I organized in 2017, with day four dedicated to image formation, all the speakers on image formation used radiation as the basis for their hypothesis. At 7:30, you say the outer discolored depth on a fiber is 0.4 microns. This is probably an older number. This discolored layer on the circumference of an image fiber is now usually quoted as being less that about 0.2 microns (micrometers). I agree that this discolored layer usually goes around the entire fiber. At 9:20 to 9:30, you say that in the image when one thread goes under another thread, the lower thread is not discolored where it is under the upper thread. I agree but why is this? This indicates that the image was formed by something that flowed from the body to the cloth that was prevented from reaching the lower thread by the upper thread. Again, radiation is a good answer to what could have caused this effect. At 11:04 to 11:22, you said “the Bishop, d’Archis, who was the Bishop of Troy, he wrote a letter to his pope saying that this was a forgery and it was done by a painter and he knew it was done by a painter because his predecessor had wrong a confession out of the artist who had made it.” I discuss this issue in Section 6.2 of my paper #17, “Evaluation of ‘A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin’” on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network. The d’Archis Memorandum is an angry letter written by Pierre d’Archis, Bishop of Troyes, France, to Pope Clement VII in Avignon, France. Troyes is 12 miles from Lirey, France, where the Shroud of Turin was exhibited as the true burial cloth of Jesus by its owner, Geoffrey II de Charny, in about 1355 or 1356. In 1389 it was being exhibited again with permission of Pope Clement VII. This angered Pierre d’Archis, because as Bishop of Troyes with authority over Lirey, his permission should have been required. In the memorandum, Pierre d’Archis claimed that the previous Bishop in Troyes, Bishop Henry de Poitiers, investigated the Shroud when it was previously exhibited in Lirey 34 years earlier (1355 or 1356) and that Poitiers had found a painter who admitted to painting it. The reasons for rejecting this allegation in the d’Archis memorandum are many: 1) We only know about the d’Archis memorandum based on two draft copies, 2) There is no evidence that the memorandum was ever sent to Pope Clement VII, 3) There is no indication that d’Archis had any personal knowledge of this alleged investigation 34 years earlier, he makes no mention of any documentation so he evidently found none, so his allegation is probably based on second-hand hearsay evidence, 4) Though the memorandum is about six pages long, there is only one sentence in the memorandum regarding this painter that admitted that he painted it, though no name is given and no other information, 5) If there was a painter that said he painted the Shroud, he may have only meant that he painted a copy of the Shroud, since there were 40 to 50 copies made of the Shroud, and 6) the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) that spent five days, 24 hours a day, of hands-on scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978 concluded that the images were not due to paint, dye, or stain for multiple reasons. Thus, there is no reliable historical documentation to indicate that the Shroud of Turin originated in the 13th or 14th centuries. In 11:41 to 12:22, you discuss the painting hypothesis of Walter McCrone. This hypothesis was thoroughly investigated at the time by the 33 members of STURP and rejected. This is documented in the 225 page book “Report on the Shroud of Turin” by Dr. John Heller, 1983. Walter McCrone was not a member of STURP, but was loaned fibers from the Shroud by a member of STURP. It is not clear what McCrone was seeing in his microscope, but it may have been burned red blood cells or iron oxide from the retting (rotting) process used in extracting the linen fibers from the flax plant. Thank you for your consideration. Robert A. Rucker, Shroud Research Network
//You said (0.03 and 0.30) that your purpose is to debunk the Shroud of Turin// That intro is something the kids are doing nowadays called "a joke". It's a clip from a popular show called "Rick and Morty", using mostly original audio from that show. Since all jokes are funnier when you explain them, the joke here is that we (represented by the robot), are dismayed by the success of our own videos, which drives us to digging ever deeper into this one topic if we want to be successful rather than branching back out. The algorithm has no sympathy for our plight. Hopefully this has eradicated any humor from the intro and rendered its meaning plain, sterile, and thoroughly unfunny. //that you start your investigation with the presupposition that the Shroud cannot be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and that it cannot be evidence for his resurrection.// There's no a priori reason why this couldn't be the burial cloth of Jesus even if he wasn't divinely resurrected, so I definitely don't start with the presupposition that it isn't authentic. Beyond that, though, I do NOT assume that miracles cannot happen. I think you've said this a couple times, that I assume at the outset that miracles are impossible or similar things, so let me be absolutely clear so there are no further misunderstandings: I do NOT assume miracles are impossible. I am open to being persuaded that miracles, the supernatural, or literally *anything* is real. I am open to the idea that the Shroud of Turin was on Jesus face when he was re-alived. I just need good evidence. Hopefully that clears this up. I reject your notion that there is virtue in approaching this "neutrally", however. I'm interpreting that as giving supernatural explanations roughly equal weight with others, something like a 50/50 proposition, let me know if that's not right. Do you approach your investigations of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or alien abductions from this sort of "neutral" stance, giving their validity equal credence with their falsehood? If not is it because you have an "anti-alien bias"? Are you engaging in "circular reasoning" when you don't just blithely accept alien abduction stories? For the same reason, I do not approach divine miracle claims from a position of neutrality. I approach it with my background knowledge that these claims are usually false, and that they would require me to suppose a supernatural layer to reality, which would be a HUGE ask, and therefore requires commensurately good evidence. If you are ignoring that then you are approaching the problem from a severely biased perspective. //This was astonishing because they realized that this meant that the Shroud could not be a painting because no artist could have painted a negative image of the face// I do not believe that "make the dark parts light" is beyond the possible understanding of human beings who haven't seen a photograph. Medieval humans were not any dumber than humans today. The inversion of shading is something that needs to be explained and I'm not even necessarily advocating for a 14th century artist working with paint, but it doesn't seem to me to be something so far out there that it precludes being conceived of by a 14th century mind. //In your discussion of the 3D information that is encoded into the 2D Shroud...The significance of this is that no painting or photograph has 3D information encoded into it so that the image on the Shroud cannot be a painting or a photograph.// This is obviously false, because a photograph of the Shroud of Turin itself would have the same "3D encoded information" as the Shroud does. Someone sufficiently talented could make a sketch that has darker shades correspond to "further out" from the page. Heck, a topographic map can be a 2D painting and it would have "3D encoded information". This is simply a fact that any image formation hypothesis must take into account. It serves to limit the possibility space for image formation hypotheses. //At 7:30, you say the outer discolored depth on a fiber is 0.4 microns. This is probably an older number.// Thanks for the correction, I'll add this to the pinned comment. That would slightly change some of the energy values of the protons I used in the SRIM software but the overall point would be the same. //At 9:20 to 9:30, you say that in the image when one thread goes under another thread, the lower thread is not discolored where it is under the upper thread. I agree but why is this?// I don't know. //At 11:04 to 11:22, you said “the Bishop, d’Archis, who was the Bishop of Troy// I include the bit about the bishop as an interesting bit of history about the Shroud. I put no weight in the bishop's conclusions. He could have been making up every word so far as I'm concerned. //In 11:41 to 12:22, you discuss the painting hypothesis of Walter McCrone. This hypothesis was thoroughly investigated at the time by the 33 members of STURP and rejected.// It sure was. I'm pretty sure we referenced some of their findings.
Jordan says in the video and Robert Rucker also states here that Bishop d'Arcis claimed that the Shroud was "painted". I don't know where that is coming from. In my version of the letter (or memo) that I took from Nicolotti's book, d'Arcis nowhere refers to painting. He only says that the artist who created it ("portrayed it") had been identified and that he admitted that "it was made by work of a man, not miraculously wrought or bestowed". He doesn't actually say how the artist made it. I think you are both making an assumption that the artist would have painted it, but I don't believe d'Arcis actually says that.
@richardstanleyjr1455 The translation I found online said it was a "certain cloth, cunningly painted", but I'm unable to read it in its original language (which I assume would be French). I can't speak to the quality of the translation...but since I don't put any weight on the bishop's testimony I'm not that worried about it
I sometimes wonder if part of it is that we're looking at it hundreds of years later, after time, weather conditions, fires, etc. have done their thing. It's hard to know how those things affected it.
I think that's absolutely a component of the issue. Combined with how rarely it can be examined, and how limited we can be in those examinations, and it's a tough row to hoe
I really appreciate your work on radiation, penetrating into the linen fibers. I’ve never been a believer in the shroud. I’ve never had a reason to believe in it, or to want to believe that it’s real. But I do think there are a lot of compelling and interesting aspects to it. One thing I can’t understand is all the blood all over it. I understand the Bible says that Jesus was buried quickly, and he didn’t receive a proper preparation, but it’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t have washed the body. Also, the idea that the blood in the water from his pierced side would somehow still be wet enough to have soaked into the cloth is a bit of a mystery to me. As well as the people who are pointing out that a cloth draped over a face would have produced a more distorted image. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. All I can think is how horrible it might’ve been for someone in the middle ages to have subjected a person to scourging and crucifixion in order to create this magnificent artifact.
We have! We even address them. He uses MCNP to make some predictions, based on neutrons acting in a way neutrons simply don't act, along with a bunch of other outlandish assumptions. The good news is it would be extremely easy to test. The bad news is, until it is tested, it shouldn't be relied upon by anybody for anything.
Radiation burst could have transferred blood from the body to the cloth. With a quick burial and no water outside city walls, any washing could have been postponed until after Sabbath. Roman guards sealing the tomb would have complicated things.
For some reason, my completely charitable comments on three different comments don’t show up. It appears that any of you non-believers are afraid to discuss the science behind the Shroud. The actual real science, why are these comments all deleted?
I've had lots of people complain about RUclips eating comments on various threads. I don't know why it happens. I get no notification, it's as if they were never made. I will say that links often (but not always) get your comment removed (again by YT, not by me)
Oh man, I missed the first 28 mins or so but xame for the Radiation part and Jordan and Jared did an amazing job- seriously Bravo as I think your assessment was more or less right on the money most of the time. That said there were just a vouple things I didn't agree with you guys on at the level of conclusions. 1. You are right that Bob's hypothesis is ad hoc in that Bob took the known data and used those as inputs into his calculations (with one exception) and so his model perhaps shouldn't be used as a rebutting defeater as Bob does, I instead use his work only as an undercutting defeater whereby I think it makes his hypothesis an equally probable hypothesis relative to other explanatory hypotheses such as the one you suggested. I look forward to Bob providing details on here (hopefully) addressing why he goes for the rebutting defeater part and making a positve claim on his end. That said, I don't see Bob's hypothesis as implausible at all when we are speaking of miracles of God- obviously it has to be vertically colliminated to encode the images properly and to give it it's unique properties else you get a blurry mess and so Bob was taking into account known facts about the Shroud images (that they encoded via a rectilinear or perhaps curvilinear path) and taking that as a given in his hypothesis. So yeah, seems equally plausible to me that God would use vertical radiation and use it in ways that aren't regularly how nature works to make those images. So it does seem like a bias against miracles here on your part to say it is implausible simply because there are aspects that don't follow regular natural laws and it is also a mistake to make it seem like God had to use seperate mechanisms to accomplish these things as well. 2. One thing you missed is that Bob's calculations did not intitially take into account the Sudairum of Oviedo date of 670-700 A.D.- he didn't even know about it at the time and yet coincidentally when he did factor this data in, it just coincidentially matched one historically plausible location on the side of the bench in the tomb. Now you are enitely right that we have no idea in advance orindeptndently where exactly that cloth was located in the tomb, but there are only a limited number of plausible locations it could have been and still be plausible- remember neutrons were bouncing aorund all over the tomb and so it could well have been that the 670 or 700A.D. date would be located in a place that was implausible for the ancient Jews to have placed the head cloth. So, while this is iron clad, it is still not as though Bob could have just claimed victory regardless of where his calculations showed the 670-700 A.D. carbon 14 date, right- there are only some limited plausible options.
Literally nothing is implausible when we're talking about miracles of God. That's kind of the problem, isn't it? Literally any feature of the Shroud, no matter what it is, could always be explained as a miracle of God. Heck, God could finely tune the C14 level in the Shroud to date to a specific year in the 14th century if he wanted to, even if the cloth was first century. When your mechanism can explain literally any evidence & cannot possibly be falsified by any evidence it loses all explanatory power. But if we're just going to invoke an omnipotent being, why bother with protons & vertical collimation and all that? Just have God make the image directly and be done with it. I disagree with the characterization that this is a "bias against miracles"; or rather, I disagree that this is somehow not what a reasonable person ought to do. You are asserting God as a mechanism of causation; it is perfectly reasonable to require you provide solid evidence that your mechanism of causation exists before blithely invoking it to explain phenomena. The Shroud of Turin is used all the time as evidence that God exists & performs miracles; including the existence of God as one of your premises is circular reasoning. Regarding the face cloth, I imagine you could force it to have any date you wanted by positioning it in different locations in the tomb. If right next to the body didn't work, Ruckers could have moved it a foot to the left. Or to the right. Or to the ground. Or near the entrance. Any date at all could be accommodated; that's the problem.
@@ReasontoDoubt Well yes and no, if you remember I think that the context matters and so positing a miracle in a random context is indeed implausible based on the fact that it violates God's established MO on that front, but when in a religious context whereby there is a plausible inherent reason for us to expect God to do something different then I think such events are equally probable or plausible and I don't find that problematic on my end. I don't think miracles can explain all the evidence though or if one posited that it did, then it may start to look improbable via being ad hoc and/or even implausible--- so for example I do find it imporbable though not impossible that God would make miraculous images that were historically or anatomically innaccurate for example. That doesn't fit God's MO nor His truthful character and so one might make an argument that way perhaps- God would not directly decieve us through His miraculous events (at least not without providing a way to tell the truth). But yeah, you are right that there is no need to do what Bob does, but I prefer it as it is analyzable, but others like Giulio Fanti goes for a new hypothesis known as the Divine Photography hypothesis- OK maybe that explains everything then. In terms of my using circular reasoning, I'm afraid that isn't true about me in particular as I'm a professional philosopher with a Masters and teach logic to first year university students (so I love the fallacies you guys do lol), but it is true that I have an 11 premise argument of which Premise #1 is that God exists and the truth of this premise is presupposed in my assessment of miracles of God (though I do provide independant warrant for that first premise). I don't use an argument from miracles (like the Shroud) to prove that God exists, I merely use it as evidence for the truth of christianity not that God proper exists. FInally, what about on the side of a wall or on the roof- if it turned out we got those areas then obviously that wouldn't work unless one posits God making it float at the time of the radiation burst or something whixh is too ad hoc for me personally. But again your point is taken that we need more, there are a limited but many options that could have worked and so really the only way to break the explanatory tie is to do more tests and see what we get. We don't need to touch the Shroud at all- we already have some samples taken from it from 2002- they should date to the future given their location and if Bob is right. Anyways, again well done, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said and I would promote your video but I see that Joe Marino has already beat me to it and has announced your video to everyone- looking forward to seeing you interact with Bob if he has the time to post on this one :)
@@RealSeekers If you personally don't use miracles like the Shroud to substantiate God's existence then I commend you for that. If you accept the premise of a deity existing then it seems miracles would certainly be an appropriate way to distinguish between various competing conceptions of deity. Please let us know if we get any fallacies wrong, btw. I try to check myself as much as I can, but I have little formal training in philosophy (just some electives in my undergrad) so I'm always concerned I'm missing something.
@@ReasontoDoubt Awesome, and yeah no you guys do a great job on the fallacies and like you my favorite one is the fallacy fallacy that you mentioned the other day- that one is never covered in Richard Feldman's textbook so I always make sure to add it in at the end of my class for my students :)
Thank you for this statement "But if we're just going to invoke an omnipotent being, why bother with protons & vertical collimation and all that? Just have God make the image directly and be done with it." Very well said! I also fail to understand why if someone is taking the position that the image was put there by a miracle why they would then go to such extreme efforts to try to prove unheard of physical phenomena as the cause of the image. It seems that some don't believe God can just say "Let there be light" and there was light. Genesis 1:3. And what about Jesus' first miracle of turning water into wine. Was radiation a part of that miracle too?
Hi Jordan and Jared, and thanks for a much more, in my opinion, considered episode. Any correction I would make is entirely trivial, as on the whole I think you did a very good job with the material you presented this time. Such comment as I have here is more complementary than critique. 1) One of the problems with determining how the image was made lies in the characterisation of the properties of the image, which are not, I think, well established. The main reason Walter McCrone saw more opaque particles than Heller and Adler was that the latter washed all their samples very thoroughly with toluene before examining them closely. We really have no idea of the extent to which particles contribute to the image now, let alone whether they contributed more in the past. It does seem as if alteration to the primary cell wall is the principal chromophore today, but it is not clear whether this was mere oxidation, or if a dye, such as iron acetate, could be a contributory factor. 2) Flax fibres are not tubular in quite the way your diagram depicts. The vast majority consists of the thick secondary cell wall, almost entirely of cellulose, through which a narrow hollow tube called the lumen, not the medulla, threads its way. The discoloured bit is the very thin primary cell wall, which also contains hemicellulose and pectin, which may be easier to discolour. 3) You comment, probably correctly, that the different shades of colour of the image do not occur because the colouring matter actually consists of different shades, but of a single shade, which, distributed more or lass densely over the pale substrate, gives rise to the appearance of different shades. This observation tends to support the pigment hypothesis, as any individual pigment tends to be more or less monochrome, and weakens the Maillard reaction and the radiation hypotheses, whose effect is to darken the substrate in proportion to their intensity. 4) While I'm here.... Perhaps Hww doesn't know that the reason the dumbbell shaped scourgemarks match the models of Roman flagra is that the models were modelled on the dumbbell shaped scourge marks, and not on any Roman archaeological discoveries. Perhaps he doesn't know that the Travertine aragonite found on the Shroud is common all over the world, not least in Champagne, where the Shroud was first displayed. Perhaps he doesn't know that Max Frei's pollen evidence has been largely discredited, and found to be unreliable by Israel's leading botanist Avinoam Danin.
Every source I read on the topic (including Fanti) referenced the interior of the fiber as the medulla, but I have precisely zero background knowledge when it comes to the structure of the flax fibers so I have to take their word for it. If they're wrong, then I'd be wrong too. Or, alternatively, maybe I've just misread what all these sources were trying to say.
@@ReasontoDoubt Hi Jordan and Jared, nothing wrong with that, you weren't professing to be investigating the Shroud yourselves, so much as reporting on other people's investigation. However, it's a pet peeve of mine, that "experts" on the Shroud are so narrowly focussed on their subject that they don't research important peripheral subjects, such as, for example, flax biology. The medulla is the hollow tube down the middle of animal hairs or the pith (or tube) down the middle of plant stems, and the lumen is the tube through bast fibres, as any sindonologist could have discovered if they could be bothered. But they so rarely do...
You know, that does explain why my searches for the "medulla" in relation to flax fibers gave me no hits outside of Shroud stuff. I thought I was just typing it wrong or maybe literally nobody cares about it other than them, lol
Hugh Farey.. the models were modeled after models? , so what were the models modeled after? They probably had some clue. As far as the limestone, that particular travertine limestone found on the Shroud is uniquely comparable to the Limestone in that particular area. Evidently there are slight variances of travertine found in different locations. Somehow they were able to identify it as a limestone more common to that area. But even if it were just a common travertine, and nothing different about it who was this guy going to sell this to? Some top-notch scientist of his day?
Phenomenal video as a huge believer in shroud. Until now believed the radiation was most true. Still now don’t not believe the radiation (we don’t know how but doesn’t it still look as though it is proton imprinting on fabric?) Just deeply want to say thank you, phenomenal phenomenal work.
The Shroud of Turin cannot be replicated using technology available to ancient people. If the Shroud is fake, the creator would have had to be a master of manipulation. He would have planned to obtain pollen from ancient Israel and Roman coins for his eyes. He also would have violently scourged a victim with a barbed Roman whipping device, crucified his victim, and then what, created a 3D image of his victim?
The Shroud is easily reproducible, in all its properties, with the frottage technique (medieval technology of course). It was reproduced for the first time in 2009 by Luigi Garlaschelli, a chemist at the University of Pavia: L. Garlaschelli. Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image. J. Imaging Sci. and Technol., 54 (4) 2010, in press This reproduction replicates all its properties, 100%, including the bas-relief detected with 3D information, exactly like the Turin Shroud. As you can verify, there is no mystery. The rest are straw men. Please reply to the peer reviewed scientific publication only with other peer reviewed scientific publications. I'm not interested in personal opinions. I consider any comment not supported by scientific documentation as a confirmation of the scientific documentation that I have indicated.
I found it interesting that you explored a hypothesis from someone who tried to explain the image was due to the way they made linen in the first century A.D. I thought you were of the opinion that it was made in the medieval times? Are you suggesting that someone in the medieval times read Pliney and made a piece of linen according to the method he laid out in his writings, just to do a forgery of Jesus's burial cloth for a small Italian city? Not a very plausible hypothesis.
Rogers was of the opinion it was 1st century, and he's the one who came up with the Maillard reaction hypothesis. We're not in the habit of excluding research because it's published by people we disagree with.
@@ReasontoDoubt That's fine, but I didn't hear you mention that it was Roger's opinion that it was made in the first century, or whether or not you agreed with him on that point. The way it was presented gave me a "wait. what?" moment.
Also, I would have like to have heard why Rogers thinks it is first century. IS the cloth woven in a first Century technique? OR, are there other reasons why he thought it was first century?
I really really love how hard it is to debunk a shroud that seems to be from the 13th or 14th century. With all our advanced tech you would think it would have been debunked instantly. Makes you wonder!!!
I mean, it basically has. The biggest issue is a lack of access to the shroud. If we had more samples to date, especially those of the image itself (something that everyone would agree isn't a patch) the matter would be settled
@@curiouspeanut don't you know that the shroud is the most studied artefact in the world? why, over 40 years ago, a team of scientists had access to it for a full 5 days!
There is no access to the shroud. It was examined by STURP for a few days in the late 70s, and apart from the carbon dating I don't think anything else has been done. I could be wrong though.
@@curiouspeanut humans are so foolish... the person in the shroud IS JESUS .....EVERYONE KNOWS THIS... u guys are so faithful to your debased world view that it clouds your judgment of common sense and BASIC reason. the shroud was gained access to and an ex ray light scattering dated the cloth 500bc-500Ad. It's Jesus who was wrapped in the cloth. It's BASIC common sense.
@@nahj1don706 You got a date with a 1000 span, and are confidently able to conclude it was Jesus'? I don't know it's Jesus', I don't think you do either.
That one is both not as popular among Shroud proponents as the radiation explanation and seems more far fetched than the other two, so we didn't cover it. It's impossible to cover it all!
@@ReasontoDoubt The reason I mentioned it is that years ago I saw a documentary where they actually replicated the Jesus image on linen using camera obscura and I also think they said that Leanardo Da Vinci was the one that made the shroud using this method to get back at the church. What are your thoughts ???
@@sicpuppy9435 obscura won't create a 3D quality detectable by VP 8- Analyzer.... this is one of the mystery of the Shroud...why does a VP8- Analyzer detect 3D qualities?... Normal photo or painting don't have 3D qualities under a VP 8- Analyzer...
Another video I saw the man duplicated the technique he believes the artist used and it was using dry powder paints that were BAKED on to give it an antique look and to hold the powder paint to the fabric. What do you think of that hypothesis?
I've had a bunch of commenters mention that technique. I would think there would still be pigments on it...but I haven't looked deeply into it so I'm not sure. One day, when we do a series on image formation, I'll do that.
55:19 “If you take nothing else away from this very long diatribe on radiation, understand this. Rucker’s model has no value because all of the known data points are input to his model. It cannot help but to match that.” Is it true that “all of the known data points are input” to the model that I used in MCNP? What did I model in MACNP? In MCNP, I modeled a horizontal human body using simple geometrical volumes, surrounded by linen cloth in a box geometry, laying with the head to the right on the back bench in a limestone tomb as it would have been designed in first century Jerusalem. I had to run about 400 MCNP calculations to bound (low to high values) all the variables for which I did not have specific values, including neutron emission energy, neutron emission direction, distance of the toes from the limestone wall, etc. None of this included any of the “known data points”. What are the “known data points”? There are four “known data points” relevant to the carbon dating of Shroud. They are: 1. All samples sent to the three dating laboratories were cut from the Shroud at the same time in 1988. These samples were cut next to each other from the corner of the Shroud. The dating laboratories were in Oxford England, Zurich Switzerland, and in Tucson Arizona. Each of the three laboratories then cut their sample into multiple subsamples, so that 16 subsamples were carbon dated. An average carbon date was then calculated for each laboratory using the carbon dates that were measured at that laboratory. These laboratory average values were then combined into one overall average value: 1260 ± 31 AD. This “uncorrected value” was then corrected for the changing concentration of the carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This correction process produced a range of 1260 to 1390 AD. The central date of this range is 1325 AD. The range of 1260-1390 supposedly has 95% probability of containing the true date, but this is only true if the uncorrected value of 1260 ± 31 years is known with certainty. This uncorrected value of 1260 ± 31 years should be rejected due to the probable presence of a systematic measurement error that caused the measured values to be “heterogeneous” or “non-homogeneous”, as indicated by four papers in peer-reviewed journals. This is a very detailed study that can be ignored at this point. The bottom line is that the first “known data point” is the 1325 date for the average of the 16 subsample measurements. 2. The second “known data point” is the average date for each of the three laboratories: 1201 ± 31, 1274 ± 24, and 1303 ± 17 for Oxford, Zurich, and Tucson, respectively. These values indicate that the carbon date depends on the distance from the bottom of the cloth, at the rate of 36 years per cm = 91 years per inch. A chi-squared statistical analysis of these values indicates there is only a 1.4% chance (bottom of column 1 in Table 5 of my paper #12 on my website Shroud Research Network) these values are consistent with each other, which is below the usual 5% criteria. This indicates the probable presence of a systematic measurement error in the data. Since it is not possible to determine the magnitude of this systematic error, the only option is to reject the conclusion that the Shroud dates to 1260-1390 AD. 3. The third “known data point” is the 16 carbon dates for the 16 subsamples. These values are available in Table 6 of my paper #12 “The Carbon Dating Problem for the Shroud of Turin, Part 2: Statistical Analysis” on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network. 4. The fourth “known data point” is the measured carbon date of about 700 AD for the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is believed to be the face or head cloth for Jesus mentioned in John 20:7. These are four requirements that a carbon dating hypothesis must satisfy to be true. It was said that “Rucker’s model has no value because all of the known data points are input to his model.” Is it true that the overall average value (1325 AD), the three laboratory average values (1201 ± 31, 1274 ± 24, and 1303 ± 17), all the 16 carbon dates for the 16 subsamples, and the 700 AD value for the Sudarium of Oviedo are all “input to his model”? No. I will try to clarify the confusion on this issue. When MCNP is run, the output values are normalized to one neutron in the model. To have the values meaningful, the output values must to be renormalized to something that is of significance. For example, if I was running MCNP for a nuclear reactor, I would normalize all the output values to the power level of the nuclear reactor, so that they would have the correct values for that power level. For my Shroud calculations in MCNP, the only thing that I could renormalize the output values to is the average carbon date for the 1988 samples obtained by the three laboratories, either 1260 AD for the uncorrected value or 1325 AD, for the midpoint of the corrected range 1260-1390 AD. For the MCNP calculations I performed in 2014, I chose to renormalize the output values to the uncorrected 1260 date though I now believe the corrected date of 1325 would have been more appropriate. From the MCNP output that was normalized to one neutron, I was able to calculate how many neutrons would have to be emitted from the body to result in a carbon date at the 1988 sample area of 1260 AD. This number was about 2 x 10^18 neutrons. I then renormalized all the MCNP output values by multiplying them by 2 x 10^18 neutrons. This was done in EXCEL. The result was that the carbon date at the 1988 sample location was 1260 AD. This is the “known data point” #1 above. The neutron absorption hypothesis can be stated as follows: “If 2 x 10^18 neutrons are emitted uniformly in the body, then all four of the above requirements are satisfied.” Each of these requirements is one of the four “known data points”: 1. The carbon date at the 1988 sample location should be 1260, or 1325, whichever is chosen. This is automatically satisfied by assuming that the correct number of neutrons (2 x 10^18) is emitted in the body to shift the carbon date for the 1988 sample location from 33 to 1260 AD. 2. MCNP calculated a value at the 1988 sample location that was very close to the experimental value of 36 years per cm. There was nothing put into MCNP that forced the code to calculate the same slope to the data as the measurements indicated. Thus, theory (MCNP calculations) was in close agreement with experiments (carbon dates measured by the three laboratories). 3. The MCNP calculations in 2014 did not have sufficient spatial resolution to confirm the distribution and range of the carbon dates for the 16 subsamples. I need to restart my MCNP calculations with a finer spatial resolution to confirm the distribution and range of the carbon dates for the 16 subsamples. 4. After I finished my MCNP calculations related to the carbon dating of the Shroud, it occurred to me that there was also the carbon dating of the Sudarium of Oviedo, which as the face or head cloth of Jesus (John 20:7) is related to the Shroud. It was my understanding at the time that the Sudarium was carbon dated to about 700 AD, though these measurements were not well documented. The problem is where the Sudarium may have been placed in the tomb. In thinking about it, it occurred to me that the most likely place for the Sudarium to have been dropped in the tomb was probably on the right bench, because most people are right handed, and to the side of the person doing the burial, who would have been at the front of the pit or stand-up area in the tomb. Thus, after he took the face cloth off the body, he most likely would have dropped the face cloth on the right bench where his right arm and hand (with his arm hanging down) would have been located, about 15 to 18 inches in front of the back bench where the body would have been located. This was my prediction. I then took my previous case and inserted a linen layer on the top of the right and left benches in the tomb, and then reran this new MCNP case. When I got the MCNP calculated results back, I found that my predicted location for the face cloth on the right bench had a carbon date of about 700 AD, in very good agreement with the experimental values. No aspect of my input into MCNP forced the code to give such good results between my predicted location for the face cloth and the measured carbon date of the Sudarium. Thus, the above requirements #1, #2, and #4 are satisfied for my hypothesis, and requirement #3 needs to be further tested by running MCNP with a finer spatial resolution. These are the four “known data points” related to carbon dating of the Shroud, and only #1 is true because I normalized all the values to the correct number of neutrons (2 x 10^18) to shift the carbon date from 33 to 1260 AD at the 1988 sample location. 55:58 “He normalizes his curve so it automatically agrees with the first requirement.” As explained above, this is exactly appropriate. It is the good agreement for requirements #2 (slope) and #4 (face cloth) that indicates my assumption of neutron emission from the body has merit. There is nothing in my input to MCNP that forced the computer to calculate this good agreement. 56:04 Regarding the good agreement for the face cloth, see 4 above on the face cloth. MCNP calculated the correct carbon date for the face cloth for my predicted most likely location for it in the tomb. I did not put it there to give me the answer that I wanted. I predicted the location, then calculated the dates, which for the predicted location, were in good agreement with the experiments.
And if your preferred location of the cloth hadn't gotten the answer you wanted, you would have moved it because that cloth to be literally anywhere in the tomb (or nowhere at all). I understand that you need to normalize your curve to make sense of the data. My point is that for laymen who may look at that curve and be impressed, they shouldn't be. The fact that the curve agrees with the radiocarbon dates we have is not impressive because the model is designed to do just that. I don't know why in half these comments you're objecting to the insinuation you did that, then in this comment you say you did it. I understand that you say it also matched the slope of the points. That's to be expected since more neutrons would be emitted further towards the center; this is the very thing that led you to this idea in the first place (according to interviews you've given). That's not a confirmed prediction, it's the thing you're trying to explain. Does this mean your model is hypothesis is wrong? No. What it DOES mean is that it is ad hoc and finely tuned to match our observations, so unless and until independent verification is found it should have just as much weight as if I said alien teleporter technology caused the neutron burst.
You want to reject the radiocarbon dating when it suits you, but rely on its measurements when THAT suits you. Which is it? Should we throw it away? Or should we use it? I happen to think we should use it. We should use it to say that because of the systematic errors we cannot say with confidence where in that range the true date lies, but we CAN say that the true date is not 1st century. Which is actually ALSO what you say; where we differ is you go to an elaborate rube Goldberg device to explain it whereas I use a known mechanism with a clear cause. Seems like one of us is digging hard to get the answer they prefer. Hint: Their name rhymes with Rob Bucker.
If you take a cloth and drape it over your face and then you emit some sort of resurrection radiation or whatever, you don't produce a picture like a selfie. The face would look distorted/widened. So imho the miracle wouldn't be just the radiation but the perfectly distributed radiation that produced a "normal" looking picture... before that riddle is solved I see no need to look into any of the radiation explanations... Though I appreciate your efforts to explain why the different hypotheses don't work. Good job! Looking forward to the next instalment...
Derek your making what we call assertions from ignorance or assertions from what we don’t know . What the image does show is shades of light and darkness which tells us which parts of the shroud were closer to the body and which were further away . Now if the image was formed in the same way as a photo was formed you’d be right but the shroud image has 3d topographical information encoded on it . The same type that the vp8 image analyzer encodes from pics of the terrain of mars and the moon . The people that came closest to replicating the shroud were scientists that worked with the radiation models . August accetta was one of them when he ingested radioactive materials into his body and while the image he produced did replicate a few of the unique characteristics of the shroud image it didn’t produce an image that came close to the detail on the shroud image . Also the Italian scientists using high powered lasers also succeeded in replicating the coloring on the cloth and the superficiality of the shroud image but they could only produce something only a few centimeters long but to replicate something the same size as the full shroud image they would need a laser with power on a scale we currently don’t have . And how does the shroud image look like a selfie . A selfie has 2 dimensional characteristics, the shroud has 3 dimensional features on it . And why would any ancient forger put pollen from Jerusalem that no one including him knows how to detect and won’t know how to detect for many centuries ??? There are too many features on this shroud that make it silly to believe that a medieval forger would ever want to or need to or knew how to do to go to these lengths to fool A medieval audience . The problem becomes worse when you consider the circumstantial evidence that takes the date of the shroud to much older then the c14 dating out out , like the connection to the image of edessa from the 6th century and the tetradiplon folding pattern talked about in the image of edessa’s history which was also found in the shroud , as well as the many points of coincidences found between the sudarium of oveido and the blood marks on the head image of the shroud of Turin . I lean towards authenticity but not 100% because we can never know for certain . Take this with the fact that Cambridge art historian thomas de wesselow said that the shroud image itself doesn’t fit with the artistic style of any era in art history should make any HONEST sceptic sit up and take notice . I haven’t fully watched this video yet but the title tells me that the creators of this video are most likely people from the religion of atheism who are going in with an emotional bias . I’ll finish watching before forming my full opinion on them
@@ReasontoDoubt yes curated by some intelligent designer maybe ;) Nahhh that can’t be !! Why ? Because atheists say so ;) As a former atheist I can understand having doubt in the existence of God . What I can’t understand is why an someone doesn’t emotionally want God to exist as most of the atheists I have dialogued with seem to have in their style of dialoguing
Now the guy says the shroud isn’t a photonegative but is disingenuous when he says it’s merely dark in areas where it’s supposed to be light and vice versa . Duhhhhhhh What the heck is a photonegative if but that . I can smell the emotional bias emanating deep within 😂 True it probably isn’t a photonegative in that it wasn’t taken by a camera but it absolutely has photonegative qualities . The hillarious part os is comparing it to a lithograph . The problem with this comparison os that the image on the shroud doesn’t look anything like a lithograph but if someone were doing a photonegative on a litho graph you would easily be able to detect that . No one looking at the original shroud image as it’s shown on the burial cloth would ever think it was a negative image . And again why would any forger think of doing this through an unknown process to fool a medieval crowd . But the problem here is I’m being extra kind when I’m even suggesting a medieval date as there is no evidence outside the c14 dating that puts at at a medical date . As I said in my last post Cambridge art historian thomas de wesselow who is himself an agnostic and not a believer says this doesn’t in any way shape or form conform to medieval art style of the style of any era of art history . So far this is basically nothing more then a circle jerk of 2 people preaching to the choir . To debunk this as a creation made by human hands you need to first show us that this was done in the same artistic style of the medieval era or any era and if you go with someone’s opinion like wesselow who is an expert in art history you can’t even get to that point . I was hoping for an unbiased video but so far I’m extremely disappointed . I hope the rest of the video proves me wrong . It’s videos like this that made me start to Doubt my atheism. If you guys want rational atheists to read I’d suggest Roger penrose Stuart hameroff Michael ruse John beloff These are atheists who are actually open to being shown to be wrong . This looks to Me like the opposite side of the young earth creationist coin
@angelbrother1238 Many people talking about it being a photonegative then say things like "but photography wasn't invented yet so it has to be a miracle". Some of them were in the comment section of the last video! We were pointing out, for those people, that that does not follow. I realize that is not what you think, and this may come as a shock to you, but you are not the only person on the internet and we did not make this video to address you and only you. It isn't disingenuous or deceptive to answer an objection that is being raised to us directly. That art historians work is not peer reviewed. He self published it on Amazon. I've looked through the book, and his entire argument hinges on the Pray Codex which I do not find compelling. If his arguments are so amazing, why doesn't he submit them for peer review? You may want to hone your skeptical senses if you accept anything a fellow non-believer puts in a book. I would be happy to be shown I'm wrong. The evidence for the Shroud simply isn't compelling. I do second your recommendation of Penrose, though.
Pretty much, yeah. You may not be able to say if his predicted amounts are dead on but we should be able to rule out highly elevated radiation levels at the center
@@ReasontoDoubt If the Geiger counter test is done, that would help a lot. Besides, it is not destructive. Can't imagine why the Vatican would not allow it. But wouldn't the radiation from that one "resurrection" event have dissipated after all these years? Such that the Geiger counter would not show elevated readings?
@@SupremeSkeptic That's a great question! In this case, the answer is no, because of the specific thing being tested. Rucker's hypothesis is that a burst of neutrons led to the production of extra radioactive carbon-14 in the Shroud, far in excess of what it would normally have had. Something that has more carbon-14 will look "younger" than something that has less, so the Shroud dated to be younger than it actually was. The half-life of C14 is ~5500 years, and so only about a quarter of the C14 would have decayed away by now. The center of the Shroud (according to him) would still have far more C14 than even modern material, so it would "date" into the future. Rucker predicts that it would date to ~6,000 years into the future, so it would have roughly twice as much radioactive carbon in it than, say, a modern t-shirt. There's a lot of confounding factors that would make it impossible to non-destructively get an accurate count (absorption within the material itself for example), but if you placed the Shroud somewhere with shielding from background radiation, you could probably get enough to say whether it was twice as radioactive as modern material.
You seem to take that on faith, which doesn't help those who do not share your faith and are investigating the Shroud based on physical evidence alone.
My mom's a handweaver, I wonder how hard it would be to get her to help me produce some first century-style linen, and a pig carcass and see what happens?
@ReasontoDoubt great video (Christian here). Can I run a scenario by you? I don't have the knowledge base, so thought I'd ask you. Forgive me if it is poorly articulated: Theories I've heard "flying around" is that the body radiated light/energy for a short time. What if instead of darkening the cloth such as some of the theories you guys addressed/debunked posit, what if the ammonia or other methods darkened the cloth and the "energy burst" bleached parts of the cloth (like the atomic bombs did) creating the photo negative? Just wanted to throw out that theory and get your thoughts. (Not saying that's what happened, but wanted to see if it would be plausible, assuming a body gave off energy 🤷🏻♂️😂)
So the radiation actually bleached the areas that aren't associated with the body, leaving the body parts dark (so the dark brown was the original color)? Off the top of my head I don't think that works just because the threads in the image area have darkened fibrils on the outside, while the non-image parts don't. The fibrils are all the same color; the density is what makes it look lighter or darker to us. For that to be the case, the linen in the image area would need to have been dyed, darkened, or in some way colored and that coloration would have been blasted away by the radiation in your idea...but if the image could be made with a dye or whatever why posit the radiation in the first place? There's other issues too, like what is the source of the radiation if not the body itself. I have to give full marks for creativity though. That's an interesting idea I don't think I'd heard before!
@@ReasontoDoubt makes sense. I appreciate you taking the time to consider the scenario and responding to it. As for the source of the radiation, I have no clue lol. Based on your breakdown of how it would go in all directions, I can't imagine the skin would make sense as the source. Best I've got is it coming out of the pores or even serves as a sort of prism (I am pretty much making this up as I am not knowledgeable of various types of radiation; I'm just going to say "the spirit" lol. Moses, Steven the Martyr, and Jesus at the Transfiguration all glowed... 🤷🏻♂️). If that (hypothetically speaking) happened wouldn't that allow it to exit the body more directly (not like a sprinkler but like a hose). Again, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. But really you don't have to entertain the "thought experiment". There's really nothing I'm offering at this point that's anything more than sheer speculation. 😂 Anyway, that's all I've got for this hypothetical scenario. I appreciate how thorough you guys are in your research. I do want to contact you about something else, unrelated to the shroud. Is there a way I can do that?
Occum's razor: All things being equal the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The reason the shroud looks like the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth is because it is the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
The "simplest explanation" isn't the one that takes the fewest words to articulate. The cloth actually being the burial cloth of Jesus is quite complicated when you consider the implications.
@@rephaimog4186 I don't know if it was a medieval forger, but humans do complicated stuff all the time. One advantage to the forgery hypothesis is it only requires us to posit entities we already know exist (humans motivated to create, possibly to deceive)
Since the absolute majority of all religious relics through history are so often found to be forgeries or earnestly made icons and that the shroud does not match burial shrouds of the same time and nor is it mentioned as being an an important and preserved relic at the time, it follows that the simplest explanation is that the shroud is not the burial shroud of Christ. It would be more a complicated and unlikely explanation that it is the true surviving shroud, despite scientific and historical inconsistencies.
@@Hatasumi69 Galatians 3:1: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. So Jesus was publicly portrayed in Galatia as crucified before their very eyes??? How? Answer: The Shroud of Turin. There is no other explanation.
This is absolute rubbish. The Shroud is genuine beyond doubt. To suggest Sturp did the carbon dating shows the level of lack of serious research in this video. Truth will prevail. Amen
58:56 Regarding the curve of the carbon dates for the 16 subsamples. As I stated above, “A chi-squared statistical analysis of these values indicates there is only a 1.4% chance (bottom of column 1 in Table 5 of my paper #12 on my website Shroud Research Network) these values are consistent with each other, which is below the usual 5% criteria. This indicates the probable presence of a systematic measurement error in the data. Since it is not possible to determine the magnitude of this systematic error, the only option is to reject the conclusion that the Shroud dates to 1260-1390 AD.” 1:00:08 “Or, what if Oxford was 0.7% better at eliminating contaminant because they had different lab cleaning methods, which they did. … All you need is 0.7% more contamination cleaned by Oxford and it explains everything.” Let’s analyze this. The vertical axis is labelled RCYBP, which refers to Radio Carbon Years Before Present, where present is defined as 1950. If we translate this into years AD, then, as I state above, the dates are “1201 ± 31, 1274 ± 24, and 1303 ± 17 for Oxford, Zurich, and Tucson, respectively”. His statement “All you need is 0.7% more contamination cleaned by Oxford and it explains everything.” means that if 0.7% more contamination is cleaned from the Oxford subsamples, then it would decrease the date from 1303 to perhaps 1238, which is the average of 1201 and 1274, or perhaps Zurich’s value of 1274. What contamination is he referring to specifically? If this contamination were more effectively cleaned from the subsamples, how does he know which way the date would change and how much it would change? Where does this 0.7% come from? What is his reference for it? The reference that I think of is “On Cleaning Methods and the Raw Radiocarbon Data from the Shroud of Turin” by Larry Schwalbe and Bryan Walsh, in International Journal of Archeology, 2021, but I do not find the 0.7% value there. The following makes me skeptical about this suggestion of contamination to explain the different dates from the three laboratories. 1. Lack of specifics. What is the contamination? How does it affect the carbon date? How do we know which direction the carbon date would change with further cleaning? Where does the 0.7% come from? 2. There is no evidence for this hypothetical contamination. 3. Three cloth standards of known historical dates were dated by the same laboratories at the same time as the Shroud samples. The effectiveness of the laboratory’s cleaning methods can be determined from the dates obtained for these three cloth standards. There is not a significant difference in the three laboratory’s dates for the three cloth standards, so that this alleged need for further cleaning of the Oxford subsamples is not confirmed. 4. In the analysis of the cleaning methods in the above reference (Figure 1 of Schwalbe and Walsh), they recognized the presence of a bifurcation (division into two branches or parts) of the dates obtained at Arizona and Zurich, which was not present at Oxford. They were unable to explain this from the perspective of cleaning methods, but it can easily be explained using the neutron absorption hypothesis, considering the direction in which the subsamples were cut from the samples. Arizona and Zurich evidently cut their sample horizontally and vertically to obtain their subsamples, whereas Oxford only cut their sample vertically. The specific locations of these subsamples relative to the shape of the neutron distribution in the tomb can explain this date bifurcation. The point is that cleaning methods do not explain this bifurcation whereas the neutron absorption hypothesis can explain it. Also at 31:06, you mentioned Jean-Baptiste Rinaudo’s experiments with protons. His experiments were presented at a previous conference on the Shroud of Turin [“Modello protonico di formazione dell'immagine sulla Sindone di Torino” (Protonic Model of Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin) presented June 6, 1998, in Torino, Italy, at the III Congresso
The reference for the 0.7% contamination comes from Walshe and Schwalbe "An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin". They discuss the differences between the labs and provide a specific difference in the cleaning standards that could lead to the difference. The 0.7% number is specifically if the contamination were 20th century; how much contamination would be needed to explain the difference is going to vary depending on when that contamination is from. I have to say I find your saying "There is no evidence for this hypothetical contamination" to be EXTREMELY ironic, considering you're the guy who has proposed a burst of magic neutrons & protons to explain this same difference. You are the LAST person who should be criticizing others for their hypotheses having no evidence to support them.
It does not seem scientific at all to say that "Since it is not possible to determine the magnitude of this systematic error, the only option is to reject the conclusion that the Shroud dates to 1260-1390 AD." Is that really the "only option"! Here's another alternative. What if the confidence levels were too narrow for the labs' actual measurement abilities? This is what Professor Gonella suggested. “Among these, for example, there was the scientific advisor of the Guardian of the Shroud, Prof. Gonella, who admitted that the statistical results published in Nature were not correct and that the uncertainty assigned to the result should have been increased, but despite this, the medieval result could not be put into question.” Fanti, 161 (2020). This is on my list of things to write about someday in the future.
And no one is talking about how the biggest mystery is why this thing was allegedly missing for 1400 years with zero provenance of where it came from and people just assume it's Jesus's death shroud.... Not to mention he was actually likely buried in a mass grave anyway
@Joseph Mitchell I've wondered about that myself. How did this burial shroud travel from a tomb near Jerusalem in the early 1st century to Constantinople some 1300 years later? Who was the original custodian? There's nothing in any historical record, as far as I know, that chronicles the shroud's provenance. I was raised Catholic and, believe me, there are all kinds of artifacts that are passed off as "holy relics" without one iota of evidence to support those claims. People can be incredibly gullible when it comes to religious beliefs.
Shouldn't the image radiate from the inner side of the shroud? If the image is basically on the outer side than something is wrong, or have I misunderstood something? I'm actually very tired watching this this.
Do you know the dimensions on the body on the shroud. I ask because the arms seem longer than is normal and the fingers on one hand seem longer than normal. Are detailed body measurements even available?
@@ReasontoDoubt I looked up email correspondence between rival researchers concerning coin images on the shroud. These are rare coins minted only between 29 and 32 AD. They are comparable to extant period coins from the time of Pilate, including ones with crude printing errors. The coins have been examined carefully and photographed. They are definately present on the shroud. The shroud is a 1st century weave, not something that was made in India or in Europe at all. Pollen and chemical analysis conflicts with the carbon dating result , locates the cloth in Jerusalem and various middle eastern locations. If the image is fake, applied later perhaps, the forger would have to have possessed a rare 1 st century burial shroud conforming to Jewish practices and dimensions and would have to possess and recognize two rare period coins. The forger would have to understand many details of crucifixtion and had to possess human plasma and rare AB blood, also definately found on the shroud. It is also agreed by every credible shroud researcher that the image is not drawn in paint. (There was paint found on some fibres appearing to fill in faded or damaged parts of the shroud. Since it is not found in all areas to look like blood, it is not too relevant. The paint found is not extensive enough to explain how the image was made.)It is some sort of print depicting real objects, human or otherwise. For me, it is up to detractors to prove that the coins on the shroud are not actually there or are just sketches that don't match actual period coins. No one has done this to my satisfaction. It is irrelevant that coins were not used on eyes in Jewish burial custom. Anyone could have placed them over the man's eyes, any one of the Roman soldiers who supervised while the body was wrapped or those guarding the tomb, for any number of reasons. The salient fact is that there are indeed period coins over the man's eyes, one of them slightly askew, adding credibility to the gospel story of a rushed interment. It boils down to two questions for me, how to satisfactorily explain away 1. coin images and the 2. chemical analysis which contradicts carbon dating. Both types of evidence are reliably used by archaeologists to date ancient artifacts. Oh, another discovery. An agnostic art historian says that the shroud artifact is not consistent with any medieval painting or religious icon. If it is a forgery, which I don't rule out yet, the art historian does not believe it is a ' medieval' forgery, at any rate. I can find the links if you want. I just googled a question, led me to those sites.Correction. McCrone reports paint pigments and residue in many places where other reseachers have found human AB type blood and human DNA supposed. Both findings could be true. If the coins are endorsed by more than one ,,unbiased,, researcher it would settle some things. Certainly it is possible that corrupt antiquity dealers could have forged this image somehow during the crusades in Jerusalem. The period history makes this very possible imo.
Here’s an explaination I heard from a few of the medical examiners of the shroud : His right arm & shoulder were dislocated (from carrying the crossbeam, as well as the crucifixion), ; causing his right shoulder to be dislocated, which causes the arm to BE elongated. I’ve heard this is true of dislocated shoulders; when my stepbrother was a wrestler in HS, many years ago. But, I haven’t fact checked, since watching the video a few days ago. It’s a puzzle in a hundred ways ; and the evidence against it are easily deflatable theories. Does that include the carbon dating, done on the PATCHED AREA on the Shroud? There are recent scientific scans, done by a dept. of Crystallography (?) ; that have done a new type of scans, that show the shroud to have 2,000 years of decay , and have the same scan patterns, as known 2,000 year old shrouds. I’m not sure how solid it is, but they are a science organization / company that does legit. science every day ; but the scans reliability (???).
Jesus Christ wasn't buried with one piece of linen clothes he was buried with two different piece of linen clothes in John 20:6-7 Then cometh Simon Peter following him and went into the sepulchre and seeth the linen clothes lie 7 And the napkin that was about his head (that means the napkin was covering Jesus face) not lying with the linen clothes but wrapped together in a place by itself that means the napkin was lying in a other place by itself... And the shroud of Turin is one piece that they said is Jesus Christ face...The Bible proves that the shroud of Turin is a hoax it's not the face of Jesus Christ...
if i was the forger and could do such a great job in the 14th cen, I would just have done the face why go to all that extra work if you don't have to. So if it wasn't painted witch would be the easy way then its not a forgery because it would be just to much work for them to do, Or were they jusr really lucky they came up with a process that no one yet can explain and the deeper you look the farther you are from iust a simple forgery. I don;t know how it came about but it is something very special
I suppose, if it was an artist who did it, they didn't want to just do the face. It would have been easier for Michelangelo to make just a head instead of the entire body of David, but he made the whole body anyway.
@@ReasontoDoubt yes but the forger must have destroyed their great work just to be left with a old dirty cloth that would be hard to sell and no one would know you made the the fantastic sculpture, How crazy is that even if it was a modern forgery from the 21st cen you only have to convince people who are willing to believe you don't even try to convince scientists they will never believe anyway so a 14th cen forger just had to do enough to fool someone just looking at it, even covering a body in blood then covering it with a cloth would have done, The lengths the forger went to are way more than was needed and so it does not make sense that they would.
the forger wouldn't just make the face because the whole intent of this forgery was to depict the whole body of Christ as crucified. The church wanted that type of relic for the purposes of converting people and bringing more into the church. The face alone would not have accomplished the intended purpose.
Please also, if you're still preparing the next episode I'm sure you want to see the opposing objections to the objections. What I recommend is Father Andrew Dalton who is a young college professor who is an American in Rome who teaches a subject at a university there. I believe it's called new evidence about the Shroud and presentation/discussion only a few days old. They are careful not to say that it's proof of everything. Hope you check it out
@@ReasontoDoubt if you have time.. another presentation to check out: 'What is the sudarium of Oviedo' Mark Guskin. Non-biased presentation. Blood patterns, blood type and other correlations match what is thought to be the facial napkin that cover the body. The presentation breaks down the history how they determine its age excetera. Really cannot say the Shroud matches the face shape or anything like that but there are other strong correlations. And the face cloth pretty conclusively can be traced back to the time of Christ. , presentation is not religious oriented at all.
I think the head is too small, like the head of the sphinx. The photographic negative property is intriguing, and the 3D information, and the fact that we don't know how the image was made. These things make one think it could be miraculous, but the head to body ratio is wrong imho. The head should be significantly bigger.
I imagine that would depend entirely on what the cause is...like if we postulate a cause, the coloration could tell us things about what the exposure must have been. If it was actually on a corpse then there's also the limit of a few days before fluids would start to leak from the body and obliterate the image.
💐💐💐💐💐 You do not need any of these scientific explanations to refute the physical resurrection. The Bible itself when studied meticulously refutes that idea all by myself. As a member of the Baha’i Faith, and based on the biblical narrative and rational reasoning, we have to accept that the resurrection of Jesus or any of the prophets or individuals within the biblical narrative are all spiritual and not physical resurrections even when literal words are used. Here are the biblical reasoning behind what is being said: Jesus called himself “the resurrection” even long before he was crucified: Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die”. (John 11:25 NIV) This is Jesus himself speaking, so it was the belief in him and his teachings that accounted as true resurrection and not the crucifixion and belief in the reanimation of the physical body. Belief in him and his words revived those who were spiritually dead and brought them forth from their tomb of ignorance. This is all spiritual and not a physical phenomenon. What does the Bible teach about the physical body and resurrection? It says: “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications”… (Hebrew 5:7 KJV) Jesus was a Spirit before he was born and had gone back to being a Spirit after his death: “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV) Therefore, the Bible teaches that Jesus had flesh or a physical body during his life on earth but that there came a time when he was no longer in possession of a physical body. Read the whole chapter so you can see the whole content. What else does the Bible teach about physical body or flesh? Apostle Paul himself stated: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption“. (1 Corinthians 15:50 KJV) Therefore, no physical body which is a corruptible biological entity can have any association or entrance into the Kingdom of God. After all, the Bible teaches that: “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV) and not a physical body, and that the Word which is Christ himself had existed as a Spirit (a nonphysical entity) long before even the creation of what we call earth. Flesh and blood (the physical body) were not important to Jesus at all. The Bible teaches that all that Jesus taught 2000 years ago were all revealed by the Father. Jesus made sure to tell Simon that flesh and blood are not important in this equation--not even his: “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17 NIV) Everything Jesus Christ taught and spoke, about his flesh and body had a spiritual meaning and cannot be taken literally even though Jesus Christ was using “literal words” (check the Greek lexicon) related to “flesh and blood”: “Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58 NIV) Those who took him “literally”, later on they were accused of being cannibals. Read the history and this will become clear to you. Therefore, much of the language that Jesus used must be viewed and interpreted allegorical or symbolic. Jesus taught that it is the spirit that matters and not the flesh: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life.” (John 6:63 NIV) Again Jesus is emphatic about the non-importance of the physical body And instead focused on the importance of the Spirit. People had a very hard time understanding the symbolic and allegorical language that Jesus used--this frustrated Jesus often and said: “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.” (John 8:43 NIV) The phrase, “unable to hear” that Jesus Christ uses is obviously not a literal physical hearing but the inability to hear his words with spiritual hearing. Consider this that if people 2000 years ago had a hard time understanding Jesus Christ, there is no wonder why there are over 43,000 conflicting sects within Christianity. This should humble all Christians. What else can we learn from the topic of resurrection and spiritual truths? Well, Mary Magdalene couldn’t recognize Jesus after the resurrection: “At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” (John 20:14-15 NIV) If this was a “literal”, glorified, bodily resurrection of Jesus, why did he appear like the gardener and was not recognized by Mary? Apparently Jesus did not look glorified, he just looked like someone else--not a shining angel, but like the gardener. We also read that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared quite differently to apostle Paul: About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ “ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.” (Acts 9:4 KJV) Others who were with Paul did not see anything. A physical body cannot be invisible. Moreover, physical bodies cannot go through doors and walls either, but yet, Jesus appears into a room with the disciples when all doors were locked: “A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” (John 20:26 NIV) So, what is my point? The point is Jesus Christ can do whatever he wishes. He can dematerialize from one place and materialize in another place. He can appear as a flash of light from heaven to one person, or as a gardener to another, and he can even eat a piece of fish right in front of you to prove he can do anything. Therefore, we are not questioning what Christ can or cannot do, however, when it comes to the physical resurrection, all the stories we read about his appearances, do not indicate the essential characteristics of the physical body of Jesus Christ as the flesh that he had before his crucifixion, and the Bible in numerous verses makes this very clear. More importantly, if we believe that Jesus Christ has been great eternally in the past without a physical body and long before he was even born, then, he was not in need of a physical body after his crucifixion either, just as Moses and Elijah didn’t need physical bodies either, when they both had appeared to Jesus Christ on the Mount Tabor and then vanished from the sight. Why should anyone assume that after Jesus Christ’s physical birth from the womb of Mary, he had, forever, trapped his true eternal reality in some physical body whether it is assumed to be a regular body or some so called glorified body? To insist on this, is tantamount to limiting Jesus Christ to our earthly limitations. The Bible makes it clear that the resurrection of Jesus has much deeper spiritual meanings and should never be interpreted as a literal physical event. Please note that stating that Christ’s resurrection was a spiritual event and not a physical one, doesn’t mean Jesus Christ was incapable of the supernatural powers--it is that Jesus didn’t need any form of a physical body, and that his greatness transcends beyond any connection with the physical reality. Moreover, in numerous passages, the body of Christ has been interpreted to be the body of the believers or the church itself, and therefore, the resurrection is a spiritual reality which demonstrates the spiritual triumph of the cause of Christ, symbolized as a “body” which is none other than the body of the believers rising to promulgate his cause (the body) fearlessly: “And the church is his body”… (Ephesians 1:23 NLT) …”and build up the church, the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12 NLT) “Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body.“ (Colossians 1:18 MLT) “And we are members of his body.” (Ephesians 5:30 NLT) “All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it.“ (1 Corinthians 12:27 NLT) Resurrection of all the manifestations of God are spiritual in nature and not physical or material. I have studied the Bible and continue to study it. By the way, I am a member of the Baha’i Faith and as a Baha’i I do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.….” (John 6:63 NIV)
I'm not sure what you mean by "encoded", but there's lots of stuff that could persuade me. For example, if testing was done and found that the center of the cloth had C14 levels that would lead to a radiocarbon age 6000 years into the future (as Bob Rucker predicts), that would do it! Basically, something for which there is no plausible natural explanation. Note: "I don't know" is not the same as saying "I DO know and it can't be explained naturally"
As an atheist, a thing that would convince me of the existence of a deity would be if amputees got their limbs grown back again. That would be evidence of an supernatural realm! Such an extraordinary event could easily be documented as well. Sorry if I burst your bubble, but no proven miracle has ever happened in the past. Falsifiable miracles do not occur. Creationists are just grasping for evidence to support their faith.
"Random person on the internet cannot re-create the Shroud of Turin using only what they can easily obtain from their home. Therefore, it's Jesus' authentic burial shroud" Well, I'm convinced
The following is my comments regarding your statements on my image formation and carbon dating hypotheses for the Shroud of Turin. In general, my responses below are given at the first occurrence of the issue. Starting at 31:48, you discuss some of the problems that must be solved to determine a workable solution to how the images could have been formed by radiation. These problems that you discuss result from an assumption that the discoloration is a direct result of the damage done by collisions of the protons with the material in the fibers. I have recognized these problems for many years. These problems caused me to realize that the discoloration was evidently caused by secondary effects of the protons, rather than the direct result of proton collisions. I believe you briefly mentioned the possibility of secondary effects of these protons. In my image formation hypothesis, these secondary effects that cause the discoloration are electrical and static discharge effects caused by the deposition of the positive charge of the protons onto the cloth, rather than by direct proton collisions. I could go into great detail regarding this, but I choose not to in this format at this time. To get the details, you can read my next paper (#34) on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network. I will be writing this paper to document a PowerPoint presentation I will be making at a conference in March. At 38:08, you discuss the fact that normal emission of radiation is isotropic (equally probable in all directions). But under special conditions, it can also be emitted as coherent radiation, as in a laser. This means that all the radiation travels only in one direction, i.e., collimated, with the oscillation or frequency of each particle in step with each other. This radiation emitted from the body should not be assumed to be “normal” because the Shroud is totally unique, so could have a totally unique cause. Jared points out (39:39) that isotropic emission of radiation in the body would cause the image on the Shroud to simply be a blur, rather than the good resolution image that is on the Shroud. This is true. Jordan also point out (40:10) that if there were isotropic emission of radiation from the body, then we should see side images of the body on the Shroud, which is contrary to the evidence. Thus, to be consistent with the evidence of the good resolution image on the Shroud and no side images, it is reasonable to propose a hypothesis that includes vertically collimated radiation. This is the only type of radiation that could cause the good resolution image on the Shroud and encode the 3D information on the Shroud related to the vertical distance between the body and the cloth. Thus, the vertical collimation of the radiation is required by the evidence on the Shroud. At 40:50, Jordan brings up the question of what mechanism caused the radiation to be vertically collimated, and acts as if we are not allowed to ask this question. Well, we are allowed to ask this question because the answer may allow us to make predictions that are testable. This is how science is done. But we should also recognize that we should not reject what we can know based on what we may not yet know. Thus, we should not reject the radiation being vertical because it must be vertical based on the evidence from the Shroud. This is logically following the evidence where it leads. What then caused the radiation to be vertically collimated? To correctly answer this question requires us to have experimental evidence from the Shroud that we do not have at this time. This is a good reason for the decision makers to allow additional experiments on the Shroud. I also want to consult with particle physicists and string theorists to determine if there is anything in our current theories, or extrapolation of those theories, that could help us better understand what could have caused this radiation to be vertically collimated. If it turns out that the vertical collimation of the radiation cannot be explained by additional experiments or by theories in particle physics and string theory, then the Shroud could turn out to be the “Rosetta Stone” for an expanded understanding of physics that includes alternate dimensions. At 41:10, the question of where the protons came from is brought up. This brings up my Vertically Collimated Radiation (VCRB) Hypothesis, which is briefly discussed in some of the papers on my website (Shroud Research Network) and which I communicated to them in my comments to their previous video. At 45:01, they say it is “supposedly just a coincidence” that the carbon date of the corner of the Shroud to 1260-1390 “just so happens” to agree with the display of the Shroud in about 1355 in Lirey, France. This argument is often used to imply that the carbon date for the Shroud (1260-1390) is confirmed by the date of the Shroud’s exhibition in Lirey, France. I would say that this is simply a matter of historical cherry picking. If the Shroud was carbon dated to 1500 to 1630, then it would be said that this date confirms the Shroud was made just before it was brought into Turin, Italy in 1578. If the Shroud was carbon dated to 1170 to 1300, then it would be said this confirms that the Shroud was made when the Pray manuscript was made in 1192-1195. If the Shroud was carbon dated to 650 to 780, then it would be said that this confirms that the Shroud was made when the first coin was minted containing an image of the face from the Shroud in 692 AD. If the Shroud was carbon dated to 470 to 600, then it would be said this confirms that the Shroud was made just before the Pantocrator icon was painted. And if the Shroud was carbon dated to 330 to 500, then it would be said this confirms that the Shroud was made when tradition says it was found hidden above a gate in the wall around Edessa, Turkey. At 46:10, they say that I assumed the neutrons to be vertically collimated in my MCNP nuclear analysis computer calculations, and that they were assumed to be thermal (slow) neutrons. MCNP is a common computer code used for nuclear analysis. The acronym MCNP stands for Monte Carlo N-Particle where N stands for neutrons. I spent about six months doing these MCNP calculations because each calculation would take 6 to 13 hours to run on my desktop computer to follow 30 million neutrons one at a time as they interacted with the all the materials in the model including a limestone tomb as it would have been built in first-century Jerusalem. I ran so many neutrons to give me good statistics in the results. I had to run about 400 such calculations to bound all of the unknowns in the problem, including emitting of neutrons vertically up, vertically down, and with isotropic emission. In my papers, for simplicity, I reported the results of only one of these 400 cases. In this case that was reported, the neutrons were assumed to be emitted isotropically, not vertically (#4 on page 19 of my paper #13 on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network). In the one case I reported, I assumed the neutrons to be emitted at a thermal (slow, 0.025 electron volts) energy but in other cases, I ran the neutron emission energy progressively up into the MEV (million electron volts) energy range. I found that the results were not very sensitive to the initial emission energy because the fast (MEV) neutrons would scatter around in the limestone of the tomb and eventually become thermal (slow) neutrons. At 46:28, they say there is no explanation for the radiation to be vertically collimated, as though this is an argument against the possibility that it could ever happen. I believe it is true that there is no explanation in our current understanding of physics for radiation emitted in human body to be vertically collimated, at least as far as I know. But such an extremely brief, extremely intense burst of radiation has never been emitted from any human body, whether it is alive or dead, yet these characteristics (extremely brief, extremely intense, vertically collimated) are the characteristics that are required to form the images on the Shroud in a way that is consistent with all the evidence from the Shroud. See my response at 40:50 for further discussion. At 47:43, Jordan refers to a systemic error in the measurement data that makes it appear that the carbon date depends on the distance from the bottom of the Shroud. In the study of measurement errors, the two types of measurement errors are random measurement errors and systematic measurement errors. It is systematic errors, not systemic errors.
It's not cherry picking history; it's pointing to the one data point (1355) that is universally accepted by everyone. If it had dated further into the future than that point, I would be far more inclined to reject the radiocarbon dating entirely unless more rigorous tests were done to confirm it. If it had dated in the past, then it would be a vindication of otherwise extremely tenuous and flimsy pieces of evidence regarding the Shroud's existence prior to 1355. None of these options would strike me as "just so happening to agree". They would actually be interesting results. You chastise me for hypothesizing that there might have been a little bit of extra contamination that Oxford got that the others didn't based on the paper by Walsh and Schwalbe...so obviously the alternative should be to invoke exotic, heretofore unknown physics that includes ALTERNATE DIMENSIONS? Like...I simply cannot fathom why you think that the former is a ridiculous idea that should be rejected because it's completely unevidenced, but alternate dimensions? Totally fine! This is EXACTLY why nobody should take your hypothesis seriously unless and until it has significantly more empirical confirmation than the precisely zero it currently enjoys.
That Linen shroud dont look like it was wrapped. A wrapped Linen would have wrinkles in it due to the bodys shape in different places. That body shape is flat from head to foot, no miss marks anywhere. In other words that cloth was pressed against a flat image to get it that perfect from head to foot. That's a flattened image. A wrapped cloth will have wrinkles from head to foot due to the shape of a real body. Where are the wrinkles and stretch marks? That was Hot Pressed on.
Yes, I saw the "news". It is reporting research from two years ago, which we've talked about several times on this channel. It isn't "breaking news" in any way. But we're going to talk about it again tonight in a livestream
Molds and bacteria, colonizing textile fibers, and dirt or carbon-containing minerals, such as limestone, adhering to them, in the empty spaces between the fibers that at a microscopic level represent about 50% of the volume, can be so difficult to completely eliminate in the sample cleaning phase, which can distort the dating.” You dated dirt
I don't think you appreciate just how much modern carbon you'd require for a 1st century cloth to date to the 14th century. Hint: It would be a LOT. According to Bob Rucker, a staunch Shroud proponent and fellow nuclear engineer, over half of the carbon in the sample would need to be modern contamination to get that level of distortion. That beggars belief.
Regarding the 'mired reaction', how long does it take for such gases to emit from the body and what level of decay of the body would be expected for this to happen? It is clear from the image that the body in the shroud was a fresh corpse that had not decayed. Secondly would these gases emit from the teeth and the roots that are clearly visible behind the lips and does this 'gases explanation' explain the metacarpal bones in the palm of the hands clearly visible in the image? Thirdly, has an experiment been done with a corpse to see if a 'negative image' can be obtained by this method with the extent of accuracy and gradation present in the shroud's image, purely by the emission of gases? Gases have a distinct characteristic of vapourising in every direction, not immediately vertically in order to target the cloth immediately above the point of emission. This theory then seems extremely unlikely to have the capacity to produce the accurate image we see on the shroud, so that it can be translated into an accurate 3d image etc. What are the odds of this realistically being any kind of explanation for the image? It seems unlikely in the extreme. Even if it could produce some level of image, gases like this would at best produce an extremely crude representation of their source of emission and would not be capable of producing an accurate gradation of darkness (pixels) onto the cloth. I think we can confidently dismiss this idea as unrealistic.
Maillard reaction. According to Rogers, the gasses would emit almost immediately, and in fact the cloth would have needed to be removed from the corpse prior to putrefaction. Rogers claimed that the reaction explained the two tone image, and he did an experiment that showed it would yellow ancient linen in a way similar to what you see on the Shroud, but a lot more experimentation would be required before I'd accept this as an explanation.
@@ReasontoDoubt I don't accept this as a viable explanation either. Escaping gases cannot realistically produce a finely graduated image onto a cloth as we see in the shroud. It might work as a general explanation of discoloration of the cloth, but realistically such a process is incapable of producing the kind of accurate image found on the cloth. As an artist myself, I know that emission of gases into a space, without them being directed intelligently, cannot result in this image. Further, there is and wasn't any technology to accomplish this with gases and natural emissions from the body to the cloth cannot explain the quality of this image. I'm more than satisfied without looking any further at this idea that it cannot realistically explain the image on the shroud.
@theonlyway5298 I am not willing to declare this impossible without further experimentation. Clearly, whatever mechanism created the image, it would have to be unusual. At least this one can color linen appropriately and does so without requiring the laws of physics taking a leave of absence, which puts it well ahead of some others by itself. Rogers explained the image formation by saying the distance from the body to cloth would lead to the observed image. But so far as I can tell he died before he ran any experiment that confirmed or disconfirmed his idea, so it remains an interesting hypothesis but nothing more.
@@ReasontoDoubt Yes, I took that point in from your video. Interesting as it is as a mechanism for 'discoloration', it isn't realistically a mechanism for accurate translation of the image of a body onto a cloth, without some other directive action or facility. The reason for this is that the image is so clearly that of real body, simply because the gradation of darks to light, is so finely tuned. If you were an artist, this would mean an extremely good gradated shading technique - it couldn't be accomplished by some emitted gases released into the atmosphere in random directions, even at very close quarters. By all means pursue this idea, but for me, this is not a viable solution.
Gentlemen, Healthy skepticism is critical in evaluating anything, including evidence that disputes the "authenticity" of the Shroud. I have seen several of your debunking videos on the Shroud of Turin and I am disappointed to say that you frequently neglect to express healthy skepticism in considering their merit. For instance, the video in which you interviewed the skeptic from England, you made no effort to challenge him on his positions. Polite as you may have been, you failed to critique him on numerous claims he made. For instance, the used a photo of his hand (splayed flat) to contend that the blood stain did not correspond with the wrist. Obviously the hand may not have been splayed or normally projected with respect to the cloth and therefore the distance from the projected metacarpal margins could be quite different and thus the angle would not necessarily correspond with his premise. Then you failed to point out that a Jewish burial practice included laying flowers on the body or burial cloth and thus it is understandable that there would be a preponderance of pollen from flowering species and not from wind blown species. You laughed and seemed to reinforce his reference to a pollen expert, who was represented by a single statement that stated, she could 'absolutely assert that the pollen evident in her Shroud sample was not EXCLUSIVELY FROM Jerusalem'. Who may I ask, ever contended that the pollen grains on the Shroud were exclusively from Jerusalem. Every comment I have ever read in this regard recognizes the presence of pollen from at least the Middle East, Turkey, and Europe. What happened to your skepticism when your guest displayed the cloth he colorized with a marker. Why didn't you insist on his presenting photomicrographs of this technique to see if it corresponded to the observed image formation on the Shroud. Similarly you discussed the Mallaird reaction and displayed a cloth stained though this process, but failed to show any photomicrographs that made it evident to the viewer that this process was consistent with the image formation. Now you contend that the radiation should have eminated from varying distances from the body to the Shroud. If someone like Dr. Rucher choses to accept a non-natural explanation for the image formation, it is absurd for you to try and constrain his hypothesis to naturalistic understandings of radiation. How to you know if the body radiated the energy form a distance through air to the cloth. In a miraculous process, the body could have dematerialized while it passed through the cloth and oxidized the fibers during the process. Your characterization of Dr. Rucher's explanation as "insane" and "nuts" evidences your professional competitiveness or envy. Productive skepticim should be relatively free from observer bias and I was hoping that you would have displayed more of this in your debunking videos on the Shroud.
What's absurd is that you criticize our skepticism while simultaneously appeal to magic in order to paper over any inconvenient facts that contradict your preferred explanation. Regardless of what the source of the radiation was, once emitted one would think it would obey natural laws. It is of course possible that a deity would intervene in this also, but if you're going to go so far as to suggest that a deity carefully guided every neutron and proton to its destination then why bother pretending that you're interested in evidence at all? Literally *any* observation can be incorporated into such a view. It is the most credulous stance one could take. Perhaps before you start casting stones at our skepticism you might want to invest in a thimblefull for yourself. As to my characterization of Bob's model, I stand by it. It is ad hoc, relies on exotic physics and/or magic to function, and is not supported by a single scrap of evidence. It is a clever use of a computer simulation that seems to intimidate and dazzle those who are not familiar with it. What it does have going for it, which I have said repeatedly, is it makes an easily verifiable prediction about the C14 content of the Shroud. It is a prediction that could be verified non-destructively AND cheaply. That's not nothing! That said, it has NOT been verified yet. Unless and until it is, it should be regarded as an outlandish hypothesis and nothing more.
Thank you for your making this video. I just have to say this though, if you didn’t know that it wasn’t the Sturp team that performed the carbon dating, then you are also probably unaware that the area tested was found to be a repaired area and is not representative of the rest of the Shroud. This fact has been published and the carbon dating was proven to be inaccurate.
We are aware of that *claim*, but we do not think it holds up to scrutiny. We actually have done an entire series on the carbon dating, see the first episode here: ruclips.net/video/jF9cvC5n9uY/видео.html
Robert Robert has used algebraic or analogue techniques/solutions ......I dont see why that delegitimises his hypothesis. To find a solution to three points using constants is meaningful.
We don't dispute that. We're just pointing out that it doesn't necessarily require any knowledge of photography to make an image where the parts that would be closest to you are darkest.
@@ReasontoDoubt It makes no sense for someone to make an image whose negative is the positive of the image, without knowing that centuries later a camera would be created that could print that negative. Your argument falls apart.
Why would someone need to know anything about cameras to make an image where the stuff closest to you is the most densely colored? You're just asserting there is no reason, but I need you to actually argue for that.
@@ReasontoDoubt Yes, of course, but the person in the Middle Ages did not have a way to do a mathematical calculation so that when someone took a photo 700 years later they would perfectly see the true positive image. please listen 😄😄😄 just say that you don't want to believe and that's it, save yourself at least your time
@@ReasontoDoubt I can even imagine that: "I'm going to create an image with the colors inverted (no clue why), so that one day someone will invent a device that will reverse the image and the true positive will come out" 😄😄😄😄 "but of course I have no idea if that will happen one day" 😄😄😄😄
So for all of you non believers of the shroud, you have to claim that all of the agencies involved in the testing of the shroud were either in on a group lie or that their incredibly sophisticated equipment couldn't match the wits of a 12th century forger. Those agencies would include: The U.S. Air force academy, Los Alamos National Laboratories, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, IBM, Brooks Institute of Photography, and Sandia Laboratories to just name a few. Not to mention that out of the dozens of scientists that were involved there were only 3 Catholics. And please don't hold on the the carbon dating testing that was done in 1988, which was completely debunked. Besides they refused to show the data for the testing they did until they were forced to 5 years ago. Every legitimate scientist has said that the findings of that testing showed completely bogus results. Besides that, they were supposed to take 7 different samples from different areas of the shroud and they only took one, which was clearly a patch job that has been done centuries ago and included cotton in it. The shroud is pure linen. So please deal with reality rather than uninformed bias.
Do any of the radiation hypotheses attempt to about for the half-tone feature. The combination of that and the fact that threads are not coloured when they pass under other threads is interesting. I'd like to see pictures of these effects to get a clearer idea of them. Can the first fact be explained by liquid wicking along the strands. I wonder about either deposition from a fine mist and/or a two-stage process website the invisible image is formed by liquid (perhaps by a fine mist) then developed by exposure to light or some other kind of radiation.
The only radiation experiment I recall was a UV exposure test that produced similar looking results but I don't believe it was two tone. If radiation were absorbed by the top threads so they couldn't get to the bottom threads that could explain them not being colored, but that restricts the energy levels/type of radiation...I don't know that any radiation hypothesis has accounted for all three (shallow depth of image, lack of penetration in threads, two tone) at once. Then again I don't know that any other hypothesis has been shown to do that either
The good thing is, the shroud is not why I believe in the resurrection. However, if you want to debate the shroud, be mature about it and don’t laugh and scoff at those that provide views counter to your own, you have proven nothing.
The title "debunking the Shroud" (I came here being attracted by this title - super interested title to me, as I am leaning on the authenticity) - is NOT honest. Correctly it should be "More scientific investigations", etc. This title shows that you have first of all an Agenda. And of course, some of the pro commentaries ended up accusing people of atheism or believers in miracles! I appreciate your work and - as i am not yet clear about your intentions - I will continue to watch. Going to episode 3
We came up with the title after doing our investigation into the Shroud and finding it unconvincing. Our "agenda" is promoting skepticism, and part of proper skepticism is believing claims when they have sufficient evidence. The Shroud does not, at least not for us. I believe that what we relay in these episodes is sufficient to conclude that the Shroud likely is not from the first century and therefore is not the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus. You can disagree if you like, but that doesn't make it dishonest. Also, this is RUclips. Part of the game is making catchy titles. Is what it is.
The reason I did not watch the entire vid is because the scientists in the documentary "proving" the shroud are professionals that spent decades on the case. Interested in finding a rebuttal vid, I immediately got the vibe in this vid you get when congress amasses boxes of documents, parade them before the media, only to cast doubt, but never proving anything,
I'd humbly submit that sometimes the answer suggested by the evidence is "We don't know", and perhaps you shouldn't be convinced by whoever yells their conclusion with the most confidence.
Occam's razor; did some medieval forger somehow fabricate an incredible piece of work that stumps modern scientists and all others of the world on how it was made or is it just what it appears to be- a shroud with a transferred image of a very special man left behind to prove he is real.
Occam's razor: More ancient human beings doing things that modern humans don't fully understand is a common phenomenon that we know for a fact occurs. People magically rising from the dead in a burst of radiation/light/whatever is something that happens rarely, if at all.
For a bunch of reasons. First, there's the capital investment. You'd need the expertise of at least a few people (someone skilled with textiles, probably somebody who was an expert in medieval art, likely a chemist, plus a few other random people). You'd need to supply them with lab equipment & time to run experiments. Even if you managed to get some people on the cheap and bet on it only taking 6 months, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars right off the bat. Then there's the tiny hurdle that you can't actually scrutinize the thing you're supposed to be recreating. Have a hypothesis you would need to test? Better hope STURP thought of it first, otherwise you're SOL bud! But suppose you aren't dissuaded, have several hundred thousand of dollars to gamble on the hope of winning a million. Then you'd be working towards is the promise of a million bucks if you make it to the satisfaction of a specific individual...who, at that point, would have at least 1 million reasons to not accept your product no matter how good it was 😂 Suddenly that "million dollar prize" isn't as amazing as it sounds.
The takeaway is that in 2020 , a modern day world with access to science, technology and hardware still cannot replicate, explain, or solve how an image was formed on a cloth 2000 years old (allegedly mistook as at least 900 years old.. ) That in itself eludes to a supernatural phenomenon. This is an incredible, miraculous piece of cloth. No doubt about that either way you look at it.
@@ReasontoDoubt people in the past had no where near the technology to produce a cloth with imprints like this that defies modern technological explanation today. People were clever but not clever enough to defy modern science.
"We don't know how they made it" does not mean "Therefore it is impossible for it to have been made, must have been magic" Nobody knows how Greek fire was made, that doesn't mean they got it straight from Apollo
@@ReasontoDoubt yes because the process predates written history, and was first done by hand and with sticks. Spinning wheels are believed to have originated in India between 500 and 1000 A.D. By the 13th century, they were seen in Europe and were a standard piece of equipment for those making fiber into yarn.
@davetvatpb-etc. Right, the process of weaving is ancient indeed. I've seen some textile experts indicate that the weaving pattern shows machinery that wasn't invented until the middle ages (basically there are errors that would be easy to catch if woven with more primitive, slower methods, but more advanced, fast methods would make it hard) but I'm honestly not sure that I put much stock in that
It seems like estimates range significantly on the figure's height. Some people report it as high as 5'11", others as low as 5'6". For example, Fanti, Marinelli, & Cagnazzo reported in 1999 that the figure is 174 cm (5'8")
there is a $1million prize from David Rolfe if anyone can duplicate the shroud. what is your counter argument to the points of congruence evident in the sudarium of Oviedo? it is an artifact kept in Spain since the 600s. it has the same blood as the shroud, with the same pollen grains from the Middle East, and hundreds of blood marks that are congruent with the puncture wounds on the scalp as the shroud, and the facial dimensions are also congruent with the facial dimensions evident in the shroud. from an evidentiary and forensic perspective, if this was presented as evidence in a homicide trial, the conclusion is easy: it covered the same man. and from the point of view of proof beyond reasonable doubt and application of Occam's razor, there is only one historical figure that matches all the pieces of evidence: Jesus of Nazareth.
That prize may as well be collected only in Narnia for all the likelihood that anyone could actually get it. It would require that the person convince David Rolfe that he was wrong, which is hard enough when the other person doesn't have a $1M incentive to not be convinced. I'm extremely skeptical of the alleged congruence between the Sudarium and the Shroud. I intend to do an episode on it in the near future. My initial thought is that it is pareidolia in action, but I'll need to review the literature. That's tougher than for the Shroud since the peer reviewed literature (in English, at least) is much thinner on the ground for the Sudarium. The blood types probably don't actually match, though. With the tests that were performed, an AB result is the same as a null result, so what actually happened is both artifacts have indeterminate blood type.
Hi there, it is always good to read the dissenting views of other people who have studied the subject. They challenge us to review our own evidence, and may weaken it. On the other hand, if our critics' views are not defensible themselves, they tend to strengthen our own position. The two best sources for information about the Sudarium are 'Sudario del Señor,' the Acts of the First International Congress on the Sudarium, and César Barta's recent book, 'The Sudarium of Oviedo: Signs of Jesus Christ’s Death.' Between them they include first-hand descriptions of investigations of the Sudarium. They do not demonstrate that the Sudarium has "the same blood as the Shroud," or "the same pollen grains," or "hundreds of blood marks." They do not show that the blood marks are "congruent with the puncture wounds" of the Shroud, nor that the "facial dimensions are also congruent with the facial dimensions evident in the Shroud." Quite the reverse. They show that the puncture wounds do not match, and that the Sudarium 'face" is too long to fit the Shroud face. If your claimed evidence of identity was ever challenged in a homicide trial, it would fail rapidly and completely.
@@LonerGR Apollonius was born after the fact. it is recorded in the gospels that the greeks approached the apostles to gain an audience with Jesus. Jesus would undoubtably have attracted people since he can heal people. Mithraism is most likely to have copied from the christians than the other way around also
Hi Canuck, I’ve been following your comments and feel that you are interested in trying to check the evidence presented here and there rather than simply accepting the first thing you read as gospel. Am I right? However, you do seem very confident of a number of rather contentious points. The idea that a linen weave is consistent with a first century burial shroud from Jerusalem is very specific, but surely wholly unjustified. I wonder what evidence you have read that made you so sure? Your second comments express some confidence that there is clear evidence of coins having been placed on the eyes of the body in the image. I wonder what persuaded you that this is a fact? Very few of the leading researchers of today accept it, and both Barrie Schwortz and I have independently published papers explaining why not. Have you seen them? In answer to your question: it is impossible to measure any distances on the Shroud image with precision as it is not very well resolved and fades away at the edges. The mechanical and spectroscopic dating procedures have not been well received by the archaeological community for several reasons. The most important is that the deterioration involved in all of them is not solely a measure of time, but also of mechanical deformation, acidity, humdity and most importantly temperature. Unless the environmental circumstances of any collection of linens are similar, any comparison of their measurements is largely meaningless. For really detailed examinations of most of the controversial aspects of the Shroud, you could do worse than looking at my blog, medievalshroud, my papers at academia, all called “The Medieval Shroud,” or my articles in the newsletter of the British Society for the Turin Shroud.
It was actually pretty cool. Another researcher whose name I don't recall but you can check our previous videos for the details, had grown flax and woven fabric in the style described by ancient documents so as to get as authentic a fabric as possible. Rogers got a bit of the fabric and used that for his own research.
I don't think so. Both those theories have had plenty of confirmed predictions. Off the top of my head, tiktaalik for evolution and the relative prevalence of elements for the Big Bang
@@ReasontoDoubt yes predictions based on circular logic routines. They worked their way backwards to arrive at the theory just as they accuse ruckers of. Is the Big Bang testable???? No. Life and evolution and e big bang is a series of precise “coincidences”
Ok, finally I took the time for this episode, even if I was pretty sure about what I was going to see and hear. On one hand I need to give you a credit for the huge work and the objectivity, but as Jared said at 1h03 you just don't know how it was made. I am really not a blind beleiver of the shroud's authenticity. But you cannot state "debunked" until you cannot point to 1 specific method that 1. works 2. was feasable in the Middle Ages 3. explains why did the forger create a fake in a quality he didn't need to deceive everyone. Thank you anyway but frankly it wasn't the breakthrough in solving the mistery and therefore disappointing.
Thanks for watching! We try to present the facts as fairly as possible. I'll admit I expected simple paint to be more plausible than it ended up being. We acknowledge we don't know how the image was made, but I think the fact that the Shroud is likely a 14th century artifact is sufficient to render it inauthentic. We may never know how it was done, but if it's 14th century it isn't Jesus' Shroud.
You are aware that the team figured out that the shroud had been repaired on a loom to interweave the repair into the linen, which explains the dyes found, correct?
@maryjoseph23434 Yes, we do not know how the image was made. We're not going to claim to know something we don't. Regardless of how the image was made, however, if the cloth is medieval then it isn't the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus.
@@maryjoseph23434 That's not begging the question. I'm saying that if it were medieval then it is not, by definition, 1st century. I think I have sufficient evidence to say it is medieval. You disagree. That doesn't make what I said fallacious; it means you disagree with me. And while I actually think it is obvious that if it is medieval it isn't authentic, that is apparently controversial. In the debate I did, the person I was debating actually argued that the dating of the Shroud is completely irrelevant. It was wild
I think the title is kinda click bait. I thought you had some sort of defeater. You made a declarative statement and then just debunked the 4 categories of best theories. So after an hour I'm right back where I started, no idea how it was made.
What we're trying to establish with the episodes in this series is that the Shroud is likely not 1st century. Part of that is debunking popular arguments for it being 1st century. If it isn't 1st century, it isn't Jesus. So while the title may be performatively emphatic (I mean, this is still RUclips) it still accurately represents what (we think) the content is
Problem with the whole premise a little before 1 hour in is that we know this can't be physical evidence of a supernatural event is because we don't normally see this event naturally happening. Therefore it COULD NOT have happened until we can find a natural explanation for how this either happened naturally, or by human hands... because we NEED to reach the conclusion that does not contradict our preferred world views... You're insisting that your world view MUST be true, even without evidence because only evidence that supports your worldview is admissible. That's not skeptical or scientific. That's just dogma.
If you're talking about the radiation, such magic radiation *could* be the explanation. God can do whatever he wants, including conjuring radiation with special properties. However, that sort of thing would be extraordinary to say the least and we should require extraordinary evidence to believe it. We do not have that evidence. Coupled with the fact that there is a very simple and reasonable alternative natural explanation in the cleaning procedures of Oxford being slightly better...there simply is no reason to conjure up an elaborate miracle to explain it.
"Magic" is a pejorative term used to dismiss anything we don't understand. I just had an issue with my sinuses and had an MRI to create images of specific layers inside my face. That's not generally how nature behaves. We don't see that randomly occuring... does that prove MRIs are magic and therefore fiction?
@@morielrorschach8090 That's a completely false comparison. MRIs are a machine crafted by humans that follow well-understood physics. Absolutely nothing about that process is mysterious. Contrast that with Rucker's radiation. His hypothesis is completely unevidenced, it requires unique behavior by radiation while providing no mechanism whatsoever to explain *why* it does that, etc. It's magic, and I absolutely mean that pejoratively. Unless and until there is some actual evidence to support this extremely elaborate hypothesis, it should be rejected for exactly what it is: A rescue device invoked to avoid dealing with the evidence as it exists.
@@maryjoseph23434 What...what? I honestly have no idea where you're getting any of this. I think aliens probably exist. We did an entire episode on it explaining that!
@maryjoseph23434 I am sorry you think it is unreasonable for me to require evidence to believe things. Perhaps you prefer to live your life believing things without sufficient evidence. Maybe you base your choices on the things you'd rather were true, or the ones from your native religious tradition, or whatever. I do not live that way. If someone wants me to believe that the laws of physics were suspended, I am going to need evidence to believe that. You can whine about how that's unreasonable, you can stomp your feet and declare that this is a position of faith, you can pout and insist that if I were a REAL skeptic I'd just believe what people told me without evidence (a very strange way to be a skeptic indeed), but none of that will change the facts: I apportion my belief for a claim in accordance with the evidence I have for that claim.
If this was said to be a relic from say, Ancient Egypt or Mayans then there would be no questions surrounding its authentication. But since there's a religious stigma attached to it, that's why there's so much disagreement with it.
If it were not a religious artifact with the same evidence, I'd still think it was 14th century. But supernatural claims require more evidence to be reasonably believed than natural ones for the same reason that it should take more evidence for you to believe a fuzzy object in the sky is an alien than to believe something different.
@Reason to Doubt I'll agree to disagree here. Many contradictions have been placed on some of those types of relics and artifacts and some also had without a doubt timestamps, only later to have scientists retracting and returning a completely different, but now supposed truth. What's to say this isn't the case here? Lots to ponder.
@@zwiggle-bear All conclusions should be lightly held, subject to future revision with additional evidence. Should new evidence be brought to light I will happily change my opinion in light of that new evidence.
CORRECTIONS:
- The depth of coloration on individual fibers is ~0.2 microns, not 0.4 (0.4 was the original number reported, but later literature has since updated the number)
- The central cavity in a plant fiber is called the "lumen", not the "medulla"; the medulla is for animal hairs. This is an error in the published works we cited that we passed on, thanks to Hugh Farey for the correction.
So it makes the radiation hypothesis even more unlikely?
@curiouspeanut A little bit, yes. It would require the protons to be even lower energy when they hit the Shroud, which exacerbates the problem of needing a finely tuned distribution of proton energies to make it through the air gap but still penetrate just 0.2 microns
@@curiouspeanut I retired from a PhD Physicist career in ionizing radiation detection and charged particle interactions with matter.
I am an expert in the way ALL TYPES of IONIZING and NONIONIZING radiations interact with matter. Any nearUV to VISIBLE to INFRARED light did not create the IMAGE on the SHROUD because they penetrate too deeply!
The IMAGE on the SHROUD is only on the superficial microfibers and the darkening is only 50 to 200 nanometers deep. The only way to accomplish this is with a charged particle accelerator beam tuned to the right energy. It's possible DEEP UV , called VACUUM UV that cannot pass through atmospheric air every one breathes. I frankly think it could be subatomic particles, but the only 3 possibilities is modern science tools we use to make computer memory and complete chips!! These are modern high technology equipment!! Anyone claiming this was made in the middle ages or BEFORE is frankly laughable!!
Looking at all the other details on the SHROUD, they 100% support the GOSPELS.
I have looked at all the STURP DATA and subsequent studies and I've never seen anything that even remotely lead to disproving the SHROUDs authenticity.
Burial linens have been found often and NONE looked like the SHROUD image. If I was a SKEPTIC, I would flatly reject the body decay image creation mechanism. Recall the body went missing after roughly 2 days so it should be easy to test the dead body emitting vapors that create the SHROUD IMAGE.
@@salmonkill7 '' Looking at all the other details on the SHROUD, they 100% support the GOSPELS. ''
Can you give a list of ''all the other details'' please ?
Below are some details you may not be aware of ....
Roman crucifixion laws -
1) The Emperor ALONE can alter the procedure of a crucifixion.
NB The Emperor can delegate the Roman Senate to alter a crucifixion (always documented because of it's exceeding rarity)
2) Any UNARTHORISED party altering a crucifixion is to be crucified.
NB Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion and were murdered by alternate devices
3)The crucified is to be left on the cross until DECOMPOSITION or until destroyed by birds of carrion.
4) The crucified remains are Roman State property and not to be handled by any other than authorized State representatives.
5) The crucified remains are to be thrown into an open common grave for criminals.
6) The crucified are BANNED FROM A DECENT BURIAL, to deny the crucified an afterlife
7) Any person venerating or worshipping the crucified are themselves to be crucified.
Jesus and Spartacus were BOTH charged with the HIGHEST CRIME in Roman Law.
Insurrection and treason against the Emperor himself and the Roman State.
Spartacus and his insurrectionists were given STANDARD CRUCIFIXIONS as per Roman Law.
Crucified in public until decomposition on the cross, the remains thrown into open criminal pits or scattered, to deny the crucified passage to an afterlife.
What does the Bible claim about crucifixion ?
Pontius Pilot ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY,
ordered the WHOLE BODY of Jesus removed WITHIN 1 DAY
and given over to a NON-STATE representative (Josheph of Arimathea)
to be given a DECENT BURIAL in a rich families tomb,
and to be anointed, VENERATED AND WORSHIPPED as a King and a god by many.
>>VERIFIABLY
@@salmonkill7 Thank you. God bless you.
In addition, there is an entire historical journey that shows that the Shroud of Turin was in various geographical points long before the date given by the carbon 14.
In our opinion the historical evidence pre 13th century is weak and speculative. It seems like a big coincidence that the clear, unambiguous history of the Shroud picks up right when the carbon dating places it in history.
@@ReasontoDoubt Your opinion is irrelevant in the face of historical facts.
@@ReasontoDoubt It is impossible for a middle-aged person to make an image with the colors inverted, with such mathematical precision that when taking the negative, the result is a perfect positive. For that, the person would need a technology that did not exist at that time.
@rociomallet As soon as you find any of those historical facts be sure to let us know
That's just, like, your opinion, man
If the Maillard reaction caused the image on the Shroud, there should be numerous extant examples of burial shrouds with human images on them.
The answer to this objection that I've heard is that the putrefication of the corpse destroys the image after a few weeks as the corpse fluid is soaked into the cloth. As we said in the episode, though, more research is needed before anybody should lean too hard on this explanation.
@@maryjoseph23434 The answer Maillard proponents would give is that the Shroud was removed from the corpse prior to putrefaction
@maryjoseph23434 If I could direct your attention a few comments before, I stated that while the Maillard hypothesis is interesting, I'd need significantly more evidence to accept it as true.
If you're putting a gun to my head and forcing me to choose, somebody removing a burial cloth from a body prior to putrefaction is more likely than the laws of physics suddenly being suspended...but again, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to accept Rogers' idea as fact.
@@ReasontoDoubt - Jewish custom did not allow for anyone to possess a burial cloth with blood on it.
The original raw data from the 3 labs doing C-14 was held by the British Museum. Tristan Casabianca had to SUE using the British Freedom of Information Act to get it. Now WHY is the data for a supposedly IMPARTIAL, SCIENTIFIC test withheld until someone has to SUE to get it??? 😀LOL!!!
But the problem is THEIR ARE NO OTHER MAGIC BURIAL SHROUDS in history!!
As a Christian I really don't care if the shroud is fake or real but it is an interesting piece of history. I do not think Christians should present it as evidence of Jesus or the resurrection. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we should rely on any ancient relic.
That is true and like you, the shroud as interesting as it is, isn't a part of Christian faith (unless it is the reason for John's believing when he entered the tomb as could be interpreted in the gospel). However, it is actually possible that this artifact exists and has been preserved for the world, for a witness of Christ's crucifixion, either as the real shroud or as an example of the suffering of Jesus described in the gospels.
@@theonlyway5298 I don't like the way many people try to wave it around as a defense for their beliefs and deny truly testing their faith by openly contemplating the very real possibility that the shroud is simply an icon.
As a Catholic, I wish more of us would have the maturity to follow Pope Francis in calling it an icon, rather than a relic.
@@Hatasumi69 Thanks for your comment and viewpoint. Maturity understands that there are usually many perspectives of the same subject and the ability to appreciate views different from one's own is itself a sign of mature judgement. In offering our views if we are mature, we may consider the possibility that one's own perspective may be representing either truth or error. Its the discussion of the different perspectives that enriches us and hopefully a balanced understanding of any topic, as we may review our thoughts or even completely reform them in the light of someone else's understanding.
There are two groups of people that present it as a defense of their beliefs:
1) Those who believe it is Christ's shroud and present it as evidence (these are quite small group of people among those who believe in Christ as this is not the behaviour of the majority of Christians, most of whom are hardly aware of the shroud)
2) Those who believe it is not the shroud of Christ and present it as evidence of 'forgery' and as ammunition for their disbelief in Christ (these are mostly aggressive atheists with a vested interest in dismissing the Christ of the Bible).
Few Christians are very interested in the Shroud of Turin (disappointingly) and most Christians have little or no interest in it and certainly don't use it as "a defense for their faith". Christian faith is scripture based in the orthodox sense - that is the faith expressed in the New Testament is solely dependant upon scripture - nothing else. Later Christianity became additionally dependent upon traditions, such as the Roman Catholic faith and the Orthodox Churches.
To be frank with you, I view the Pope's stand on the shroud as 'standing on the fence' (until science provides the answer to its real origins). I think that is diplomatically 'wise', but I don't see it as an example of him being the mouthpiece of Christ or an example of him being especially closer to Christ than anyone else. Instead he is a normal human being who doesn't know the answer to whether it is Christ's shroud or not and is waiting for men (scientists) to tell him. For me, this tells me more about the Pope than it does about the shroud. If science in the future determines that the shroud is 1st century and that this is even 70% likely to be the shroud of Christ according to science, then I fully expect the Pope to agree that it is the shroud of Christ.
The thing people keep missing is in Jewish rules-stuff to do with death was unclean. To think the disciples (who were Jewish) kept burial rags [see Lazarus] as a souvenir is ridiculous.
The Bible was given to you in the 300’s please realize it’s a man made book.
In addition to the shroud, there is also the accompanying Sudarium of Oviedo and the Seamless Tunic which have matching bloodstains to the shroud. So an forger would need to have forged all three at the same time. The sudarium has a verified history back to the 6th century AD.
I am not convinced of the link between the Sudarium and the Shroud...the "matching" bloodstains require significant manipulation to "line up". But I need to do more work on that, the papers for it are much harder to find.
I'm not familiar with the "seamless tunic" though
It'll be interesting to see if they could ever do the DNA testing on those objects. If the shroud is a forgery, then it's probably one of the most convincing hoaxes in history.
DNA testing would be very cool. They've tried blood type testing, but because of the nature of the tests the result "AB" is indistinguishable from a null result, so that's inconclusive.
The Messiah was not nailed to a cross, so no naill holes.
I will bet, other than you, there are probably five other people in the world that believe Jesus was not nailed to the cross. Why do you even bother commenting with such a ridiculous statement?
U guys have convinced me it's authentic !!
K
@@tomwickes9059 funny but same with me. Listening to them convinces one that it is authentic.
Same with me. Listening to them makes me think it is authentic.
You do not need any of these scientific explanations to refute the physical resurrection. The Bible itself when studied meticulously refutes that idea all by myself. As a member of the Baha’i Faith, and based on the biblical narrative and rational reasoning, we have to accept that the resurrection of Jesus or any of the prophets or individuals within the biblical narrative are all spiritual and not physical resurrections even when literal words are used. Here are the biblical reasoning behind what is being said:
Jesus called himself “the resurrection” even long before he was crucified:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die”.
(John 11:25 NIV)
This is Jesus himself speaking, so it was the belief in him and his teachings that accounted as true resurrection and not the crucifixion and belief in the reanimation of the physical body. Belief in him and his words revived those who were spiritually dead and brought them forth from their tomb of ignorance. This is all spiritual and not a physical phenomenon.
What does the Bible teach about the physical body and resurrection? It says:
“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications”…
(Hebrew 5:7 KJV)
Jesus was a Spirit before he was born and had gone back to being a Spirit after his death:
“God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV)
Therefore, the Bible teaches that Jesus had flesh or a physical body during his life on earth but that there came a time when he was no longer in possession of a physical body. Read the whole chapter so you can see the whole content.
What else does the Bible teach about physical body or flesh? Apostle Paul himself stated:
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption“.
(1 Corinthians 15:50 KJV)
Therefore, no physical body which is a corruptible biological entity can have any association or entrance into the Kingdom of God. After all, the Bible teaches that:
“God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV)
and not a physical body, and that the Word which is Christ himself had existed as a Spirit (a nonphysical entity) long before even the creation of what we call earth.
Flesh and blood (the physical body) were not important to Jesus at all. The Bible teaches that all that Jesus taught 2000 years ago were all revealed by the Father. Jesus made sure to tell Simon that flesh and blood are not important in this equation--not even his:
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”
(Matthew 16:17 NIV)
Everything Jesus Christ taught and spoke, about his flesh and body had a spiritual meaning and cannot be taken literally even though Jesus Christ was using “literal words” (check the Greek lexicon) related to “flesh and blood”:
“Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
(John 6:53-58 NIV)
Those who took him “literally”, later on they were accused of being cannibals. Read the history and this will become clear to you. Therefore, much of the language that Jesus used must be viewed and interpreted allegorical or symbolic.
Jesus taught that it is the spirit that matters and not the flesh:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life.”
(John 6:63 NIV)
Again Jesus is emphatic about the non-importance of the physical body
And instead focused on the importance of the Spirit.
People had a very hard time understanding the symbolic and allegorical language that Jesus used--this frustrated Jesus often and said:
“Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.”
(John 8:43 NIV)
The phrase, “unable to hear” that Jesus Christ uses is obviously not a literal physical hearing but the inability to hear his words with spiritual hearing. Consider this that if people 2000 years ago had a hard time understanding Jesus Christ, there is no wonder why there are over 43,000 conflicting sects within Christianity. This should humble all Christians.
What else can we learn from the topic of resurrection and spiritual truths? Well, Mary Magdalene couldn’t recognize Jesus after the resurrection:
“At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
(John 20:14-15 NIV)
If this was a “literal”, glorified, bodily resurrection of Jesus, why did he appear like the gardener and was not recognized by Mary? Apparently Jesus did not look glorified, he just looked like someone else--not a shining angel, but like the gardener.
We also read that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared quite differently to apostle Paul:
About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ “ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.”
(Acts 9:4 KJV)
Others who were with Paul did not see anything. A physical body cannot be invisible.
Moreover, physical bodies cannot go through doors and walls either, but yet, Jesus appears into a room with the disciples when all doors were locked:
“A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
(John 20:26 NIV)
So, what is my point? The point is Jesus Christ can do whatever he wishes. He can dematerialize from one place and materialize in another place. He can appear as a flash of light from heaven to one person, or as a gardener to another, and he can even eat a piece of fish right in front of you to prove he can do anything. Therefore, we are not questioning what Christ can or cannot do, however, when it comes to the physical resurrection, all the stories we read about his appearances, do not indicate the essential characteristics of the physical body of Jesus Christ as the flesh that he had before his crucifixion, and the Bible in numerous verses makes this very clear. More importantly, if we believe that Jesus Christ has been great eternally in the past without a physical body and long before he was even born, then, he was not in need of a physical body after his crucifixion either, just as Moses and Elijah didn’t need physical bodies either, when they both had appeared to Jesus Christ on the Mount Tabor and then vanished from the sight. Why should anyone assume that after Jesus Christ’s physical birth from the womb of Mary, he had, forever, trapped his true eternal reality in some physical body whether it is assumed to be a regular body or some so called glorified body? To insist on this, is tantamount to limiting Jesus Christ to our earthly limitations. The Bible makes it clear that the resurrection of Jesus has much deeper spiritual meanings and should never be interpreted as a literal physical event.
Please note that stating that Christ’s resurrection was a spiritual event and not a physical one, doesn’t mean Jesus Christ was incapable of the supernatural powers--it is that Jesus didn’t need any form of a physical body, and that his greatness transcends beyond any connection with the physical reality. Moreover, in numerous passages, the body of Christ has been interpreted to be the body of the believers or the church itself, and therefore, the resurrection is a spiritual reality which demonstrates the spiritual triumph of the cause of Christ, symbolized as a “body” which is none other than the body of the believers rising to promulgate his cause (the body) fearlessly:
“And the church is his body”…
(Ephesians 1:23 NLT)
…”and build up the church, the body of Christ.”
(Ephesians 4:12 NLT)
“Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body.“
(Colossians 1:18 MLT)
“And we are members of his body.”
(Ephesians 5:30 NLT)
“All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it.“
(1 Corinthians 12:27 NLT)
Resurrection of all the manifestations of God are spiritual in nature and not physical or material. I have studied the Bible and continue to study it.
By the way, I am a member of the Baha’i Faith and as a Baha’i I do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.….” (John 6:63 NIV)
At 49:55, “It seems like we are working backwards here. Yes, what’s happening here is that this hypothesis, the problem with it, is that it is completely, utterly, and fully ad hoc. It is starting at the end point and working backwards.” In solving a difficult maze, it is often beneficial to work both ends to the middle, i.e., begin at the starting point and work forward, and at the same time, start at the end point and work backwards. The same applies in trying to solve a difficult scientific problem, such as the carbon dating of the Shroud or how the images were formed. The ultimate question is not the sequence in which the hypothesis was developed but whether the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence and whether it makes predictions that are testable and falsifiable. To develop my hypotheses to explain the carbon dating and the image formation, I started from the evidence that was available from the Shroud and then, for each of the evidences, I asked the question “What could have caused this”. I worked this manner so that I could objectively follow the evidence where it led. For the carbon dating, I started from the average value from the 16 measurements (1200 ± 31), the three average values from the three laboratories which indicated that the carbon date depended on the distance from the bottom of the cloth (slope = 36 years per cm = 91 years per inch), the distribution and range of the 16 individual measurements performed by the three laboratories, and the statistical analysis of all this data. Later I also considered the carbon date for the Sudarium of Oviedo. For development of my image formation hypothesis, I started with the 10 evidences below, then for each of the evidences again I asked the question “What could have caused this” so that I could follow the evidence where it led. The evidences related to the images on the Shroud can be summarized as the following.
1. The pristine nature of the blood that is on the cloth indicates that a crucified man was wrapped in the cloth. This is the main conclusion from the first 75 years (1898 to 1973) of research on the Shroud of Turin.
2. The front and dorsal images have good resolution and are negative images with light and dark areas reversed. These images are not due to pigment, scorch from a hot object, any liquid, or photography.
3. The cloth does not contain images of the sides of the body or the top of the head.
4. Only the top one or two fiber layers in a thread are discolored.
5. Only the outer circumference of the image fibers is discolored.
6. The linen fibers that make up the Shroud have a diameter of about 15 to 20 micrometers, which is about one-fifth the diameter of a human hair. But the discoloration on the circumference of the fibers is less than 0.2 micrometers thick, which is only about 2% of the fiber radius. The inside of the image fibers is not discolored.
7. The discolored fibers occur in a mottled pattern across the area of the images.
8. The discoloration of the thin outer region in a fiber is due to single-electron bonds being changed to double electron bonds in the cellulose of the fiber, as though from an oxidation-dehydration process.
9. The images were encoded even where the cloth would not have been touching the body.
10. The images on the Shroud are 2D images, yet they contain 3D information related to the vertical distance of the cloth from the body.
This process of carefully considering the evidence to develop my hypotheses has taken about nine years of my effort. I hope it is clear that the development of my hypotheses to explain the carbon dating and the image formation has not been a simple ad hoc process. To say that my process of developing my hypotheses is “completely, utterly, and fully ad hoc” is to essentially misunderstand what I have done and the process that I have gone through.
At 50:40, the issue is raised why I proposed that the neutrons and protons came from the splitting deuterium nuclei when “deuterium is super stable”. The answer is that the deuterium nucleus requires less energy input to the nucleus to cause it to split (fission) than any other isotope of any other element.
At 51:00, “He (Rucker) says that only a small number of the deuterium will fission, in fact it is 0.0004% of the deuterium fissions. … My question is why only 0.0004%.” In response to their request a few days ago, I explained these values in my last comment to their previous video on the carbon dating of the Shroud. There I said “My previous MCNP nuclear analysis computer calculations indicated that a homogeneous emission of 2 x 10^18 neutrons in the body would be required to shift the carbon date for the corner of the Shroud from about 33 AD to about 1325 AD, which is the midpoint of 1260-1390 AD. Emission of this number of neutrons from the body is only about one neutron for every ten billion neutrons that were in the body. If 2 x 10^18 neutrons were emitted in the body by splitting of deuterium nuclei, it would only require 0.0004% of the deuterium nuclei to split (fission).” This is merely a statement of what it would take to shift the carbon date from 33 AD to 1325 AD, if the Shroud were the burial cloth of Jesus from the first century and if the corner of the Shroud carbon dated to 1260-1390 AD. To accomplish this shift in the carbon date from 33 to 1325 AD at the corner of the Shroud, it would require 2 x 10^18 neutrons, if they were emitted homogeneously in the body. This is only one in every 10 billion neutrons that are in the body, and would occur if 0.0004% of the deuterium nuclei in the body were to split. If you doubt these values, perhaps you can calculate them yourselves to check my values. These values are just information to give people a feel for what it would take for the carbon date of the corner of the Shroud to be shifted to 1260-1390 AD if the cloth is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus from 33 AD. There is no reason here is reject my hypothesis to explain the carbon dating or the image formation.
52:10. They are again assuming that I require that the neutrons be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range so that the protons would also be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range, so that they would not penetrate sufficiently to discolor the front three fibers. I have explained above that I do not required the neutrons to be emitted in the thermal (slow) energy range, but most of them end up in that energy range after scattering off atoms in the limestone of the tomb. Therefore, the neutrons and protons can be emitted at a higher energy. And again they are creating problems for protons to create the image by assuming that the image is produced by proton collisions in the fibers, whereas my hypothesis is for the deposition of the positive charge of the protons onto the cloth to cause electro-static effects that discolor the fibers by heating in the 0.2 µm thick region around the circumference of the fiber and possibly also by electron discharge causing ozone that chemically attacks the fiber from the outside. This is quite different than their assumption.
53:56. “But that doesn’t work because he (Rucker) needs way more neutrons than protons, orders of magnitude more.” This results from his assumption that the neutrons and protons are emitted by deuterium splitting on the surface of the body, which is not my hypothesis. My hypothesis is for the source of the protons and neutrons to be homogeneous (uniform) throughout the body. A high percentage of the neutrons would escape from the body, probably over 99% depending on the energy with which they are emitted. A much lower percentage of the protons would escape the body but it would again depend on the energy with which the protons are emitted. My estimate that the image could be formed if about 20% of the protons exited the body is an estimate based on Dr. Art Lind’s experiments of proton irradiation of linen titled “Image Formation by Protons” available on Mark Antonacci’s website.
55:00. “The word he (Rucker) uses is astonishing.” I am not sure I remember using this word but I may have used it regarding the agreement between my MCNP calculations and the results of the three laboratories regarding the dependence of the carbon date on the distance from the bottom of the cloth. The experimental value of this dependence from the three laboratories is a slope (the rate at which the carbon date changes as the distance from the bottom of the cloth increases) of about 36 years per cm = 91 years per inch, and the MCNP calculations produced a very similar slope. This was astonishing to me when MCNP first calculated these results.
55:16 “It should be astonishing to absolutely nobody because that is the input to his model.” Has he reviewed my MCNP input file to determine whether this is true? No. If he had my MCNP file in front of him, would he know how to make sense of it? Probably not. None of my input into MCNP forced it to calculate the same slope for the carbon date (as a function of the distance from the bottom of the cloth) as produced by the carbon date measurements from the three laboratories. To have this very close agreement between theory (my MCNP calculations) and experiments (carbon date results from the three laboratories) indicates that my hypothesis of neutron emission in the body has significant merit.
Oh? You didn't use the known values of the carbon dating to normalize your results to yield the answer you wanted? Well you better go after this Rucker fellow who said he did in an apparently libelous attempt to undermine your model.
Pick a lane, Bob. Either the radiocarbon dates were used as an input or they weren't.
Unlike others you've encountered I don't see the mere fact that you used MCNP as particularly impressive. Waving a computer program in front of people may shut up others, but it won't shut up this engineer.
@@ReasontoDoubt Reasons to doubt.. it's down to you.. .. if all of the evidence, the crown of thorns, which as you know was a full head piece of thorns, the sudarium and it's congruence with the shroud, the shards of the Roman whip that hit the body at two different angles from two different people.. whatever the type of light energy that caused this effect on the 2/3 dimensional image.. the possibilities are endless in my opinion. What's on trial here is not whether or not there is a reason to doubt imo..but is there a greater reason keep an open mind. .. that there is an unknown force that you cannot necessarily prove/disprove scientifically. You certainly don't seem sinister in your motives and nobody thinks you're going to "get religion" .. but can you really headline The Shroud is fake?
@hwwbroward8322 I think that's the conclusion the preponderance of the evidence points to (though admittedly moreso in the first and third installments...but I'm trying to visually tie the series together in the thumbnails, lol)
@@ReasontoDoubt when is the next pc?
@@hwwbroward8322 Should be releasing Thursday unless something goes horribly wrong
Here's the bottom line from watching this entire video. We don't know how the image on the shroud was made PERIOD
Correct
awe that's the mystery and some will find out when meeting Yahushua in the here after.
@@MsGodsown1who is Yehushua?
@@lostfan5054 that is the messiah's ancient/original hebrew name, better known today as Jesus. Jesus is not His name, but Yahushua.
@@MsGodsown1 Where on earth did you hear that he was ever called "Yahushua"?
I mean, I guess it doesn't matter what you call him, considering different cultures around the world call him different names, but during his life, his name would've likely been pronounced Yeshu', with a little accent mark after the U indicating a slight gutteral "uh" sound.
My bigger point is that you can call him whatever you wish, but I just wonder why you'd go with Yahushua or whatever. Even modern day Jews call him "Yeshua". Where'd you get that name from? I'm legit curious.
My problem with the shroud is that people are 3D not flat the image would be distorted on the fabric. The only way to create that image is using a bas relief sculpture, same reason there is no top of the head
This make more sens than all that mabojambo till now!
Maybe the shroud was use to cover an full size wooden bas-relief representation of JC
@@kodtech thank you
exactly
Or the Shroud was taught flat when the image was produced.
The section of the shroud that was carbon dated was a piece of a repaired corner and not the original shroud. This has already been established by the scientific community.
It has been hypothesized but has not been established, not even close. See episode 1 where we deal with that claim.
@Reason to Doubt I listened to your perspective, but your assertions are weak. I have reason to doubt your claims. Keep trying. Peace
To take a repaired piece would have been beyond stupid. The argument that was brought forth was that the carbon content was not as it should be because of the fire that made the repair necessary. They didn't take pieces of the repaired parts of the shroud.
Amazing what lengths people will go to not to believe its genuine 😂
Tristan Casabianca had to SUE using the British Freedom of Information Act to get the raw data used in the C-14 test. Got it in 2017....
Now - WHY would anyone have to SUE to get the data from a supposedly impartial, SCIENTIFIC test?..... 😀
It is surely genuine. A genuine what, is the question.
@@alienpov - A Silent Witness to the Resurrection of Christ. 🙂
True things should have no problem with scrutiny. It should hold up to the farthest reach of scientific understanding if it were real
@@KillerTofuDrums - Scientists still can't explain how the image on Turin Shroud was formed...
And it's the 21st century already.... 😀
All these sceptics who want to debunk the authenticity of The Shroud of Turin should try to reproduce it. There is big money for whoever can. Strange that no one has been able to in this modern age, despite many attempts, considering it's medieval.
Should be easy..😏
Why should it be easy to do? People in the middle ages were just as clever as we are
@@ReasontoDoubt if it's a fake reproduce it. Until that happens I will say it's authentic. A lot of money to make if you can.
@MsCazanova55 You're free to make your decisions how you want, but it doesn't follow that because I cannot reproduce the artifact that it is therefore the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. That's just a non-sequitur. We don't know how to reproduce Greek fire, that doesn't mean it was magic.
@maryjoseph23434 The thing we are seeking to debunk is that it was the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. I am of the opinion that the radiocarbon dating does that all by itself.
I am sorry I don't have an explanation for how the image was formed, but I'm not going to pretend to know something that I don't. I don't know how it was done, so you're just going to have to be satisfied with "I don't know".
@maryjoseph23434 If it isn't first century then it isn't Jesus' burial Shroud. That does not mean I know how it was formed. I only know that it wasn't formed through contact with the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth.
You don't need to know how a thing happened to rule out certain ideas about how it happened. I don't need to know what caused a ship to sink to rule out that the hull suddenly transmuted into Swiss cheese.
I think there’s a problem with the Chemical Hypothesis… As an example, If you put a reactive rag over your face and let it be imprinted for a while the imprint will be distorted once the rag is removed and layed flat on a table. If I use a wash cloth on my face and meseare the distance between both my ears holes , I got about 13inches…. Nothing like the image on the Shroud…..
I hope you can address my question. Thank you for your videos!
Rogers, the guy who came up with the hypothesis, claimed that the way the gasses would move could reproduce the image, but he died before proving that. So far as I know, nobody has taken it up since to prove or disprove.
Without that confirmation it remains just an interesting idea. I wouldn't put much stock in it unless more tests are run that confirm what Rogers claimed.
that is why I have a problem with the image, it should be distorted. and why would it have blood? he was dead for several hours before wrapping him up, and he should have not been bleeding, besides that they washed the corps twice and dried him before placing the cloth.
It's been proven that the Chemical Hypothesis does not create a negative image AND 3D image properties...check out Dr. John Jackson's particle radiation theory.
In photography, a negative is an image, usually on a strip or sheet of transparent plastic film, in which the lightest areas of the photographed subject appear darkest and the darkest areas appear lightest.[1] This reversed order occurs because the extremely light-sensitive chemicals a camera film must use to capture an image quickly enough for ordinary picture-taking are darkened, rather than bleached, by exposure to light and subsequent photographic processing.
I work in the semiconductor industry and deal with material on the micron, nm, and angstrom range every day. In order to accomplish this I work on multi million dollar machines that use extreme temp and pressure. To have coloring within the 400nm range (0.4um) range on these fibers is utterly astonishing especially back in the 13th-14th century. I am stunned by the shroud. It may not be God but probably Aliens..lol (only half joking)
how thick is paint normally?
Excellent comment but on the wrong thread. This channel is exclusively for closed-minded midwits.
@@richardhunter132 paint is usually between 50um to 180um which 450X thicker than the coloring found on the shroud!! Pretty astonishing
@@teekaybe4016 you're talking about watercolor paint?
@@richardhunter132 discoloration is not painting. Its impossible to draw something like this. The body itself made his 3D image with some kind of radiation or light emission as some experts says . It was needed almost six billion watts, of ultraviolet light and the picture is negative, something so strange.
I have no dog in the fight but I do not think the counter evidence saying fake is very robust. It should be because the claim requires extraordinary evidence and therefore easily rebutted.
I think that's viewing things a bit backwards. It's an extraordinary claim, and therefore without extraordinary evidence it ought to be rejected.
I don't think we have such evidence (for a miracle)
If you can make a photographic negative on a linen fabric. Can you do it so we can see it?
I, personally, cannot with my current skills (none), equipment (none), and motivation (also none)
@@rociomallet check out the website Shadow Shroud. A guy was able to get a very similar image to the shroud only spending 45 minutes with oil paint on glass and then 10 days sitting in the sun to then get the image on the linen cloth. It’s a photographic negative and has 3D properties just the like Shroud of Turin. Imagine if he actually put a lot of work and effort into it!
Many proponents of the Shroud of Turin's authenticity argue that whenever scientific analysis cannot fully explain a particular aspect of the cloth, it must be evidence of a miraculous event. This approach is often seen as a way to circumvent or dismiss scientific explanations that might contradict the belief in the Shroud's divine origin.
I agree. As I've said a million times, "I don't know" doesn't mean "Therefore I DO know and it's magic".
In the very strictest of senses, not having a natural explanation is very slight evidence for a miracle (since you won't have a natural explanation for at least some genuine miracles) but if all it is is a lack of knowledge that's weak evidence indeed.
probably actual blood...hahaha, incomplete analysis and these 2 clowns pretend to debunk something they already judged as false
So people have spent 45 years or more in studying this thing. These guys by their own admittance at the beginning of this video said they thought it would take only one video to cover/ debunk The Shroud. At the very least that is some serious foolish arrogance!
Having now spent many hours examining the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, I can say that while we underestimated the quantity, we overestimated the quality.
I still don't see why people are so enamored with it.
You are surely highly educated and intelligent, and I do admire that. However, multiple hours of self educating doesn't come anywhere close to people who have spent an entire career on the study of the shroud. I think that should bring about some humility with in you. Also the fact that you nor anyone else can explain how the image got there should be humbling. I lean more in the way that the shroud is authentic. Perhaps the impass that we come to is a worldview between the naturalist and the supernaturalist when it comes to the shroud. Also I think there are way too many intricacies of the shroud for it to be a midevil forgery of some sort.
@@jasonrash747 All I can go off of is what those individuals publish (ideally in peer reviewed sources, though that's not always possible). So far as I know, despite the many papers published on the topic, nobody has been able to establish authenticity or a supernatural origin beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is such a paper, I'd be very interested to read it.
@@ReasontoDoubt Science is never able to account for the supernatural and there for I don't think you would ever find a peer reviewed publishing. That's not to say that I don't believe God is capable of the supernatural because God certainly is capable of that. However, the supernatural is literally outside the realm of science. So it will never account for or give credit to the supernatural which is fine. Besides would you personally ever give any credit to the supernatural?
@jasonrash747 Sure, for example if Rucker's neutron hypothesis turns out to be correct I think that would be pretty good evidence for the supernatural. It would *definitely* show that there's more to reality than we previously thought.
HOW TO MAKE A MEDIEVAL SHROUD FORGERY - For Those Who Wonder How 'They' Did It
FORGER: Right guys... now, have we got the body of the dead guy ready?
ASSISTANTS: Yeah... yeah.. hang on...
FORGER: Was it much trouble finding a perfectly healthy six foot tall 30-something male who we were going to torture... beat up... and then crucify secretly and not get caught?
ASSISTANTS: Oh yeah! It was a breeze! We just got this guy who looks exactly like our ideas of Jesus' appearance straight out of the local prison. You know... there's heaps of them there like that... all ready just for us to pull off this forgery.
FORGER: Did you crucify the guy in exactly the same way as the First Century Romans did in the region of Judea?
ASSISTANTS: Yeah.. yeah.. we got it exactly right...
FORGER: ... including making sure that you put the nails through the wrists... even though everyone we know these days thinks the nails went through the palms...?
ASSISTANTS: Yeah, yeah... we put the nails through the wrists... and before you ask, yes, we did use a Roman flagrum just like you told us to....
FORGER: ... and did you make sure you got the cloth from 1st century Judea... pollen traces and all...?
ASSISTANTS: Yeah, we did that...
FORGER: Okay, we gotta hurry... we want the blood stains to show up exactly like the guy was wrapped in a Shroud shortly after his death... just like in the Book, okay...
ASSISTANTS: We're hurrying... but.. hang on... have you got the Special Image-Making Machine That No-one Else Around This Time Has Got ready....?
FORGER: Yeah... but we better get this right... we've only got so much special cloth, you know....
ASSISTANTS: Oh, by the way, we made sure we pressed the Face Cloth over the guy's head ... so we got that bit from the Book right, too...
FORGER: Okay... good... now, hold the Dead Guy there... put the arms over the crotch... okay, you can take the 1st Century Roman era coins from off his eyes now... and here we go... ready...
ASSISTANTS: Hang on! This image we're making... what's it gonna look like...? You sure you know what you're doing?
FORGER: Yeah, yeah.... It's gonna look like a crucified guy and we're gonna pass it off as the Shroud of Jesus! We're gonna do this to make people believe in the story... 'cos they need that...
ASSISTANTS: So... who's gonna see this again...?
FORGER: Everyone! We'll take it to the Pope or something. Yeah. That'll work. Who knows...? We might actually get paid a fortune for it. It'll help the Faith. We're doing something good.
ASSISTANTS (after the image has been made): Umm... boss...? We can't see it clearly. Did it work? It's all pale brown and ... blurry.... and I don't think anyone's gonna get fooled by this. And how come it's all.. you know... 'weird'..? It doesn't look right; the bits that should be light are dark... and the shadows are all in the wrong way....
FORGER: Oh no... I've got that right. The Special Image-Making Machine That No-one Else Around This Time Has Got does that... It makes things go back to front. Yeah. People will understand that. Makes it look all mysterious and magical and special and miracle-y. People are stupid; they'll believe anything.
ASSISTANTS: And why are we doing all this again...?
FORGER: To strengthen the Christian Faith and to make bucket-loads of money.
ASSISTANTS: You know what....? We can make HEAPS of these images!!! Just crank up that Machine Thingy again.... we can use any ol' cloth... no-one's gonna be that fussy to check. I mean, for crying out loud! Who do you know checks out the weave of centuries-old cloth from Ancient Judea... or looks for pollen....!?!
And that's how you fake a Shroud of Turin. Yeah. That's how it all happened, folks. Simple as that.
On the other hand, if you want to be honest, grown-up and able to face the truth, see this: ruclips.net/video/Jmxyq4JhTmQ/видео.html
This might be the lengthiest, most elaborate straw man I've ever seen. It's like a straw palace! Congratulations, this is legitimately impressive.
So much evidence. Truly a gift.
@@ReasontoDoubt It is NOT a straw-man argument; it is a satire on those who insist that the Shroud IS a forgery. HOW did they ''forge'' the Shroud, then, if it is a fake? HOW? The question demands an answer. Merely asserting ''It is a fake because it must be a fake because it can't be real because...'' is utter stupidity. Also, you need to look up what a ''straw man'' argument (fallacy) actually is... because you're using the term incorrectly.
@v1e1r1g1e1 Your satire is making points that skeptics (at least *these* skeptics) aren't making. Perhaps you just didn't understand what we were saying.
But regardless, I don't know how the Shroud was made. As I have said a million times and I'm sure I'll say at least a million more, "I don't know" does not mean "Therefore I DO know and it's god"
Beautiful. Anyone who looks into this with an open mind and heart has to conclude that this is the burial shroud of Christ. To claim otherwise is simply not being intellectually honest with oneself.
Although it seems to have been generally dismissed that the shroud could be a painting, I can envisage a way that the image could have been created as a painting that addresses some of the common objections against this idea - although not the major one that there appears to be no actual paint on the shroud (though this is disputed, I believe). These objections are: that no brush strokes are visible; that the color on the shroud seems to be of a single hue throughout; and that an artist would struggle to paint a negative image. In fact there is a technique that was used in the Mediaeval period, and still very much in use today, which addresses these problems and that is “scumbling”. Scumbling involves dragging a dryish brush across the canvas and creating differences in tone by applying variation in pressure. For example, an artist, when painting on a dark surface, would load his brush with white paint and press down harder, thus depositing more paint, in those areas that he wished to be lighter, and press down more lightly in those areas that should be darker, allowing more of the underlying dark color to show through. the effect is a ‘smoky appearance’ without any brushstrokes. In fact, this gives the artist far more control of achieving differences in tone than would be obtained from mixing colours separately on a palette (which is error prone). It also makes smooth gradients easier to do. Now, as regards to how the shroud was painted, instead of the usual technique of using light paint against a dark background, the artist may have used dark paint against a light background, but in other respects his technique would be exactly the same as that which he normally used in his art. If we assume he was expert in his craft, it doesn’t seem like it should be that hard to pull off such a ‘party trick’
so, by all means, dismiss the idea of the shroud being a painting on the grounds that there is no paint on the shroud, but don't dismiss it because you think that creating such a negative image was beyond the ability of a Medieval artist. also, I will add, playfully, that this theory is the only one in accordance with the earliest account of the shroud by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, who claimed that his predecessor had actually wrung a confession out of its creator
I'm not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like that wouldn't account for the "half-tone" effect wherein fibers are either colored or not (not necessarily next to each other) and the assembly of colored fibers is what makes the appearance of darker or lighter. Also the lack of fibers being adhered together by any sort of liquid like one would normally get from painting.
I agree that it being a "negative" image does not preclude an artist doing it.
@@ReasontoDoubt as regards the first question, I think it absolutely would. scumbling results in the same color being applied more densely to some areas and less densely to others. but yes, this hypothesis hinges entirely on whether there is actually paint on the shroud. I'm still a little sceptical that the 5 days the STURP team spent on it back in 1978 (making the shroud the most studied artefact in human history, supposedly) constitutes the final word on this matter
doesn't work. THe image is caused by scorching... not pigment. There are no traces of ANY kind of pigment substance in any of the image fibres. Your theory has been disproven countless times. Please stop repeating it.
@@rickelmonoggin What about instead of using paint, dry pigment powder?
The fact that dust transfer so well recreates what proponents claim cannot be recreated and that the published paper going over it all has been around since 1994 and is readily available to read this very instant shows how disingenuous saying "we can't explain how it was made" really is. What I don't understand either is that the Bible says to not have false idols and yet there are all these people that would certainly seem to be literally worshipping and venerating a false idol like the shroud should it not be authentic which I guess may explain for at least some the desperation with needing it to be authentic as there are theological ranifications for it being forged. The big question I would love Shroud enthusiasts to answer is what would the Jesus of the Bible with all his views say regarding the shroud as it leads people to hinge belief on the irrelevant physical rather than faith in the spiritual. Do people not remember doubting Thomas or did the meaning of that go over their heads? I may be an agnostic Atheist now, but being raised and confirmed Catholic I take exception to people that clearly don't put ample consideration into the dissonance between what their religion quite explicitly states and how they behave in spite of it.
If/when we dig into the Shroud again we'll need to look at the dust hypothesis for the image
In the case of color negatives, the colors are also reversed into their respective complementary colors. Typical color negatives have an overall dull orange tint due to an automatic color-masking feature that ultimately results in improved color reproduction.[2]
Negatives are normally used to make positive prints on photographic paper by projecting the negative onto the paper with a photographic enlarger or making a contact print. The paper is also darkened in proportion to its exposure to light, so a second reversal results which restores light and dark to their normal order.[3]
Negatives were once commonly made on a thin sheet of glass rather than a plastic film, and some of the earliest negatives were made on paper.[4]
Transparent positive prints can be made by printing a negative onto special positive film, as is done to make traditional motion picture film prints for use in theaters. Some films used in cameras are designed to be developed by reversal processing, which produces the final positive, instead of a negative, on the original film.[5] Positives on film or glass are known as transparencies or diapositives, and if mounted in small frames designed for use in a slide projector or magnifying viewer they are commonly called slides.
There were problems with the test.1) No test sample with a known age was used as a standard. 2)The original plan, by the scientist was to use 3 pieces from three(3) separate locations,
not just a single piece from a single site. Why was this changed; and who changed the plan? 3)The test piece was later found to contain cotton threads interwoven with the linen strands.
Cotton was not present in the main body of the cloth. 4)The three test labs discarded the outliers to arrive at the dates presented.
1) The three labs did test known-age samples as well. In fact this is often brought up by proponents as evidence that there was no significant difference in lab procedures since they agreed on the known samples.
2) I agree it would have been way better to use samples from all over the Shroud. Such is life. Hopefully we can convince the pope to let it be done again, lol
3) Any cotton is easily explained by the loom used for weaving having been used for cotton as well. So far as I'm aware (and if you have a citation otherwise please let me know) textile experts generally don't regard this as significant.
4) Discarding outliers is common practice, but I agree that the way these labs handled their data was not ideal. In the debate (also posted on this channel) I have a chart that includes all data points, including outliers. You can see that these outliers are not that far from the estimated age, and Oxford is very, very close to the other two labs.
Because of the issues with the test I don't think you can use it to say with any confidence what decade it was made in, but it can give you good confidence that it wasn't first century. The kind of systematic error present in this test is simply not enough to let a 1st century cloth date as 14th century.
@maryjoseph23434 I don't think there's sufficient evidence of an invisible repair. The repair would need to be so cunning that it's impossible to detect, even under a microscope; the new cloth would have needed to be colored in such a way that not only did the color match at the time but whatever dye was used would yellow and age at precisely the same rate as the rest of the cloth; it would need to be a consistent blend of new and old material throughout the patch with very little variance in order to yield the observed c14 dates...
There's a lot of issues with the invisible reweave hypothesis. I'm not the only one who thinks so; there are many people who accept this as the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus who also reject the invisible reweave.
If the evidence were sufficient to conclude it was a 1st century cloth then I'd accept it was a 1st century cloth. I personally would love for this to be authentic if for no other reason than that it might finally silence the mythicists lol
@maryjoseph23434 The other dating methods are extremely suspect (if you're referencing WAXS and the others we mention), having been essentially invented for the Shroud, based on dubious assumptions, and not having been vetted or accepted by the scientific community.
If I'm trying to "sneak in" assumptions about how the image was made and when, loudly and repeatedly telling you I don't know seems like a very poor way to do that.
The Sudarium correlations look like wishful thinking at best, and that cloth has dated to the 7th century (I think, I'm going off of memory) and thus couldn't have belonged to Jesus either. Unless it, too, has invisible patches done that just so happen to line up with where the radiometric dating was? Man, they sure do get unlucky with their cloth selections!
It seems like you think me not knowing the answer to a question means the answer must be your preferred solution. That just isn't the case. "I don't know" means "I don't know". I get you don't like that answer, but it's the only honest one I can give so it's the one you're going to get.
@maryjoseph23434 So that's a good question; Shroud proponents claim it has been radiocarbon dated, and point to the proceedings of a particular Shroud conference where the results were reported. I have tried to find where these results were actually published but have not been able to do so. Sudarium papers are much thinner on the ground and are almost entirely in Spanish or Italian, so that could explain why I haven't found it.
Since the result is counter to what they'd prefer and it was presented at a Shroud conference I'm happy to accept it as provisionally true, with the understanding that I can't say anything about the quality of their methods or anything like that.
The carbon dating is not valid since it was done on a patch, not on the original material.
We disagree, and I think we cover some of the patch proponent stuff in episode 1.
@@ReasontoDoubt Ray Rogers demonstrated the datum to be erroneous based on the mixed fibers , e.g., cotton
@idealdan1613 Yeah, we address Rogers research in part 1. We cite some papers that have scrutinized his work and found his conclusions to be questionable.
@@ReasontoDoubt nothing is beyond question....those research papers demonstrated nothing short of the conjectures of those researchers themselves...
@@ReasontoDoubt The dating of the sample itself doesn't even agree with itself. Its all over the place. The withholding of raw data for decades is completely unscientific and shows bias and doubt. There is evidence for repair and evidence of significant edge handling throughout the centuries as well as being 'smoked' in a fire. New, better techniques have dated the shroud to the first century. The C14 argument is a dead end. Let it go.
First of all, this is very interesting. I am a Christian, but not a Catholic and I agree there are many dubious 'relics' of the middle ages and have no interest in defending them. I was only recently shown a presentation on the shroud of turin however, that intrigued me. Is it possible that something else is going on here? A couple thoughts on your discussion here.
1) Dating: the shroud was reportedly involved in a fire in 1532. Could the CO2 of combustion have affected the carbon dating of the shroud?
2) An artist drew the image. Not possible. Artists of the era had not discovered perspective to draw 3D images. This is was not used in art until hundreds of years later (note all medieval paintings are 2D replications) How could they have made a negative density map showing 3D perspective? I believe this indicates a body was used in the making of this image. If that's Christ that's amazing, if someone else that is very dubious.
3) Maillard reaction: a gas may better explain the pattern of staining and the vertical columnization. However, a gas seems extremely poor at transmitting crisp imaging. I believe a gas would be incapable of forming the image seen. Also, there would have to be heat for Maillard reaction, but from where?
4) Radiation: I agree it is strange only the outer layer of fiber would be touched. And also how the back of the fibers were also touched. I guess I don't know enough about radiation. I would wonder about refraction of RF energy or potentially bouncing of radiation off of itself or other fields that may have been created. Also, I believe radiation could simulate vertical columnization due to things in direct contact with the body would have the change, while things farther away may not due to the R^2 loss of energy as the beams traveled. Lateral portions would be very unlikely to have any radiation marks.
All in all, fairly good presentation. I just think Maillard and artist rendition is totally out. Radiation may be too, but if you could answer some of those questions, that might help me better understand.
I'm glad you found it useful, even if you don't agree!
1) Good question! Bob Rucker, a staunch Shroud proponent and fellow nuclear engineer, did some math on that. It looks right to me, though I haven't gone down and worked through the numbers, but he concluded that the amount of 16th century contamination that would be required to make a 1st century cloth date to the 14th century would be massive, upwards of 60% (meaning 60% of the carbon would be need to be from the 16th century). That is a MASSIVE amount of contamination, enough that it would be easily seen by a microscope. You can find his work titled "Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin to 1260-1390 AD is Not Explained by Normal Contamination" on Shroud.com
2) I am not convinced that it was done by an artist, but I am also not going to say that it is "impossible" for an artist to have conceived of a 3D image. Note that the Shroud dates to just 100 years before da Vinci lived, so it's not true that no art was realistic for "hundreds of years" after that time.
3) I'm not sure how the imaging would work. The proponent of the idea, Ray Rogers, ran a test showing the coloration worked and claimed the same method could lead to an image, but he died before he could demonstrate that in a test. Without such demonstration, I'd file the Maillard reaction under the heading of "Interesting but not yet supported by the evidence". As for the heat, I don't think heat would be required but I'm not going to pretend to understand the chemistry of the Maillard reaction. Rogers was an expert in the field so I'm relying on his expertise for that piece.
4) Remember that the radiation that would be vertically collimated would be neutrons, which are electrically neutral. That cuts down on the potential suspects to lead to that sort of vertical behavior. While it is true that radiation diminishes according to the inverse square law *when it is radiating in all directions*, the same is not true if it is vertically collimated (it will still diminish over distance, just not exponentially). So far as I'm aware, Rucker's explanation for this extremely odd radiation behavior is to declare it a miracle. Which...fair enough, I suppose, but I'm going to need more than a shrug and a vague hand wave in the general direction of an explanation to accept it myself.
@@ReasontoDoubt Wow, thank you for the response. Sorry for asking the same question on 2 videos, I was really curious about the contamination question. Although, I should have finished the other video, your debate on the topic, because you guys did a thorough job of answering it. It seems unlikely that enough contamination could be present to account for the difference.
I won't go back and forth too much, but my question on 4 was, why would the radiation necessarily need to be collimated? If a scattered radiation diminished by R^2, couldn't proximity to the emitting object lead to the pattern observed. So parts of the cloth more loosely applied to the emitter/ body (ie the sides) experience a below threshold level from the radiation to leave a mark and objects very close/ touching (like the face and anterior surfaces) receive a radiation dose above a threshold necessary to leave a mark? I find this a much more plausible (although still not clearly true) explanation than gas release, as gas cannot preserve crisp lines of demarcation, we would only have giant blobs in general locations (head, abdomen, etc...).
It may be a moot point as I do agree there is little data this did not come from the middle ages, especially given the craze with finding relics in that era. But, it is still mystery how something like this could have been made.
@@caseyg1516 The reason is that the distance between the sides of the body and the cloth would not be that far, particularly as compared to other parts of the body that are clearly shown like the groin (Turin man is though to be somewhat curled up on the cloth, with knees bent). Yet it's not that there's a faint image of the sides, but none at all. If the radiation caused the image to form and went in all directions, you'd expect the image to be more blurry and distorted, with parts of the side of the face and things like that showing up. That isn't what is seen.
And by that he means some wild conjecture that used MCNP, lol
Ruckers nuclear testing done on the Shroud should clear up your doubts. Look it up.
I would like to make an outrageous suggestion. Perhaps they used a message similar to powder coating. A powder that is melted onto the cloth. This powder could’ve been sprayed on with nothing more than a straw. An extremely light layer could’ve been applied and then melted onto the cloth. Crazy right, ask anyone who has powder coated bike parts if they sometimes find raised portions because adhesive from stickers were not chemically removed. An impression of what was there is magically left by the chemical reaction with the adhesive.
It's an interesting idea, maybe one of these intrepid Shroud researchers like Fanti will pick it up and see if it's workable
Why? To confound 21st century inspection, of course.
These medieval forgers really were dastardly perspicacious.
@@Madmen604 I've seen conflicting reports about how much we can know about the blood, including questions of whether we can be certain it is primate blood. I haven't looked into that enough to say definitively one way or the other, though it doesn't seem to be that remarkable to me that blood is on the Shroud. Blood is pretty easy to come by, regardless of what time period you're in.
The Roman coin thing is...dubious. That seems more like pareidolia to me.
We talk a bit about the historical record in episode 3. I don't think that the allusions to the Shroud pre-14th century are particularly compelling.
For it being a negative, all that seems to mean is that the dark and light spots of a face are reversed on the Shroud, not that it requires knowledge of photography to accomplish. It is unusual for sure, but I don't think that it rules out a human author.
We cover the Jerusalem pollen a bit in ep 4 (though we incorrectly say that the research wasn't a botanist, we were corrected on that). Other botanists have failed to corroborate those results, and the consensus seems to be that you can't nail down the species of pollen sufficiently to tie it to Jerusalem, much less a specific century like that. If you look in the comments of ep 3, Hugh Farey talks about it extensively.
@@Madmen604 Is IR spectroscopy used as a dating method? I only know of spectroscopy as a way to identify things. EDIT: You're probably talking about the method proposed by Fanti (I think?) in 2013 that uses FT-IR spectroscopy as a component. If that's the case, I'd say carbon dating as this is also a novel method that's less than a decade old. It's possible that any of these methods could, in time, supplant carbon dating. We'll have to wait and see.
Have you had a good look at the details in that image? I would love to see who could do that with medieval devices or straws, lol. Especially to make such an image that includes details unseen except by simple 1889 era photography, modern chemical analysis and spectroscopy dating, also includes human or primate blood, and pollens from Jerusalem. There is million dollar reward from someone ...whose name I forget...for any modern artist who can duplicate the shroud image in this way.
Joe Nickell demonstrated how the Shroud image could have been formed using cotton daubers and aloe powders. The image is consistent with the elongated Gothic art of the medieval period.
It's interesting how people comment the image looks like a medieval anglo man and not a Middle Eastern man. Maybe it can't be considered a scientific observation, but it's an interesting observation.
Yes but it doesn't explain how the photo negative was made- and it's 3D on the front. Everyone tells about how to copy Shroud but no one has done it. Pure bullshit talking.
Jordan & Jared,
I will make my comments on the material prior to your discussion of my radiation hypothesis (27:00 to 1:02:10) for image formation. I will have to comment later on image formation by radiation.
You said (0.03 and 0.30) that your purpose is to debunk the Shroud of Turin. This displays the bias of your presuppositions; that you start your investigation with the presupposition that the Shroud cannot be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and that it cannot be evidence for his resurrection. Starting from these presuppositions, you conclude that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus and is not evidence for his resurrection, but your presuppositions confine you to these conclusions. Your thinking process is goal oriented to prove your presuppositions, so that it becomes merely an exercise in circular reasoning. I started my investigation into the Shroud nine years ago with the neutral presupposition that the cloth may or may not be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and may or may not be evidence for his resurrection. If you want to be honest seekers of truth, you should start your investigation with neutral presuppositions.
In your discussion of the image being a photonegative (3:34 - 4:41), the image being a negative merely means that the light and dark areas are reversed from a photograph of a person. This was an astonishing discovery when it was first discovered in 1898 when Secondo Pia took the first photo of the Shroud. This was astonishing because they realized that this meant that the Shroud could not be a painting because no artist could have painted a negative image of the face because no one would have seen a negative image by about 1355, which is the earliest uncontested date for the Shroud.
In your discussion of the 3D information that is encoded into the 2D Shroud (4:57 to 5:57), the best way to understand this 3D information is that it is the distance of the cloth from the body, so that a 3D statue can be produced from the 2D Shroud. The significance of this is that no painting or photograph has 3D information encoded into it so that the image on the Shroud cannot be a painting or a photograph. Draping a cloth over a statue or a corpse with its surface containing a colorant would only transfer pigment where the cloth was touching the body, which would not produce the smooth gradation of discoloration we see on the Shroud and could not transfer 3D information to the cloth related to the distance of the cloth from the body. The 3D information on the Shroud indicates that the image formation mechanism was not the result of contact between the body and the cloth but was the result of something that acted across the distance between the body and the cloth. This is why, in the four-day conference on the Shroud that I organized in 2017, with day four dedicated to image formation, all the speakers on image formation used radiation as the basis for their hypothesis.
At 7:30, you say the outer discolored depth on a fiber is 0.4 microns. This is probably an older number. This discolored layer on the circumference of an image fiber is now usually quoted as being less that about 0.2 microns (micrometers). I agree that this discolored layer usually goes around the entire fiber.
At 9:20 to 9:30, you say that in the image when one thread goes under another thread, the lower thread is not discolored where it is under the upper thread. I agree but why is this? This indicates that the image was formed by something that flowed from the body to the cloth that was prevented from reaching the lower thread by the upper thread. Again, radiation is a good answer to what could have caused this effect.
At 11:04 to 11:22, you said “the Bishop, d’Archis, who was the Bishop of Troy, he wrote a letter to his pope saying that this was a forgery and it was done by a painter and he knew it was done by a painter because his predecessor had wrong a confession out of the artist who had made it.” I discuss this issue in Section 6.2 of my paper #17, “Evaluation of ‘A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin’” on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network. The d’Archis Memorandum is an angry letter written by Pierre d’Archis, Bishop of Troyes, France, to Pope Clement VII in Avignon, France. Troyes is 12 miles from Lirey, France, where the Shroud of Turin was exhibited as the true burial cloth of Jesus by its owner, Geoffrey II de Charny, in about 1355 or 1356. In 1389 it was being exhibited again with permission of Pope Clement VII. This angered Pierre d’Archis, because as Bishop of Troyes with authority over Lirey, his permission should have been required. In the memorandum, Pierre d’Archis claimed that the previous Bishop in Troyes, Bishop Henry de Poitiers, investigated the Shroud when it was previously exhibited in Lirey 34 years earlier (1355 or 1356) and that Poitiers had found a painter who admitted to painting it. The reasons for rejecting this allegation in the d’Archis memorandum are many: 1) We only know about the d’Archis memorandum based on two draft copies, 2) There is no evidence that the memorandum was ever sent to Pope Clement VII, 3) There is no indication that d’Archis had any personal knowledge of this alleged investigation 34 years earlier, he makes no mention of any documentation so he evidently found none, so his allegation is probably based on second-hand hearsay evidence, 4) Though the memorandum is about six pages long, there is only one sentence in the memorandum regarding this painter that admitted that he painted it, though no name is given and no other information, 5) If there was a painter that said he painted the Shroud, he may have only meant that he painted a copy of the Shroud, since there were 40 to 50 copies made of the Shroud, and 6) the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) that spent five days, 24 hours a day, of hands-on scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978 concluded that the images were not due to paint, dye, or stain for multiple reasons. Thus, there is no reliable historical documentation to indicate that the Shroud of Turin originated in the 13th or 14th centuries.
In 11:41 to 12:22, you discuss the painting hypothesis of Walter McCrone. This hypothesis was thoroughly investigated at the time by the 33 members of STURP and rejected. This is documented in the 225 page book “Report on the Shroud of Turin” by Dr. John Heller, 1983. Walter McCrone was not a member of STURP, but was loaned fibers from the Shroud by a member of STURP. It is not clear what McCrone was seeing in his microscope, but it may have been burned red blood cells or iron oxide from the retting (rotting) process used in extracting the linen fibers from the flax plant.
Thank you for your consideration. Robert A. Rucker, Shroud Research Network
//You said (0.03 and 0.30) that your purpose is to debunk the Shroud of Turin//
That intro is something the kids are doing nowadays called "a joke". It's a clip from a popular show called "Rick and Morty", using mostly original audio from that show. Since all jokes are funnier when you explain them, the joke here is that we (represented by the robot), are dismayed by the success of our own videos, which drives us to digging ever deeper into this one topic if we want to be successful rather than branching back out. The algorithm has no sympathy for our plight.
Hopefully this has eradicated any humor from the intro and rendered its meaning plain, sterile, and thoroughly unfunny.
//that you start your investigation with the presupposition that the Shroud cannot be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and that it cannot be evidence for his resurrection.//
There's no a priori reason why this couldn't be the burial cloth of Jesus even if he wasn't divinely resurrected, so I definitely don't start with the presupposition that it isn't authentic. Beyond that, though, I do NOT assume that miracles cannot happen. I think you've said this a couple times, that I assume at the outset that miracles are impossible or similar things, so let me be absolutely clear so there are no further misunderstandings:
I do NOT assume miracles are impossible.
I am open to being persuaded that miracles, the supernatural, or literally *anything* is real.
I am open to the idea that the Shroud of Turin was on Jesus face when he was re-alived. I just need good evidence.
Hopefully that clears this up.
I reject your notion that there is virtue in approaching this "neutrally", however. I'm interpreting that as giving supernatural explanations roughly equal weight with others, something like a 50/50 proposition, let me know if that's not right.
Do you approach your investigations of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or alien abductions from this sort of "neutral" stance, giving their validity equal credence with their falsehood? If not is it because you have an "anti-alien bias"? Are you engaging in "circular reasoning" when you don't just blithely accept alien abduction stories?
For the same reason, I do not approach divine miracle claims from a position of neutrality. I approach it with my background knowledge that these claims are usually false, and that they would require me to suppose a supernatural layer to reality, which would be a HUGE ask, and therefore requires commensurately good evidence.
If you are ignoring that then you are approaching the problem from a severely biased perspective.
//This was astonishing because they realized that this meant that the Shroud could not be a painting because no artist could have painted a negative image of the face//
I do not believe that "make the dark parts light" is beyond the possible understanding of human beings who haven't seen a photograph. Medieval humans were not any dumber than humans today. The inversion of shading is something that needs to be explained and I'm not even necessarily advocating for a 14th century artist working with paint, but it doesn't seem to me to be something so far out there that it precludes being conceived of by a 14th century mind.
//In your discussion of the 3D information that is encoded into the 2D Shroud...The significance of this is that no painting or photograph has 3D information encoded into it so that the image on the Shroud cannot be a painting or a photograph.//
This is obviously false, because a photograph of the Shroud of Turin itself would have the same "3D encoded information" as the Shroud does. Someone sufficiently talented could make a sketch that has darker shades correspond to "further out" from the page. Heck, a topographic map can be a 2D painting and it would have "3D encoded information". This is simply a fact that any image formation hypothesis must take into account. It serves to limit the possibility space for image formation hypotheses.
//At 7:30, you say the outer discolored depth on a fiber is 0.4 microns. This is probably an older number.//
Thanks for the correction, I'll add this to the pinned comment. That would slightly change some of the energy values of the protons I used in the SRIM software but the overall point would be the same.
//At 9:20 to 9:30, you say that in the image when one thread goes under another thread, the lower thread is not discolored where it is under the upper thread. I agree but why is this?//
I don't know.
//At 11:04 to 11:22, you said “the Bishop, d’Archis, who was the Bishop of Troy//
I include the bit about the bishop as an interesting bit of history about the Shroud. I put no weight in the bishop's conclusions. He could have been making up every word so far as I'm concerned.
//In 11:41 to 12:22, you discuss the painting hypothesis of Walter McCrone. This hypothesis was thoroughly investigated at the time by the 33 members of STURP and rejected.//
It sure was. I'm pretty sure we referenced some of their findings.
Jordan says in the video and Robert Rucker also states here that Bishop d'Arcis claimed that the Shroud was "painted". I don't know where that is coming from. In my version of the letter (or memo) that I took from Nicolotti's book, d'Arcis nowhere refers to painting. He only says that the artist who created it ("portrayed it") had been identified and that he admitted that "it was made by work of a man, not miraculously wrought or bestowed". He doesn't actually say how the artist made it. I think you are both making an assumption that the artist would have painted it, but I don't believe d'Arcis actually says that.
@richardstanleyjr1455 The translation I found online said it was a "certain cloth, cunningly painted", but I'm unable to read it in its original language (which I assume would be French). I can't speak to the quality of the translation...but since I don't put any weight on the bishop's testimony I'm not that worried about it
I sometimes wonder if part of it is that we're looking at it hundreds of years later, after time, weather conditions, fires, etc. have done their thing. It's hard to know how those things affected it.
I think that's absolutely a component of the issue. Combined with how rarely it can be examined, and how limited we can be in those examinations, and it's a tough row to hoe
I really appreciate your work on radiation, penetrating into the linen fibers. I’ve never been a believer in the shroud. I’ve never had a reason to believe in it, or to want to believe that it’s real. But I do think there are a lot of compelling and interesting aspects to it.
One thing I can’t understand is all the blood all over it. I understand the Bible says that Jesus was buried quickly, and he didn’t receive a proper preparation, but it’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t have washed the body. Also, the idea that the blood in the water from his pierced side would somehow still be wet enough to have soaked into the cloth is a bit of a mystery to me. As well as the people who are pointing out that a cloth draped over a face would have produced a more distorted image.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. All I can think is how horrible it might’ve been for someone in the middle ages to have subjected a person to scourging and crucifixion in order to create this magnificent artifact.
Ever seen Ruckers nuclear tests on the Shroud. You should.
We have! We even address them.
He uses MCNP to make some predictions, based on neutrons acting in a way neutrons simply don't act, along with a bunch of other outlandish assumptions. The good news is it would be extremely easy to test. The bad news is, until it is tested, it shouldn't be relied upon by anybody for anything.
Radiation burst could have transferred blood from the body to the cloth. With a quick burial and no water outside city walls, any washing could have been postponed until after Sabbath. Roman guards sealing the tomb would have complicated things.
@@just_ben1951 How would a radiation burst transfer blood from the body to the cloth? What type of radiation, specifically, would do that?
@@ReasontoDoubt I've read that particle radiation could do that. I still think some blood and serous drainage could transfer naturally.
For some reason, my completely charitable comments on three different comments don’t show up. It appears that any of you non-believers are afraid to discuss the science behind the Shroud. The actual real science, why are these comments all deleted?
I've had lots of people complain about RUclips eating comments on various threads. I don't know why it happens. I get no notification, it's as if they were never made.
I will say that links often (but not always) get your comment removed (again by YT, not by me)
Oh man, I missed the first 28 mins or so but xame for the Radiation part and Jordan and Jared did an amazing job- seriously Bravo as I think your assessment was more or less right on the money most of the time. That said there were just a vouple things I didn't agree with you guys on at the level of conclusions.
1. You are right that Bob's hypothesis is ad hoc in that Bob took the known data and used those as inputs into his calculations (with one exception) and so his model perhaps shouldn't be used as a rebutting defeater as Bob does, I instead use his work only as an undercutting defeater whereby I think it makes his hypothesis an equally probable hypothesis relative to other explanatory hypotheses such as the one you suggested. I look forward to Bob providing details on here (hopefully) addressing why he goes for the rebutting defeater part and making a positve claim on his end. That said, I don't see Bob's hypothesis as implausible at all when we are speaking of miracles of God- obviously it has to be vertically colliminated to encode the images properly and to give it it's unique properties else you get a blurry mess and so Bob was taking into account known facts about the Shroud images (that they encoded via a rectilinear or perhaps curvilinear path) and taking that as a given in his hypothesis. So yeah, seems equally plausible to me that God would use vertical radiation and use it in ways that aren't regularly how nature works to make those images. So it does seem like a bias against miracles here on your part to say it is implausible simply because there are aspects that don't follow regular natural laws and it is also a mistake to make it seem like God had to use seperate mechanisms to accomplish these things as well.
2. One thing you missed is that Bob's calculations did not intitially take into account the Sudairum of Oviedo date of 670-700 A.D.- he didn't even know about it at the time and yet coincidentally when he did factor this data in, it just coincidentially matched one historically plausible location on the side of the bench in the tomb. Now you are enitely right that we have no idea in advance orindeptndently where exactly that cloth was located in the tomb, but there are only a limited number of plausible locations it could have been and still be plausible- remember neutrons were bouncing aorund all over the tomb and so it could well have been that the 670 or 700A.D. date would be located in a place that was implausible for the ancient Jews to have placed the head cloth. So, while this is iron clad, it is still not as though Bob could have just claimed victory regardless of where his calculations showed the 670-700 A.D. carbon 14 date, right- there are only some limited plausible options.
Literally nothing is implausible when we're talking about miracles of God. That's kind of the problem, isn't it? Literally any feature of the Shroud, no matter what it is, could always be explained as a miracle of God. Heck, God could finely tune the C14 level in the Shroud to date to a specific year in the 14th century if he wanted to, even if the cloth was first century. When your mechanism can explain literally any evidence & cannot possibly be falsified by any evidence it loses all explanatory power. But if we're just going to invoke an omnipotent being, why bother with protons & vertical collimation and all that? Just have God make the image directly and be done with it.
I disagree with the characterization that this is a "bias against miracles"; or rather, I disagree that this is somehow not what a reasonable person ought to do. You are asserting God as a mechanism of causation; it is perfectly reasonable to require you provide solid evidence that your mechanism of causation exists before blithely invoking it to explain phenomena. The Shroud of Turin is used all the time as evidence that God exists & performs miracles; including the existence of God as one of your premises is circular reasoning.
Regarding the face cloth, I imagine you could force it to have any date you wanted by positioning it in different locations in the tomb. If right next to the body didn't work, Ruckers could have moved it a foot to the left. Or to the right. Or to the ground. Or near the entrance. Any date at all could be accommodated; that's the problem.
@@ReasontoDoubt Well yes and no, if you remember I think that the context matters and so positing a miracle in a random context is indeed implausible based on the fact that it violates God's established MO on that front, but when in a religious context whereby there is a plausible inherent reason for us to expect God to do something different then I think such events are equally probable or plausible and I don't find that problematic on my end.
I don't think miracles can explain all the evidence though or if one posited that it did, then it may start to look improbable via being ad hoc and/or even implausible--- so for example I do find it imporbable though not impossible that God would make miraculous images that were historically or anatomically innaccurate for example. That doesn't fit God's MO nor His truthful character and so one might make an argument that way perhaps- God would not directly decieve us through His miraculous events (at least not without providing a way to tell the truth).
But yeah, you are right that there is no need to do what Bob does, but I prefer it as it is analyzable, but others like Giulio Fanti goes for a new hypothesis known as the Divine Photography hypothesis- OK maybe that explains everything then.
In terms of my using circular reasoning, I'm afraid that isn't true about me in particular as I'm a professional philosopher with a Masters and teach logic to first year university students (so I love the fallacies you guys do lol), but it is true that I have an 11 premise argument of which Premise #1 is that God exists and the truth of this premise is presupposed in my assessment of miracles of God (though I do provide independant warrant for that first premise). I don't use an argument from miracles (like the Shroud) to prove that God exists, I merely use it as evidence for the truth of christianity not that God proper exists.
FInally, what about on the side of a wall or on the roof- if it turned out we got those areas then obviously that wouldn't work unless one posits God making it float at the time of the radiation burst or something whixh is too ad hoc for me personally. But again your point is taken that we need more, there are a limited but many options that could have worked and so really the only way to break the explanatory tie is to do more tests and see what we get. We don't need to touch the Shroud at all- we already have some samples taken from it from 2002- they should date to the future given their location and if Bob is right.
Anyways, again well done, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said and I would promote your video but I see that Joe Marino has already beat me to it and has announced your video to everyone- looking forward to seeing you interact with Bob if he has the time to post on this one :)
@@RealSeekers If you personally don't use miracles like the Shroud to substantiate God's existence then I commend you for that. If you accept the premise of a deity existing then it seems miracles would certainly be an appropriate way to distinguish between various competing conceptions of deity.
Please let us know if we get any fallacies wrong, btw. I try to check myself as much as I can, but I have little formal training in philosophy (just some electives in my undergrad) so I'm always concerned I'm missing something.
@@ReasontoDoubt Awesome, and yeah no you guys do a great job on the fallacies and like you my favorite one is the fallacy fallacy that you mentioned the other day- that one is never covered in Richard Feldman's textbook so I always make sure to add it in at the end of my class for my students :)
Thank you for this statement "But if we're just going to invoke an omnipotent being, why bother with protons & vertical collimation and all that? Just have God make the image directly and be done with it." Very well said! I also fail to understand why if someone is taking the position that the image was put there by a miracle why they would then go to such extreme efforts to try to prove unheard of physical phenomena as the cause of the image. It seems that some don't believe God can just say "Let there be light" and there was light. Genesis 1:3. And what about Jesus' first miracle of turning water into wine. Was radiation a part of that miracle too?
If medulla has a higher moisture content than edges it would not discolour?
Hi Jordan and Jared, and thanks for a much more, in my opinion, considered episode. Any correction I would make is entirely trivial, as on the whole I think you did a very good job with the material you presented this time. Such comment as I have here is more complementary than critique.
1) One of the problems with determining how the image was made lies in the characterisation of the properties of the image, which are not, I think, well established. The main reason Walter McCrone saw more opaque particles than Heller and Adler was that the latter washed all their samples very thoroughly with toluene before examining them closely. We really have no idea of the extent to which particles contribute to the image now, let alone whether they contributed more in the past. It does seem as if alteration to the primary cell wall is the principal chromophore today, but it is not clear whether this was mere oxidation, or if a dye, such as iron acetate, could be a contributory factor.
2) Flax fibres are not tubular in quite the way your diagram depicts. The vast majority consists of the thick secondary cell wall, almost entirely of cellulose, through which a narrow hollow tube called the lumen, not the medulla, threads its way. The discoloured bit is the very thin primary cell wall, which also contains hemicellulose and pectin, which may be easier to discolour.
3) You comment, probably correctly, that the different shades of colour of the image do not occur because the colouring matter actually consists of different shades, but of a single shade, which, distributed more or lass densely over the pale substrate, gives rise to the appearance of different shades. This observation tends to support the pigment hypothesis, as any individual pigment tends to be more or less monochrome, and weakens the Maillard reaction and the radiation hypotheses, whose effect is to darken the substrate in proportion to their intensity.
4) While I'm here.... Perhaps Hww doesn't know that the reason the dumbbell shaped scourgemarks match the models of Roman flagra is that the models were modelled on the dumbbell shaped scourge marks, and not on any Roman archaeological discoveries. Perhaps he doesn't know that the Travertine aragonite found on the Shroud is common all over the world, not least in Champagne, where the Shroud was first displayed. Perhaps he doesn't know that Max Frei's pollen evidence has been largely discredited, and found to be unreliable by Israel's leading botanist Avinoam Danin.
Every source I read on the topic (including Fanti) referenced the interior of the fiber as the medulla, but I have precisely zero background knowledge when it comes to the structure of the flax fibers so I have to take their word for it. If they're wrong, then I'd be wrong too. Or, alternatively, maybe I've just misread what all these sources were trying to say.
@@ReasontoDoubt Hi Jordan and Jared, nothing wrong with that, you weren't professing to be investigating the Shroud yourselves, so much as reporting on other people's investigation. However, it's a pet peeve of mine, that "experts" on the Shroud are so narrowly focussed on their subject that they don't research important peripheral subjects, such as, for example, flax biology. The medulla is the hollow tube down the middle of animal hairs or the pith (or tube) down the middle of plant stems, and the lumen is the tube through bast fibres, as any sindonologist could have discovered if they could be bothered. But they so rarely do...
@@hughfarey3734 I'll add it to the corrections list!
You know, that does explain why my searches for the "medulla" in relation to flax fibers gave me no hits outside of Shroud stuff. I thought I was just typing it wrong or maybe literally nobody cares about it other than them, lol
Hugh Farey.. the models were modeled after models? , so what were the models modeled after? They probably had some clue. As far as the limestone, that particular travertine limestone found on the Shroud is uniquely comparable to the Limestone in that particular area. Evidently there are slight variances of travertine found in different locations. Somehow they were able to identify it as a limestone more common to that area. But even if it were just a common travertine, and nothing different about it who was this guy going to sell this to? Some top-notch scientist of his day?
Phenomenal video as a huge believer in shroud. Until now believed the radiation was most true. Still now don’t not believe the radiation (we don’t know how but doesn’t it still look as though it is proton imprinting on fabric?) Just deeply want to say thank you, phenomenal phenomenal work.
Thanks! I'm glad you found it helpful. I'm actually working on a deeper dive on the radiation thing as we speak, so stay tuned!
@@ReasontoDoubt awesome, you got an instant fan right here no doubt about it
The Shroud of Turin cannot be replicated using technology available to ancient people. If the Shroud is fake, the creator would have had to be a master of manipulation. He would have planned to obtain pollen from ancient Israel and Roman coins for his eyes.
He also would have violently scourged a victim with a barbed Roman whipping device, crucified his victim, and then what, created a 3D image of his victim?
We actually talk about the scourge in our latest episode with Hugh Farey! ruclips.net/video/_c43oVE9t2U/видео.html
The Shroud is easily reproducible, in all its properties, with the frottage technique (medieval technology of course). It was reproduced for the first time in 2009 by Luigi Garlaschelli, a chemist at the University of Pavia:
L. Garlaschelli. Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image. J. Imaging Sci. and Technol., 54 (4) 2010, in press
This reproduction replicates all its properties, 100%, including the bas-relief detected with 3D information, exactly like the Turin Shroud. As you can verify, there is no mystery. The rest are straw men. Please reply to the peer reviewed scientific publication only with other peer reviewed scientific publications. I'm not interested in personal opinions. I consider any comment not supported by scientific documentation as a confirmation of the scientific documentation that I have indicated.
I found it interesting that you explored a hypothesis from someone who tried to explain the image was due to the way they made linen in the first century A.D. I thought you were of the opinion that it was made in the medieval times? Are you suggesting that someone in the medieval times read Pliney and made a piece of linen according to the method he laid out in his writings, just to do a forgery of Jesus's burial cloth for a small Italian city? Not a very plausible hypothesis.
Rogers was of the opinion it was 1st century, and he's the one who came up with the Maillard reaction hypothesis. We're not in the habit of excluding research because it's published by people we disagree with.
@@ReasontoDoubt That's fine, but I didn't hear you mention that it was Roger's opinion that it was made in the first century, or whether or not you agreed with him on that point. The way it was presented gave me a "wait. what?" moment.
Also, I would have like to have heard why Rogers thinks it is first century. IS the cloth woven in a first Century technique? OR, are there other reasons why he thought it was first century?
@KigenEkeson He subscribed to the invisible reweave hypothesis
@@ReasontoDoubt and yet he doubts that it was caused by super-natural methods? That's interesting.
I really really love how hard it is to debunk a shroud that seems to be from the 13th or 14th century. With all our advanced tech you would think it would have been debunked instantly. Makes you wonder!!!
I mean, it basically has. The biggest issue is a lack of access to the shroud. If we had more samples to date, especially those of the image itself (something that everyone would agree isn't a patch) the matter would be settled
@@curiouspeanut don't you know that the shroud is the most studied artefact in the world? why, over 40 years ago, a team of scientists had access to it for a full 5 days!
There is no access to the shroud. It was examined by STURP for a few days in the late 70s, and apart from the carbon dating I don't think anything else has been done. I could be wrong though.
@@curiouspeanut humans are so foolish... the person in the shroud IS JESUS .....EVERYONE KNOWS THIS... u guys are so faithful to your debased world view that it clouds your judgment of common sense and BASIC reason. the shroud was gained access to and an ex ray light scattering dated the cloth 500bc-500Ad. It's Jesus who was wrapped in the cloth. It's BASIC common sense.
@@nahj1don706 You got a date with a 1000 span, and are confidently able to conclude it was Jesus'?
I don't know it's Jesus', I don't think you do either.
Some will believe it is genuine, others will not. Still others could care less, that’s the reality of the human species.
As the great philosopher Weird Al said, that means they do care, at least a little
What about the Camera obscura hypothesis ???
That one is both not as popular among Shroud proponents as the radiation explanation and seems more far fetched than the other two, so we didn't cover it. It's impossible to cover it all!
@@ReasontoDoubt The reason I mentioned it is that years ago I saw a documentary where they actually replicated the Jesus image on linen using camera obscura and I also think they said that Leanardo Da Vinci was the one that made the shroud using this method to get back at the church. What are your thoughts ???
@@sicpuppy9435 The Shroud unequivocally shows up in history about 100 years before da Vinci was born, so that seems unlikely
@@ReasontoDoubt Good point, thanks for the info, much appreciated
@@sicpuppy9435 obscura won't create a 3D quality detectable by VP 8- Analyzer.... this is one of the mystery of the Shroud...why does a VP8- Analyzer detect 3D qualities?... Normal photo or painting don't have 3D qualities under a VP 8- Analyzer...
Another video I saw the man duplicated the technique he believes the artist used and it was using dry powder paints that were BAKED on to give it an antique look and to hold the powder paint to the fabric. What do you think of that hypothesis?
I've had a bunch of commenters mention that technique. I would think there would still be pigments on it...but I haven't looked deeply into it so I'm not sure. One day, when we do a series on image formation, I'll do that.
Has anyone looked to see if the flat Jesus shroud is not just a cartoon who got steam rolled in the tomb? I think thats the most logical explanation.
I think I can confidently say that that model has not been proposed in any peer reviewed literature. Grave oversight on their part
Wanker!
55:19 “If you take nothing else away from this very long diatribe on radiation, understand this. Rucker’s model has no value because all of the known data points are input to his model. It cannot help but to match that.” Is it true that “all of the known data points are input” to the model that I used in MCNP? What did I model in MACNP? In MCNP, I modeled a horizontal human body using simple geometrical volumes, surrounded by linen cloth in a box geometry, laying with the head to the right on the back bench in a limestone tomb as it would have been designed in first century Jerusalem. I had to run about 400 MCNP calculations to bound (low to high values) all the variables for which I did not have specific values, including neutron emission energy, neutron emission direction, distance of the toes from the limestone wall, etc. None of this included any of the “known data points”. What are the “known data points”? There are four “known data points” relevant to the carbon dating of Shroud. They are:
1. All samples sent to the three dating laboratories were cut from the Shroud at the same time in 1988. These samples were cut next to each other from the corner of the Shroud. The dating laboratories were in Oxford England, Zurich Switzerland, and in Tucson Arizona. Each of the three laboratories then cut their sample into multiple subsamples, so that 16 subsamples were carbon dated. An average carbon date was then calculated for each laboratory using the carbon dates that were measured at that laboratory. These laboratory average values were then combined into one overall average value: 1260 ± 31 AD. This “uncorrected value” was then corrected for the changing concentration of the carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This correction process produced a range of 1260 to 1390 AD. The central date of this range is 1325 AD. The range of 1260-1390 supposedly has 95% probability of containing the true date, but this is only true if the uncorrected value of 1260 ± 31 years is known with certainty. This uncorrected value of 1260 ± 31 years should be rejected due to the probable presence of a systematic measurement error that caused the measured values to be “heterogeneous” or “non-homogeneous”, as indicated by four papers in peer-reviewed journals. This is a very detailed study that can be ignored at this point. The bottom line is that the first “known data point” is the 1325 date for the average of the 16 subsample measurements.
2. The second “known data point” is the average date for each of the three laboratories: 1201 ± 31, 1274 ± 24, and 1303 ± 17 for Oxford, Zurich, and Tucson, respectively. These values indicate that the carbon date depends on the distance from the bottom of the cloth, at the rate of 36 years per cm = 91 years per inch. A chi-squared statistical analysis of these values indicates there is only a 1.4% chance (bottom of column 1 in Table 5 of my paper #12 on my website Shroud Research Network) these values are consistent with each other, which is below the usual 5% criteria. This indicates the probable presence of a systematic measurement error in the data. Since it is not possible to determine the magnitude of this systematic error, the only option is to reject the conclusion that the Shroud dates to 1260-1390 AD.
3. The third “known data point” is the 16 carbon dates for the 16 subsamples. These values are available in Table 6 of my paper #12 “The Carbon Dating Problem for the Shroud of Turin, Part 2: Statistical Analysis” on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network.
4. The fourth “known data point” is the measured carbon date of about 700 AD for the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is believed to be the face or head cloth for Jesus mentioned in John 20:7.
These are four requirements that a carbon dating hypothesis must satisfy to be true.
It was said that “Rucker’s model has no value because all of the known data points are input to his model.” Is it true that the overall average value (1325 AD), the three laboratory average values (1201 ± 31, 1274 ± 24, and 1303 ± 17), all the 16 carbon dates for the 16 subsamples, and the 700 AD value for the Sudarium of Oviedo are all “input to his model”? No. I will try to clarify the confusion on this issue.
When MCNP is run, the output values are normalized to one neutron in the model. To have the values meaningful, the output values must to be renormalized to something that is of significance. For example, if I was running MCNP for a nuclear reactor, I would normalize all the output values to the power level of the nuclear reactor, so that they would have the correct values for that power level. For my Shroud calculations in MCNP, the only thing that I could renormalize the output values to is the average carbon date for the 1988 samples obtained by the three laboratories, either 1260 AD for the uncorrected value or 1325 AD, for the midpoint of the corrected range 1260-1390 AD. For the MCNP calculations I performed in 2014, I chose to renormalize the output values to the uncorrected 1260 date though I now believe the corrected date of 1325 would have been more appropriate. From the MCNP output that was normalized to one neutron, I was able to calculate how many neutrons would have to be emitted from the body to result in a carbon date at the 1988 sample area of 1260 AD. This number was about 2 x 10^18 neutrons. I then renormalized all the MCNP output values by multiplying them by 2 x 10^18 neutrons. This was done in EXCEL. The result was that the carbon date at the 1988 sample location was 1260 AD. This is the “known data point” #1 above.
The neutron absorption hypothesis can be stated as follows: “If 2 x 10^18 neutrons are emitted uniformly in the body, then all four of the above requirements are satisfied.” Each of these requirements is one of the four “known data points”:
1. The carbon date at the 1988 sample location should be 1260, or 1325, whichever is chosen. This is automatically satisfied by assuming that the correct number of neutrons (2 x 10^18) is emitted in the body to shift the carbon date for the 1988 sample location from 33 to 1260 AD.
2. MCNP calculated a value at the 1988 sample location that was very close to the experimental value of 36 years per cm. There was nothing put into MCNP that forced the code to calculate the same slope to the data as the measurements indicated. Thus, theory (MCNP calculations) was in close agreement with experiments (carbon dates measured by the three laboratories).
3. The MCNP calculations in 2014 did not have sufficient spatial resolution to confirm the distribution and range of the carbon dates for the 16 subsamples. I need to restart my MCNP calculations with a finer spatial resolution to confirm the distribution and range of the carbon dates for the 16 subsamples.
4. After I finished my MCNP calculations related to the carbon dating of the Shroud, it occurred to me that there was also the carbon dating of the Sudarium of Oviedo, which as the face or head cloth of Jesus (John 20:7) is related to the Shroud. It was my understanding at the time that the Sudarium was carbon dated to about 700 AD, though these measurements were not well documented. The problem is where the Sudarium may have been placed in the tomb. In thinking about it, it occurred to me that the most likely place for the Sudarium to have been dropped in the tomb was probably on the right bench, because most people are right handed, and to the side of the person doing the burial, who would have been at the front of the pit or stand-up area in the tomb. Thus, after he took the face cloth off the body, he most likely would have dropped the face cloth on the right bench where his right arm and hand (with his arm hanging down) would have been located, about 15 to 18 inches in front of the back bench where the body would have been located. This was my prediction. I then took my previous case and inserted a linen layer on the top of the right and left benches in the tomb, and then reran this new MCNP case. When I got the MCNP calculated results back, I found that my predicted location for the face cloth on the right bench had a carbon date of about 700 AD, in very good agreement with the experimental values. No aspect of my input into MCNP forced the code to give such good results between my predicted location for the face cloth and the measured carbon date of the Sudarium.
Thus, the above requirements #1, #2, and #4 are satisfied for my hypothesis, and requirement #3 needs to be further tested by running MCNP with a finer spatial resolution. These are the four “known data points” related to carbon dating of the Shroud, and only #1 is true because I normalized all the values to the correct number of neutrons (2 x 10^18) to shift the carbon date from 33 to 1260 AD at the 1988 sample location.
55:58 “He normalizes his curve so it automatically agrees with the first requirement.” As explained above, this is exactly appropriate. It is the good agreement for requirements #2 (slope) and #4 (face cloth) that indicates my assumption of neutron emission from the body has merit. There is nothing in my input to MCNP that forced the computer to calculate this good agreement.
56:04 Regarding the good agreement for the face cloth, see 4 above on the face cloth. MCNP calculated the correct carbon date for the face cloth for my predicted most likely location for it in the tomb. I did not put it there to give me the answer that I wanted. I predicted the location, then calculated the dates, which for the predicted location, were in good agreement with the experiments.
And if your preferred location of the cloth hadn't gotten the answer you wanted, you would have moved it because that cloth to be literally anywhere in the tomb (or nowhere at all).
I understand that you need to normalize your curve to make sense of the data. My point is that for laymen who may look at that curve and be impressed, they shouldn't be. The fact that the curve agrees with the radiocarbon dates we have is not impressive because the model is designed to do just that. I don't know why in half these comments you're objecting to the insinuation you did that, then in this comment you say you did it. I understand that you say it also matched the slope of the points. That's to be expected since more neutrons would be emitted further towards the center; this is the very thing that led you to this idea in the first place (according to interviews you've given). That's not a confirmed prediction, it's the thing you're trying to explain.
Does this mean your model is hypothesis is wrong? No. What it DOES mean is that it is ad hoc and finely tuned to match our observations, so unless and until independent verification is found it should have just as much weight as if I said alien teleporter technology caused the neutron burst.
You want to reject the radiocarbon dating when it suits you, but rely on its measurements when THAT suits you. Which is it? Should we throw it away? Or should we use it?
I happen to think we should use it. We should use it to say that because of the systematic errors we cannot say with confidence where in that range the true date lies, but we CAN say that the true date is not 1st century. Which is actually ALSO what you say; where we differ is you go to an elaborate rube Goldberg device to explain it whereas I use a known mechanism with a clear cause. Seems like one of us is digging hard to get the answer they prefer. Hint: Their name rhymes with Rob Bucker.
If you take a cloth and drape it over your face and then you emit some sort of resurrection radiation or whatever, you don't produce a picture like a selfie. The face would look distorted/widened. So imho the miracle wouldn't be just the radiation but the perfectly distributed radiation that produced a "normal" looking picture... before that riddle is solved I see no need to look into any of the radiation explanations... Though I appreciate your efforts to explain why the different hypotheses don't work. Good job! Looking forward to the next instalment...
There would be some very special, carefully curated radiation going on here for sure
Derek your making what we call assertions from ignorance or assertions from what we don’t know . What the image does show is shades of light and darkness which tells us which parts of the shroud were closer to the body and which were further away .
Now if the image was formed in the same way as a photo was formed you’d be right but the shroud image has 3d topographical information encoded on it .
The same type that the vp8 image analyzer encodes from pics of the terrain of mars and the moon .
The people that came closest to replicating the shroud were scientists that worked with the radiation models .
August accetta was one of them when he ingested radioactive materials into his body and while the image he produced did replicate a few of the unique characteristics of the shroud image it didn’t produce an image that came close to the detail on the shroud image .
Also the Italian scientists using high powered lasers also succeeded in replicating the coloring on the cloth and the superficiality of the shroud image but they could only produce something only a few centimeters long but to replicate something the same size as the full shroud image they would need a laser with power on a scale we currently don’t have .
And how does the shroud image look like a selfie . A selfie has 2 dimensional characteristics, the shroud has 3 dimensional features on it .
And why would any ancient forger put pollen from Jerusalem that no one including him knows how to detect and won’t know how to detect for many centuries ???
There are too many features on this shroud that make it silly to believe that a medieval forger would ever want to or need to or knew how to do to go to these lengths to fool
A medieval audience .
The problem becomes worse when you consider the circumstantial evidence that takes the date of the shroud to much older then the c14 dating out out , like the connection to the image of edessa from the 6th century and the tetradiplon folding pattern talked about in the image of edessa’s history which was also found in the shroud , as well as the many points of coincidences found between the sudarium of oveido and the blood marks on the head image of the shroud of Turin .
I lean towards authenticity but not 100% because we can never know for certain .
Take this with the fact that Cambridge art historian thomas de wesselow said that the shroud image itself doesn’t fit with the artistic style of any era in art history should make any HONEST sceptic sit up and take notice .
I haven’t fully watched this video yet but the title tells me that the creators of this video are most likely people from the religion of atheism who are going in with an emotional bias .
I’ll finish watching before forming my full opinion on them
@@ReasontoDoubt yes curated by some intelligent designer maybe ;)
Nahhh that can’t be !! Why ? Because atheists say so ;)
As a former atheist I can understand having doubt in the existence of God .
What I can’t understand is why an someone doesn’t emotionally want God to exist as most of the atheists I have dialogued with seem to have in their style of dialoguing
Now the guy says the shroud isn’t a photonegative but is disingenuous when he says it’s merely dark in areas where it’s supposed to be light and vice versa .
Duhhhhhhh
What the heck is a photonegative if but that .
I can smell the emotional bias emanating deep within 😂
True it probably isn’t a photonegative in that it wasn’t taken by a camera but it absolutely has photonegative qualities .
The hillarious part os is comparing it to a lithograph .
The problem with this comparison os that the image on the shroud doesn’t look anything like a lithograph but if someone were doing a photonegative on a litho graph you would easily be able to detect that .
No one looking at the original shroud image as it’s shown on the burial cloth would ever think it was a negative image .
And again why would any forger think of doing this through an unknown process to fool a medieval crowd .
But the problem here is I’m being extra kind when I’m even suggesting a medieval date as there is no evidence outside the c14 dating that puts at at a medical date .
As I said in my last post Cambridge art historian thomas de wesselow who is himself an agnostic and not a believer says this doesn’t in any way shape or form conform to medieval art style of the style of any era of art history .
So far this is basically nothing more then a circle jerk of 2 people preaching to the choir .
To debunk this as a creation made by human hands you need to first show us that this was done in the same artistic style of the medieval era or any era and if you go with someone’s opinion like wesselow who is an expert in art history you can’t even get to that point .
I was hoping for an unbiased video but so far I’m extremely disappointed .
I hope the rest of the video proves me wrong .
It’s videos like this that made me start to
Doubt my atheism.
If you guys want rational atheists to read I’d suggest
Roger penrose
Stuart hameroff
Michael ruse
John beloff
These are atheists who are actually open to being shown to be wrong .
This looks to
Me like the opposite side of the young earth creationist coin
@angelbrother1238 Many people talking about it being a photonegative then say things like "but photography wasn't invented yet so it has to be a miracle". Some of them were in the comment section of the last video! We were pointing out, for those people, that that does not follow. I realize that is not what you think, and this may come as a shock to you, but you are not the only person on the internet and we did not make this video to address you and only you.
It isn't disingenuous or deceptive to answer an objection that is being raised to us directly.
That art historians work is not peer reviewed. He self published it on Amazon. I've looked through the book, and his entire argument hinges on the Pray Codex which I do not find compelling. If his arguments are so amazing, why doesn't he submit them for peer review? You may want to hone your skeptical senses if you accept anything a fellow non-believer puts in a book.
I would be happy to be shown I'm wrong. The evidence for the Shroud simply isn't compelling. I do second your recommendation of Penrose, though.
Why not test Rucker's hypothesis? All that's needed is a geiger counter, right?
Pretty much, yeah. You may not be able to say if his predicted amounts are dead on but we should be able to rule out highly elevated radiation levels at the center
@@ReasontoDoubt Is the geiger counter test not done because the vatican does not allow it?
No test is done on the Shroud unless the Vatican allows it. I don't know if any efforts have been made to do the Geiger test though.
@@ReasontoDoubt If the Geiger counter test is done, that would help a lot. Besides, it is not destructive. Can't imagine why the Vatican would not allow it.
But wouldn't the radiation from that one "resurrection" event have dissipated after all these years? Such that the Geiger counter would not show elevated readings?
@@SupremeSkeptic That's a great question! In this case, the answer is no, because of the specific thing being tested.
Rucker's hypothesis is that a burst of neutrons led to the production of extra radioactive carbon-14 in the Shroud, far in excess of what it would normally have had. Something that has more carbon-14 will look "younger" than something that has less, so the Shroud dated to be younger than it actually was.
The half-life of C14 is ~5500 years, and so only about a quarter of the C14 would have decayed away by now. The center of the Shroud (according to him) would still have far more C14 than even modern material, so it would "date" into the future. Rucker predicts that it would date to ~6,000 years into the future, so it would have roughly twice as much radioactive carbon in it than, say, a modern t-shirt.
There's a lot of confounding factors that would make it impossible to non-destructively get an accurate count (absorption within the material itself for example), but if you placed the Shroud somewhere with shielding from background radiation, you could probably get enough to say whether it was twice as radioactive as modern material.
Do you want it to be fake??
No, it would be way cooler if it were really Jesus' burial shroud
@@ReasontoDoubt thanks for sharing! Although I disagree with the video conclusion I appreciate all skeptical responses
Because it would be neat to have a piece of history like that
the Shroud of Turin is our Lord Jesus Christ and God gave us a sign that Jesus died for us to save us from sin
You seem to take that on faith, which doesn't help those who do not share your faith and are investigating the Shroud based on physical evidence alone.
My mom's a handweaver, I wonder how hard it would be to get her to help me produce some first century-style linen, and a pig carcass and see what happens?
Sounds like a fun Saturday night if nothing else 😄
@ReasontoDoubt great video (Christian here).
Can I run a scenario by you? I don't have the knowledge base, so thought I'd ask you. Forgive me if it is poorly articulated:
Theories I've heard "flying around" is that the body radiated light/energy for a short time. What if instead of darkening the cloth such as some of the theories you guys addressed/debunked posit, what if the ammonia or other methods darkened the cloth and the "energy burst" bleached parts of the cloth (like the atomic bombs did) creating the photo negative?
Just wanted to throw out that theory and get your thoughts. (Not saying that's what happened, but wanted to see if it would be plausible, assuming a body gave off energy 🤷🏻♂️😂)
So the radiation actually bleached the areas that aren't associated with the body, leaving the body parts dark (so the dark brown was the original color)?
Off the top of my head I don't think that works just because the threads in the image area have darkened fibrils on the outside, while the non-image parts don't. The fibrils are all the same color; the density is what makes it look lighter or darker to us. For that to be the case, the linen in the image area would need to have been dyed, darkened, or in some way colored and that coloration would have been blasted away by the radiation in your idea...but if the image could be made with a dye or whatever why posit the radiation in the first place?
There's other issues too, like what is the source of the radiation if not the body itself.
I have to give full marks for creativity though. That's an interesting idea I don't think I'd heard before!
@@ReasontoDoubt makes sense. I appreciate you taking the time to consider the scenario and responding to it.
As for the source of the radiation, I have no clue lol. Based on your breakdown of how it would go in all directions, I can't imagine the skin would make sense as the source. Best I've got is it coming out of the pores or even serves as a sort of prism (I am pretty much making this up as I am not knowledgeable of various types of radiation; I'm just going to say "the spirit" lol. Moses, Steven the Martyr, and Jesus at the Transfiguration all glowed... 🤷🏻♂️). If that (hypothetically speaking) happened wouldn't that allow it to exit the body more directly (not like a sprinkler but like a hose). Again, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. But really you don't have to entertain the "thought experiment". There's really nothing I'm offering at this point that's anything more than sheer speculation. 😂
Anyway, that's all I've got for this hypothetical scenario.
I appreciate how thorough you guys are in your research. I do want to contact you about something else, unrelated to the shroud. Is there a way I can do that?
Occum's razor: All things being equal the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
The reason the shroud looks like the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth is because it is the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
The "simplest explanation" isn't the one that takes the fewest words to articulate. The cloth actually being the burial cloth of Jesus is quite complicated when you consider the implications.
@@ReasontoDoubt The fact that it is complicated would seem to indicate that it's not the result of a medieval forger.
@@rephaimog4186 I don't know if it was a medieval forger, but humans do complicated stuff all the time. One advantage to the forgery hypothesis is it only requires us to posit entities we already know exist (humans motivated to create, possibly to deceive)
Since the absolute majority of all religious relics through history are so often found to be forgeries or earnestly made icons and that the shroud does not match burial shrouds of the same time and nor is it mentioned as being an an important and preserved relic at the time, it follows that the simplest explanation is that the shroud is not the burial shroud of Christ. It would be more a complicated and unlikely explanation that it is the true surviving shroud, despite scientific and historical inconsistencies.
@@Hatasumi69 Galatians 3:1: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
So Jesus was publicly portrayed in Galatia as crucified before their very eyes??? How?
Answer: The Shroud of Turin. There is no other explanation.
This is absolute rubbish. The Shroud is genuine beyond doubt. To suggest Sturp did the carbon dating shows the level of lack of serious research in this video.
Truth will prevail. Amen
There's a pinned comment with corrections on this and the other videos of the series.
58:56 Regarding the curve of the carbon dates for the 16 subsamples. As I stated above, “A chi-squared statistical analysis of these values indicates there is only a 1.4% chance (bottom of column 1 in Table 5 of my paper #12 on my website Shroud Research Network) these values are consistent with each other, which is below the usual 5% criteria. This indicates the probable presence of a systematic measurement error in the data. Since it is not possible to determine the magnitude of this systematic error, the only option is to reject the conclusion that the Shroud dates to 1260-1390 AD.”
1:00:08 “Or, what if Oxford was 0.7% better at eliminating contaminant because they had different lab cleaning methods, which they did. … All you need is 0.7% more contamination cleaned by Oxford and it explains everything.” Let’s analyze this. The vertical axis is labelled RCYBP, which refers to Radio Carbon Years Before Present, where present is defined as 1950. If we translate this into years AD, then, as I state above, the dates are “1201 ± 31, 1274 ± 24, and 1303 ± 17 for Oxford, Zurich, and Tucson, respectively”. His statement “All you need is 0.7% more contamination cleaned by Oxford and it explains everything.” means that if 0.7% more contamination is cleaned from the Oxford subsamples, then it would decrease the date from 1303 to perhaps 1238, which is the average of 1201 and 1274, or perhaps Zurich’s value of 1274. What contamination is he referring to specifically? If this contamination were more effectively cleaned from the subsamples, how does he know which way the date would change and how much it would change? Where does this 0.7% come from? What is his reference for it? The reference that I think of is “On Cleaning Methods and the Raw Radiocarbon Data from the Shroud of Turin” by Larry Schwalbe and Bryan Walsh, in International Journal of Archeology, 2021, but I do not find the 0.7% value there. The following makes me skeptical about this suggestion of contamination to explain the different dates from the three laboratories.
1. Lack of specifics. What is the contamination? How does it affect the carbon date? How do we know which direction the carbon date would change with further cleaning? Where does the 0.7% come from?
2. There is no evidence for this hypothetical contamination.
3. Three cloth standards of known historical dates were dated by the same laboratories at the same time as the Shroud samples. The effectiveness of the laboratory’s cleaning methods can be determined from the dates obtained for these three cloth standards. There is not a significant difference in the three laboratory’s dates for the three cloth standards, so that this alleged need for further cleaning of the Oxford subsamples is not confirmed.
4. In the analysis of the cleaning methods in the above reference (Figure 1 of Schwalbe and Walsh), they recognized the presence of a bifurcation (division into two branches or parts) of the dates obtained at Arizona and Zurich, which was not present at Oxford. They were unable to explain this from the perspective of cleaning methods, but it can easily be explained using the neutron absorption hypothesis, considering the direction in which the subsamples were cut from the samples. Arizona and Zurich evidently cut their sample horizontally and vertically to obtain their subsamples, whereas Oxford only cut their sample vertically. The specific locations of these subsamples relative to the shape of the neutron distribution in the tomb can explain this date bifurcation. The point is that cleaning methods do not explain this bifurcation whereas the neutron absorption hypothesis can explain it.
Also at 31:06, you mentioned Jean-Baptiste Rinaudo’s experiments with protons. His experiments were presented at a previous conference on the Shroud of Turin [“Modello protonico di formazione dell'immagine sulla Sindone di Torino” (Protonic Model of Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin) presented June 6, 1998, in Torino, Italy, at the III Congresso
The reference for the 0.7% contamination comes from Walshe and Schwalbe "An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin". They discuss the differences between the labs and provide a specific difference in the cleaning standards that could lead to the difference. The 0.7% number is specifically if the contamination were 20th century; how much contamination would be needed to explain the difference is going to vary depending on when that contamination is from.
I have to say I find your saying "There is no evidence for this hypothetical contamination" to be EXTREMELY ironic, considering you're the guy who has proposed a burst of magic neutrons & protons to explain this same difference. You are the LAST person who should be criticizing others for their hypotheses having no evidence to support them.
It does not seem scientific at all to say that "Since it is not possible to determine the magnitude of this systematic error, the only option is to reject the conclusion that the Shroud dates to 1260-1390 AD." Is that really the "only option"! Here's another alternative. What if the confidence levels were too narrow for the labs' actual measurement abilities? This is what Professor Gonella suggested. “Among these, for example, there was the scientific advisor of the Guardian of the Shroud, Prof. Gonella, who admitted that the statistical results published in Nature were not correct and that the uncertainty assigned to the result should have been increased, but despite this, the medieval result could not be put into question.” Fanti, 161 (2020). This is on my list of things to write about someday in the future.
And no one is talking about how the biggest mystery is why this thing was allegedly missing for 1400 years with zero provenance of where it came from and people just assume it's Jesus's death shroud....
Not to mention he was actually likely buried in a mass grave anyway
Mass grave is my preferred fate for the body
@Joseph Mitchell
I've wondered about that myself. How did this burial shroud travel from a tomb near Jerusalem in the early 1st century to Constantinople some 1300 years later? Who was the original custodian? There's nothing in any historical record, as far as I know, that chronicles the shroud's provenance.
I was raised Catholic and, believe me, there are all kinds of artifacts that are passed off as "holy relics" without one iota of evidence to support those claims. People can be incredibly gullible when it comes to religious beliefs.
Pray Codex, Burial of Jesus
Shouldn't the image radiate from the inner side of the shroud? If the image is basically on the outer side than something is wrong, or have I misunderstood something? I'm actually very tired watching this this.
The image is all on one side of the cloth, the side that would have (allegedly) been in contact with the body
Open Your Mind for God. Don´t be afraid.
Do you know the dimensions on the body on the shroud. I ask because the arms seem longer than is normal and the fingers on one hand seem longer than normal. Are detailed body measurements even available?
We talk about this in episode 3
@@ReasontoDoubt I looked up email correspondence between rival researchers concerning coin images on the shroud. These are rare coins minted only between 29 and 32 AD. They are comparable to extant period coins from the time of Pilate, including ones with crude printing errors.
The coins have been examined carefully and photographed. They are definately present on the shroud.
The shroud is a 1st century weave, not something that was made in India or in Europe at all. Pollen and chemical analysis conflicts with the carbon dating result , locates the cloth in Jerusalem and various middle eastern locations.
If the image is fake, applied later perhaps, the forger would have to have possessed a rare 1 st century burial shroud conforming to Jewish practices and dimensions and would have to possess and recognize two rare period coins.
The forger would have to understand
many details of crucifixtion and had to possess human plasma and rare AB blood, also definately found on the shroud.
It is also agreed by every credible shroud researcher that the image is not drawn in paint. (There was paint found on some fibres appearing to fill in faded or damaged parts of the shroud. Since it is not found in all areas to look like blood, it is not too relevant. The paint found is not extensive enough to explain how the image was made.)It is some sort of print depicting real objects, human or otherwise.
For me, it is up to detractors to prove that the coins on the shroud are not actually there or are just sketches that don't match actual period coins. No one has done this to my satisfaction.
It is irrelevant that coins were not used on eyes in Jewish burial custom. Anyone could have placed them over the man's eyes, any one of the Roman soldiers who supervised while the body was wrapped or those guarding the tomb, for any number of reasons.
The salient fact is that there are indeed period coins over the man's eyes, one of them slightly askew, adding credibility to the gospel story of a rushed interment.
It boils down to two questions for me, how to satisfactorily explain away 1. coin images and the 2. chemical analysis which contradicts carbon dating. Both types of evidence are reliably used by archaeologists to date ancient artifacts.
Oh, another discovery. An agnostic art historian says that the shroud artifact is not consistent with any medieval painting or religious icon. If it is a forgery, which I don't rule out yet, the art historian does not believe it is a ' medieval' forgery, at any rate.
I can find the links if you want. I just googled a question, led me to those sites.Correction. McCrone reports paint pigments and residue in many places where other reseachers have found human AB type blood and human DNA supposed. Both findings could be true.
If the coins are endorsed by more than one ,,unbiased,, researcher it would settle some things.
Certainly it is possible that corrupt antiquity dealers could have forged this image somehow during the crusades in Jerusalem. The period history makes this very possible imo.
Right arm shoulder dislocated
Here’s an explaination I heard from a few of the medical examiners of the shroud :
His right arm & shoulder were dislocated (from carrying the crossbeam, as well as the crucifixion), ; causing his right shoulder to be dislocated, which causes the arm to BE elongated.
I’ve heard this is true of dislocated shoulders; when my stepbrother was a wrestler in HS, many years ago.
But, I haven’t fact checked, since watching the video a few days ago.
It’s a puzzle in a hundred ways ; and the evidence against it are easily deflatable theories.
Does that include the carbon dating, done on the PATCHED AREA on the Shroud?
There are recent scientific scans, done by a dept. of Crystallography (?) ; that have done a new type of scans, that show the shroud to have 2,000 years of decay , and have the same scan patterns, as known 2,000 year old shrouds.
I’m not sure how solid it is, but they are a science organization / company that does legit. science every day ; but the scans reliability (???).
If you're talking about the WAXS data, that isn't reliable (at least not yet). We did a livestream on it recently.
OMG! You've got me at "Tokyo Drift" I'm going to recovert to Catholicism
Jesus Christ wasn't buried with one piece of linen clothes he was buried with two different piece of linen clothes in John 20:6-7 Then cometh Simon Peter following him and went into the sepulchre and seeth the linen clothes lie 7 And the napkin that was about his head (that means the napkin was covering Jesus face) not lying with the linen clothes but wrapped together in a place by itself that means the napkin was lying in a other place by itself... And the shroud of Turin is one piece that they said is Jesus Christ face...The Bible proves that the shroud of Turin is a hoax it's not the face of Jesus Christ...
if i was the forger and could do such a great job in the 14th cen, I would just have done the face why go to all that extra work if you don't have to. So if it wasn't painted witch would be the easy way then its not a forgery because it would be just to much work for them to do, Or were they jusr really lucky they came up with a process that no one yet can explain and the deeper you look the farther you are from iust a simple forgery. I don;t know how it came about but it is something very special
I suppose, if it was an artist who did it, they didn't want to just do the face. It would have been easier for Michelangelo to make just a head instead of the entire body of David, but he made the whole body anyway.
@@ReasontoDoubt yes but the forger must have destroyed their great work just to be left with a old dirty cloth that would be hard to sell and no one would know you made the the fantastic sculpture, How crazy is that even if it was a modern forgery from the 21st cen you only have to convince people who are willing to believe you don't even try to convince scientists they will never believe anyway so a 14th cen forger just had to do enough to fool someone just looking at it, even covering a body in blood then covering it with a cloth would have done, The lengths the forger went to are way more than was needed and so it does not make sense that they would.
the forger wouldn't just make the face because the whole intent of this forgery was to depict the whole body of Christ as crucified. The church wanted that type of relic for the purposes of converting people and bringing more into the church. The face alone would not have accomplished the intended purpose.
Please also, if you're still preparing the next episode I'm sure you want to see the opposing objections to the objections. What I recommend is Father Andrew Dalton who is a young college professor who is an American in Rome who teaches a subject at a university there. I believe it's called new evidence about the Shroud and presentation/discussion only a few days old. They are careful not to say that it's proof of everything. Hope you check it out
No guarantees we'll be able to include it but we'll check it out
@@ReasontoDoubt if you have time.. another presentation to check out: 'What is the sudarium of Oviedo' Mark Guskin. Non-biased presentation. Blood patterns, blood type and other correlations match what is thought to be the facial napkin that cover the body. The presentation breaks down the history how they determine its age excetera. Really cannot say the Shroud matches the face shape or anything like that but there are other strong correlations. And the face cloth pretty conclusively can be traced back to the time of Christ. , presentation is not religious oriented at all.
@hwwbroward8322 I'll check it out
I think the head is too small, like the head of the sphinx. The photographic negative property is intriguing, and the 3D information, and the fact that we don't know how the image was made. These things make one think it could be miraculous, but the head to body ratio is wrong imho. The head should be significantly bigger.
Have you ever heard of artist that painted with blood?
Can we glean anything from thread coloration about the duration of the cause (e.g. low power radiation that persisted for a long time)
I imagine that would depend entirely on what the cause is...like if we postulate a cause, the coloration could tell us things about what the exposure must have been.
If it was actually on a corpse then there's also the limit of a few days before fluids would start to leak from the body and obliterate the image.
💐💐💐💐💐 You do not need any of these scientific explanations to refute the physical resurrection. The Bible itself when studied meticulously refutes that idea all by myself. As a member of the Baha’i Faith, and based on the biblical narrative and rational reasoning, we have to accept that the resurrection of Jesus or any of the prophets or individuals within the biblical narrative are all spiritual and not physical resurrections even when literal words are used. Here are the biblical reasoning behind what is being said:
Jesus called himself “the resurrection” even long before he was crucified:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die”.
(John 11:25 NIV)
This is Jesus himself speaking, so it was the belief in him and his teachings that accounted as true resurrection and not the crucifixion and belief in the reanimation of the physical body. Belief in him and his words revived those who were spiritually dead and brought them forth from their tomb of ignorance. This is all spiritual and not a physical phenomenon.
What does the Bible teach about the physical body and resurrection? It says:
“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications”…
(Hebrew 5:7 KJV)
Jesus was a Spirit before he was born and had gone back to being a Spirit after his death:
“God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV)
Therefore, the Bible teaches that Jesus had flesh or a physical body during his life on earth but that there came a time when he was no longer in possession of a physical body. Read the whole chapter so you can see the whole content.
What else does the Bible teach about physical body or flesh? Apostle Paul himself stated:
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption“.
(1 Corinthians 15:50 KJV)
Therefore, no physical body which is a corruptible biological entity can have any association or entrance into the Kingdom of God. After all, the Bible teaches that:
“God is a Spirit” (John 4:24 KJV)
and not a physical body, and that the Word which is Christ himself had existed as a Spirit (a nonphysical entity) long before even the creation of what we call earth.
Flesh and blood (the physical body) were not important to Jesus at all. The Bible teaches that all that Jesus taught 2000 years ago were all revealed by the Father. Jesus made sure to tell Simon that flesh and blood are not important in this equation--not even his:
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”
(Matthew 16:17 NIV)
Everything Jesus Christ taught and spoke, about his flesh and body had a spiritual meaning and cannot be taken literally even though Jesus Christ was using “literal words” (check the Greek lexicon) related to “flesh and blood”:
“Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
(John 6:53-58 NIV)
Those who took him “literally”, later on they were accused of being cannibals. Read the history and this will become clear to you. Therefore, much of the language that Jesus used must be viewed and interpreted allegorical or symbolic.
Jesus taught that it is the spirit that matters and not the flesh:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life.”
(John 6:63 NIV)
Again Jesus is emphatic about the non-importance of the physical body
And instead focused on the importance of the Spirit.
People had a very hard time understanding the symbolic and allegorical language that Jesus used--this frustrated Jesus often and said:
“Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.”
(John 8:43 NIV)
The phrase, “unable to hear” that Jesus Christ uses is obviously not a literal physical hearing but the inability to hear his words with spiritual hearing. Consider this that if people 2000 years ago had a hard time understanding Jesus Christ, there is no wonder why there are over 43,000 conflicting sects within Christianity. This should humble all Christians.
What else can we learn from the topic of resurrection and spiritual truths? Well, Mary Magdalene couldn’t recognize Jesus after the resurrection:
“At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
(John 20:14-15 NIV)
If this was a “literal”, glorified, bodily resurrection of Jesus, why did he appear like the gardener and was not recognized by Mary? Apparently Jesus did not look glorified, he just looked like someone else--not a shining angel, but like the gardener.
We also read that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared quite differently to apostle Paul:
About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ “ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.”
(Acts 9:4 KJV)
Others who were with Paul did not see anything. A physical body cannot be invisible.
Moreover, physical bodies cannot go through doors and walls either, but yet, Jesus appears into a room with the disciples when all doors were locked:
“A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
(John 20:26 NIV)
So, what is my point? The point is Jesus Christ can do whatever he wishes. He can dematerialize from one place and materialize in another place. He can appear as a flash of light from heaven to one person, or as a gardener to another, and he can even eat a piece of fish right in front of you to prove he can do anything. Therefore, we are not questioning what Christ can or cannot do, however, when it comes to the physical resurrection, all the stories we read about his appearances, do not indicate the essential characteristics of the physical body of Jesus Christ as the flesh that he had before his crucifixion, and the Bible in numerous verses makes this very clear. More importantly, if we believe that Jesus Christ has been great eternally in the past without a physical body and long before he was even born, then, he was not in need of a physical body after his crucifixion either, just as Moses and Elijah didn’t need physical bodies either, when they both had appeared to Jesus Christ on the Mount Tabor and then vanished from the sight. Why should anyone assume that after Jesus Christ’s physical birth from the womb of Mary, he had, forever, trapped his true eternal reality in some physical body whether it is assumed to be a regular body or some so called glorified body? To insist on this, is tantamount to limiting Jesus Christ to our earthly limitations. The Bible makes it clear that the resurrection of Jesus has much deeper spiritual meanings and should never be interpreted as a literal physical event.
Please note that stating that Christ’s resurrection was a spiritual event and not a physical one, doesn’t mean Jesus Christ was incapable of the supernatural powers--it is that Jesus didn’t need any form of a physical body, and that his greatness transcends beyond any connection with the physical reality. Moreover, in numerous passages, the body of Christ has been interpreted to be the body of the believers or the church itself, and therefore, the resurrection is a spiritual reality which demonstrates the spiritual triumph of the cause of Christ, symbolized as a “body” which is none other than the body of the believers rising to promulgate his cause (the body) fearlessly:
“And the church is his body”…
(Ephesians 1:23 NLT)
…”and build up the church, the body of Christ.”
(Ephesians 4:12 NLT)
“Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body.“
(Colossians 1:18 MLT)
“And we are members of his body.”
(Ephesians 5:30 NLT)
“All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it.“
(1 Corinthians 12:27 NLT)
Resurrection of all the manifestations of God are spiritual in nature and not physical or material. I have studied the Bible and continue to study it.
By the way, I am a member of the Baha’i Faith and as a Baha’i I do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.….” (John 6:63 NIV)
You guys are ridiculous. What would actually persuade you? Would a holographic image have to be encoded?
I'm not sure what you mean by "encoded", but there's lots of stuff that could persuade me. For example, if testing was done and found that the center of the cloth had C14 levels that would lead to a radiocarbon age 6000 years into the future (as Bob Rucker predicts), that would do it!
Basically, something for which there is no plausible natural explanation. Note: "I don't know" is not the same as saying "I DO know and it can't be explained naturally"
As an atheist, a thing that would convince me of the existence of a deity would be if amputees got their limbs grown back again. That would be evidence of an supernatural realm! Such an extraordinary event could easily be documented as well. Sorry if I burst your bubble, but no proven miracle has ever happened in the past. Falsifiable miracles do not occur. Creationists are just grasping for evidence to support their faith.
Don't talk about it. Recreate it. You can't.
"Random person on the internet cannot re-create the Shroud of Turin using only what they can easily obtain from their home. Therefore, it's Jesus' authentic burial shroud"
Well, I'm convinced
@@ReasontoDoubt the finest institutions and no one on earth has recreated it accurately. Anyone can talk. I say do it, then talk.
You might want to check out our crop circle video. We actually address this kind of argument there.
@@ReasontoDoubt its not a argument it's is a shroud. Your video not worth watching.
@@independentcontactors339 I'm sorry you think so. Fortunately, nobody is forcing you to watch it. So...don't, I guess.
The following is my comments regarding your statements on my image formation and carbon dating hypotheses for the Shroud of Turin. In general, my responses below are given at the first occurrence of the issue.
Starting at 31:48, you discuss some of the problems that must be solved to determine a workable solution to how the images could have been formed by radiation. These problems that you discuss result from an assumption that the discoloration is a direct result of the damage done by collisions of the protons with the material in the fibers. I have recognized these problems for many years. These problems caused me to realize that the discoloration was evidently caused by secondary effects of the protons, rather than the direct result of proton collisions. I believe you briefly mentioned the possibility of secondary effects of these protons. In my image formation hypothesis, these secondary effects that cause the discoloration are electrical and static discharge effects caused by the deposition of the positive charge of the protons onto the cloth, rather than by direct proton collisions. I could go into great detail regarding this, but I choose not to in this format at this time. To get the details, you can read my next paper (#34) on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network. I will be writing this paper to document a PowerPoint presentation I will be making at a conference in March.
At 38:08, you discuss the fact that normal emission of radiation is isotropic (equally probable in all directions). But under special conditions, it can also be emitted as coherent radiation, as in a laser. This means that all the radiation travels only in one direction, i.e., collimated, with the oscillation or frequency of each particle in step with each other. This radiation emitted from the body should not be assumed to be “normal” because the Shroud is totally unique, so could have a totally unique cause. Jared points out (39:39) that isotropic emission of radiation in the body would cause the image on the Shroud to simply be a blur, rather than the good resolution image that is on the Shroud. This is true. Jordan also point out (40:10) that if there were isotropic emission of radiation from the body, then we should see side images of the body on the Shroud, which is contrary to the evidence. Thus, to be consistent with the evidence of the good resolution image on the Shroud and no side images, it is reasonable to propose a hypothesis that includes vertically collimated radiation. This is the only type of radiation that could cause the good resolution image on the Shroud and encode the 3D information on the Shroud related to the vertical distance between the body and the cloth. Thus, the vertical collimation of the radiation is required by the evidence on the Shroud.
At 40:50, Jordan brings up the question of what mechanism caused the radiation to be vertically collimated, and acts as if we are not allowed to ask this question. Well, we are allowed to ask this question because the answer may allow us to make predictions that are testable. This is how science is done. But we should also recognize that we should not reject what we can know based on what we may not yet know. Thus, we should not reject the radiation being vertical because it must be vertical based on the evidence from the Shroud. This is logically following the evidence where it leads. What then caused the radiation to be vertically collimated? To correctly answer this question requires us to have experimental evidence from the Shroud that we do not have at this time. This is a good reason for the decision makers to allow additional experiments on the Shroud. I also want to consult with particle physicists and string theorists to determine if there is anything in our current theories, or extrapolation of those theories, that could help us better understand what could have caused this radiation to be vertically collimated. If it turns out that the vertical collimation of the radiation cannot be explained by additional experiments or by theories in particle physics and string theory, then the Shroud could turn out to be the “Rosetta Stone” for an expanded understanding of physics that includes alternate dimensions.
At 41:10, the question of where the protons came from is brought up. This brings up my Vertically Collimated Radiation (VCRB) Hypothesis, which is briefly discussed in some of the papers on my website (Shroud Research Network) and which I communicated to them in my comments to their previous video.
At 45:01, they say it is “supposedly just a coincidence” that the carbon date of the corner of the Shroud to 1260-1390 “just so happens” to agree with the display of the Shroud in about 1355 in Lirey, France. This argument is often used to imply that the carbon date for the Shroud (1260-1390) is confirmed by the date of the Shroud’s exhibition in Lirey, France. I would say that this is simply a matter of historical cherry picking. If the Shroud was carbon dated to 1500 to 1630, then it would be said that this date confirms the Shroud was made just before it was brought into Turin, Italy in 1578. If the Shroud was carbon dated to 1170 to 1300, then it would be said this confirms that the Shroud was made when the Pray manuscript was made in 1192-1195. If the Shroud was carbon dated to 650 to 780, then it would be said that this confirms that the Shroud was made when the first coin was minted containing an image of the face from the Shroud in 692 AD. If the Shroud was carbon dated to 470 to 600, then it would be said this confirms that the Shroud was made just before the Pantocrator icon was painted. And if the Shroud was carbon dated to 330 to 500, then it would be said this confirms that the Shroud was made when tradition says it was found hidden above a gate in the wall around Edessa, Turkey.
At 46:10, they say that I assumed the neutrons to be vertically collimated in my MCNP nuclear analysis computer calculations, and that they were assumed to be thermal (slow) neutrons. MCNP is a common computer code used for nuclear analysis. The acronym MCNP stands for Monte Carlo N-Particle where N stands for neutrons. I spent about six months doing these MCNP calculations because each calculation would take 6 to 13 hours to run on my desktop computer to follow 30 million neutrons one at a time as they interacted with the all the materials in the model including a limestone tomb as it would have been built in first-century Jerusalem. I ran so many neutrons to give me good statistics in the results. I had to run about 400 such calculations to bound all of the unknowns in the problem, including emitting of neutrons vertically up, vertically down, and with isotropic emission. In my papers, for simplicity, I reported the results of only one of these 400 cases. In this case that was reported, the neutrons were assumed to be emitted isotropically, not vertically (#4 on page 19 of my paper #13 on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network). In the one case I reported, I assumed the neutrons to be emitted at a thermal (slow, 0.025 electron volts) energy but in other cases, I ran the neutron emission energy progressively up into the MEV (million electron volts) energy range. I found that the results were not very sensitive to the initial emission energy because the fast (MEV) neutrons would scatter around in the limestone of the tomb and eventually become thermal (slow) neutrons.
At 46:28, they say there is no explanation for the radiation to be vertically collimated, as though this is an argument against the possibility that it could ever happen. I believe it is true that there is no explanation in our current understanding of physics for radiation emitted in human body to be vertically collimated, at least as far as I know. But such an extremely brief, extremely intense burst of radiation has never been emitted from any human body, whether it is alive or dead, yet these characteristics (extremely brief, extremely intense, vertically collimated) are the characteristics that are required to form the images on the Shroud in a way that is consistent with all the evidence from the Shroud. See my response at 40:50 for further discussion.
At 47:43, Jordan refers to a systemic error in the measurement data that makes it appear that the carbon date depends on the distance from the bottom of the Shroud. In the study of measurement errors, the two types of measurement errors are random measurement errors and systematic measurement errors. It is systematic errors, not systemic errors.
It's not cherry picking history; it's pointing to the one data point (1355) that is universally accepted by everyone. If it had dated further into the future than that point, I would be far more inclined to reject the radiocarbon dating entirely unless more rigorous tests were done to confirm it. If it had dated in the past, then it would be a vindication of otherwise extremely tenuous and flimsy pieces of evidence regarding the Shroud's existence prior to 1355. None of these options would strike me as "just so happening to agree". They would actually be interesting results.
You chastise me for hypothesizing that there might have been a little bit of extra contamination that Oxford got that the others didn't based on the paper by Walsh and Schwalbe...so obviously the alternative should be to invoke exotic, heretofore unknown physics that includes ALTERNATE DIMENSIONS? Like...I simply cannot fathom why you think that the former is a ridiculous idea that should be rejected because it's completely unevidenced, but alternate dimensions? Totally fine!
This is EXACTLY why nobody should take your hypothesis seriously unless and until it has significantly more empirical confirmation than the precisely zero it currently enjoys.
That Linen shroud dont look like it was wrapped. A wrapped Linen would have wrinkles in it due to the bodys shape in different places. That body shape is flat from head to foot, no miss marks anywhere. In other words that cloth was pressed against a flat image to get it that perfect from head to foot. That's a flattened image.
A wrapped cloth will have wrinkles from head to foot due to the shape of a real body. Where are the wrinkles and stretch marks? That was Hot Pressed on.
@@456ArmyGuy so if its from a flat image how does it contain 3d information and their are some areas that are darker then others?
Why would this be for an artist to do with stain or ochre paint? Have you ever heard of blot painting?
Debunking?
Yes?
@@ReasontoDoubt Proved wrong?
Us proved wrong? No?
@@ReasontoDoubt did you see news of Turin which showing its 2000 years old
Yes, I saw the "news". It is reporting research from two years ago, which we've talked about several times on this channel. It isn't "breaking news" in any way. But we're going to talk about it again tonight in a livestream
Molds and bacteria, colonizing textile fibers, and dirt or carbon-containing minerals, such as limestone, adhering to them, in the empty spaces between the fibers that at a microscopic level represent about 50% of the volume, can be so difficult to completely eliminate in the sample cleaning phase, which can distort the dating.” You dated dirt
I don't think you appreciate just how much modern carbon you'd require for a 1st century cloth to date to the 14th century. Hint: It would be a LOT. According to Bob Rucker, a staunch Shroud proponent and fellow nuclear engineer, over half of the carbon in the sample would need to be modern contamination to get that level of distortion. That beggars belief.
Regarding the 'mired reaction', how long does it take for such gases to emit from the body and what level of decay of the body would be expected for this to happen? It is clear from the image that the body in the shroud was a fresh corpse that had not decayed.
Secondly would these gases emit from the teeth and the roots that are clearly visible behind the lips and does this 'gases explanation' explain the metacarpal bones in the palm of the hands clearly visible in the image?
Thirdly, has an experiment been done with a corpse to see if a 'negative image' can be obtained by this method with the extent of accuracy and gradation present in the shroud's image, purely by the emission of gases? Gases have a distinct characteristic of vapourising in every direction, not immediately vertically in order to target the cloth immediately above the point of emission. This theory then seems extremely unlikely to have the capacity to produce the accurate image we see on the shroud, so that it can be translated into an accurate 3d image etc.
What are the odds of this realistically being any kind of explanation for the image? It seems unlikely in the extreme. Even if it could produce some level of image, gases like this would at best produce an extremely crude representation of their source of emission and would not be capable of producing an accurate gradation of darkness (pixels) onto the cloth. I think we can confidently dismiss this idea as unrealistic.
Maillard reaction.
According to Rogers, the gasses would emit almost immediately, and in fact the cloth would have needed to be removed from the corpse prior to putrefaction.
Rogers claimed that the reaction explained the two tone image, and he did an experiment that showed it would yellow ancient linen in a way similar to what you see on the Shroud, but a lot more experimentation would be required before I'd accept this as an explanation.
@@ReasontoDoubt I don't accept this as a viable explanation either. Escaping gases cannot realistically produce a finely graduated image onto a cloth as we see in the shroud. It might work as a general explanation of discoloration of the cloth, but realistically such a process is incapable of producing the kind of accurate image found on the cloth. As an artist myself, I know that emission of gases into a space, without them being directed intelligently, cannot result in this image. Further, there is and wasn't any technology to accomplish this with gases and natural emissions from the body to the cloth cannot explain the quality of this image.
I'm more than satisfied without looking any further at this idea that it cannot realistically explain the image on the shroud.
@theonlyway5298 I am not willing to declare this impossible without further experimentation. Clearly, whatever mechanism created the image, it would have to be unusual. At least this one can color linen appropriately and does so without requiring the laws of physics taking a leave of absence, which puts it well ahead of some others by itself.
Rogers explained the image formation by saying the distance from the body to cloth would lead to the observed image. But so far as I can tell he died before he ran any experiment that confirmed or disconfirmed his idea, so it remains an interesting hypothesis but nothing more.
@@ReasontoDoubt Yes, I took that point in from your video. Interesting as it is as a mechanism for 'discoloration', it isn't realistically a mechanism for accurate translation of the image of a body onto a cloth, without some other directive action or facility. The reason for this is that the image is so clearly that of real body, simply because the gradation of darks to light, is so finely tuned. If you were an artist, this would mean an extremely good gradated shading technique - it couldn't be accomplished by some emitted gases released into the atmosphere in random directions, even at very close quarters.
By all means pursue this idea, but for me, this is not a viable solution.
Gentlemen,
Healthy skepticism is critical in evaluating anything, including evidence that disputes the "authenticity" of the Shroud. I have seen several of your debunking videos on the Shroud of Turin and I am disappointed to say that you frequently neglect to express healthy skepticism in considering their merit. For instance, the video in which you interviewed the skeptic from England, you made no effort to challenge him on his positions. Polite as you may have been, you failed to critique him on numerous claims he made. For instance, the used a photo of his hand (splayed flat) to contend that the blood stain did not correspond with the wrist. Obviously the hand may not have been splayed or normally projected with respect to the cloth and therefore the distance from the projected metacarpal margins could be quite different and thus the angle would not necessarily correspond with his premise. Then you failed to point out that a Jewish burial practice included laying flowers on the body or burial cloth and thus it is understandable that there would be a preponderance of pollen from flowering species and not from wind blown species. You laughed and seemed to reinforce his reference to a pollen expert, who was represented by a single statement that stated, she could 'absolutely assert that the pollen evident in her Shroud sample was not EXCLUSIVELY FROM Jerusalem'. Who may I ask, ever contended that the pollen grains on the Shroud were exclusively from Jerusalem. Every comment I have ever read in this regard recognizes the presence of pollen from at least the Middle East, Turkey, and Europe.
What happened to your skepticism when your guest displayed the cloth he colorized with a marker. Why didn't you insist on his presenting photomicrographs of this technique to see if it corresponded to the observed image formation on the Shroud. Similarly you discussed the Mallaird reaction and displayed a cloth stained though this process, but failed to show any photomicrographs that made it evident to the viewer that this process was consistent with the image formation.
Now you contend that the radiation should have eminated from varying distances from the body to the Shroud. If someone like Dr. Rucher choses to accept a non-natural explanation for the image formation, it is absurd for you to try and constrain his hypothesis to naturalistic understandings of radiation. How to you know if the body radiated the energy form a distance through air to the cloth. In a miraculous process, the body could have dematerialized while it passed through the cloth and oxidized the fibers during the process. Your characterization of Dr. Rucher's explanation as "insane" and "nuts" evidences your professional competitiveness or envy.
Productive skepticim should be relatively free from observer bias and I was hoping that you would have displayed more of this in your debunking videos on the Shroud.
What's absurd is that you criticize our skepticism while simultaneously appeal to magic in order to paper over any inconvenient facts that contradict your preferred explanation.
Regardless of what the source of the radiation was, once emitted one would think it would obey natural laws. It is of course possible that a deity would intervene in this also, but if you're going to go so far as to suggest that a deity carefully guided every neutron and proton to its destination then why bother pretending that you're interested in evidence at all? Literally *any* observation can be incorporated into such a view. It is the most credulous stance one could take.
Perhaps before you start casting stones at our skepticism you might want to invest in a thimblefull for yourself.
As to my characterization of Bob's model, I stand by it. It is ad hoc, relies on exotic physics and/or magic to function, and is not supported by a single scrap of evidence. It is a clever use of a computer simulation that seems to intimidate and dazzle those who are not familiar with it. What it does have going for it, which I have said repeatedly, is it makes an easily verifiable prediction about the C14 content of the Shroud. It is a prediction that could be verified non-destructively AND cheaply. That's not nothing! That said, it has NOT been verified yet. Unless and until it is, it should be regarded as an outlandish hypothesis and nothing more.
I’m curious, hasn’t there been a lemon “painting” exposed to light explanation?
I've not heard of that one
Thank you for your making this video. I just have to say this though, if you didn’t know that it wasn’t the Sturp team that performed the carbon dating, then you are also probably unaware that the area tested was found to be a repaired area and is not representative of the rest of the Shroud. This fact has been published and the carbon dating was proven to be inaccurate.
We are aware of that *claim*, but we do not think it holds up to scrutiny. We actually have done an entire series on the carbon dating, see the first episode here: ruclips.net/video/jF9cvC5n9uY/видео.html
Robert Robert has used algebraic or analogue techniques/solutions ......I dont see why that delegitimises his hypothesis. To find a solution to three points using constants is meaningful.
Three points does not a trend line make
It doesn't just look like a negative, it's an image whose negative is a positive.
We don't dispute that. We're just pointing out that it doesn't necessarily require any knowledge of photography to make an image where the parts that would be closest to you are darkest.
@@ReasontoDoubt It makes no sense for someone to make an image whose negative is the positive of the image, without knowing that centuries later a camera would be created that could print that negative. Your argument falls apart.
Why would someone need to know anything about cameras to make an image where the stuff closest to you is the most densely colored?
You're just asserting there is no reason, but I need you to actually argue for that.
@@ReasontoDoubt Yes, of course, but the person in the Middle Ages did not have a way to do a mathematical calculation so that when someone took a photo 700 years later they would perfectly see the true positive image. please listen 😄😄😄 just say that you don't want to believe and that's it, save yourself at least your time
@@ReasontoDoubt I can even imagine that: "I'm going to create an image with the colors inverted (no clue why), so that one day someone will invent a device that will reverse the image and the true positive will come out" 😄😄😄😄 "but of course I have no idea if that will happen one day" 😄😄😄😄
So for all of you non believers of the shroud, you have to claim that all of the agencies involved in the testing of the shroud were either in on a group lie or that their incredibly sophisticated equipment couldn't match the wits of a 12th century forger. Those agencies would include: The U.S. Air force academy, Los Alamos National Laboratories, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, IBM, Brooks Institute of Photography, and Sandia Laboratories to just name a few. Not to mention that out of the dozens of scientists that were involved there were only 3 Catholics. And please don't hold on the the carbon dating testing that was done in 1988, which was completely debunked. Besides they refused to show the data for the testing they did until they were forced to 5 years ago. Every legitimate scientist has said that the findings of that testing showed completely bogus results. Besides that, they were supposed to take 7 different samples from different areas of the shroud and they only took one, which was clearly a patch job that has been done centuries ago and included cotton in it. The shroud is pure linen.
So please deal with reality rather than uninformed bias.
Do any of the radiation hypotheses attempt to about for the half-tone feature.
The combination of that and the fact that threads are not coloured when they pass under other threads is interesting.
I'd like to see pictures of these effects to get a clearer idea of them. Can the first fact be explained by liquid wicking along the strands. I wonder about either deposition from a fine mist and/or a two-stage process website the invisible image is formed by liquid (perhaps by a fine mist) then developed by exposure to light or some other kind of radiation.
The only radiation experiment I recall was a UV exposure test that produced similar looking results but I don't believe it was two tone.
If radiation were absorbed by the top threads so they couldn't get to the bottom threads that could explain them not being colored, but that restricts the energy levels/type of radiation...I don't know that any radiation hypothesis has accounted for all three (shallow depth of image, lack of penetration in threads, two tone) at once.
Then again I don't know that any other hypothesis has been shown to do that either
The good thing is, the shroud is not why I believe in the resurrection. However, if you want to debate the shroud, be mature about it and don’t laugh and scoff at those that provide views counter to your own, you have proven nothing.
We will endeavor to have less fun in future episodes so as not to offend the good people of Elmore City
The title "debunking the Shroud" (I came here being attracted by this title - super interested title to me, as I am leaning on the authenticity) - is NOT honest. Correctly it should be "More scientific investigations", etc.
This title shows that you have first of all an Agenda. And of course, some of the pro commentaries ended up accusing people of atheism or believers in miracles! I appreciate your work and - as i am not yet clear about your intentions - I will continue to watch. Going to episode 3
We came up with the title after doing our investigation into the Shroud and finding it unconvincing. Our "agenda" is promoting skepticism, and part of proper skepticism is believing claims when they have sufficient evidence. The Shroud does not, at least not for us.
I believe that what we relay in these episodes is sufficient to conclude that the Shroud likely is not from the first century and therefore is not the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus. You can disagree if you like, but that doesn't make it dishonest.
Also, this is RUclips. Part of the game is making catchy titles. Is what it is.
I think there's more positive things about the shroud than negative
But I think it's strange that the figure has no belly button
The reason I did not watch the entire vid is because the scientists in the documentary "proving" the shroud are professionals that spent decades on the case. Interested in finding a rebuttal vid, I immediately got the vibe in this vid you get when congress amasses boxes of documents, parade them before the media, only to cast doubt, but never proving anything,
I'd humbly submit that sometimes the answer suggested by the evidence is "We don't know", and perhaps you shouldn't be convinced by whoever yells their conclusion with the most confidence.
Trump declassified the shroud. The suffering servant has been falsely maligned.
Occam's razor; did some medieval forger somehow fabricate an incredible piece of work that stumps modern scientists and all others of the world on how it was made or is it just what it appears to be- a shroud with a transferred image of a very special man left behind to prove he is real.
Occam's razor: More ancient human beings doing things that modern humans don't fully understand is a common phenomenon that we know for a fact occurs. People magically rising from the dead in a burst of radiation/light/whatever is something that happens rarely, if at all.
Unironic use of a Rick and Morty clip to start the video? Tell me you're soy without telling me you're soy.
Unironic Rick & Morty >> unironic use of "soy" as a derogatory label
So why doesn’t someone take up the challenge and recreate it. There’s a million bucks to claim.
For a bunch of reasons. First, there's the capital investment. You'd need the expertise of at least a few people (someone skilled with textiles, probably somebody who was an expert in medieval art, likely a chemist, plus a few other random people). You'd need to supply them with lab equipment & time to run experiments. Even if you managed to get some people on the cheap and bet on it only taking 6 months, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars right off the bat.
Then there's the tiny hurdle that you can't actually scrutinize the thing you're supposed to be recreating. Have a hypothesis you would need to test? Better hope STURP thought of it first, otherwise you're SOL bud!
But suppose you aren't dissuaded, have several hundred thousand of dollars to gamble on the hope of winning a million. Then you'd be working towards is the promise of a million bucks if you make it to the satisfaction of a specific individual...who, at that point, would have at least 1 million reasons to not accept your product no matter how good it was 😂
Suddenly that "million dollar prize" isn't as amazing as it sounds.
The takeaway is that in 2020 , a modern day world with access to science, technology and hardware still cannot replicate, explain, or solve how an image was formed on a cloth 2000 years old (allegedly mistook as at least 900 years old.. )
That in itself eludes to a supernatural phenomenon.
This is an incredible, miraculous piece of cloth. No doubt about that either way you look at it.
It's not like the entire world's efforts are being directed at this endeavor, lol.
People in the past were clever. That doesn't mean it was magic.
@@ReasontoDoubt people in the past had no where near the technology to produce a cloth with imprints like this that defies modern technological explanation today. People were clever but not clever enough to defy modern science.
"We don't know how they made it" does not mean "Therefore it is impossible for it to have been made, must have been magic"
Nobody knows how Greek fire was made, that doesn't mean they got it straight from Apollo
I suggest next topic is how the shroud made, if it is made during Christ time it should be hand made without any aid of machine or wooden machinery...
Like how the cloth itself was woven? I'm pretty sure they had looms in the 1st century
@@ReasontoDoubt yes because the process predates written history, and was first done by hand and with sticks. Spinning wheels are believed to have originated in India between 500 and 1000 A.D. By the 13th century, they were seen in Europe and were a standard piece of equipment for those making fiber into yarn.
@davetvatpb-etc. Right, the process of weaving is ancient indeed. I've seen some textile experts indicate that the weaving pattern shows machinery that wasn't invented until the middle ages (basically there are errors that would be easy to catch if woven with more primitive, slower methods, but more advanced, fast methods would make it hard) but I'm honestly not sure that I put much stock in that
Going through the comments I simply don't understand how people can worship a sheet, smh.
Sounds like you have a personal problem. 🤗
More science can't convince a loggerhead like you. You enjoy your future in hell ok.
I believe the figure is 5’ 11” not 5’7” as you said
It seems like estimates range significantly on the figure's height. Some people report it as high as 5'11", others as low as 5'6". For example, Fanti, Marinelli, & Cagnazzo reported in 1999 that the figure is 174 cm (5'8")
there is a $1million prize from David Rolfe if anyone can duplicate the shroud. what is your counter argument to the points of congruence evident in the sudarium of Oviedo? it is an artifact kept in Spain since the 600s. it has the same blood as the shroud, with the same pollen grains from the Middle East, and hundreds of blood marks that are congruent with the puncture wounds on the scalp as the shroud, and the facial dimensions are also congruent with the facial dimensions evident in the shroud. from an evidentiary and forensic perspective, if this was presented as evidence in a homicide trial, the conclusion is easy: it covered the same man. and from the point of view of proof beyond reasonable doubt and application of Occam's razor, there is only one historical figure that matches all the pieces of evidence: Jesus of Nazareth.
That prize may as well be collected only in Narnia for all the likelihood that anyone could actually get it. It would require that the person convince David Rolfe that he was wrong, which is hard enough when the other person doesn't have a $1M incentive to not be convinced.
I'm extremely skeptical of the alleged congruence between the Sudarium and the Shroud. I intend to do an episode on it in the near future. My initial thought is that it is pareidolia in action, but I'll need to review the literature. That's tougher than for the Shroud since the peer reviewed literature (in English, at least) is much thinner on the ground for the Sudarium.
The blood types probably don't actually match, though. With the tests that were performed, an AB result is the same as a null result, so what actually happened is both artifacts have indeterminate blood type.
Hi there, it is always good to read the dissenting views of other people who have studied the subject. They challenge us to review our own evidence, and may weaken it. On the other hand, if our critics' views are not defensible themselves, they tend to strengthen our own position.
The two best sources for information about the Sudarium are 'Sudario del Señor,' the Acts of the First International Congress on the Sudarium, and César Barta's recent book, 'The Sudarium of Oviedo: Signs of Jesus Christ’s Death.' Between them they include first-hand descriptions of investigations of the Sudarium. They do not demonstrate that the Sudarium has "the same blood as the Shroud," or "the same pollen grains," or "hundreds of blood marks." They do not show that the blood marks are "congruent with the puncture wounds" of the Shroud, nor that the "facial dimensions are also congruent with the facial dimensions evident in the Shroud." Quite the reverse. They show that the puncture wounds do not match, and that the Sudarium 'face" is too long to fit the Shroud face. If your claimed evidence of identity was ever challenged in a homicide trial, it would fail rapidly and completely.
If you like forensics, search for: man on shroud apollonius of tyana.
@@LonerGR Apollonius was born after the fact. it is recorded in the gospels that the greeks approached the apostles to gain an audience with Jesus. Jesus would undoubtably have attracted people since he can heal people. Mithraism is most likely to have copied from the christians than the other way around also
@@jperez7893 Apollonius was born around 4 BC and his face matches perfectly with the shroud. The gospels are religious texts, not history documents.
Hi Canuck,
I’ve been following your comments and feel that you are interested in trying to check the evidence presented here and there rather than simply accepting the first thing you read as gospel. Am I right?
However, you do seem very confident of a number of rather contentious points. The idea that a linen weave is consistent with a first century burial shroud from Jerusalem is very specific, but surely wholly unjustified. I wonder what evidence you have read that made you so sure?
Your second comments express some confidence that there is clear evidence of coins having been placed on the eyes of the body in the image. I wonder what persuaded you that this is a fact? Very few of the leading researchers of today accept it, and both Barrie Schwortz and I have independently published papers explaining why not. Have you seen them?
In answer to your question: it is impossible to measure any distances on the Shroud image with precision as it is not very well resolved and fades away at the edges.
The mechanical and spectroscopic dating procedures have not been well received by the archaeological community for several reasons. The most important is that the deterioration involved in all of them is not solely a measure of time, but also of mechanical deformation, acidity, humdity and most importantly temperature. Unless the environmental circumstances of any collection of linens are similar, any comparison of their measurements is largely meaningless.
For really detailed examinations of most of the controversial aspects of the Shroud, you could do worse than looking at my blog, medievalshroud, my papers at academia, all called “The Medieval Shroud,” or my articles in the newsletter of the British Society for the Turin Shroud.
What did Ray Rogers dye in 2005 when he dyed?
It was actually pretty cool. Another researcher whose name I don't recall but you can check our previous videos for the details, had grown flax and woven fabric in the style described by ancient documents so as to get as authentic a fabric as possible. Rogers got a bit of the fabric and used that for his own research.
@@ReasontoDoubt I was trying to be sarcastic because it originally sounded like you had said that he had deceased so I was trying to make a pun.
All of their criticisms of ruckers hypothesis could apply to the theories of evolution and the Big Bang.
I don't think so. Both those theories have had plenty of confirmed predictions. Off the top of my head, tiktaalik for evolution and the relative prevalence of elements for the Big Bang
@@ReasontoDoubt yes predictions based on circular logic routines. They worked their way backwards to arrive at the theory just as they accuse ruckers of. Is the Big Bang testable???? No. Life and evolution and e big bang is a series of precise “coincidences”
Ok, finally I took the time for this episode, even if I was pretty sure about what I was going to see and hear. On one hand I need to give you a credit for the huge work and the objectivity, but as Jared said at 1h03 you just don't know how it was made. I am really not a blind beleiver of the shroud's authenticity. But you cannot state "debunked" until you cannot point to 1 specific method that 1. works 2. was feasable in the Middle Ages 3. explains why did the forger create a fake in a quality he didn't need to deceive everyone. Thank you anyway but frankly it wasn't the breakthrough in solving the mistery and therefore disappointing.
Thanks for watching! We try to present the facts as fairly as possible. I'll admit I expected simple paint to be more plausible than it ended up being.
We acknowledge we don't know how the image was made, but I think the fact that the Shroud is likely a 14th century artifact is sufficient to render it inauthentic. We may never know how it was done, but if it's 14th century it isn't Jesus' Shroud.
You are aware that the team figured out that the shroud had been repaired on a loom to interweave the repair into the linen, which explains the dyes found, correct?
@@todstokes3459 Citation needed
@maryjoseph23434 Yes, we do not know how the image was made. We're not going to claim to know something we don't. Regardless of how the image was made, however, if the cloth is medieval then it isn't the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus.
@@maryjoseph23434 That's not begging the question. I'm saying that if it were medieval then it is not, by definition, 1st century. I think I have sufficient evidence to say it is medieval. You disagree. That doesn't make what I said fallacious; it means you disagree with me.
And while I actually think it is obvious that if it is medieval it isn't authentic, that is apparently controversial. In the debate I did, the person I was debating actually argued that the dating of the Shroud is completely irrelevant. It was wild
I think the title is kinda click bait. I thought you had some sort of defeater. You made a declarative statement and then just debunked the 4 categories of best theories. So after an hour I'm right back where I started, no idea how it was made.
What we're trying to establish with the episodes in this series is that the Shroud is likely not 1st century. Part of that is debunking popular arguments for it being 1st century.
If it isn't 1st century, it isn't Jesus. So while the title may be performatively emphatic (I mean, this is still RUclips) it still accurately represents what (we think) the content is
Problem with the whole premise a little before 1 hour in is that we know this can't be physical evidence of a supernatural event is because we don't normally see this event naturally happening. Therefore it COULD NOT have happened until we can find a natural explanation for how this either happened naturally, or by human hands... because we NEED to reach the conclusion that does not contradict our preferred world views...
You're insisting that your world view MUST be true, even without evidence because only evidence that supports your worldview is admissible. That's not skeptical or scientific. That's just dogma.
If you're talking about the radiation, such magic radiation *could* be the explanation. God can do whatever he wants, including conjuring radiation with special properties. However, that sort of thing would be extraordinary to say the least and we should require extraordinary evidence to believe it. We do not have that evidence.
Coupled with the fact that there is a very simple and reasonable alternative natural explanation in the cleaning procedures of Oxford being slightly better...there simply is no reason to conjure up an elaborate miracle to explain it.
"Magic" is a pejorative term used to dismiss anything we don't understand. I just had an issue with my sinuses and had an MRI to create images of specific layers inside my face. That's not generally how nature behaves. We don't see that randomly occuring... does that prove MRIs are magic and therefore fiction?
@@morielrorschach8090 That's a completely false comparison. MRIs are a machine crafted by humans that follow well-understood physics. Absolutely nothing about that process is mysterious.
Contrast that with Rucker's radiation. His hypothesis is completely unevidenced, it requires unique behavior by radiation while providing no mechanism whatsoever to explain *why* it does that, etc.
It's magic, and I absolutely mean that pejoratively. Unless and until there is some actual evidence to support this extremely elaborate hypothesis, it should be rejected for exactly what it is: A rescue device invoked to avoid dealing with the evidence as it exists.
@@maryjoseph23434 What...what? I honestly have no idea where you're getting any of this. I think aliens probably exist. We did an entire episode on it explaining that!
@maryjoseph23434 I am sorry you think it is unreasonable for me to require evidence to believe things. Perhaps you prefer to live your life believing things without sufficient evidence. Maybe you base your choices on the things you'd rather were true, or the ones from your native religious tradition, or whatever.
I do not live that way. If someone wants me to believe that the laws of physics were suspended, I am going to need evidence to believe that. You can whine about how that's unreasonable, you can stomp your feet and declare that this is a position of faith, you can pout and insist that if I were a REAL skeptic I'd just believe what people told me without evidence (a very strange way to be a skeptic indeed), but none of that will change the facts: I apportion my belief for a claim in accordance with the evidence I have for that claim.
If this was said to be a relic from say, Ancient Egypt or Mayans then there would be no questions surrounding its authentication. But since there's a religious stigma attached to it, that's why there's so much disagreement with it.
If it were not a religious artifact with the same evidence, I'd still think it was 14th century.
But supernatural claims require more evidence to be reasonably believed than natural ones for the same reason that it should take more evidence for you to believe a fuzzy object in the sky is an alien than to believe something different.
@Reason to Doubt I'll agree to disagree here. Many contradictions have been placed on some of those types of relics and artifacts and some also had without a doubt timestamps, only later to have scientists retracting and returning a completely different, but now supposed truth. What's to say this isn't the case here? Lots to ponder.
@@zwiggle-bear All conclusions should be lightly held, subject to future revision with additional evidence. Should new evidence be brought to light I will happily change my opinion in light of that new evidence.